• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Jw and blood transfusjon

nPeace

Veteran Member
Both deal with the issue of food. Both speak out against those who condemn others for what they eat.

Romans 14:1-6:

Now receive the one who is weak in the faith, and do not have disputes over differing opinions. 2 One person believes in eating everything, but the weak person eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not despise the one who does not, and the one who abstains must not judge the one who eats everything, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to pass judgment on another’s servant? Before his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

5 One person regards one day holier than other days, and another regards them all alike. Each must be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 The one who observes the day does it for the Lord. The one who eats, eats for the Lord because he gives thanks to God, and the one who abstains from eating abstains for the Lord, and he gives thanks to God.

1 Timothy 4:1-5:

Now the Spirit explicitly says that in the later times some will desert the faith and occupy themselves with deceiving spirits and demonic teachings, 2 influenced by the hypocrisy of liars whose consciences are seared. 3 They will prohibit marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For every creation of God is good and no food is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving. 5 For it is sanctified by God’s word and by prayer.

... So if a blood transfusion is "eating blood," then the Bible would suggest that JWs are wrong - and even deceived by "demonic teachings" and "the hypocrisy of liars" - for condemning blood transfusions and threatening its members with excommunication for getting them.
If JWs said blood is food, and they abstain from eating that particular food, and you should too. Do you believe blood is food? Then go eat your fill Penguin.
JWs don't say blood is food, any more than they say glass is food.
So if one believes that anything is food, as long as someone eats it, then I don't know what to say to such a person, because such a person would be beyond reason, imo.
The Bible condemns eating the blood, as it shows respect for life, and the sanctity of blood.
The Bible prohibits it's use outside of atonement.
It would also be a good health benefit to abstain from eating meat of a strangled animal.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
If JWs said blood is food, and they abstain from eating that particular food, and you should too. Do you believe blood is food? Then go eat your fill Penguin.
JWs don't say blood is food, any more than they say glass is food.
From JW.org, the Jehovah's Witnesses' own website:

Why don’t Jehovah’s Witnesses accept blood transfusions?
This is a religious issue rather than a medical one. Both the Old and New Testaments clearly command us to abstain from blood. (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 17:10; Deuteronomy 12:23; Acts 15:28, 29) Also, God views blood as representing life. (Leviticus 17:14) So we avoid taking blood not only in obedience to God but also out of respect for him as the Giver of life.
https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/jehovahs-witnesses-why-no-blood-transfusions/

I invite you to look up the verses that they say themselves are the basis for their position.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
We can talk about those verse if you like.....you will have had them interpreted by the RCC, so are you sure that they had it right in the first place, given your current status?

If you are bleeding out on the street and they can stop the bleeding, and give you saline in time, they will save your life. Blood transfusions are not normally performed on the street.....saline is administered routinely.

Dying of shock from blood loss is equally treatable with alternative therapies. There is no reason to die unless first-aid is not administered immediately. People die from blood loss with shark attacks, motor vehicle accident and internal hemorrhages......it happens every day. But if therapy is administered right away and the volume of a person's blood is maintained, then the administration of EPO and saline will make up red cells in no time, usually leaving the patient to recover with no complications. This is our experience, not hear-say.

You need to be a bit more up to date on these things. Check out nPeace's links...you might learn something.
I will have to look that up. I am doubtful that just saline can save you from hemorrhagic shock.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
From JW.org, the Jehovah's Witnesses' own website:


https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/jehovahs-witnesses-why-no-blood-transfusions/

I invite you to look up the verses that they say themselves are the basis for their position.
Please tell me you are joking. I'm supposed to be laughing, right? I have been a JW for nearly three decades
Do you think I don't know why JWs refuse blood transfusions.

Did you read what you just quoted?
Perhaps you need to look up those scriptures, since nothing you said forms any basis for your argument.
Do you know what you are arguing though, or are you just arguing? Since nothing you said is coherent with your attempted argument.
I can't even figure out what you are arguing.

The only thing I gather so far, is that you want to equate blood with food, in order to find something in scripture to argue against JWs, but you haven't answered my question, so I don't even know if you are arguing for or against A, and what's the connection with blood transfusions.
Let me ask again... Do you consider blood to be food?
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
Please tell me you are joking. I'm supposed to be laughing, right? I have been a JW for nearly three decades
Do you think I don't know why JWs refuse blood transfusions.
Either you don't. Or that JW website doesn't.

Or both.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Please tell me you are joking. I'm supposed to be laughing, right? I have been a JW for nearly three decades
I had no idea. I assumed you were Muslim.

Do you think I don't know why JWs refuse blood transfusions.
I'm sure you know why you refuse blood transfusions.

Did you read what you just quoted?
Perhaps you need to look up those scriptures, since nothing you said forms any basis for your argument.
Yes, let's look at the passages they cited:

Genesis 9:4:

Only flesh with its life—its blood—you must not eat.

