Jehovah's Witnesses Are----(fill in the blank) (page 5)

Wrong about everything, especially the blood ban.

http://bloodban.byethost17.com/i-blood-transfusions-2.html

The Acts 15 Decree

The Watchtower's argument in support of its ban on blood transfusion is simple. All men, particularly Christians, are to abstain from all blood due to four specific prohibitions found at Acts 15:29. Christians are to abstain from 1) meat sacrificed to idols, 2) from blood, 3) from meats of strangled animals, and 4) from fornication. They argue that these four rules based on the Mosaic law continued forward and survived, yet they concede that the Law with its legalistic decrees was nailed to the cross and done away with upon the death of Christ. The Acts 15 decree, they believe, is an exception.

The four commands in the Acts 15 decree are equal, they say; equated simply because they are listed together. And because fornication is prohibited and violates God's law, the consumption of blood must also automatically be prohibited as well, in addition to consumption of meats sacrificed to idols and things strangled (animals which die on their own and are not slaughtered and bled) (Reasoning at 71). A blood transfusion is the same as eating blood, which they contend is absolutely forbidden. All blood must be poured out onto the ground or disposed of because that is the only use of blood recognized by God. Consequently, they preach, blood cannot be stored, including the blood of a person who would otherwise transfuse their own blood back into themselves in the course of a medical procedure.

But the Watchtower Society’s position is indefensible, logically and scripturally flawed in the extreme on every level. With respect to the four “prohibitions” being equal, they are not, and in the New Testament were treated as independent of each other with respect to the severity of the infraction and punishment. Regarding Acts 15:28, 29, the Society writes: “There the eating of blood is equated with idolatry and fornication, things that we should not want to engage in” (Reasoning at 71).

While fornication violates God's law, eating meat sacrificed to idols did not, and was not prohibited in the New Testament. Paul made this abundantly clear in numerous verses. “Eat anything sold in the market,” he wrote at 1 Corinthians 10:25. Regarding what one eats, “nothing is unclean in itself” (Romans 14:15). “For the kingdom of God is not a matter of food and drink, but of righteousness, peace, and joy in the holy Spirit” (Romans 14:17). Speaking of meat sacrificed to idols he wrote that “everything is indeed clean (verse 20). Food will not bring us closer to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, nor are we better if we do” (1 Corinthians 8:8).

It wasn't the eating of meat sacrificed to idols per se that was dissuaded, but the damaging effect it had on a brother who was offended by it. “If food (sacrificed to idols) causes my brother to sin,” wrote Paul, “I will never eat meat again” (1 Corinthians 8:13). The concern was not idolatry as the Watchtower erroneously claims, but it addressed mixed communities where Gentile Christians might offend their Jewish Christian brothers by eating such meats thereby creating a stumbling block.

Eating such meats was not forbidden, did not violate God's law, and was not punished; rather, it was a suggestion, a request. Like then, today Christians are permitted to consume meat for sale in a market without losing the prospect of eternal salvation, and without regard to whether someone else might have dedicated it to an idol. Fornication, on the other hand, violates God's law and may be punished. Fornication and eating meats sacrificed to idols are not equal and are rightly severable; they are not treated the same. Just because fornication is forbidden doesn't mean that eating meat sacrificed to idols is, according to Paul.

The Watchtower's statement that “eating of blood is equated with idolatry and fornication” left out the fourth prong of the Acts 15 decree, the abstention from “things strangled” (Reasoning at 71). They failed to mention it for good reason because they do not want to draw attention to this prohibition specifically addressed in the Mosaic law at Leviticus 17:15 and 11:39,40 which completely and unequivocally proves wrong their ban on blood transfusions. Leviticus 17:15 provides, “Everyone, whether a native or an alien, who eats of an animal that died of itself or was killed by a wild beast shall wash his garments, bathe in water, and be unclean until evening, and then he will be clean. If he does not wash or does not bathe his body, he shall have the guilt to bear.”

According to this section of the Mosaic law, eating blood was clearly permissible; a person was not cut off, not disfellowshipped, and most certainly did not lose the prospect of eternal salvation. As such, blood could be eaten, and the consequence was limited to being declared unclean, and then only if he failed to wash his garments and bathe in water. Therefore, the Watchtower Society's statement that “only sacrificial use of blood has ever been approved by God” (Reasoning at 71) is false. Their claim that the only allowed use for blood is that it be poured out and never transfused or stored, is likewise an unbiblical false statement. The Society's draconian punishment for transfusing, or eating, blood (disfellowshipping and loss of eternal life) and the so-called reward for refusing a necessary transfusion (death by suicide) are completely out of line with established Bible principles.

Avoiding “all things strangled” is therefore a suggestion, not an absolute prohibition, the violation of which does not merit punishment like that associated with fornication. Blood can be consumed without suffering the penalties and consequences established by the Watchtower Society.

