Need blood? Save your life, here's why.

by LevelThePlayingField 20 Replies latest watchtower medical

  • LevelThePlayingField
    LevelThePlayingField

    So here's the point regarding blood transfusions. Notice Jesus asks the Pharisees if it was lawful on the Sabbath to save a life. So, can you break God's law to save your life if it came to that? Let Jesus answer.
    (Luke 6:6-11) 6 On another sabbath he entered the synagogue and began teaching. And a man was there whose right hand was withered. 7 The scribes and the Pharisees were now watching Jesus closely to see whether he would cure on the Sabbath, in order to find some way to accuse him. 8 He, however, knew their reasoning, so he said to the man with the withered hand: “Get up and stand in the center.” And he rose and stood there. 9 Then Jesus said to them: “I ask you men, Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save a life or to destroy it?” 10 After looking around at them all, he said to the man: “Stretch out your hand.” He did so, and his hand was restored. 11 But they flew into a senseless rage, and they began to talk over with one another what they might do to Jesus.

    So with regards to the blood policy. How does the leadership of JW's act? Like Jesus or like the Pharisees? Because, remember, Jesus asked them if it was lawful to save a life on the Sabbath, thus breaking the law and subject to getting stoned to death. Then Jesus answered that question for them by healing the person, he said, "stretch out your hand" and healed him.

    Notice that in Mark 3:5, Jesus said that they had no sensibility in their hearts as regards to this:

    (Mark 3:5) 5 And after looking around upon them with indignation, being thoroughly grieved at the insensibility of their hearts, he said to the man: “Stretch out your hand.” And he stretched it out, and his hand was restored.
    Now the leadership, the faithful slave will quote from Acts 15:20,29 to abstain from blood. But, if someone ate the meat with the blood there was no stated punishment for it, just a reminder:

    (1 Samuel 14:31-35) 31 On that day they kept striking down the Phi·lisʹtines from Michʹmash to Aiʹja·lon, and the people became very tired. 32 So the people began rushing greedily at the spoil, and they took sheep and cattle and calves and slaughtered them on the ground, and they ate the meat along with the blood. 33 So it was reported to Saul: “Look! The people are sinning against Jehovah by eating meat with the blood.” At this he said: “You have acted faithlessly. Roll a large stone to me immediately.” 34 Saul then said: “Spread out among the people and say to them, ‘Each of you must bring his bull and his sheep and slaughter them here and then eat them. Do not sin against Jehovah by eating meat with the blood.’” So each of them brought his bull with him that night and slaughtered it there. 35 And Saul built an altar to Jehovah. This was the first altar he built to Jehovah.

    Remember that when someone was observed breaking the Sabbath, they reported it to Moses and they didn't do anything right away. But then Jehovah said to put him to death. Notice that here, when it was reported to Saul, Jehovah did not say anything to them, no death, no punishment, just that they should not have done so, and he provided to them a slaughter. Then they built an alter, and nothing else is said as regards this in the Bible.

    So why is it a disfellowshipping offense to take a blood transfusion when there is no precedent in the Bible for it?

    Thinking Christians will save their lives.

    Don't trust man, trust the word of God.

  • Atlantis
    Atlantis

    LevelThePlayingField:

    Thank you!

    Atlantis!

  • smiddy3
    smiddy3

    Amen LevelThePlayingField

    " Do not put your trust in nobles Nor in the son of earthling man to whom no salvation belongs "

    Psalm 146:3

  • cofty
    cofty
    Notice Jesus asks the Pharisees if it was lawful on the Sabbath to save a life. So, can you break God's law to save your life if it came to that?

    Playing Devil's Advocate I disagree. Jesus objected to the way the Pharisees interpreted the law regarding the sabbath but he never argued that it was okay to break the law. He observed the Law meticulously and taught this followers to be even more observant than the Pharisees.

    His argument was not that it was okay to break the sabbath by healing or saving a life but that doing these things was not breaking the Law.

    Similarly the key point about blood transfusions is not that it is okay to break god's law to save your life but that blood transfusions are not against any law...

  • Drearyweather
    Drearyweather
    So why is it a disfellowshipping offense to take a blood transfusion when there is no precedent in the Bible for it?

    Taking blood is not a direct disfellowshipping offense.

    Following are the two policies:

    1. If someone takes blood willingly and is not repentant, he is termed as disassociated.

    2. If someone takes blood under extreme pressure, he is given counsel.

    when there is no precedent in the Bible for it?

    In JW world, the precedent for the above policies is given in the two instances you mentioned:


    Remember that when someone was observed breaking the Sabbath, they reported it to Moses and they didn't do anything right away. But then Jehovah said to put him to death.

    In this instance, it is taken that the person willfully broke the Sabbath law and was punished with death. This is the basis for disassociating a person who wilfully takes blood and does not repent. (Policy No, 1 above)

    when it was reported to Saul, Jehovah did not say anything to them, no death, no punishment, just that they should not have done so, and he provided to them a slaughter.

    In this instance, Saul repented and provided special sacrifices which were accepted by Jehovah and was pardoned. This is the basis for not disfellowshipping a person who is repentant after taking blood due to extreme pressure.

    The above is the JW policies.

    However, whether blood transfusions fits the Biblical law is a different discussion.

  • TD
    TD

    Do you understand the contradiction between these two sentences?

    Notice Jesus asks the Pharisees if it was lawful on the Sabbath to save a life.

    So, can you break God's law to save your life if it came to that?

    Jesus argument was not that it's okay to break the Sabbath, but that healing did not break it. (i.e. It was lawful)

    Big, big difference.

    https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/205970/what-law-says

  • DesirousOfChange
    DesirousOfChange

    Level the Playing Field -- your problem is that you are confusing JWs with a normal person with whom you can do some reasoning. The fact is that they have NOT come to their position by reasoning it out in their own mind. They have come to their decision that blood is wrong because the GODs (Guardians Of Doctrine) told them so.

    NO thought. NO reasoning. NO personal thinking allowed. Case closed. Get ye behind me..........

  • berrygerry
    berrygerry

    https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/saving-a-life-pikuach-nefesh/

    One is not merely permitted–one is required to disregard a law that conflicts with life or health.
  • Vidiot
    Vidiot

    All academic, really.

    The WTS's stance on transfusions isn't actually based on the Bible.

    It's based on (second- and third-degree levels of separation to) business connections to "bloodless" medical technology.

  • millie210
    millie210
    Drearyweather?
    Taking blood is not a direct disfellowshipping offense.
    Following are the two policies:
    1. If someone takes blood willingly and is not repentant, he is termed as disassociated.
    2. If someone takes blood under extreme pressure, he is given counsel.

    If anyone has the most recent elders manual, this is exactly how they play it now. Heavy emphasis "lovingly counsel and forgive" (their words not mine) those who did it under duress and weakness and are now SORRY (repentant).

    They are in the process of backing away from their blood policy. They are not going to apologize or release new directives. Rather, they are just going to be very quiet and "forgive" people until the generation that knew it die off. It is being phased out and the children and grandchildren of the 30 something year old JWs will look at it as "the old ways', the same as older JWs now view organ transplants and vaccines.


Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit