like the faith of Jehovah's Witnesses but the denial of blood I think is so strange

[Starlight]

I like the faith of Jehovah's Witnesses but the refute of blood I think is so strange. The Jehovas witnesses is correct about Jesus. But the Blood refute troubles me very much..
People can die if Blood transfusion is refuted. It is not morally right to refute blood to children if they can survive with blood transfusion..

If Blood transfusion was ok according to Jehovas witnesses then the Jehovas witnesses had been the closest to God. The most correct Christian sect..

Any thoughts?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I like the faith of Jehovah's Witnesses but the refute of blood I think is so strange. The Jehovas witnesses is correct about Jesus. But the Blood refute troubles me very much..
People can die if Blood transfusion is refuted. It is not morally right to refute blood to children if they can survive with blood transfusion..

If Blood transfusion was ok according to Jehovas witnesses then the Jehovas witnesses had been the closest to God. The most correct Christian sect..

Any thoughts?

I don't know. I always wondered if they believe their child should die and be with God because using blood to save their child's life is disobeying God.

Here I've came across JW not trusting blood transfusion but not to where they trust it and still deny it's usage. The idea is this treatment is not safe so since God doesn't condone it why should I.

My coworker held up her child to God when he was born and said if it were his will she'd give up her child. She did it lying on her stomach, her arms up with her child held up to God. A sacrifice.

Not sure why people would sacrifice their child's (any loved ones) lives because of how they interpret scripture. Back then most likely the blood context was quite different.

Also, I'm not sure if JW believe Christ washed their sins with his blood as other protestants. If so, I'm not seeing how use of blood is wrong if to save a life.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I like the faith of Jehovah's Witnesses but the refute of blood I think is so strange. The Jehovas witnesses is correct about Jesus. But the Blood refute troubles me very much..
People can die if Blood transfusion is refuted. It is not morally right to refute blood to children if they can survive with blood transfusion..

If Blood transfusion was ok according to Jehovas witnesses then the Jehovas witnesses had been the closest to God. The most correct Christian sect..

Any thoughts?

"Most correct" is quite subjective and based purely an individual's perspective.

Jehovah's Witnesses believe it is against God's will to receive a transfusion, even if it's their own blood. This is a core belief. How can you state something is "most correct" when you reject a core tenet?

 

[Starlight]

"Most correct" is quite subjective and based purely an individual's perspective.

Jehovah's Witnesses believe it is against God's will to receive a transfusion, even if it's their own blood. This is a core belief. How can you state something is "most correct" when you reject a core tenet?

I believe Jehovas witnesses is correct about Jesus. I did not write that Jehovas witnesses is the most correct Christian sect.
I did write that if Jehovas witnesses believed that Blood transfusion was ok, then the Jehovas witnesses had been the most correct Christian sect according to my belief.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I believe Jehovas witnesses is correct about Jesus. I did not write that Jehovas witnesses is the most correct Christian sect.
I did write that if Jehovas witnesses believed that Blood transfusion was ok, then the Jehovas witnesses had been the most correct Christian sect according to my belief.

I'm afraid I'm not understanding the point of the exercise.

It would be like me saying that I think Catholicism is the most correct religion if they thought God was without qualities or attributes and did not intervene in worldly affairs, and was based on the teachings of the Upanishads rather than those of the Bible.

 

[Starlight]

I don't know. I always wondered if they believe their child should die and be with God because using blood to save their child's life is disobeying God.

Here I've came across JW not trusting blood transfusion but not to where they trust it and still deny it's usage. The idea is this treatment is not safe so since God doesn't condone it why should I.

My coworker held up her child to God when he was born and said if it were his will she'd give up her child. She did it lying on her stomach, her arms up with her child held up to God. A sacrifice.

Not sure why people would sacrifice their child's (any loved ones) lives because of how they interpret scripture. Back then most likely the blood context was quite different.

Also, I'm not sure if JW believe Christ washed their sins with his blood as other protestants. If so, I'm not seeing how use of blood is wrong if to save a life.

It is morally wrong to refute blood transfusion to a child if the child survives if the child get Blood transfusion.

Parents should try almost everything to save a childs life. God is not against Blood transfusion according to my belief

 

[Starlight]

I'm afraid I'm not understanding the point of the exercise.

It would be like me saying that I think Catholicism is the most correct religion if they thought God was without qualities or attributes and did not intervene in worldly affairs, and was based on the teachings of the Upanishads rather than those of the Bible.

You do have a point.

 

[metis]

If Blood transfusion was ok according to Jehovas witnesses then the Jehovas witnesses had been the closest to God. The most correct Christian sect..

Personally, I designate that position to the Amish.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

You do have a point.

Is it possible that the most correct Christian sect is Atheism?
(I know, I opened Pandora’s box here)

Because they may be the only sect to have NO false concepts of God.

