Sand2022:


In their book, Enjoy Life Now and Forever, Jehovah's witnesses states that blood represents life, this is according to Lev 17:14. This is true. The book further states that according to Gen 9:4, God forbade the eating of blood. We should take note that the restriction is on eating blood.

In the NT, the same restriction continued, as the book says. Acts 15

28For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things: 29 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!”

The book now went further to expand on how this restriction affect blood transfusion. It says:

"What does it mean to abstain from blood? If a doctor told you to abstain from alcohol, you would not drink it. But would you eat foods that contained it or have alcohol injected into your veins? Obviously not. Likewise, God’s command to abstain from blood means that we should not drink blood or eat meat that has not been bled. Nor should we eat any food to which blood has been added.

What about the medical use of blood? Some procedures clearly violate God’s law. These include the transfusion of whole blood or any of its main components​—red cells, white cells, platelets, and plasma."


Here I feel is the area we need to reason out well. The bible clearly forbade the eating of blood, so we shouldn't eat it in any way as Christians. On that area I agree with the Watchtower. However, blood transfusion can't be compared to injecting alcohol into your system. Secondly, blood transfusion isn't eating blood. Let me explain.

If you eat blood, the process it passes is not the same as when you transfuse it. The blood when transfused becomes part of your body organs. Blood transfusion is like an organ transplant, which the witnesses now leave to conscience. That's not the same as eating the blood which serves a nutritional purpose. Using blood as part of nutrition is what the bible prohibits. Instead of banning blood transfusion, it would be better to leave the issue to personal decision since this is an area that we dont have a direct scriptural command.

Second point: Acts 15:29 says we should abstain from blood. The witnesses view this to mean total abstinence. But, do we have to see it that way?

Notice other things that that scripture says we should abstain from...

to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality.

Take the issue of things sacrifices to idols as an instance. Does it mean total abstinence? 1cor 8:7,8 shows that one can eat what is sacrificed in an idol temple if it doesn't cause stumbling. So while the prohibition was on communal eating of things sacrifices to idols, it didn't mean that such meats can never even be eating even when it is sold in a market. The point I am making is this; do not over extend scriptural application beyond it's context, you could end up setting up rules God never intended. God forbade meat sacrifices to idols, but He didn't mean that on no occasion can you eat such meat.

In the same vein, the restriction is on eating blood, that's where the bible stopped, don't extend the restriction to blood organ transplant. God didn't have that in mind while given the law. It would be better to leave it to conscience matter.

There are other reasons why this view makes sense:


1. Taking blood when life is at stake isn't wrong:

1sam 14
33 So it was reported to Saul: “Look! The people are sinning against Jehovah by eating meat with the blood.” At this he said: “You have acted faithlessly. Roll a large stone to me immediately.”

It is clear that these soldiers ate blood. True it is still a sin, however, God didn't inflict the death penalty, why? The situation obviously is understandable, they were in dare need of food to save their lives because of Saul's restriction on food. If God was understanding and pardoned the people because the needed to stay alive, how much more someone who is in need of blood transfusion to save his life, I mean a transfusion we don't have a direct ban from the scriptures? Why would you have to loose your life for that? Is it sensible to loose a life just to keep a mere symbol of life? If a doctor told you to abstain from hard drugs, and as severe pain tried to kill you and that hard drugs is the only way you can save that life, would you think the doctor will restrict that drug from you? We all know that in some situations, a doctor can even recommend marijuana to a patient although it is banned.

Don't save the symbol of life, and then loose the life.

You are guiltless when death occurs in self defense: Exod 20;2-3

In this, we are still assuming that blood transfusion is scripturally prohibited, even though it is not. Some may say it is better to die and await resurrection than to break God's law. That is true in many cases, but since life is precious, God doesn't want you to loose it recklessly. We see this in the example of the soldiers. But we also see it in the book of Exod 20: 2-3a

"If a thief is found in the act of breaking in and he gets struck and dies, there is no bloodguilt for him. 3 But if it happens after sunrise, there is bloodguilt for him."

Now, God forbade murder, but what if someone comes to thief in your house at night, you don't know if he came to even kill someone, if you had to murder that criminal, God is saying you are free. Now this is murder, a serious sin in God's sight, but He makes exception here because he won't tolerate it when one just stays like a pole and have another kill him unnecessarily. Or this might even be one who dies as the house owner is trying to protect his property from the intruder. Whichever it is, what we know is that when one breaks in at night and gets kill there, the house owner can go free.

