Are Jehovah’s Witnesses competent to resolve the issue of blood transfusion?

30LPP

Hello everyone.

First of all, I would like to say hello to all of You.
I am not a Jehovah's Witness but I have been a child with "truth" because of my family. I am interested in the subject of this sect in the hope that I will be able to wake up the rest of my family.

I would also like to share with you another interesting book of Polish author Włodzimierz Bednarski, which was released in 2019, quite recently, and which is a small guidebook for the medical community and criticism of the Watchtower Society’s teachings.
The book in pdf format is available for download at:

Are Jehovah’s Witnesses competent to resolve the issue of blood transfusion?

Known books of this author are also:

Armageddon in 1975 'probability' or 'possibility'?
Year 1925 and Millions Now Living Will Never Die!
Ever-changing teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses

This book will probably be released later at:
https://wtsarchive.com/pubs/3rd-party-publications

I encourage you to read the above materials, because they are really worth it.

I wish everyone perseverance and health.

cofty

Welcome to the forum and thanks for the link.

I would welcome your thoughts on this simple argument regarding blood transfusions...

The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

Longer version of same argument...

Finkelstein

The old Hebraic law of abstaining of blood was specifically handed out as a dietary law and is still adhered to in Orthodox Judaism as in the Kosher preparation killing of animals before consumption.

The ancient Hebrews would overlook certain laws such as the Sabbath if the saving of a human life was enacted upon.

Being that so in reference from scripture, if anything the Blood transfusion doctrine should have been a conscious matter upon each individual but then again the WTS leaders are trying to portray a power guidance identity within their organization, so the blood doctrine was established along with the ban on organ transplants.

These two established doctrines started in the early 1940's have killed thousands to date and probably hundreds every year.

Finkelstein

The BT doctrine most likely wont change for two reasons, one being that this strongly enforced doctrine handed out has actually killed people, if the WTS were to resend this doctrine, the organization could face some law suits by family members who lost their loved ones.

As well changing this doctrine that killed so many now might ruin the notion that this organization was indeed being guided by Jehovah's holy spirit.

As with all religions there is an pressing illusion that their specific and unique organization is being guided by the hand of god.

cofty

The old Hebraic law of abstaining of blood was specifically handed out as a dietary law

I disagree.

JWs also disagree and if we are going to help them to reason on blood transfusions it is more useful to find as much common ground as possible.

1. Blood was sacred under The Law.

2. Blood represents life.

3. It was a capital offense to use blood for any purpose other than to offer it as a sacrifice on the altar.

4. All of the restrictions about blood are just as binding on Christians as they were on OT Jews.

It doesn't matter if you agree with all four of these points or not. They believe them, and we can concede all of them and start from there.

The key point is this...

Blood is only sacred insofar as it represents a life that has been taken

Finkelstein

I agree cofty , good clarification

Just to add to that, the human transfusion of blood to another comes from a person who has not died, thereby theoretically the blood during a BT can remain sacred in its use.

cofty

theoretically the blood during a BT can remain sacred in its use

Surely it is the exact opposite?

Nobody dies to donate blood therefore the donated blood has no sacred significance.

In the same way blood extracted from a live animal has no sacrificial value.

joey jojo

I agree with the principle of life being sacred and therefore the use of blood, donated from a still living person, used to save someone's life is surely a conscience issue.

Watching John Cedars on YouTube the other night dissecting the shepherd book was also interesting concerning blood transfusions.

If you receive a transfusion and are repentant, then it seems you are 'all good', you will probably just be reproved.

This raises another question; in WT land, why is accepting a blood transfusion treated differently compared to the other sins listed in the OT? If you are unrepentant, you are disassociated instead of being disfellowshipped.

Finkelstein

So Joe what your saying then if lets say an elder took a BT and it was announced to the other associated elders and he admitted to the BT but repented to that , he would not be chastised or removed from his position? 😒

Finkelstein

The point the JWS hold to is that blood is sacred because it represents life given to by god.

I see Coffey’s point though that blood may only become sacred when life is taken away.

The confusing part is can blood remain sacred in the eyes of god when blood is transfused to another, as an attempt to save the person’s life since human life is sacred ?

Are Jehovah’s Witnesses competent to resolve the issue of blood transfusion?

Share this