by Friend 42 Replies latest watchtower bible
To All
Considering the latest Questions From Readers article on blood transfusion, I was wondering what the feelings are among this forum’s participants about blood transfusion.
Over the years the Society has been receiving a growing amount of letters on the subject of blood and blood transfusion. Any interesting biblical perspectives here about whether "abstain from blood" means abstain from blood transfusion?
Friend
I found an interesting site you might like about this issue.
Friend,
I still maintain that when the Bible say's to abstain from blood this is exactly what it means. Blood is sacred, and I personally think it is a mistake from the society to allow even blood fractions.
I also understand that it is easy to say no blood, but when faced with the reality of an emergency, it becomes a real test of faith.
One must also keep in mind that Jehovah God has laws in place as a test of obedience, such as was with the tree of knowledge of good and bad.
Humans may justify almost anything but it does not necessarily make it right in the eyes of God who's laws a christian would want to obey.
I'm having a hard time believing that Jehovah God would prefer I die rather than accept a transfusion. I have a form of anemia that may in the future require some form of blood. I'll keep your email address handy and you can come help my family pick out my coffin.
:)7of9
Dear SevenofNine,
Please don't base your decisions on what I say, Friend was only asking for our opinions. I sympathize with your situation and the governing body has allowed blood fractions for any who find themselves in an emergency.
Believe me I wouldn't want to be in your situation and if I can help you in anyway possible as far as research of your condition or treatment or support or anything that you think I can help you with, please feel free to ask and I'll see what I can do.
Christian love,
spectromize.
Dear Spec, I normally don't join in these blood discussions because it's far too personal a thing with me. I've been fortunate so far and the non-blood treatments I've had seem to be working for NOW. If Jehovah uses this as a test of obedience then he must approve of suicide because this is what I would equate the refusal of a transfusion to be for me. I don't expect others to fully understand or even care[the Society doesn't]. I didn't post to get sympathy. The only thing I ask is for everyone NOT to turn their backs on those who may choose life over death. It's amusing that we don't believe in faith healing but that's exactly what the Society is asking us to do-just have faith. I wouldn't even consider writing a letter voicing my complaints. It would be a pointless waste of time. Thank you spec for offering your support. I know Friend was just asking a simple question. There are no simple answers.
Seven
Dear SevenofNine,
I know there are no simple answers, you have the support of many here even on this board, if there is anything I can do I will do it for you. Again I must say that we don't all face test like you do but you must avail yourself of friends who don't mind going out of the way for you, and you can count me in. I personally think you are a very passionate person about things and never in a million years would I want to see you or anybody complentating suicide.
Thank you spec. :-") I would never attempt suicide. I was using that as an example of what I felt refusing life saving medical treatment would be equivalent to. Thank you again brother for your kind words.
7
SevenofNine
I appreciate your input onto this subject. First, let me say that you are not alone in your plight. Many in our midst have encountered conditions and experiences such as yours, and it has raised some disturbing concerns.
You feel that sharing your feelings with the Society would be a waste of time. Actually the Society wants to know how you feel. Have you ever considered suggesting some change to them? Consider the following.
At times, some bring to the attention of the "slave" class various doctrinal or organizational matters that they feel ought to be revised. Certainly, suggestions for improvement are proper, as are inquiries for clarification.—Loyally Submitting to Theocratic Order, The Watchtower, 1982 6/1: 20.
You can see from that information that requesting clarification of some teaching or suggesting a change in some doctrine is okay. The Society does not take umbrage at such letters as long as they are respectful.
You mentioned that there are no simple answers to the questions of does "abstain from blood" mean abstain from blood transfusion? Actually there is a simpler answer than you might expect. Below I will highlight some teachings of the Society followed by a question. Considering the Society’s teaching on those basic areas present a surprising answer to the question, does "abstain from blood" mean abstain from blood transfusion.
1. The Apostolic Decree (to "abstain from blood") is not based at all upon the Mosaic Law or elements of the Mosaic Law. The Apostolic Decree is based strictly upon events and laws predating the Mosaic Law. Regarding blood, AD is based strictly upon the Noachian Law. (See United in Worship of the Only True God, page 149, par. 8)
2. The Noachian Law applied only to the lower animals. It only prohibits eating blood taken from flesh killed for food. (See The Watchtower of 1950 page 158, par. 1)
3. Deuteronomy 14:21 identifies that sanctity of life was the key element of the Noachian Law, not blood. That text indicates that eating flesh from an animal already dead (unbled) was okay for those under the Noachain Law, which was all mankind. Israel was held to a higher standard of adherence because besides being under the Noachian Law they were also under the Mosaic Law, which utilized blood for sacred sacrificial use, thus their complete abstinence from blood was legislated (even unbled meat from an animal found dead). (Read very carefully the text of Leviticus 17:10-12. It states the two-fold reason that Israel was held to a higher standard of adherence to the Noachian Law than the rest of mankind.) (See also Insight on the Scriptures Volume I, page 345, par. 6) Eating unbled animal flesh from an animal found dead was not a violation of the Noachian Law for those under it alone, because such an animal had not been killed for food. In the text of Deuteronomy 14:21 killing is the key element missing, which allowed eating the blood of the dead animal. Again, the Noachian Law only prohibited eating blood taken from flesh killed for food. (Note that the "alien resident" and "foreigner" of Deuteronomy 14:21 were, in God’s eyes, under the Noachian Law.)
Here is the question:
Since the Society teaches that "abstain from blood" is only a reaffirmation of the Noachian Law and that law only applies to lower animals, then should we teach that ‘abstain from blood" means abstain from transfusion of donor blood?
Here is another question:
Since the Mosaic Law was admittedly required a higher standard of adherence to blood prohibitions and since Christians are not under that law, should we use elements of that law to clarify the Apostolic Decree?
Answers might be far more simple that we have taught in the past.
Friend
Friend, Thank you for clarifying several of the Society's teachings. Your explaination made perfect sense to me but they'll never budge on the issue.
7