Leviticus 17:10:

“‘If any man of the house of Israel or any foreigner who is residing in your midst eats any sort of blood, I will certainly set my face against the one who is eating the blood, and I will cut him off from among his people.

Deut 12:23:

Just be firmly resolved not to eat the blood, because the blood is the life, and you must not eat the life with the flesh.

Acts 15:28-29:

For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things: to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!”

Leviticus 17:14:

For the life of every sort of flesh is its blood, because the life is in it. Consequently, I said to the Israelites: “You must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh because the life of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off.”


Why do you think the Watchtower Society is telling that these passages - all but one of which explicitly refer to eating blood - support their stance on blood transfusions?

Edit: I had to go back in the thread to see what started this tangent; turns out it was you who brought up the whole "blood transfusions are food" thing in the first place. Emphasis mine:

The reason JWs do not take blood transfusions has to do with what God says about it.
(Genesis 9:3, 4) 3 Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. Just as I gave you the green vegetation, I give them all to you. 4 Only flesh with its life—its blood—you must not eat.

If you've changed your mind, that's fine, but don't act all confused when I take what you say as your actual position.
 
Last edited:

nPeace

Veteran Member
I had no idea. I assumed you were Muslim.


I'm sure you know why you refuse blood transfusions.


Yes, let's look at the passages they cited:

Genesis 9:4:

Only flesh with its life—its blood—you must not eat.

Leviticus 17:10:

“‘If any man of the house of Israel or any foreigner who is residing in your midst eats any sort of blood, I will certainly set my face against the one who is eating the blood, and I will cut him off from among his people.

Deut 12:23:

Just be firmly resolved not to eat the blood, because the blood is the life, and you must not eat the life with the flesh.

Acts 15:28-29:

For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things: to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!”

Leviticus 17:14:

For the life of every sort of flesh is its blood, because the life is in it. Consequently, I said to the Israelites: “You must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh because the life of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off.”


Why do you think the Watchtower Society is telling that these passages - all but one of which explicitly refer to eating blood - support their stance on blood transfusions?
Ah. I see.
Your argument is that God condemns the eating of blood. Transfusion is not eating blood. Therefore God does not condemn blood transfusions.
I suppose Acts 15 says don't eat too, right?

The FAQ is a section that give answers in a very basic way. To get a deeper understanding, persons can then find more information on the subject.
What Does the Bible Say About Blood Transfusions?

It's shorter, but did you notice any additional information?
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
So you've decided to reject this part of the Bible?

For every creation of God is good and no food is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving. For it is sanctified by God’s word and by prayer.

Well, speaking in generalities you could say that this verse covers every kind of food.....but just as when Noah came out of the ark, and God gave mankind permission to eat flesh....any kind of flesh, but with the one proviso that it not contain blood. Blood is synonymous with life.

Genesis 9:3-4....
"Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. Just as I gave you the green vegetation, I give them all to you. 4 Only flesh with its life—its blood—you must not eat."

Unless I am mistaken, when someone cannot eat by mouth, they can be fed intravenously....so yes, blood can be classified as being "consumed" by being taken into the body to do what food does....help in the manufacture of red blood cells.
Since blood transfusions were many centuries into the future when the scriptures were written, we classify blood as being forbidden to be taken into the body in any way. To "abstain" means just that...."abstain from blood" means to "abstain"...look it up.

Strongs...."apechō" meaning...
"to hold back, keep off, prevent."

Dictionary definition...
"intransitive verb. 1 : to choose not to do or have something : to refrain deliberately and often with an effort of self-denial from an action or practice abstain from drinking."
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Ah. I see.
Your argument is that God condemns the eating of blood. Transfusion is not eating blood. Therefore God does not condemn blood transfusions.
No, my argument is that the JW position is not only murderous but hypocritical.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
No, my argument is that the JW position is not only murderous but hypocritical.
For goodness sake do some research on bloodless medicine and get informed about the latest research and techniques. There is nothing murderous or hypocritical about our stand on the issue of blood transfusions. It is now backed up by modern medicine. It’s a hard pill to swallow I know, but allowing ignorance to form your opinions is not really doing much for your credibility.
 

capumetu

Active Member
This is pernicious rubbish. Blood is not generally contaminated, nor do people who have blood transfusions generally experience problems as a result. Blood is not rejected as foreign, provided the correct blood group is used and the correct cross-matching procedure carried out.

Blood transfusions save thousands of lives every year.


The Governing body of the first century stated very clearly as a law for those who choose to be Jesus' disciples to abstain from blood as recorded at Acts 15:29. Therefore not only was Jehovah's pre-Christian people to abstain from blood, the post were to as well. Jehovah's witnesses abstain from blood, perhaps at the loss of life.

Keep in mind however all persons die to date, perhaps a blood transfusion would prolong this life, perhaps not, I would rather be judged willing to give my life in obedience, than extending my life by placing myself above obedience to God.

