If it's OK to save a life by killing someone in self-defense, why isn't it acceptable to break the law on blood to save

by NVR2L8 15 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  NVR2L8
• 

  leavingwt

  What would Jesus do?

  “Who will be the man among YOU that has one sheep and, if this falls into a pit
  on the sabbath, will not get hold of it and lift it out? All considered, of how much
  more worth is a man than a sheep!" (Matthew 12:11, 12a)
• 

  sir82

  I don't think JWs officially condone "killing someone to save a life", although they have written some articles approving of using "whatever means available" to disable an attacker.

  I know, I know, "disabling" is much harder to do, and much less effective, against a determined attacker, but it's what the isolated and insulated JW writers have come up with.
• 

  NVR2L8

  Sorry about that...here it is:

  Is there a law that holds more weight than: Thou shalt not kill? But what would happen if you killed someone in self defense to preserve your own life or the life of a close one? You would not be condemned by God or even "his" organization! Still you disobeyed the law...thou shalt not kill. Why then should you be held accountable for disobeying the law on abstaining from blood if it was for saving your life or the life of a close one? Would God condemn you?
• 

  LoneWolf

  NVR2L8 -- This is an old thread, but it involves this very question. I think you will find it interesting.

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/41260/1/The-Blood-Issue

  Tom
• 

  WTWizard

  If you do not defend yourself against an attacker, even if it means killing such, you are encouraging others to attack. People will think twice before robbing someone if they think they have a reasonable chance of getting killed or seriously hurt in the process. But, if they think it will be easy, they might not hesitate to do someone else--and so on.

  The witlesses place their blood laws too highly. They place too much trust on Jehovah, and not on medical treatment. While I am not allopathic medicine's greatest fan, I believe that its strength is for emergency and trauma situations. And that means that, if the cost of accepting blood is less than the benefit, you should accept it regardless of what Jehovah says. After all, is Jehovah going to be hurt whether or not a patient dies because of not receiving a needed transfusion?
• 

  Band on the Run

  Isn't it amazing that when you grow up a Witness, you never think of analyzing inconsistencies.
• 

  wobble

  What "Law" on blood is that ? As for me and my reading of the Bible. I can see nothing that would prevent a Christian from accepting a blood transfusion.

  You have begun to see the problem with the WT's faulty and murderous doctrine. The acceptable use of blood in the Bible, consistently is to save life, especially the blood of Jesus, which you do not have to bother to tranfuse ,but you should certainly drink, if you wish to have life.
• 

  breakfast of champions

  Ditto what WOBBLE said. If I could erase my childhood indoctrination and re-read the bible again, I would never in a million years come away with the idea that blood transfusions are forbidden. That is why we need the faithful and discreet slave to interpret the bible for us!
• 

  wobble

  B of C, my Uberdub older sister said exactly that "Nobody who reads the Bible on their own comes to the same conclusions as the F.Slave "

  I said "Doesn't that tell you something?" but of course it didn't, she starts from the premise that she has the truth (as supplied currently by the WT, it may change next week of course), so everybody else is wrong.