Jehovahs Witnesses - Blood issue?

Question

Are there any indications that your stance on blood transfusions may receive "new light" in the near future and be amended?

Could it possibly become a "matter of conscience" to have a transfusion in the future or do you know/think that this stance will remain?

Answer 1

To be honest I do not think it will as this is one of the fundamental Biblical teachings but you never know what new light Jehovah God may wish to provide us with. I think this teaching will not change as the Bible tells us to "abstain" from Blood so abstain we shall.

Answer 2

Hi,

This is a link where you can downlod for free Blood 2 The Chosen: http://bit.ly/1pnRNii



Finally the full version is avaiable!

There is a wide array of enemies to defeat in Blood 2: The Chosen. There are infantry, axe-wielding monsters, spiked creatures and a lot more.

Try it out

Answer 3

Ah Sarah, if this was to happen, I would stick to what Jehovah says and not touch blood. This "stance" we take comes directly from Jehovah, who believe it or not, happens to be your Creator as well - even if you refuse to take that on board!



Me thinks that you have not done a lot of study on blood transfusions, because if you had, you would not be posing this question. B. T were invented by the army to get their soldiers out in to the field again and, guess what, they are using non-blood now!!!



When blood is the "only" option for a child, this is because the medical field just do not want to think of another way - they have actually admitted this. There is ALWAYS a way to save anyone without blood transfusions.



May I ask you if you found out that your child could not receive a blood transfusion because her or his blood group is too rare and therefore it would kill him - but the doctor says that it is the only way for a possible life to be saved. What would you do? If I were in this situation, I would be able reason with the doctor of ways to IMPROVE the blood flow already in the body. But in your case, what would happen is that your child would die anyway because she/he can't have a transfusion and you do not know of another way and perhaps the doctor doesn't as well. I bet you anything: if you caught sight of a witness, you would grab them by both hands and urge them to share their knowledge - ANYTHING TO SAVE YOUR CHILD. By the way, I can use this illustration, because my bible study is diabetic and also has a rare blood type and would die if she had a transfusion and they only know this because they have to deal with her medical condition.



Blood transfusions are NOT a matter of interpretation, Sarah. Sorry to disagree. Again, I ask you: if your child could not eat or drink anything and so went into hospital, would she or he not be put on a drip to get the nutrients inside the body? I know that when I could not hold any food nor drink down, I was put on a drip to get those needed vitamins inside me. So whether you eat blood or use an intravenous method, it is still consuming blood. There is just no way else to look at it.



I sincerely admire you for wanting to help others out, but what happens when they deem your blood to be unworthy? Now a days, there are so many diseases about that there is a struggle to get good blood.



I beg you to study up on blood and see for yourself that it is sacred to each one of us and not to be shared.

Answer 4

When it comes to blood in the Bible, there is no grey area. It's to be poured out and abstained from. There is no new light on something so clear.



@danman - Why is it that everything else spoken of in Acts 15:20 doesn't require an explanation? Is it because these things are easier for people to understand what was being spoken of? To abstain from immorality and things strangled etc. is without question. So we come to the last one where it says to abstain from blood and people all the sudden want to question what Jehovah meant. Since the following verses speak of Moses being preached, wouldn't it stand to reason that this is where the explanation would come from. The mosaic law made the point that the "only" thing to be done with blood was for it to be poured out on the ground. It was never to enter the human body in any way shape or form. Of course blood transfusions are not mentioned. They didn't exist. But coming down to our day the thought has not changed. Blood is not to enter the human body in "any" way. It makes sense to me that satan would try to make light of such a prohibition and make it a moral issue to be argued. If he can get us to do anything to save our lives now, including breaking God's law, then he gains a victory. In Job chapter 2, he told God that a man would do anything to save his life. God said prove it. There will be ones that will be faithful to me. To lose our life now is only temporary. The real life is what we look forward to.

Answer 5

Noiamnot,



When it comes to Watchtower’s blood doctrine the only constant is change.



