BLOOD Transfusion CHANGES

by UnDisfellowshipped 13 Replies latest jw friends

  • aniron
    aniron

    poorside

    Can you tell were in the Bible it is wrong to take a BLOOD TRANSFUSION.

    Where in the Bible does it say it is a sin to take a Blood transfusion, to eat blood yes, it never mentions transfusion.

    Jesus gave his life for all mankind. Jesus voluntary gave his life.

    Did the children who died from not having a blood transfusion do so voluntarally? What say does a six-month old baby have in the decision. This is the equivilant of child-sacrifice.

    Why do Jews, even ultra-orthodox, not eat blood, but will accept blood transfusions?

    Blood transfusions are not the result of killing, blood comes from someone living and continues to live. Rather than representing death, it is the opposite, the preserving of life. There is no connection or parallel between Gen 9, Lev 3,Acts 15 regarding the slaying and eating of blood and the use of blood in a transfusion, no parallel at all.

    Another point in regard to this same subject is that JW's say God prohibits eating blood because it symbolizes life, which is of high value in the sight of God and that he wishes to impress on man the value of life through prohibition of of eating blood.

    However I fail to see how the SYMBOL could be of greater value than the reality it symbolizes. In some cases blood is the only means of sustaining life. It seems to me that in that type of situation to let a person die, in order to keep the symbol of life, is a contradiction in itself and placing of more importance upon the symbol than the reality it symbolizes.

    A true Christian should be prepared to give his life for his faith in God, if called on to do so. But to give one's life when God does not really require or desire it, would not seem to be of any value. To place more importance on the symbol, is like placing more importance on a wedding ring (symbol of marriage) than on the marriage. It would be like a man faced with sacrificing his wife or the wedding ring, he would chose the ring.

    Since Christians are not under the Mosaic Law Code, but under the "royal law of love" and "law of faith". Does it show appreciation for the preciousness of life to allow arbitary polices to dictate in crucial situations. Does it manifest eithe Love of God or Love of neighbour to do thsi with no clear statements in the Bible for support.

    Acts 15 says "abstain from blood" it relates to eating blood. Is transfusing blood "eating" as the WT claim. There is no sound basis for that claim. Blood transfusion is not "intravenous feeding", as the WT claim, it is the transplantion of a fluid tissue, NOT an infusion of a nutrient. A kidney transplant is not eaten a food, it remains a kidney, in form and function. Same with blood, body cannot use transfused blood as food, it must be eaten and digested first.

    A patient is given blood not because they are "malnourished" not because they lack nutrition, but because of lack of red cells to carry oxygen to the body.

    It is unfair and unloving to imagine the motivation of those seeking to preserve life, because they do not hold to certain regulations and prohibitions originating from a religious organisation, saying it is a denial of faith, when there is simply no valid basis, scriptural or otherwise. It is an attempt to burden persons with a sense of guilt, imposed by human standards, not Divine standards.

  • Gordy
    Gordy

    When it came to life treatening situations involving human suffering Jesus rebuked the Pharisees (Mark 2:27). If an animal fell into a pit on the Sabbath, and it was in danger. God would want the people to take the nessecary steps to save it. Even if it meant breaking God's Law to do so (Luke 14:5) How much more so if it were a person. Jesus performed healing on the Sabbath, against God's Law as the Pharisees saw it. (Luke 6:6-11; Mark 3:1-5)

    Salvation is based on faith, through the undeserved kindness of Jesus Christ. Is salvation by any other means mentioned anywhere in Acts 15. Is the loss of salvation mentioned anywhere in Acts 15. Is there any explicit statement anywhere in Acts 15 that ones salavation depends upon how one responds to the "blood" instruction".

    Acts 15 JW's say taking blood in any manner is still in force for Christians today. How could Paul a short time later tell Corinthians they were free to eat what ever their pagan neighbours or markets offered (1 Cor 8:1-13)

    Most Christian congregations back then,consisted of Jews and Gentiles. The Gentiles put faith in Christ, but Jewish Christians wanted keeping of Law and kosher diet. Acts 15 deals with a contemporary issue not some medical procedure.

    The reason Gentile Christians were asked to abstain from blood was to avoid offending Jewish Christians. Therefore it was a matter of felloship between Jew and Gentile. The decree ws issued to Gentile Christians not as a means of salvation but as a basis for fellowship in the spirit of Paul's exhortation that those strong in faith should be willing to restict their liberty in such matters as diet, rather than offend the weaker one. (Rom 14:1; 1 Cor 8:1)

  • avishai
    avishai
    I have yet came across one yet. But I have found the ones that have said that it is a sin.

    Has God never asked anyone to give up there life for what is right?

    How about when Saul and his men ate unbeld meat to save their lives? They were'nt punished, and if this happened in ancient Israel, they were just sent out of the camp for a day or so, took a bath, same as if you had your period. Is having your peroid a sin? Touching a dead person? They also had to go outside the camp for those.

    Giving up your life for city code that is about 3,000years old is ridiculous, and an insult to the god that gave you life, and an insult to his son.

  • Rabbit
    Rabbit

    aniron Wisely sez:

    Acts 15 says "abstain from blood" it relates to eating blood. Is transfusing blood "eating" as the WT claim. There is no sound basis for that claim. Blood transfusion is not "intravenous feeding", as the WT claim, it is the transplantion of a fluid tissue, NOT an infusion of a nutrient. A kidney transplant is not eaten a food, it remains a kidney, in form and function. Same with blood, body cannot use transfused blood as food, it must be eaten and digested first.

    A patient is given blood not because they are "malnourished" not because they lack nutrition, but because of lack of red cells to carry oxygen to the body.

    poorside, I was a witness for 35 years, my daughter could have died from blood loss, my wife and I fought like good JW's do for the WTS rules, which we thought represented the Bible. My Mom probably died when she had Cancer, because she DID NOT take any blood -- even fractions that other JW's could take with their conscience, an Elder from the 'JW Hospital Liasion Committee' (against my objections !) advised my 2 JW relatives, who were advising our Dad, to go with the STRICTEST interpretation. My non-JW Dad was trying to abide my my mothers' wishes...she was un-conscious...the info given to him was E_D_I_T_E_D ! She DIED. NOW -- 4 years later (Wait on Jehovah ...!) Bulgarian's and others are told "It's OK", "JW's can have a transfusion and NO action and NO punishment will be brought against them ...?

    WHAT ABOUT MY MOM...? SHE IS DEAD, GONE & BURIED...!!!

    For What ? Rules that are un-clear and worst of all constantly changing...with no apologies ...???

    Aniron --is right , blood is only a carrier --- not food !

    Lee

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit