Jehovah's Witness refuses blood, dies

Elihu wrote:

Setanta wrote:
Why do you insist that a JW who intentionally has blood drawn before a surgical procedure to be transfused afterward is "eating" their own blood?

The Bible forbids the eating of blood. The reason the Watchtower Society came out with their ban on blood transfusions in the first place was because they thought transfusing blood was the same as eating it. The July 1, 1951 issue of The Watchtower page 415 says:

Quote:
A patient in the hospital may be fed through the mouth, through the nose, or through the veins. When sugar solutions are given intravenously, it is called intravenous feeding. So the hospital's own terminology recognizes as feeding the process of putting nutrition into one's system via the veins. Hence the attendant administering the transfusion is feeding the patient blood through the veins, and the patient receiving it is eating it through his veins.

As far as I know this is still the Watchtower Society's view.

so you read the 1951 Watchtower and have been on vacation since?

What a life. Do you travel? Have you any photos or interesting stories?

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
. .. Neo - I'm sorry, but that analogy doesn't fit. Alcohol to a person with cirrosis is not like blood to a person (under any condition). I know you were making a connection between the ingestion versus the injection of a substance, but take for instance food. We must eat it for it to correctly be broken down, digested, processed into nutrients, and released into our blood stream. We could never liquify food (any food) and inject it directly into our veins. The nature of blood versus other substances is also different.

More important to me is the understanding the difference between being a JW and accepting blood, and the other infinite list of things that a JW will do in his/her life that is concidered a sin? You can't argue that a perfect JW exists without sin, because it undrmines the entire doctrine that "we are all sinners. What makes this different? When a life is on the line, what makes this act a sin worth defending, and the other sins in your life owrth repenting post facto? . . .
JWs are not perfect and never have claimed to be.

But we do have a pretty good understanding of the bible.

So are you saying that the command to abstain from blood is somewhat less restrictive than the command to not eat blood? Or the other way around?

I'm saying that if by your own admission a JW lives a life of sin as a human, but through daily affirmation and humility can repent those sins, why is this sin worth dying for as opposed to the humility and repentance?

T
K
O?

0 Replies

Hi Neo!

The Watchtower Society teach their members and interpret Acts 15:20, 29
to abstain from blood and maked the blood holy, more than the life itself. In the same verse it also comes forth, abstain from meat offered to Idols.

So when Paul in wrote in 1 Corinthians 8:4 and the following verses, that an Idol was nothing and that it was Ok to eat meat offered to Idols, Paul must then have been an apostate, like a person who accept treatment with blood?

No of course not, he simply understood the spiritual meaning of what James wrote, that it was not the meat and the Idol that was the issue but not to make anybody stumble and that is exactly the same with the blood, it isn't the blood that is the issue but the life itself, to show respect for life, when you abstain from eating blood when a kill has taken place.

In question of donation and transfusion of blood, no kill has taken place, opposite now when the Watchtower Society cooperate with www.biopure.com and accept storage of tons of killed animals blood to be used at their members as Hemopure, which is 97 percent of the banned red blood cells in form of haemoglobin and can be transfused in a JW and the person will still be in good standing, but if the same person dare to take the red blood cels, which contains 97 % haemoglobin and 3 % donuts, where the donuts isn't banned, which makes the red blood cells, in one injection, the person will automatically be disfellowshipped and shunned. This person will be treated as an apostate.

So may I take the liberty to conclude Neo, based at your own statements, if you have a wife, son or a daughter and my teaching will be responsible for their dead, like Jim Jones afforded with 900 + persons in Guyanas Jungle and the men behind the Watchtower Society, with even thousands +, I'm fully convinced that you will forgive me by your own words; Talk you have never claimed to be perfect, like you defend the evil men behind the Watchtower Society?

Christian love to all of you.

Talkactive

Ecclesiastes 1:18!

For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People can't hear and carry the truth, because the lies are tickling their ears!