The Society attempts to shore up their doctrine with Noahide law, commands given to Noah and his family after the flood which the Jehovah's Witnesses preach are laws binding on all humans, not merely the Jews. But was Genesis 9:3,4 intended to prohibit all men from eating (transfusing) blood under any circumstance? Not according to Deuteronomy 14:21. The Noahide law at Genesis 9:3,4 provides: “Every creature that is alive shall be yours to eat; I give them all to you as I did the green plants. Only flesh with its lifeblood still in it you shall not eat” (NAB).

The Watchtower Society incorrectly interprets this verse to mandate that “[a]ny animal used for food should be properly bled. One that is strangled or that dies in a trap or that is found after it has died is not suitable for food” (Ibid at 71). But this claim is also a baseless false statement aimed at justifying the ban on transfusions because Deuteronomy 14:21 specifically allowed men, non-Israeites, to eat such meat and the undrained blood: “You must not eat any animal that has died of itself, for you are a people sacred to the Lord, your God. But you may give it to an alien who belongs to your community, and he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner.” Verse 21, like Leviticus 17:15, completely unravels and proves wrong the Society's scriptural basis for banning the consumption, through transfusion or eating, of blood. Pouring out blood as a symbolic gesture of respect for the sanctity of life was not the only permitted use of blood. Eating blood by Gentiles (aliens and foreigners) did not, and does not, violate God's law, particularly Noahide law; and it most certainly was not punished by death, excommunication or disfellowshipping, or the loss of the prospect of eternal salvation.

Furthermore, the law given to Noah at Genesis 9:3,4 pertained only to the eating of animal flesh with blood; it did not address the intravenous transfusion of human blood, let alone the oral consumption of human blood along with the eating of human flesh. Genesis 9:3,4 is inapplicable; it has no bearing on modern-day blood transfusions necessary to save a human life.

Given the above, what does “abstain from blood” in the Acts 15 decree refer to? It refers to the blood of animals that are slaughtered and eaten, or sacrificed as atonement on the altar, as explained in numerous passages of the Mosaic law, particularly those contained in the Book of Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Illustrative is Leviticus 17:8-14 and Deuteronomy 12:15-17, 20-25.

8 “Also you shall say to them: ‘Whatever man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell among you, who offers a burnt offering or sacrifice, 9 and does not bring it to the door of the tabernacle of meeting, to offer it to the Lord, that man shall be cut off from among his people.
10 ‘And whatever man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell among you, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people. 11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.’ 12 Therefore I said to the children of Israel, ‘No one among you shall eat blood, nor shall any stranger who dwells among you eat blood.’ (Leviticus 17:8-14)

15 “However, you may slaughter and eat meat within all your gates, whatever your heart desires, according to the blessing of the Lord your God which He has given you; the unclean and the clean may eat of it, of the gazelle and the deer alike. 16 Only you shall not eat the blood; you shall pour it on the earth like water. 17 You may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain or your new wine or your oil, of the firstborn of your herd or your flock, of any of your offerings which you vow, of your freewill offerings, or of the heave offering of your hand. ( Deuteronomy 12:15-17)

20 “When the Lord your God enlarges your border as He has promised you, and you say, ‘Let me eat meat,’ because you long to eat meat, you may eat as much meat as your heart desires. 21 If the place where the Lord your God chooses to put His name is too far from you, then you may slaughter from your herd and from your flock which the Lord has given you, just as I have commanded you, and you may eat within your gates as much as your heart desires. 22 Just as the gazelle and the deer are eaten, so you may eat them; the unclean and the clean alike may eat them. 23 Only be sure that you do not eat the blood, for the blood is the life; you may not eat the life with the meat. 24 You shall not eat it; you shall pour it on the earth like water. 25 You shall not eat it, that it may go well with you and your children after you, when you do what is right in the sight of the Lord. (Deuteronomy 12:20-25)

Through a simple process of logical deduction it becomes obvious to a reasonable person of average intelligence – or less than average, for that matter – that the Acts 15 decree does not prohibit blood transfusions because the prohibition pertained to the respect for sanctity of the life of slaughtered animals. It was not about the consumption of blood per se because, as shown above, it was permitted under Leviticus 17:15 and Deuteronomy 14:21. Blood was eaten by Israelites and non-Israelites without punishment or retribution. And since blood could be eaten, it wasn't the ingestion of that liquid organ that violated God's law in and of itself, but the eating of it in conjunction with the killing of an animal; the crime in that context was therefore symbolic. If man did not slaughter the animal for food, or as a holocaust or sacrifice, that meat, whether it died on its own or was “strangled” could, and was, eaten “with the blood.”

As such, the blood laws at Leviticus and Deuteronomy have absolutely no bearing with respect to modern-day transfusions because no animal is killed in order to acquire the blood. Blood donors are not killed, and they are not animals to be eaten. Therefore no such respect for the life of a dead animal need be shown; there is no blood from a slaughtered animal that must be poured onto the ground and covered up. Accordingly, there is no such surviving “principle” in Mosaic law that leads to the prohibition of blood transfusions that continued into the Christian era as the Watchtower mistakenly teaches. Their “principle” which mandates self-murder, or suicide, and the murder of innocent third parties, is a complete fabrication; man-made laws that go far beyond the written word found in the Bible and God's immutable laws commanding the respect for human life. But even if, for the sake of argument, the Acts 15 decree regarding the consumption of meat and blood based on the Mosaic law actually prohibited blood transfusions, those laws were nailed to the cross and done away with at Christ's death (Luke 16:16; Galatians 5:4-5).

