Do You Know Why Jehovah’S Witnesses Don’T Take Blood?

[goodlife]

In a previous thread it was said “it was cowardly & despicable” because the suggestion was made to ask a JW when they call why they don’t accept blood. Well, this question can be answered but do you Really know why it is they don’t take blood!

I would appreciate it if answers were serious and not ridiculous. Any that are mocking and ridicule will not receive a response.

[Buenchico]

Why?

Because there are three references in the Bible to not eating blood (which, to my mind,has more to do with black puddings than it has with blood transfusions) and one to 'abstaining' from blood (which again would appear to refer to eating it).

So a totally meaningless book has not only been given meaning, but a false one at that, derived upon a misreading of what it says.

[LazyGun]

Actually, what was described as "cowardly and despicable" was your actions in not answering the question, passing that responsiblity onto others to make the explanation.

And you are doing it again here - why are you not the one offering the explanations as to why your cult refuses blood transfusions? Why are you expecting us to guess?

And, it is of course entirely up to you which posters you will respond to - but you do not get to dictate how people choose to respond. We live in a democracy where individuals have the right to express themselves more or less as they see fit, not conform to some rules you are attempting to impose...

[jomifl]

'Why' doesn't matter, the fact that JW's are prepared to let someone die just so that they can feel 'good' and qualify (mistakenly)for entrance to heaven is enough to exclude them from 'humanity' because of their selfish ,inhumane and callous views and deeds.

[jim360]

Not sure any other posts would receive a response either. This isn't meant to be mocking, merely a statement of fact. I'm not the only one to have asked questions which were either never answered or answered only by a cut-and-paste job, or answered indirectly at best with you going off on a tangent.

I'm aware of the reasons, to some extent, why JWs don't take blood. They rely on an interpretation of Biblical verses including Acts 15:29, but that interpretation is firstly modern and secondly disputed. And as I pointed out in the other thread, the rules surrounding it seem very arbitrary -- and are critically an invention of humans rather than of God.

[naomi24]

Yes, we do - seriously - but I've no doubt you're going to give us a bit of copy and paste anyway.

[vulcan42]

goodlife,my apologies if I upset you, that was not my intention but if you had answered the question the ridicule would not have been forthcoming. I know why you don't take blood, my question was a little deeper than that. I don't why you won't accept the gift of life, which after all, that is what a blood transfusion is and you hold so dear,from you God.
I will certainly ask the next Jehovah Witness who knocks my door but what if he/she says go on the internet and ask somebody else?

[mikey4444]

goodlife...no, and I don't care either !

[goodlife]

Vulcan@
Blood transfusions are not a gift of life. Many who have had transfusions can testify to that.

There is abundant medical evidence to show that blood is not the best medicine. In fact, again, evidence is given by those who have had very serious operations that most people would assume require blood, these ones have not had blood transfusions and have fully recovered, in many cases much quicker than those who have had blood. Before you say it – the medical evidence is from Doctors /Surgeons who are not Jehovah’s Witnesses but have performed the operations on these ones.

Life is in the blood. The Bible tells us that, and medical science proves that. But what is blood actually? It is basically a fluid. Blood supplies nourishment and oxygen to all parts of the body, carries away waste products, and plays a major role in safeguarding the body against infection. The chemical makeup of blood is so exceedingly complex that there is a great deal that is still unknown to scientists.

There was only one use of blood that God ever approved, namely, for sacrifice. He directed that those under the Mosaic Law offer animal sacrifices to make atonement for sin. (Le 17:10, 11) It was also in harmony with His will that His Son, Jesus Christ, offered up his perfect human life as a sacrifice for sins.—Heb 10:5, 10.

The following is taken from the Awake magazine :
What are the chances of getting AIDS from a blood transfusion or from blood products? According to the newspaper The Star of Johannesburg, 600,000 people worldwide—or 15 percent of all of those infected—have been infected with the AIDS virus from blood or blood products since AIDS was identified. At present, testing blood for HIV is time-consuming and expensive. Some conclude that blood should be subjected to at least seven different tests. Often, developing countries do not have the finances or training to use these tests. Even in affluent countries, where the tests are employed, there are mistakes. Paul Strengers, medical head of the Dutch blood-transfusion service, admits: “We cannot say any blood product is 100 percent safe concerning the HIV virus or hepatitis.”

If you want or need to know more, I suggest that when the next Jehovah’s Witness calls on your door, you ask for the Blood Brochure – this will explain more fully the reasons why. There is also a video which gives testimony – not from JW’s but from the medical field worldwide.