The doctrine has gone from forbidding every single fraction extracted from blood to not forbidding any fraction extracted from blood.[1-3] That is to say, at one point Watchtower’s blood doctrine taught Jehovah’s Witness that it was Scripturally banned to accept blood fractions such as albumin, whereas today the same doctrine from Watchtower leaves Jehovah’s Witnesses to accept at their own discretion as much and as many blood fractions as they wish to accept. That is change! One of these products is known as cryosupernatant and as percentage this single blood product is more than 50% of whole blood.[4-5]



Is there more coming down the pipeline? A curious episode occurred in year 2001 that suggests more is to come.[6]



Marvin Shilmer

______________

References:



1. “While this physician argues for the use of certain blood fractions, particularly albumin, such also come under the Scriptural ban.”—(Awake, Blood Fractions or Substances, September 8, 1956 p. 20.)



2. “I accept all fractions derived from any primary component of blood.”—(Watchtower provided Durable Power of Attorney Document for Jehovah’s Witnesses dated 2001.)



3. "I accept all minor fractions of blood".—(Revised Instructions for Filling Out the DPA Card, published by Watchtower, December 2004 p 1)



4. See: “Plasma, Cryoprecipitate and Cryosupernatant” available at: http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2010/01/plasma-cryoprecipitate-and.html



5. See: “Watchtower’s Hospital Information Services Email” available at: http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2011/02/watchtowers-hospital-information.html



6. See: “What Happened at Watchtower in 2001?” available at: http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2011/02/what-happened-at-watchtower-in-2001.html

Answer 6

Most people believe that once they are diagnosed with some vision problem and start wearing eye glasses or contact lenses to correct them, they will have to do so for life in order to see better. Those who want a permanent solution to improve eyesight typically resort to Lasik or other corrective eye surgeries. But you you can also improve your vision without surgery and can see perfectly well without using eyeglasses or contact lenses. You can check here to know how https://tr.im/8b6d1

Answer 7

What about the risk of getting AIDS from a transfusion?

The blood service still allow women who have anal sex with a partner (who may be bisexual) to donate blood.

The fact the blood is tested only means they could not detect antibodies to AIDS. It does NOT mean the donation is safe. Patients with full blown AIDS can test negative as when the immune system fails they no longer produce antibodies.

Answer 8

1

Answer 9

Greetings,



No, the blood issue is NOT “one of interpretation.” The prohibition of blood is clearly stated in the Bible. It originates from God, therefore the prohibition is a Scriptural fact & will never be changed for Christians.



God's Law for Christians is unequivocal: "Abstain from blood!" & "Keep from blood!" (Ac.15:20; 21:25). It required a complete unqualified "abstention from blood" since there was no stated verb such as "eat," "drink" or "touch." This Apostolic command placed avoiding blood as equal to avoiding fornication or idolatry! Just as a Christian would not commit fornication or idolatry to save his life, so too we avoid blood.



Blood was equated with Life and thus viewed as holy & owned by God from the very start of human existence (Gen.4:8,10,11; 8:20; 22:13; Lev.17:10; De.12:16, 23; 15:23).



From Abel to the Apostolic Decree, EVERY Scriptural mention of blood use places it in exactly the same sacred position. Every time God makes any statement concerning blood it is presented as something which humans have no right to put to any personal use without God's express approval.





You are misinformed regarding Bulgaria. There is no doctrinal change on the use of blood. JWs have the same scriptural requirements regarding blood everywhere and anyone who unrepentantly continues to reject God's laws have rejected Christianity and are no longer to be considered part of the Christian Congregation.



Because of secular laws in Bulgaria and other countries, JWs made a procedural change in how this was done. To emphasize the fact that someone who unrepentantly accepts blood has themselves chosen not to be a Witness we do not use the term "disfellowship." Rather we note that *they* have "disassociated" themselves from the Christian community. And as far as I know this procedure is true in every country.



The legal agreement simply confirmed in writing that it was a personal choice to accept or refuse blood which has ALWAYS been been the case. In fact, Alain Garay, Avocat a la cour, who was part of the negotiating team in Bulgaria confirmed that "it was accepted by all sides that the agreement reflected the normal practice within the Jehovah's Witness religion around the world."





While we have at times changed *how* we obey the Scriptural mandate to "remove from fellowship" willful sinners, the end result is the same. So, the choice to willingly accept a blood transfusion is a choice to no longer be a JW.





While minor understandings of prophecy and periphery beliefs may continue to be adjusted and refined, major doctrines such as transfusions of blood will not be changed. This is because we are deep into the endtime and the doctrinal knowledge has increased immensely so any recent changes have not been to *doctrine* but simple refinements.





What is unbelievable is that anyone “can read Acts 15 and still be able with a straight face” claim that blood transfusions are not included in this prohibition!



Next, Danman’s contention that the reason Gentile Christians were asked to abstain from blood was simply to avoid offending the Jewish Christians is ludicrous. This interpretation requires us to be extremely gullible and ignorant of the immediate context. Because included in the very same phrase was the command to "abstain from idolatry, fornication and blood." Now, really are we expected to believe that Christians were to abstain from idolatry and fornication just so they didn't offend their Jewish brothers?! Obviously, the decree to "abstain from blood" is as weighty as that against fornication or idolatry and thus required of ALL Christians!



The decision was called a "decree" (DOGMA) and was binding on all congregations (Ac 16:4).





It is also an absurd mistake to think that Paul’s allowance of eating “food” which had been used in sacrifices but now is sold in public markets somehow negated the clear and undeniable prohibition against the use of blood (1Co 8:7). Such an idea would cause a contradiction in God’s Word.





Especially is this abstinence from blood important for true Christians. The law forbidding man's use of blood is inexorably linked to our salvation by Christ's blood. Animal blood typified Christ's blood so obeying God's laws concerning blood shows respect for Christ’s ransom (Eph.1:7; Heb.9:11,12, 22,24). The Bible emphasizes that we must avoid 'trampling on the Son of God and esteeming his blood as of ordinary value.'





When individuals selfishly seek a way around God's clearly stated decrees they lose their reasoning capabilities (Rm.1:20-22). This is especially the case with those who try to find some way to sidestep the explicit statement in the Apostolic Decree commanding that Christian "abstain from blood."



Yours,



BAR-ANERGES



EDIT:

Shilmer’s statement is fallacious as usual. JWs have not been changed their view of *blood* transfusions for over 50 years. We have only changed our view of fractions which are not considered “blood.”

Answer 10

Jw's are just like other denominations of Christianity, they accept and reject selected 'old law covenant' prohibitions in line with their current teachings.



The apostle Peter is to blame for all this hubbub about 'blood' in the first place. I challenge any jw to read this chapter in Acts 15 and still be able with a straight face tell me that Peter was talking about not taking blood transfusions.



This statement by Peter is what Jw have not thoroughly read in context:



19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”



The simplicity of the reason for Peter and Paul's discussion of the use of blood is purely a desire to not offend the sensibilities of the new gentile converts to Christians.



The gentiles knew that in the synagogues abstinence of blood was a part of the law covenant.

They also knew that the old law upheld no fornication or worship of idols. let alone eating items offered to them.



Paul knew that the Christians were free to eat anything including blood, BUT FOR THE SIMPLE REASON OF NOT OFFENDING they ruled in favor of not exercising their rights. Thus Paul says:



1 Corinthians 8



6Yet for us there is only one God. He is the Father. All things come from him. He is the one for whom we live. And there is only one Lord. He is Jesus Christ. He made all things. He is the one who gives us life.



7But not every Christian knows these things. Some of them have always believed in idols. And when they eat food which has been given to an idol, they think the food belongs to the idol. And because they are weak Christians they feel they do wrong when they eat it.



Paul goes on to say much more about abstaining (even though they had the perfect right to partake of blood and item sacrificed to idols)



So JW leadership failed from the beginning to get the context of what Paul and Peter were saying, turning the prohibition of offending another Christian into a new LAW of god....



There is no basis for the interpretation of the Watchtower Society if you simply read 1 Corinthians 8 in context.

Answer 11

Any jehovahs witness will tell you its says in the bible to KEEP abstaining from blood.

So i know that a witness will not accept a blood transfusion or have his or her faith ammended by "new light"



A witness of jehovah has built his faith on promises made by God, God asks men to stay away from blood because it belongs to him!

Answer 12

The witnesses change there minds from time to mind. Satan calls a new world order and so do JW's.

Answer 13

The blood issue has become to prevalent and has gone on for so long that if any change was made to the religion, it would cause a schism and the religion would fracture.

Answer 14

I guess it would can be possible.

Answer 15

A STUPID BELIEF THAT HAVE CAUSED A THOUSAND DEATHS.