Accepting Blood is not a DF/DA Offense

by YoursChelbie 12 Replies latest jw friends

  • YoursChelbie

    No where does the Bible support the view that blood transfussion acceptance should result in Disfellowshipping:


    What did happen if a Jew, under the Law of Moses, broke the Law by eating blood, i.e., an unbled animal? Leviticus 17:15 clearly states the penalty:

    "And every soul that eateth that which died of itself, or that which was torn with beasts, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger, he shall both wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even: then shall he be clean."

    Eating "flesh with its blood" brought about only the mildest of reprimands under the Law! How different from the harsh stand of Jehovah's Witnesses, who would sentence their members to eternal death for the same offense!

    But what happened if a Jew was caught picking up sticks on the Sabbath? The answer is at Numbers 15:35:

    "And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp."

    Which sin was more serious: breaking the Sabbath - or eating blood?

  • stevenyc

    I know its been mention before, but I'll pop it in for newbies and lurkers.

    Deut 14:21 Do not eat anything you find already dead. You may give it to an alien living in any of your towns, and he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner. But you are a people holy to the LORD your God. Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk.

    This instruction was for the Jews only. It was okay to give / sell it to others.


  • LittleToe

    Further, for accuracy's sake I should point out that they no longer DF for blood transfusions. They do still announce that you are "no longer one of JWs", but the reason they would uphold is that you have disassociated yourself due to your actions

  • YoursChelbie

    Thanks, LT

    That base is covered.


  • jeanniebeanz

    Interesting...thanks for posting this.


  • JH

    Which is/was more of an offense: Giving blood, or receiving blood?

  • atypical

    As far as the congregation knows, there is no difference any more between df/da, because they read the same announcement. It seems lately that the society is relying more heavily on the DA thing, because then they can publicly say "witnesses are not forced" or some other crap, then just do like LittleToe said and claim that the person disassociated themselves. It's just a way around the liability problem, but the bottom line is that they still get the person out of the org and they still make sure that person gets shunned by all other witnesses.

    As far as I know, LittleToe is right, you would still be put out of the congregation for accepting blood.

  • Narkissos

    The famous Bulgarian case comes to mind:

  • garybuss

    If bloody meat could be sold to Gentiles, and the blood laws only applied to Jews, then the blood medical prohibition could only be applied to the anointed remnant.

    "Compared with the anointed remnant of spiritual Israelites, all those of that 'great crowd' would, figuratively speaking, be Gentiles." Man's Salvation Out Of World Distress At Hand, WTB&TS 1975 p. 201 - 202

  • blondie

    The difference between DAing and DFing, is that the elder body pursues a judicial hearing/committee in order to DF someone. With DAing, they don't have to do that, just make the announcement if they feel there is sufficient "evidence."


Share this