Announcement

Collapse

JW - Watchtower Society Guidelines

Theists only.

Knock, Knock!

This forum is a debate area to discuss issues pertaining to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (the Jehovah's Witnesses). This forum is generally for theists only, and is not the area for debate between atheists and theists. Non-theist may not post here without first obtaining permission from the moderator of this forum. Granting of such permission is subject to Moderator discretion - and may be revoked if the Moderator feels that the poster is not keeping with the spirit of the World Regligions Department.


Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Forum Rules: [urlhttp://theologyweb.com/campus/help#theologywebfaq/theologywebdecorum]Here[/url]
See more
See less

Blood Transfusions

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Time traveling, pet, space dragons!
    If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

    Comment


    • #47
      The passages I have seen used is found in Leviticus 7:11, however when you read the context of 10-14 this is in reference to the sacrificial system for atonement. This text cannot apply because Christ fulfilled the sacrificial system Hebrews 10. Acts 15:20 is also used, however this is in reference to its connection to idolatry and false worship. The problem is when giving a transfusion your not eating blood but its being used to save a life. Except these 2 passages there is nowhere in Old Testament or New Testament that forbids it to save a life.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by ReformedApologist View Post
        The passages I have seen used is found in Leviticus 7:11, however when you read the context of 10-14 this is in reference to the sacrificial system for atonement. This text cannot apply because Christ fulfilled the sacrificial system Hebrews 10. Acts 15:20 is also used, however this is in reference to its connection to idolatry and false worship. The problem is when giving a transfusion your not eating blood but its being used to save a life. Except these 2 passages there is nowhere in Old Testament or New Testament that forbids it to save a life.
        The kindest thing I can say about such interpretations is that they seem overly legalistic. It's the same impression I have of absolute pacifists who would condemn the police officers who shot the gunman wandering the halls of that elementary school. The lens through which we should view such situations is the two Great Commandments.
        "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

        Comment


        • #49
          The JW blood thingie is just something they started to make their cult distinct from their mother cult, the SDA. Simple truth is, about TXs, if God didn't want them to work, they wouldn't. Our blood isn't interchangeable with that of any animal. And no one can show me where it's a sin to save another person's life, except in a few Scriptural cases where God commanded the Israelis to kill everyone in some places & they failed to obey.

          Comment


          • #50
            I also am a former JW (getting close to 3 decades ago now). Like every doctrine they put forth, literalistic understanding and theological inertia prevent them from changing this doctrine. The effect of removing the doctrine would be to make them blood-guilty for past deaths of people who believed a transfusion was wrong. Many other doctrines they can quietly and slowly update by claiming their light gets brighter, but most of those doctrines would not make them at least partially responsible for the deaths. It is possible that in some cases it might have saved lives or complications when blood substitutes were used, but I think these cases are a minority, though they were hyped in the 1980s by the organization. And in some cases it might not have made a difference except for increasing the stress level of the physician treating the patient.

            Pagan rituals at the time used blood sacrifices, not just from animals, but also humans at times. Eating animals with blood, especially with ancient non-hygienic cooking methods greatly increased the likelihood of a negative side effects of eating the animal, similarly to improperly cooking an "unclean" animal, or worse, eating it raw. Since it would be 3000 years later before this would be understood by anyone, a prohibition on the population in general makes great sense in a time period without drugs or antibiotics.

            I don't think the doctrine is correct, but growing up in that environment still makes me uneasy about the concept for myself, though fortunately I have not had to make that decision in my life.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Super Cow View Post
              I also am a former JW (getting close to 3 decades ago now). Like every doctrine they put forth, literalistic understanding and theological inertia prevent them from changing this doctrine. The effect of removing the doctrine would be to make them blood-guilty for past deaths of people who believed a transfusion was wrong. Many other doctrines they can quietly and slowly update by claiming their light gets brighter, but most of those doctrines would not make them at least partially responsible for the deaths. It is possible that in some cases it might have saved lives or complications when blood substitutes were used, but I think these cases are a minority, though they were hyped in the 1980s by the organization. And in some cases it might not have made a difference except for increasing the stress level of the physician treating the patient.

              Pagan rituals at the time used blood sacrifices, not just from animals, but also humans at times. Eating animals with blood, especially with ancient non-hygienic cooking methods greatly increased the likelihood of a negative side effects of eating the animal, similarly to improperly cooking an "unclean" animal, or worse, eating it raw. Since it would be 3000 years later before this would be understood by anyone, a prohibition on the population in general makes great sense in a time period without drugs or antibiotics.

              I don't think the doctrine is correct, but growing up in that environment still makes me uneasy about the concept for myself, though fortunately I have not had to make that decision in my life.
              Welcome sir, I shall try not to poke you unnecessarily.
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • #52
                Do JWs think breastfeeding is okay? Because the nutrients came from the bloodstream indirectly and colostrum has white blood celles in it. Preborn babies get their nutrients and oxygen from the mother's blood. Sure, there's no actual mixing of the blood, but one human still gains from another human's blood supply.
                If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                Comment

                Related Threads

                Collapse

                Topics Statistics Last Post
                Working...
                X