Jeremiah 8:8!

How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

neologist wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
. .. Neo - I'm sorry, but that analogy doesn't fit. Alcohol to a person with cirrosis is not like blood to a person (under any condition). I know you were making a connection between the ingestion versus the injection of a substance, but take for instance food. We must eat it for it to correctly be broken down, digested, processed into nutrients, and released into our blood stream. We could never liquify food (any food) and inject it directly into our veins. The nature of blood versus other substances is also different.

More important to me is the understanding the difference between being a JW and accepting blood, and the other infinite list of things that a JW will do in his/her life that is concidered a sin? You can't argue that a perfect JW exists without sin, because it undrmines the entire doctrine that "we are all sinners. What makes this different? When a life is on the line, what makes this act a sin worth defending, and the other sins in your life owrth repenting post facto? . . .
JWs are not perfect and never have claimed to be.

But we do have a pretty good understanding of the bible.

So are you saying that the command to abstain from blood is somewhat less restrictive than the command to not eat blood? Or the other way around?

I'm saying that if by your own admission a JW lives a life of sin as a human, but through daily affirmation and humility can repent those sins, why is this sin worth dying for as opposed to the humility and repentance? . . .

Excellent question. And since it is not likely to happen often, it's not as if you were snorting coke everyday, right?

It has more to do with the attitude one cultivates toward God and his requirements. I do not wish to trump God with my own reasoning. That is exactly the substance of Adam and Eve's desire to decide for themselves what was right and what was wrong.. .

0 Replies

Neo, do you agree or disagree with the statement I posted from the 1951 Watchtower? It is afterall the basis for the ban on blood transfusions.

0 Replies

Something to keep in mind. JW's claim to abstain from blood. This isn't true. JW's use many products derived from the donated blood supply. Some of these products require massive amounts of donated blood to produce. Yet, JW's will not donate blood to help replenish what they have taken.

0 Replies

The difference here between Elihu's vituperation and that of Mr. "Christian love to you all" Talkactive is only a matter of degree.

But they've convinced me. We should rid ourselves of the vile and hypocritical Jehovah's Witnesses. Ma, where's my shootin' iron ? ! ? ! ?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

vituperation

Winner of the vocab of the week: Setanta!

Vitupution - (n) verbal abuse or castigation; violent denunciation or condemnation.

T
K
O!

0 Replies

Thank you, thank you . . .

I'll be here all week . . . don't forget to tip those adorable waitresses . . . Hey! I gotta run, really . . . no really . . . try the veal . . . Buhbye ! ! !

0 Replies

Why do some people not like the JW's? Are the JW's more annoying than other religions? Or annoying in a unique way?

I know they are known to come around knocking on your door, which is a bit annoying, but they always leave when I ask them to, it didn't seem like a big deal. Is there something I'm missing?

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Why do some people not like the JW's? Are the JW's more annoying than other religions? Or annoying in a unique way?

I know they are known to come around knocking on your door, which is a bit annoying, but they always leave when I ask them to, it didn't seem like a big deal. Is there something I'm missing?

They are embarrassing to the other lunatic fringe christians, because, lacking a fully-developed sense of the absurd, and a sense of proportion, they view the JWs as espousing extremists views which tend to bring their own views into disrepute.

Rather a case, however, of degrees of goofyness.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

They are embarrassing to the other lunatic fringe christians, because, lacking a fully-developed sense of the absurd, and a sense of proportion, they view the JWs as espousing extremists views which tend to bring their own views into disrepute.

Rather a case, however, of degrees of goofyness.

Yeh, I got that.

But what are the JW's extremist views?

I take it they have a problem with blood transfusions, but don't the christian scientists have similar objection to medical attention? Oh god, I'm losing track of the levels of fanaticism and the various combinations of irrational thinking. I'm gonna need to make an absurdity matrix...

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Why do some people not like the JW's? Are the JW's more annoying than other religions? Or annoying in a unique way?

