This is my first post, though have been lurking here for some time. Maybe will share my story at some point...... I have been discussing the blood doctrine with a family member. We discussed the principle behind the law to abstain from blood was to recognise the sanctity of life and god as the life giver when a life was taken and should not apply to transfusions when no life is taken but aim is to preserve life. Have come a bit unstuck when he raised the issue of the 1st century christians being willing to die rather than drink blood. If the Pikuach Nefesh principle applies (Saving of Life overrides law) why did they not apply this principle? (If that makes sense?!). How would you answer?
How would you answer?
by Is this it? 21 Replies latest watchtower medical
-
-
OUTLAW
I would answer..
Jesus had no problem breaking the Law,to Save a Life..
And..
The WBT$ is Run by Idiots!!..
.......................
-
AK - Jeff
The prohibition was against 'drinking blood' right - in other words as food? Even the Jw's recognise the use of blood - though they have disguised it well under the title of 'factions'. Many jw's get blood transfused - especially children - seems like some HLC's understand that in the US the courts will almost always order against parents wishes. More of a show, than real objection?
Just my thoughts. I am sure that many will comment.
Welcome to the board. Peace/Namaste
Jeff
-
jwfacts
Welcome to the forum.
This is not an easy question to answer as your family member is using false logic and arguing doctrine rarely comes to any conclusive stance. There are always several ways to see things. I would be more inclined to point out the hypocrisy of the Watchtower stance, such as using some fractions but not being able to donate blood.
In answer to your question though, there are certain things that a reasonable person will do to save their own life and certain things that they will not. For instance most people would not murder an innocent person to save their own life. There are plenty of examples of this in the Bible. The 3 Hebrews refused to compromise when forced to bow to an idol and risked death by being thrown into the furnace. On the other hand David ate sacrificial bread to satisfy his hunger and Jesus harvested on the Sabbath. It is a matter of considering the circumstance and degree of the action.
The example of early Christian's is going to be difficult to explain because of the double standard JW's use in this regard. JW's will say that if the early Christian's did something supporting Watchtower doctrine they were doing what was right; if they do something that does not support it then they were already apostates. For instance early; Christians used the cross (Justin Martyr discusses the cross) but your relative would not say that justifies using the cross. Wikipedia shows that some early Christians sought martyrdom:
"Some early Christians sought out and welcomed martyrdom. Some Roman authorities tried to avoid Christians because they "goaded, chided, belittled and insulted the crowds until they demanded their death." A group of people presented themselves to the Roman governor of Asia, C. Arrius Antoninus, declared themselves to be Christians, and encouraged the governor to do his duty and put them to death. He executed a few, but as the rest demanded it as well, he responded, exasperated, "You wretches, if you want to die, you have cliffs to leap from and ropes to hang by."
To answer the question simply I would refer to 1 Corinthians 8:4-13 to show that the ruling at Acts was simply for the sake of not stumbling Jewis Christians. The eating of blood was not longer wrong unless it led to stumbling. The early Christians refusing blood corresponds to the example of the 3 Hebrews, as the drinking of blood as forced by the Romans would have been involved with worship of false Gods.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/tms/tms04.htm says "Sufficient evidence has been presented thus far to show that the Romans, despite their putative indifference to blood because of the daily association with it on the battlefield and at the altars, did actually have a superstitious horror of blood."
-
tec
(Saving of life overrides the law)
How would drinking blood in the first century save a life? There would have been no need to even address that issue. Blood transfusions today can save a life. Refusing them can cost a life.
-
AGuest
May you have peace!
The "law" of the WTBTS regarding blood goes against everything taught by Christ. Here's how:
1. One's life is IN one's blood
2. No one has GREATER love... than to give his LIFE... on behalf of his friends.
3. Christ gave HIS life... and his BLOOD... not only for his friends... but for the world.
4. The TRUE christian is to love... even his enemy... which is "the world."
The "law" of CHRIST... would say that one WOULD gives one's life... and thus one's blood... to save a friend, even an enemy. They would NOT, however, diminish the VALUE of blood... by drinking it (as many did for reasons of delicacy, dominion over their enemies, superstition, and more). Merely drinking blood demonstrates an absolute disregard for the LIFE that such blood is.
I learned this truth from my Lord himself when I asked him about this matter. The WTBTS teaching initially made sense because they hid their lust for control... under the guise of "looking out for the flock." What they did, however, is what they do in most things: overstep the commandments of God with their own teachings. The MOST important COMMANDMENTS... both under the Old Covenant AND under the New (which REPLACED the Old) is:
1. Love God with your hold heart, soul, mind, and strength... AND
2. Love your neighbor AS yourself.
Telling your neighbor "I love you... but not enough to DIE for you" is a contradiction of these commandments. To the contrary, we DEMONSTRATE our love... of God AND neighbor... by being willing to GIVE our lives... if that is what's required. It is what Christ did. But we are not asked to give our lives when we give blood (no, I don't give blood but that's ONLY because they won't take mine because of my health issues).