Perhaps you might even examine how you profit from our strict obedience, many blood substitute alternatives have been produced for those who are not of our faith. Many things we do not understand, but I know in my heart that Jehovah would never require anything of us that is harmful to us. I was not always one of Jehovah's witnesses, but I have not ever had a blood transfusion. I am 66 yrs old and healthier than most at my age, why? Because of living by God's standards for over half of my life. Living by Jehovah's standards in my opinion, is the best way of life.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
The Governing body of the first century stated very clearly as a law for those who choose to be Jesus' disciples to abstain from blood as recorded at Acts 15:29. Therefore not only was Jehovah's pre-Christian people to abstain from blood, the post were to as well. Jehovah's witnesses abstain from blood, perhaps at the loss of life.

Keep in mind however all persons die to date, perhaps a blood transfusion would prolong this life, perhaps not, I would rather be judged willing to give my life in obedience, than extending my life by placing myself above obedience to God.

Perhaps you might even examine how you profit from our strict obedience, many blood substitute alternatives have been produced for those who are not of our faith. Many things we do not understand, but I know in my heart that Jehovah would never require anything of us that is harmful to us. I was not always one of Jehovah's witnesses, but I have not ever had a blood transfusion. I am 66 yrs old and healthier than most at my age, why? Because of living by God's standards for over half of my life. Living by Jehovah's standards in my opinion, is the best way of life.
You are welcome to your opinions - and an early death if you prefer. I prefer to stay alive and in good health as long as I can. :D
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
For goodness sake do some research on bloodless medicine and get informed about the latest research and techniques.
Nothing wrong with bloodless surgery in the right context. It's one tool in the toolbox, just like blood transfusion.


There is nothing murderous or hypocritical about our stand on the issue of blood transfusions.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/mont...od-transfusion-death-quebec-coroner-1.4401101

Jehovah's Witness Kid Dies After Refusing Medical Treatment

Man who almost died after refusing blood transfusion hits out at 'harmful' Jehovah’s Witness teachings

It is now backed up by modern medicine. It’s a hard pill to swallow I know, but allowing ignorance to form your opinions is not really doing much for your credibility.
I'd say that the one who should be worrying about their credibility is the one is you.

Don't think that I haven't noticed how every time this comes up, you try to switch the debate from "are blood transfusions useful and safe?" (spoiler: they are) to "is bloodless surgery useful and safe?"

Bloodless surgery is fine as one tool in the toolbox, but:

- bloodless surgery isn't always the best approach.
- blood transfusions are used for a lot more than surgery.

... but I'd bet that you already realized this.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
What's 120 possible years compared to an eternity sir? See our viewpoint now?
Anyone who really thinks they will be damned, as a result of accepting a blood transfusion, needs his head examined. What kind of idiot God would work like that? :rolleyes:
 

capumetu

Active Member
Anyone who really thinks they will be damned, as a result of accepting a blood transfusion, needs his head examined. What kind of idiot God would work like that? :rolleyes:
Anyone who really thinks they will be damned, as a result of accepting a blood transfusion, needs his head examined. What kind of idiot God would work like that? :rolleyes:

A poster put a lot of good sources for information if you would like sir. If you didn't see his post, much information about blood can be found on the JW.org website. I have chosen not to receive a blood transfusion if needed. You personally have to make that choice for yourself. You have to weigh all the possible scenarios. Heck, maybe God doesn't even exist, and we are wasting our efforts, but something to consider, what if He does? He asks some listen, some obey.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I have chosen not to receive a blood transfusion if needed. You personally have to make that choice for yourself.
While it's tragic when an adult freely chooses for themselves to die of a treatable illness out of superstition, what puts this doctrine into "evil" territory is that JWs will also refuse medical treatment for their children.
 

capumetu

Active Member
While it's tragic when an adult freely chooses for themselves to die of a treatable illness out of superstition, what puts this doctrine into "evil" territory is that JWs will also refuse medical treatment for their children.


You have no evidence to support that sir, fact is we do our utmost to provide the best care for our children. God said abstain from blood, that is what we do, I seriously doubt that any of our children die earlier in life than in any other faith. That would have to be proven to me.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
You have no evidence to support that sir, fact is we do our utmost to provide the best care for our children.
Blood transfusions, when medically appropriate, are medical care.

Refusing a blood transfusion when it's medically indicated is refusing medical care.

Edit: and the JW record and policies around sexual abuse of children suggests to me that, on the whole, JWs care less about the well-being of their children than average.

God said abstain from blood, that is what we do, I seriously doubt that any of our children die earlier in life than in any other faith. That would have to be proven to me.
And the complicating factor in all of this, of course, is that just because a JW proclaims loudly in public that they would never accept a blood transfusion for themselves or their family, this doesn't necessarily mean that they would actually refuse one when their child's life is on the line and nobody would know but their family and the hospital staff.

Some JWs accept blood transfusions and get found out; it stands to reason that there are more that accepted them and didn't get found out.
 
Top