Blood Transfusion and Eating

by dugout 46 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Slidin Fast

  As old as I am, have never or any member of my extended/immediate family has ever needed health treatment that could not be satisfied without the use of blood. The issue is highly hyped and overrated by the anti-JW crowd.

  Doubtfully Yours, I am sorry but that was one of the most insensitive remarks ever. It's on a similar wavelength to holocaust denial. If it hasn't happened to you then show some empathy to those to whom it has. I speak as one who has lost more than one family member to this misconceived nonsense.
  
• 

  FayeDunaway

  For me it is an issue of life. The whole concept of the blood issue is because blood is symbolic of life, and life is sacred, right? If life is so sacred, use blood to sustain life. It is the life itself that is the most sacred thing, not the symbol of life, which is the blood. It is most respectful of blood if you use it to sustain life. Blood is donated these days with no life lost. The blood of one person can sustain two lives! Eating somethings blood is disrespectful of life according to the bible. Keeping someone alive with blood, without any life lost on either side, shows absolute respect for blood. And the whole issue is LIFE. It is disgusting to let someone die when you can do something about it. They are so worried about following a rule that they have the whole principle backwards.
• 

  Finkelstein

  One other thing to note is that thousands of people have died because this amateurish interpretation of the Hebraic dietary law since it was first introduced back in 1945 by the WTS heads who pretended to be knowledgeable academically trained bible theologians , none of the WTS leaders were.
  

  W Conley the first President of the WTS was just a rich businessman who was interested in the Adventist bible movement during the late 1800's in the US. He later left in disagreement of the bible teachings and interpretations by his associated business partner C T Russell of the WTS. Upon him leaving C T Russell took over the WTS who himself was a businessmen clothing store owner, not a trained bible theologian by any measure.

  C T Russell's lawyer who he used in business dealings took over the WTS, J Rutherford, who was again not a well trained bible theologian but was a professional lawyer by trade. From that realization one can see why there were so many inaccurate and inherently corrupt doctrines created by this religious publishing house, some which influenced people to uphold receiving a blood transfusion that could have possibly saved their lives.

  Instead these people let themselves die by erroneous means of occuring ignorance and self indulgent corruption by men who were corrupted by their own self assumed identity of empowerment..
  
• 

  OrphanCrow

  Faye: For me it is an issue of life. The whole concept of the blood issue is because blood is symbolic of life, and life is sacred, right? If life is so sacred, use blood to sustain life. It is the life itself that is the most sacred thing, not the symbol of life, which is the blood.

  Exactly. Even the doctrine is backwards and upside down.

  I addressed this once with some JW women who invited me to the memorial. I asked them if they believed in Jesus and they replied "yes". And then I asked them if they believed he had given his blood so that all could live. And, of course they said "yes".

  My reply was "If Jesus gave his blood so everybody could have life, then why don't you give blood?"
• 

  Vidiot

  @ OrphanCrow...

  Didn't you post something recently about the WT's stance against transfusions having significant origins in the personal beliefs of a JW higher-up in the 50s who'd had fascist sympathies*?

  x

  * Nazis, for example, were very wary about the idea of transfusions, for "racial purity" reasons.
• 

  Finkelstein

  Doubtfully Yours says ......
  

  As old as I am, have never or any member of my extended/immediate family has ever needed health treatment that could not be satisfied without the use of blood. The issue is highly hyped and overrated by the anti-JW crowd

  Denying the fact that thousands of people and yes babies and children have died to this superficially devised doctrine, has no meaning or relevance because your own family has never medically needed a blood transfusion, willfully shows your own apathetic nature concerning the lives of others.

  My mother died from not taking a blood transfusion ASSHOLE
  
• 

  Giordano

  There is another issue re refusing a blood transfusion. The often immediate need to transfuse.There is no real choice with serious trauma's right up to this day and time. And people can and do bleed out on the operating table.

  Open heart surgeries and other procedures from the 1940's going forward could not be performed without blood. Today there is a chance.

  Cancer treatments often depend on blood transfusions as do mishaps during childbirth.

  When JW's refuse blood their death certificate will probably list cancer, or heart attack etc. but not the lack of a life saving procedure that required a BT. Not the fact that their screwed up religion would rather they die then live.

  There is no spiritual requirement to prevent a BT it is the false thinking of ignorant and under educated members of the WTBTS that called for a ban.Today every JW falls back on how unsafe it is medically speaking to accept blood.......how pathetic.
• 

  Finkelstein

  My reply was "If Jesus gave his blood so everybody could have life, then why don't you give blood?"

  Good point OrphanCrow true devoted Christians are suppose to emulate Jesus Christ his works and teachings which included taking care and helping the sick.

  That's why you see many Christian based religions building and supporting Hospitals.
  

  Add in the fact that he saw human life so critically important, that those who were to be place themselves under "his" convent were to respect human life not disregard it upon an old previously established dietary law.

  One can still perceive the sacredness of blood in the medical procedure of a blood transfusion to intentionally save that person's life, as Orthodox Jews do accordingly.

  Making a life or death situation by men alone is not their call to make
  
• 

  OrphanCrow

  Vidiot: @ OrphanCrow...
  Didn't you post something recently about the WT's stance against transfusions having significant origins in the personal beliefs of a JW higher-up in the 50s who'd had fascist sympathies*?
  x
  * Nazis, for example, were very wary about the idea of transfusions, for "racial purity" reasons.

  Eh...yes. That information might might on this forum. I have investigated the links between Germany and the blood ban quite extensively.

  I sort of avoid bringing it up much just because of "Goddard's Law" and I don't like the tin foil hat label that is the knee jerk response to any mention of Nazis or Hitler. However, I don't talk about Hitler...it was Heinrich Himmler whom the WT had an intimate relationship with.

  So...my research into those connections are NOT Goddards' Law. There is a very strong connection between the blood ban and what was happening in WW2 in Germany.

  As well, the WT's alliances with the anti-AMA crowd had a significant impact on the implementation of the blood ban. Today's "bloodless" surgery has its roots in the chiropathic and osteopathic professions.
• 

  Crazyguy

  It's simple really when one gets a transfusion the body does not break down digest then consume the blood . same as when they used to say organ transplants were canibolism. They later retracted the teaching because organs are also not eaten.