[jim360]

'...admits: “We cannot say any blood product is 100 percent safe concerning the HIV virus or hepatitis.”'

Well, obviously. Nothing is 100% safe ever in Science. What gets me is how people jump all over this as some sort of weakness. So there is no certainty in life! Of course there isn't. So let's go for an argument that demands 100% certainty despite flying in the face of evidence.

[boxtops]

You cannot say anything in life is safe - but does that mean you don't let your kids have the MMR vaccine, or flu jabs, or other preventative medication?

[LazyGun]

@ GL An answer, of sorts. A combination of cut and paste bits from Watchtower, but an answer.

Unyet still not really an answer though. You come close to it - According to your cult, God only sanctioned the use of blood in sacrifice which sounds sinister enough in its own right, but that still does not really explain the aversion to blood transfusion.

It is perfectly true that there are risks associated with blood transfusion. It is a medical intervention that should not be undertaken lightly, for a host of reasons, viral transmission being one - but not the most important- risk.
But there are many surgical interventions and disease states that are essentially impossible to conduct or to treat unless blood transfusions are used. They are vital, used properly, and not just blood - blood products and immunoglobulin preparations for instance.

Part of this reluctance is this notion that life is in the blood. This is essentially vitalism, a rather primitive belief structure long since supplanted with advances in anatomy and medicine.

"The chemical makeup of blood is so exceedingly complex that there is a great deal that is still unknown to scientists."

- And I would dispute that statement. There is nothing mystical about blood - its components are well known, its functions well known too.Just because it is complex does not mean it is not understood.

The Awake comment is outdated and overtaken by scientific advances in medical laboratories. The global numbers of those living with HIV is far far greater than implied from the numbers given by that quote. And advances in laboratory testing mean that we now have quick, extremely accurate, extremely easy to use and relatively cheap tests for HIV. That, coupled with greater discrimination on using blood transfusions, coupled by other measures such as white cell filters on donated blood mean that the incidence of transmission of HIV attributed to blood transfusion can be quite accurately estimated as around 1 transmission in every 2 million transfusions. It might be even rarer than that now.

"Some conclude that blood should be subjected to at least seven different tests."
- This is a meaningless statement, included just to raise the spectre of uncertainty. 7 tests to do what? Exclude HIV? Exclude Hepatitis? Both, Exclude the risk of ABO mismatch? What, exactly? And even if it does require 7 tests or 10 - so what? We have machines that can do these tests routinely and easily and accurately now.

And as Jim has already mentioned, one can never say with that something is 100% safe or totally without risk. All of life is a risk; The trick is to measure the relative risk and perform a risk versus benefit analysis.

So your response is hopelessly out of date, and needlessly negative about the risks of blood transfusion - Much like the rest of your scriptural contributions here. If you are going to quote facts and figures in an attempt to support something, you should at least try and make sure they are up to date and still relevant. And I certainly would not rely on some doorstepping JW smiley face to know anything of relevance or significance to science, medicine or blood transfusion!

One last point - None of the discussion about the risks of blood transfusion bears any relevance as to why JW's refuse them; Thats merely a post hoc rationalisation , since blood transfusions were unknown and not even thought of back in biblical days.

How about offering some more detail now on the alleged charitable works of JW's, by the way?

[modeller]

goodlife JWs have been refusing transfusing since 1945 long long before Aids was ever known about . It didn't become an issue until the 1990s so quoting that as a reason is your usual cop out.

[pixie373]

So if someone dies from blood loss, having been refused a transfusion, is that not a risk?

[vulcan42]

As lazygun says, an answer of sorts. However it appears I'm not the only one who is confused, J Ws themselves aren't too clear either.
Blood serum
1954. Unacceptable (Awake 1954 Jan 8th p24)
1958.Acceptable (Watchtower 1958 Sep 15th p575)
1963. Unacceptable (W'tower 1963 Feb 15th p124)
1965.Acceptable (W'tower 1965 Nov 15th p 680-3)
1974.Conscientious matter (W'tower 1974 Jun 1st p352)
Organ transplants
1967.Forbidden (considered cannibalism) W'tower Nov15th p702-4)
1980.Acceptable (w'tower Mar 15 p31)
For an organisation who doesn't believe in donating blood, they seem to quite happy to accept,at least, parts of it.

[naomi24]

//He directed that those under the Mosaic Law offer animal sacrifices to make atonement for sin. (Le 17:10, 11)//

Isn’t that horrible. Just a passing thought, but I wonder how he justified the needless slaughter of innocent animals as atonement for human sin? I can’t see any logic whatsoever in that.