In other words, some murder was excused because probably, life is involved. Blood transfusion involves life which is very precious to God, do not think that God is happy for you to waste that life just to save a symbol. You're sinning by doing that. The person you're taking his blood will still be alive, so why bother?

Lastly, your leaders might still change this doctrine tomorrow after having incurred a blood guilt for many that have died for this doctrine. It is worthy of note that they had previously taught that taking vaccine and organ transplantation was a sin. Some died for this, but they later changed it. If you die for an unscriptural policy, you didn't die for God, you died for your leaders.

MaxInDHouse:
ATTENTION! ATTENTION!! ATTENTION!!!

If this OP refused to mention the name of his church and the doctrine he subscribe to surely he's just looking for ways to engage faithful people in fruitless arguments when he himself is without faith:

https://www.nairaland.com/7858224/charles-taze-russel-believed-divinity
https://www.nairaland.com/7482212/jehovahs-witnesses-babylon-great
https://www.nairaland.com/7471284/jehovahs-witnesses-inconsistent-interpretation
https://www.nairaland.com/7532433/144000.html
https://www.nairaland.com/7471236/jws-death-acquittal



So my brothers let's AVOID this thread!

Sand2022:


In their book, Enjoy Life Now and Forever, Jehovah's witnesses states that blood represents life, this is according to Lev 17:14. This is true. The book further states that according to Gen 9:4, God forbade the eating of blood. We should take note that the restriction is on eating blood.

In the NT, the same restriction continued, as the book says. Acts 15

28For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things: 29 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!”

The book now went further to expand on how this restriction affect blood transfusion. It says:

"What does it mean to abstain from blood? If a doctor told you to abstain from alcohol, you would not drink it. But would you eat foods that contained it or have alcohol injected into your veins? Obviously not. Likewise, God’s command to abstain from blood means that we should not drink blood or eat meat that has not been bled. Nor should we eat any food to which blood has been added.

What about the medical use of blood? Some procedures clearly violate God’s law. These include the transfusion of whole blood or any of its main components​—red cells, white cells, platelets, and plasma."


Here I feel is the area we need to reason out well. The bible clearly forbade the eating of blood, so we shouldn't eat it in any way as Christians. On that area I agree with the Watchtower.

Sand2022:

However, blood transfusion can't be compared to injecting alcohol into your system.

Secondly, blood transfusion isn't eating blood. Let me explain.

If you eat blood, the process it passes is not the same as when you transfuse it.

When you inject alcohol into your system & drive above the lawfully authorised speed limits.
Oga, are you guilty of drunkenness?
Will the law exonerate you from drunkenness?

You want to change the goal posts because you no like JWs belief.

Sand2022:


The blood when transfused becomes part of your body organs. Blood transfusion is like an organ transplant, which the witnesses now leave to conscience. That's not the same as eating the blood which serves a nutritional purpose. Using blood as part of nutrition is what the bible prohibits. Instead of banning blood transfusion, it would be better to leave the issue to personal decision since this is an area that we dont have a direct scriptural command.

Sand2022:


Second point: Acts 15:29 says we should abstain from blood. The witnesses view this to mean total abstinence. But, do we have to see it that way?

Notice other things that that scripture says we should abstain from...

to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality.

Take the issue of things sacrifices to idols as an instance. Does it mean total abstinence? 1cor 8:7,8 shows that one can eat what is sacrificed in an idol temple if it doesn't cause stumbling. So while the prohibition was on communal eating of things sacrifices to idols, [b]it didn't mean that such meats can never even be eating even when it is sold in a market. [/b]The point I am making is this; do not over extend scriptural application beyond it's context, you could end up setting up rules God never intended. God forbade meat sacrifices to idols, but He didn't mean that on no occasion can you eat such meat.

Sand2022:


In the same vein, the restriction is on eating blood, that's where the bible stopped, don't extend the restriction to blood organ transplant. God didn't have that in mind while given the law. It would be better to leave it to conscience matter.

Courz:
And to add to what is pointed out here by Sand2022, JWs are Preaching about abstaining from Blood, right? But they accept certain Blood fractions that still need to be gotten from the same Blood they are claiming to abstain from. So, the real question is, Are Jehovah's witnesses really abstaining from Blood when they still need blood to get these Fractions from? 2ndly, how do they hope to get the Blood? Do they donate to get this Blood? No, they don't. They look at people donating their blood as people committing a big sin But they are depending on this same people to get Blood. So, they are expecting Blood from people who donate to give Blood to others that take Blood but are still claiming to abstain from Blood. How does this make any sense? Full blown Hypocrisy that makes no sense. 🙁 They can as well just allow the Blood Transfusion since they are not really abstaining from Blood instead of all these complicated restrictions that are senseless. The average JW doesn't even know which is allowed and which is forbidden. So, what was the whole point of all these restrictions of what blood components are allowed or not? It is completely useless.

Blood fractions is in the eggs you eat and the milk you drink as well as some legumes (proteinous food), do you agree you are eating blood?

IBERIBEIST Courz Oteneaaron

Sand2022:


There are other reasons why this view makes sense:

1. Taking blood when life is at stake isn't wrong:

1sam 14
33 So it was reported to Saul: “Look! The people are sinning against Jehovah by eating meat with the blood.” At this he said: “You have acted faithlessly. Roll a large stone to me immediately.”

It is clear that these soldiers ate blood. True it is still a sin, however, God didn't inflict the death penalty, why? The situation obviously is understandable, they were in dare need of food to save their lives because of Saul's restriction on food. If God was understanding and pardoned the people because the needed to stay alive, how much more someone who is in need of blood transfusion to save his life, I mean a transfusion we don't have a direct ban from the scriptures? Why would you have to loose your life for that? Is it sensible to loose a life just to keep a mere symbol of life?

King Saul & the Israelites atoned for their mistake, JEHOVAH mercy was manifest on them.

1 Samuel 14:33-35 & Numbers 15:30

"Bring near to me, each one of you, his bull and, each one, his sheep, and you must do the slaughtering in this place and the eating, and you must not sin against Jehovah by eating along with the blood.” (1 Samuel 14:33, 34) The guilty soldiers obeyed, and “Saul proceeded to build an altar to Jehovah.”​—1 Samuel 14:35.

JEHOVAH'S Servants don't look for excuses to break God's law. Acts 15:28-30 is very dear to us.

The Law of Ceasar and medical professionals recognise our fundamental rights to choose the option of medical treatment we prefer.

Whoever wants to be WAILING about that,nah him cup of coffee.

Sand2022:


Lastly, your leaders might still change this doctrine tomorrow after having incurred a blood guilt for many that have died for this doctrine. It is worthy of note that they had previously taught that taking vaccine and organ transplantation was a sin. Some died for this, but they later changed it. If you die for an unscriptural policy, you didn't die for God, you died for your leaders.

Oga, you are entitled to your opinion in the same manner that we JWs are entitled to our beliefs.

Was Jesus Christ and Abraham aware that obedience comes with a price?

The Laws of Ceasar says it's our fundamental rights to make choices and medical sciences have made great advances in their profession because of this matter,why are you WAILING about that?

paxonel:
Why will someone refuses blood transfusion and will want to die because of some mere doctrinal befiefs postulated by another fellow human being who had lived and died years ago without understanding what he postulated ?

Janosky:

Oga, there are medical treatment options available to choose from.
JWs avail themselves of these.

Please resist the urge to speak as if there is only a single form of medical treatment in our hospitals.

Janosky:


Blood fractions is in the eggs you eat and the milk you drink as well as some legumes (proteinous food), do you agree you are eating blood?

IBERIBEIST Courz Oteneaaron

Janosky:

Oga, there are medical treatment options available to choose from.
JWs avail themselves of these.

Please resist the urge to speak as if there is only a single form of medical treatment in our hospitals.

MaxInDHouse:
ATTENTION! ATTENTION!! ATTENTION!!!

If this OP refused to mention the name of his church and the doctrine he subscribe to surely he's just looking for ways to engage faithful people in fruitless arguments when he himself is without faith:

https://www.nairaland.com/7858224/charles-taze-russel-believed-divinity
https://www.nairaland.com/7482212/jehovahs-witnesses-babylon-great
https://www.nairaland.com/7471284/jehovahs-witnesses-inconsistent-interpretation
https://www.nairaland.com/7532433/144000.html
https://www.nairaland.com/7471236/jws-death-acquittal



So my brothers let's AVOID this thread!