the whole jdub thing has really made me think negative about blood, Im still deprogramming myself with this issue. But if it came down to it I would.
Would you accept blood?
by JH 25 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
meadow77
I think now they allow people to give some of their own blood or family mambers blood, so as not to contract a disease from someone else. I think this is all the more reason why people who know that they are healthy should give blood. Maybe if healthy people saw this as a duty to help human life out a bit, than blood wouldn't be in such shortages, and health facilities wouldn't have to pay for blood from the bottom of the barrel. Just a thought. I have a question though, sort of in connection. Do witnesses not eat rare steak?
-
back2dafront
Scully, thanks for that info - I didn't realize that.
Yeah...I've got some deprogramming to do as well, but i'm making good progress. :-)
-
freedom96
I would have accepted a blood transfusion even when I was a witness. I would have for myself, and my family. Though probably not for my ex wife. :)
It might be an interesting thought that it might be disrespectful to God, if you knew you could save yours or a loved ones life, if you didn't take ALL steps to save your life, even if it meant blood.
-
Jade
I would definite donate and have in the past. I would only take it as a last resort and I would ask my family for it.
-
spanky
In trying to put blood transfusions into perspective for a family member who was raised a jw but never baptized, I used the illustration to explain the value of a symbol. Blood symbolizes life. As such, a hotwheels car symbolizes the actual car. What has more value? The hotwheels car? Using JW logic that would seem to be the case. Was the Israelites sacrificing of animals and sprinkling blood on the altar of more value than the actual shed blood of Jesus which those sacrifices represented? Also, Leviticus 17:15 shows that the punishment for breaking the blood law by actually eating an animal that was unbled was that they were to be unclean until evening, nothing more dramatic like other violations of the law. Why? Whether a native or alien resident the importance was that they needed to eat to survive thus showing the flexibility, even then, that to save life the law could be broken. Jesus broke the law when the women with the flow of blood touched him, and he didn't return home to cleanse himself. He was technically unclean and she had broken the law which prohibited her from being among the people and touching someone. What was the consequence for her action? She was healed. Did Jesus rebuke her for breaking the Mosaic Law? No. He said "her faith had made her well". Paul, when writing after the command at Acts against eating things strangled, things sacrificed and eating blood, wrote at 1corinthians chapter 8 that he would eat things sacrified to idols since his conscience was strong. He also said in 1 corinthians 10:27 that when eating at an unbeliever's home to "eat everything that is set before you, making no inquiry on account of your conscience". This means the meat likely would not have been bled properly, could have been strangled and as paul later says could have been sacrificial. He also states at 1 corinthians 10:25 "everything that is sold in a meat market keep eating, making no inquiry on account of your conscience." The important thing here is that they weren't even to inquire, meaning it wasn't important. I could go on and on but, suffice it to say, the bible shows that the prohibition on blood, especially to the point of death, is easily refuted with a little research. So the choice of whether or not to accept a transfusion should not be based on a misunderstanding of scripture and the mistaken stance that the bible says not to.