If you and your hubby both know the blood doctrine is a joke, and that's so central to being a Witness, why are you still interested in becoming one?
I don't know that it's a joke, per se. I don't know for sure if they do or do not have the truth of the matter.
Ah, well, there's a problem then. You can hardly take a stand on something if you aren't convinced of it yourself. On the other hand, once you *are* convinced, you can't help but take a stand. Since the information is there to be had, why not get it?
Of course, you should talk to a current Witness to get their side of the story. But I'll tell you what I think their side is:
When Noah left the ark, God said they could start eating meat. (Man was a vegetarian until then) However, God commanded that they not eat the blood of the animal. (Genesis 9:4) From that time onward, it was deemed a sin to eat blood. Under the Israelites and the law given to Moses, that blood law was expanded to indicate that blood should be poured on the ground, effectively giving it back to Jehovah. (Deuteronomy 12:16) Blood represents life, so taking of a life required giving back the blood. In the christian era, the question arose as to what parts of the Mosaic law would still apply to Christians. Acts chapter 15 discusses this, focusing on the question of circumcision. Finally, in Acts 15:28,29, the Governing Body of that day decreed that circumcision was not necessary. The only necessary things were to abstain from idols, blood, and fornication. So, with the Bible's principle to pour out the blood in hand, and knowing that blood was not to be eaten, should a christian accept having blood pumped into his body via transfusion? Well, consider. If a doctor told you to avoid drinking alcohol, would he be agreeable to you accepting a transfusion of alcohol instead? Obviously not! So clearly, taking a transfusion of blood would be equivalent to eating it. For a christian that wants to please God, there is no other course than to refuse blood transfusions.
Besides, there are many known health risks associated with accepting blood transfusions, such as hepatitis and AIDS.
Obviously not a real quote, but I think JW's would be comfortable in saying that states their position.
My position:
According to the Bible, including the Acts chapter 15 already cited, the law of Moses was no longer in effect. So any comments about 'pouring it out on the ground' would also be eliminated. However the law given to Noah would still apply. Eating blood is forbidden. Acts 15 says to "abstain" from blood, and some try to say that this word means "stay away from, shun" and carries more meaning than simply "eating". That's true, but in context, this is referring to eating of blood. How can we tell? Look again at the verses:
Acts 15:28,29 - For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU , except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU !?
That word "abstain" is applied to "things strangled". (A strangled animal could not have been properly bled, and so could not serve as food) If a strangled animal were left on your doorstep, would this law forbid you from picking it up and disposing of it? Would it forbid you from taking it to a taxidermist and having it stuffed? No, this is about eating. It is the eating of blood that is being forbidden. And remember, the whole Acts 15 discussion is about what existing laws to keep, there was no intent to create new, more restrictive, laws. Thus they say to "keep abstaining," since the first century christians had already been doing this.
So, is eating blood and transfusing blood essentially the same thing? Their alcohol illustration is a misleading one, since alcohol is a substance, a food. Blood is an organ. The watchtower has on several occassions referred to blood as an organ, even quoting a doctor that said a blood transfusion is essentially a blood transplant. So a more appropriate illustration would be, if a doctor told you not to eat liver, would he be ok with you having a liver transplant? Of course, since they are entirely different things. Blood as food would be digested by the body, blood as an organ would carry oxygen and the hundreds of other things blood does. Eating and transplanting are simply not related at all.
What about the health risks? This is a totally meaningless point. The question is, does God forbid blood transfusions. The actual effectiveness of the procedure has no bearing on that question. They use the supposed health risks to bolster their case, saying that Jehovah is protecting them from those risks. They suggest that many Witnesses have been saved from death or illness simply by their stand against transfusions. Even if that were true (and I would bet it isn't) it is wholly immaterial to the discussion. The Bible either supports the position or it doesn't, the health risks don't enter into it.
Whenever I've had a detailed discussion on this topic or on the topic of birthdays with a JW, they always retreat to the "faithful and discreet slave" doctrine. This says that whether they understand it or not, they are obligated to obey the organization. So even if they can't explain why blood transfusions are bad, God still expects them to obey "his organization". However, we just had a good thread on Biblical examples of God punishing his people for following bad direction received through his organization. The people that disobeyed God's organization and instead obeyed God were the ones that were acceptable to him. You can read that here: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/83217/1.ashx
I don't think you should just assume that their doctrines are unprovable or undeniable. Many of them can be shot down. I have a write up on birthdays on my web site: http://www.thebentinel.com/jw-birthdays.html
Arm yourself with knowledge. (Like I gotta tell ya that, eh?)
Dave