 

[Nimos]

I like the faith of Jehovah's Witnesses but the refute of blood I think is so strange. The Jehovas witnesses is correct about Jesus. But the Blood refute troubles me very much..
People can die if Blood transfusion is refuted. It is not morally right to refute blood to children if they can survive with blood transfusion..

If Blood transfusion was ok according to Jehovas witnesses then the Jehovas witnesses had been the closest to God. The most correct Christian sect..

Any thoughts?

From what I know, having spend quite some time both discussing and looking into JW, and as such have nothing against them, I do obviously not approve of the shunning, which I would consider an evil act, and in certain cases, I think the government should intervene. I do agree that I find the blood transfusion thing weird and also not supported by the bible at all. Those verses they refer to or any verses pretty much that has anything to do with blood, is always in relationship with a ritual or food, and has nothing to do with transfusions.

Another thing is, that JW (most likely not a lot of them that knows it) have changed their view on this over the years, so at certain times some things weren't allowed and at others they were etc. How exactly they figure out which is and which isn't, im not really sure of, because the bible certainly doesn't make any difference, there is just blood.

 

[Shadow11]

They have predicted the end of the world so many times its comical - wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.How can they be wrong so many times.

• 1877: Christ's kingdom would hold full sway over the earth in 1914; the Jews, as a people, would be restored to God's favor; the "saints" would be carried to heaven.
• 1891: 1914 would be "the farthest limit of the rule of imperfect men".
• 1904: "World-wide anarchy" would follow the end of the Gentile Times in 1914.
• 1916: World War I would terminate in Armageddon and the rapture of the "saints".
• 1917: In 1918, Christendom would go down as a system to oblivion and be succeeded by revolutionary governments. God would "destroy the churches wholesale and the church members by the millions". Church members would "perish by the sword of war, revolution and anarchy". The dead would lie unburied. In 1920 all earthly governments would disappear, with worldwide anarchy prevailing.
• 1920: Messiah's kingdom would be established in 1925 and bring worldwide peace. God would begin restoring the earth. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and other faithful patriarchs would be resurrected to perfect human life and be made princes and rulers, the visible representatives of the New Order on earth. Those who showed themselves obedient to God would never die.
• 1922: The anti-typical "jubilee" that would mark God's intervention in earthly affairs would take place "probably the fall" of 1925.
• 1925: God's restoration of Earth would begin "shortly after" October 1, 1925. Jerusalem would be made the world's capital. Resurrected "princes" such as Abel, Noah, Moses and John the baptist would give instructions to their subjects around the world by radio, and airplanes would transport people to and from Jerusalem from all parts of the globe in just "a few hours".
• 1938: Armageddon was too close for marriage or child bearing.
• 1941: There were only "months" remaining until Armageddon.
• 1942: Armageddon was "immediately before us".
• 1961: Awake! magazine stated that Armageddon "will come in the twentieth century.... This generation will see its fulfillment."
• 1966: It would be 6000 years since man's creation in the fall of 1975 and it would be "appropriate" for Christ's thousand-year reign to begin at that time. Time was "running out, no question about that". The "immediate future" was "certain to be filled with climactic events ... within a few years at most", the final parts of Bible prophecy relating to the "last days" would undergo fulfillment as Christ's reign began.
• 1967: The end-time period (beginning in 1914) was claimed to be so far advanced that the time remaining could "be compared, not just to the last day of a week, but rather, to the last part of that day".
• 1968: No one could say "with certainty" that the battle of Armageddon would begin in 1975, but time was "running out rapidly" with "earthshaking events" soon to take place. In March 1968 there was a "short period of time left", with "only about ninety months left before 6000 years of man's existence on earth is completed".
• 1969: The existing world order would not last long enough for young people to grow old; the world system would end "in a few years". Young Witnesses were told not to bother pursuing tertiary education for this reason.
• 1971: The "battle in the day of Jehovah" was described as beginning

 

[Dogknox20]

I like the faith of Jehovah's Witnesses but the refute of blood I think is so strange. The Jehovas witnesses is correct about Jesus. But the Blood refute troubles me very much..
People can die if Blood transfusion is refuted. It is not morally right to refute blood to children if they can survive with blood transfusion..

If Blood transfusion was ok according to Jehovas witnesses then the Jehovas witnesses had been the closest to God. The most correct Christian sect..

Any thoughts?

.
Meandflower It's good to meet you.. The JW's sacrifice their children in the name of God! Teaching: God does NOT want them to have blood transfusions.. The scriptures say.. "Don't eat blood"!
In the Old Testament God was very clear; Those who sacrificed Children were NOT pleasing to God!