The Jehovah's Witnesses' attempt to equate blood transfusions with eating blood is likewise doomed to failure. As chronicled in medical documents worldwide, blood is not a nutrient like food. No qualified physician prescribes blood to cure a patient's hunger. Comparing blood to alcohol doesn't help the Watchtower's case either. They reason: “[C]onsider a man who is told by the doctor that he must abstain from alcohol. Would he be obedient if he quit drinking alcohol but had it put directly into his veins?” (Reasoning at 73). This argument, however, is weak at best because God does not prohibit blood transfusions, whether necessary or not, and blood is not transfused in order to get drunk and have a good time, but to save life. Furthermore, as Paul Grundy at jwfacts.com writes, “Blood is not a nutrient. Blood transfusions do not nourish the body and this is not the reason a patient is given a transfusion. Blood is used as a volume expander and to carry oxygen …. A blood transfusion is actually a cellular organ transplant, and organ transplants are permitted by the Watchtower Society.”

With respect to alcohol not being the same as blood, he continues, “[W]hen blood is introduced directly into the veins as a transfusion it circulates and functions as blood. Similarly, when a person orally ingests alcohol it is absorbed as alcohol into the blood stream. Alcohol is not broken down by the stomach and for this reason it is the same as injecting it directly. On the other hand, orally eaten blood when digested does not enter the circulation as blood, but is broken down into simple components” (jwfacts.com/watchtower/blood-transfusion.php).

To reiterate what was said earlier with respect to fornication being equated with things strangled, meats sacrificed to idols and the consumption of blood, it is apparent that the four items of the Acts 15 decree are therefore not equal in terms of their importance and punishment. They are not joined together and do not survive into the twenty-first century simply because the prohibition against fornication is valid today. And they most certainly aren't equal because they are listed in the same sentence, which is one of the weakest arguments the Watchtower Society has ever made.

If that were the case, gossips will suffer the same penalties as murderers simply because Paul included both in the same verse at Romans 1:29. But YHWH, Almighty God, is a “God of justice” (Isaiah 30:18). And a just God will reward and punish according to one's deeds. It is a sliding-scale of justice; the gossip is not to be punished to the same degree as Adolf Hitler. Some will receive a prophet's reward, some a righteous man's reward, and others a reward for giving a cup of water to a disciple because he is a disciple (Matthew 10:40-42). Some will be beaten with fewer strokes than others (Luke 12:47, 48) and teachers are to be held to a higher standard (James 3:1). And, the sin of fornication is not equal to accepting or permitting life-saving transfusions – which do not violate God's law.

The Watchtower Society is fully aware of the critical flaws in their doctrine and is currently in the process of overturning it as it did with their illogical and unscriptural earlier ban on vaccines and organ transplants. Allowing the transfusion of one-hundred percent of blood fractions brings them within two steps of abiding by God's law, though any reasonable, objective person recognizes the hypocrisy and farce which is being foisted on its members. The trend toward allowing whole-blood transfusions without threat of recrimination is motivated in large part by the looming specter of legal liability premised on theories such as the tort of misrepresentation. That is why one sees a shift; the Society's unequivocal ban is being replaced by shifting the burden to its members, allowing its people to accept blood fractions based on their conscience, even if it still might violate God's law.

But that is not good enough because some will still refrain from transfusions believing it continues to violate the laws of God, which it does not. It is time for the Watchtower Society to cease and desist from its appalling charade banning blood transfusions and declare emphatically that whether necessary or not, blood transfusions do not violate God's law of love which demands respect for the sanctity and preservation of life. It is time for the Jehovah's Witnesses to stop murdering themselves and their innocent children based on an unsubstantiated and hypocritical doctrine; hypocritical because the Jehovah's Witnesses do not go to war out of the command to love one's enemies, but they readily sacrifice their own brothers and sisters, who are to be loved fiercely, on the bloodless altar of Molech.

“Too costly in the eyes of the Lord is the death of his faithful” (Psalm 116:15). “[T]he meaning is that the death of God's faithful is grievous to God” (NAB notes, 116, 15). Denying oneself a necessary transfusion is the sin of self-murder, suicide. Denying your child who requires a necessary transfusion and which results in the child's death is the sin of murder; and all who participate to any degree in this deviant act are culpable. As for the Governing Body, and those who write these horrible laws, Jesus warned: “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe [in me] to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were put around his neck and he were thrown into the sea” (Mark 10:42).

Jehovah's Witnesses Are----(fill in the blank)

rip van winkle

mamochan13

minimus

jonathan dough

Share this