The WTBTS tries to scare their members, however, by saying that if you overstep THEIR "commandment" regarding blood, you're overstepping GOD'S commandment regarding blood... and although your neighbor might live... YOU will die... eternally. What the UTTERLY miss, however, is that love... IS THE LAW'S FULFILLMENT... and there is NO law AGAINST love.
What does that mean? It means, this: let's say the LAW is that you cannot commit adultery. Yet, your neighbor commits adultery. Under the Law, you might be able to get away with stoning her. However, YOU better make sure YOU are breaking some law that says YOU should be stoned, too. Otherwise, someone should step up and stone YOU. Right? However... the NEW Covenant says that if you FORGIVE that woman... YOUR sins will ALSO be forgiven. And why would you forgive her? Because of your LOVE.
Now, let's apply this to giving blood: let's say the OLD Law says you can't "take" blood (I won't use "eat" so as to make my point). But, now, your friend (or enemy!) will DIE... if they don't get blood. You can let them die - the Old Law makes no requirement of you. OR... you can SURPASS the requirement of the Old Law... and fulfill it AND the NEW Law... BY YOUR LOVE. YOU... can give YOUR life... and there is NO law against doing so. In fact, your DOING so... would be a "covering"... because love COVERS "a MULTITUDE of transgressions."
Bottom line: ANYTHING you do in love... including letter a sinner go free... showing compassion even to an enemy... overlooking someone's transgression against you... is the FULFILLMENT of the Old Law Covenant... and a DEMONSTRATION of your understanding and ACCEPTANCE of the New Covenant.
It is by this means that those who have NOT received holy spirit and thus aren't members of the Household of God, Israel (and those who go with her)... constitute themselves as the SHEEP... who are separated from the goats. Because one never knows who one is showing love TO. Indeed, some entertained angels without knowing. Since the entire creation is still waiting for the REVEALING of the sons of God, we should then "do good" to ALL of mankind... regardless of who WE think they may... or may not be.
I hope this helps, and I bid you peace!
A slave of Christ,
SA
-
Heaven
Welcome to JWN, "Is this it?" ! I would answer that JWs aren't Christians, they're Jehovans. They are also a cult and are using the blood doctrine to differentiate themselves from the rest of "Christendom" and the world.
One of my questions is, if you know of a life saving procedure and refuse to take it and you die because of the refusal, is this classified as 'suicide'?
-
Is this it?
Thanks for the responses. We have discussed the whole double standard with blood fractions and he admits that he has had difficulty understanding the WT's line of reasoning. Our discussions are forcing him to think in more detail about issues that he has never really had the time or inclination to contemplate before - I was in that place once; why would you take time out to critically examinine what you believe when you barely have enough time to study, attend meetings, ministry and feel guilty about not doing enough?! I don't hold out much hope though. He won't rock the boat and loves the fellowship and brotherhood of the organisation.
JWF - Thank you for your clear and concise arguments. I liked your line of reasoning around considering the circumstance and degree of action ie Jesus harvesting on the sabbath, and the drinking of blood being synonymous with idolatry. Will use that one.
I wonder sometimes why I am even justifying my arguments using scripture or if these things matter anymore as not sure I even believe the bible is inspired anymore. Maybe I am thinking that the arguments carry more weight with a JW if they can be reasoned using the scriptures. Probably wasting my time though!
-
Farkel
:Have come a bit unstuck when he raised the issue of the 1st century christians being willing to die rather than drink blood.
Why don't you ask about what Jehovah's penalty was when ancient Israelites ate the meat (and therefore the blood) of unbled animals? They were "punished" only by being considered "unclean" for a day. Drinking blood or eating flesh soaked in the blood: what's the difference? Nothing.
Given that the WTS also said the blood ban first came into effect (it didn't) with God's "everlasting" covenant with Noah and then ratified with his covenant with Moses, then why would Jehovah have a much worse punishment for Christians than he had for ancient Israelites for the same offense? In ALL cases, Christ's New Covenant was much less strict than any part of the ancient law covenant, so why would "Jehovah" make an exception in this case?
Jehovah wouldn't. But the Watchtower does.
Farkel
-
pirata
Welcome "Is This It'!
Check out the post here. It has a good discussion of what the Bible Really Teaches in regards to the use of Blood.
That post has well-reasoned, scripturally supported lines of reasoning. Here's my executive summary of the life vs. blood connection: Israelites could not eat blood from an animal whose life they took. They had to pour out the blood on the ground as atonment (to pay back for) the life they took. If an Israelite found an unbled animal already dead, he could eat it and be unclean for a day, or sell it to a foreigner to eat. The command to 'abstain from blood, and from things sacrificed to idols' given in the 1st C. was to promote peace between the Jews and Gentiles who had an issue over circumcision. The command to 'abstain from blood' must be understood in the context that the Jews understood the law. On this point alone we can see why there is no problem with accepting a blood transfusion: No life was lost to provide the blood for the transfusion, therefore it is not necessary to pour out the blood in atonement.
There's also a really good post on freeminds that is very detailed and addresses the context under which 1st C. Christians refused to drink blood.