The Symbol Christians use is the "Cross"! If you see a cross or see a person make the sign you KNOW; that is Christian! Satan was defeated by the Cross it was on the cross that Jesus destroyed death and restored life! The Cross is a symbol of Love! Satan would NEVER.. EVER use the cross on any of his churches! The JW's say it was NOT the cross but a stake that Jesus died on!
THINK... WHY?! Answer can only be they are NOT Christian!

Christians have always taught Jesus is God.. They do NOT!
Meandflower I would not just turn away from them I would RUN as fast as I could away from them: your soul depends on it!

 

[Truthseeker]

I like the faith of Jehovah's Witnesses but the refute of blood I think is so strange. The Jehovas witnesses is correct about Jesus. But the Blood refute troubles me very much..
People can die if Blood transfusion is refuted. It is not morally right to refute blood to children if they can survive with blood transfusion..

If Blood transfusion was ok according to Jehovas witnesses then the Jehovas witnesses had been the closest to God. The most correct Christian sect..

Any thoughts?

Yes, Christian denominations can sometimes have their own peculiar rules, which are man-made. Knowing you when you say Jehovah Witnesses are more correct about Jesus, this means you don't believe that Jesus is God. Another way of saying this is you don't believe that God has three Personas. What you should understand is that them believing Jesus is not God is also a man-made doctrine. My own personal belief is that only certain personages in history who are sent by God know the truth.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I like the faith of Jehovah's Witnesses but the refute of blood I think is so strange. The Jehovas witnesses is correct about Jesus. But the Blood refute troubles me very much..
People can die if Blood transfusion is refuted. It is not morally right to refute blood to children if they can survive with blood transfusion..

If Blood transfusion was ok according to Jehovas witnesses then the Jehovas witnesses had been the closest to God. The most correct Christian sect..

Any thoughts?

Multiple transfusion alternatives have been developed, and many are generally acceptable to a Jehovah's Witness patient, including tranexamic acid, prothrombin complex concentrate, and fibrin glue.

So they are doing nothing wrong in refusing blood from an other human being, since now there are alternatives that can save them.
Some JW may believe in letting God take care of them if or when they need surgery.

As a none JW, I am also not accepting blood transfusion, and I am fully well after many different surgeries where "normally" one would need blood transfusion.

 

[joelr]

I like the faith of Jehovah's Witnesses but the refute of blood I think is so strange. The Jehovas witnesses is correct about Jesus. But the Blood refute troubles me very much..
People can die if Blood transfusion is refuted. It is not morally right to refute blood to children if they can survive with blood transfusion..

If Blood transfusion was ok according to Jehovas witnesses then the Jehovas witnesses had been the closest to God. The most correct Christian sect..

Any thoughts?

What makes JW more true on Jesus and doctrine than other sects?

 

[Starlight]

Multiple transfusion alternatives have been developed, and many are generally acceptable to a Jehovah's Witness patient, including tranexamic acid, prothrombin complex concentrate, and fibrin glue.

So they are doing nothing wrong in refusing blood from an other human being, since now there are alternatives that can save them.
Some JW may believe in letting God take care of them if or when they need surgery.

As a none JW, I am also not accepting blood transfusion, and I am fully well after many different surgeries where "normally" one would need blood transfusion.

Yes You Are correct that today there is alternatives to Blood transfusion. But it is morally wrong if a parent refuse blood transfusion to their child if Blood transfusion is the only thing that save their child

 

[Starlight]

What makes JW more true on Jesus and doctrine than other sects?

Jehovas witnesses do not believe Jesus is God. They are correct about that doctrine. Many christian sects do believe in the trinity. The trinity is a wrong doctrine in my opinion

 

[Spirit of Light]

Yes You Are correct that today there is alternatives to Blood transfusion. But it is morally wrong if a parent refuse blood transfusion to their child if Blood transfusion is the only thing that save their child

How often is it the only option?
Could it be reasons for their choice that is not visible to others?

Does God say all children will survive the first year's of their life no matter what?
Maybe God has a different plan for children who die in an early age?

We can't know what God thinking

 

[Starlight]

How often is it the only option?
Could it be reasons for their choice that is not visible to others?

Does God say all children will survive the first year's of their life no matter what?
Maybe God has a different plan for children who die in an early age?

We can't know what God thinking

That was a bad comparison. If a child dies of disease and the parents have done everything they could to save their child then they are not to blame for their child's death. Then God will know that they did everything they could.

But if a child dies because the parents denied the child blood that would save their child's life then the parents are to blame for the child's death.

 

[Spirit of Light]

That was a bad comparison. If a child dies of disease and the parents have done everything they could to save their child then they are not to blame for their child's death. Then God will know that they did everything they could.

But if a child dies because the parents denied the child blood that would save their child's life then the parents are to blame for the child's death.

Different understanding of what is wrong to do.