I know they are known to come around knocking on your door, which is a bit annoying, but they always leave when I ask them to, it didn't seem like a big deal. Is there something I'm missing?

Hello to you rosborne979!

It isn't a question of the Rank and File of Jehowahs Witnesses, but a question of their evil leaders, the men behind in the Governing Body of the Watchtower Society the organization behind Jehovahs Witnesses, that have and are sending thousands of God fearing, in general kind and gentle persons and their children into a premature death because of Mind Control like Jim Jones used against his fellowmen, based at their flickering "New light" doctrines of men, with threats and sanctions.

Hope that answer your question with regards to my view at people who have chosen to be members of the Watchtower Society.

The Watchtowers hypocrisy can be seen at www.ajwrb.org

Christian love to all of you.

Talkactive

Ps. If you like to you can take a look at those links

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6861723185926041712&q=watchtower

http://www.energeticsolutions.com.au/tully_story.pdf

Ecclesiastes 1:18!

For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People can't hear and carry the truth, because the lies are tickling their ears!

Jeremiah 8:8!

How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

But what are the JW's extremist views?

They don't believe that Jeebus was god, or at least so the other holy rollers believe, which leads many of them to deny that the JWs are even christians. They also don't believe in an afterlife (this is problematic, and an area in which they seem to contradict themselves--they do believe that certain persons will be resurrected to live in an earthly paradise). They don't believe in Hell, which is one point which i'm sure really pisses of the holy rollers.

All in all, they affront most fundamentalist and charismatic Protestant sects by having the gall to question basic tenets which are deeply held beliefs of those sects--the most important being that they don't believe that Hey-Zeus was god, or that the "Holy Spirit" is separate from god, and this offends not only trinitarians, but even those who don't believe in a trinity.

0 Replies

I can see why you wouldn't waste your time reading the drivel that Talkactive posts, but if you scan it, you can see that he has some wild-eyed conspiracy thing going on about the "evil leaders" of the JWs. I also suspect that successful proselytizing on the part of the Watchtower tract society really pisses them off, too.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

. . .But what are the JW's extremist views?
. . .

Just a few:

We don't believe in the doctrine of the trinity or that Jesus is/was God

We don't believe in the immortality of the soul, hence no eternal punishment in hell.

We believe that humans were created to live on earth and that God did not abandon his purpose as a result of the Edenic rebellion. Nor has he forgotten those who lived and died without knowing him. He has promised a resurrection where all will receive a second chance. (John 5: 28,29)

We avoid participating in politics as did the early Christians.

etc.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
. . .But what are the JW's extremist views?
. . .
Just a few:

We don't believe in the doctrine of the trinity or that Jesus is/was God

We don't believe in the immortality of the soul, hence no eternal punishment in hell.

We believe that humans were created to live on earth and that God did not abandon his purpose as a result of the Edenic rebellion. Nor has he forgotten those who lived and died without knowing him. He has promised a resurrection where all will receive a second chance. (John 5: 28,29)

We avoid participating in politics as did the early Christians.

etc.

Well, I can see how the Christians might think those things are radical, but they seem pretty benign to me.

Of course I'm not into the whole christian theistic concept so I guess the little 'degrees of goofiness' within the concept don't mean much to me.

Anyway, thanks for the info.

0 Replies

Perhaps the rub is our daring to call ourselves Christians.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Perhaps the rub is our daring to call ourselves Christians.

I can see that as perhaps being very annoying to 'Christians'.

Maybe that's why Intelligent Design is so annoying, because it dares to call itself science Wink

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

neologist wrote:
Perhaps the rub is our daring to call ourselves Christians.

I can see that as perhaps being very annoying to 'Christians'.

Maybe that's why Intelligent Design is so annoying, because it dares to call itself science

Would it help if I told you I don't believe in either creationism or intelligent design? Or the garden variety evolutionary theory.

0 Replies

Jehovah's Witness refuses blood, dies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know