Blood transfusions

[Xeno.of.athens]

Many people will know that Jehovah's witnesses forbid their members access to blood transfusions, and if one of Jehovah's witnesses receives one, they will almost certainly be excommunicated and shunned. If the bible really did teach that the use of blood in transfusions was a sin, would you be willing to forgo one or have your child do so even if their life was at risk?

Some of you will know that the passage used to justify their stance is,

Acts 15:20 ESV but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.​

Do you think there is a case, however weak it may be, for forbidding blood transfusions?

Just so you know, I would take a blood transfusion even if it appeared that the bible forbids it. I am not willing to die, or to effectively kill my child, simply because someone says that the bible teaches that blood transfusions are not okay. I believe that life, and love overrule anything that a book can teach, even if the book is the bible.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I disagree with JWitnesses alot but one that point I agree with them.
I completely consider my life in the hands of Jesus. If it's my time to go then it's time to go.

I don't believe in health insurance or vaccinations either. Each of us need to walk with God. Then He promises you will never break a bone. So far it's worked for me.

What inspired the question is a video on YouTube about the emergency room in London hospital, there numerous people have lost a lot of blood and need a transfusion, and the transfusion really helps to save their life. So I see the value in it.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Many people will know that Jehovah's witnesses forbid their members access to blood transfusions, and if one of Jehovah's witnesses receives one, they will almost certainly be excommunicated and shunned. If the bible really did teach that the use of blood in transfusions was a sin, would you be willing to forgo one or have your child do so even if their life was at risk?

Some of you will know that the passage used to justify their stance is,

Acts 15:20 ESV but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.​

Do you think there is a case, however weak it may be, for forbidding blood transfusions?

Just so you know, I would take a blood transfusion even if it appeared that the bible forbids it. I am not willing to die, or to effectively kill my child, simply because someone says that the bible teaches that blood transfusions are not okay. I believe that life, and love overrule anything that a book can teach, even if the book is the bible.

IF it was forbidden by God I would not want a blood transfusion. But it’s not forbidden. The text is about drinking blood. It’s more about idolatry, which has nothing to do with a transfusion.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

IF it was forbidden by God I would not want a blood transfusion. But it’s not forbidden. The text is about drinking blood. It’s more about idolatry, which has nothing to do with a transfusion.

But how could one know it was forbidden? If the curia said so, that would be one thing, if it were an infallible dogma of the church that would be another, but for Jehovah's witnesses it is an interpretation of a passage in The Acts of the Apostles.

Anyway, even if it were infallible dogma isn't it true that there is a hierarchy of truths with Love at the apex? and I do think that every parent loves their children more than what is written in a bible or a dogma, I suppose others may see it differently.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I disagree with JWitnesses alot but one that point I agree with them.
I completely consider my life in the hands of Jesus. If it's my time to go then it's time to go.

I don't believe in health insurance or vaccinations either. Each of us need to walk with God. Then He promises you will never break a bone.

Following good and sound medical advice is something Scripture itself supports.

God doesn't promise we won't break any bones. Jesus said, as a matter of fact, "In this world you will have trouble". What kind of trouble? All kinds, it could be persecution or it could be cancer. That's how this world is. We, as followers of Jesus Christ, aren't immune from the troubles and trials of this fallen world; if anything, we should expect to have it harder.

Ignoring good practical wisdom, such as avoiding tested and proved medical knowledge and practice, isn't putting one's faith in Jesus it's just walking blind and saying "Lord, if You love me, You won't let me fall"; yet the Scriptures say, "Do not put the Lord your God to the test". God isn't going to reward our foolishness.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[chevyontheriver]

But how could one know it was forbidden? If the curia said so, that would be one thing, if it were an infallible dogma of the church that would be another,

There is no Christian teaching anywhere that blood transfusions are forbidden. No infallible teaching, no opinion of a Curial hack, and no traditional opposition to it. Transfusions are accepted medical treatment.

but for Jehovah's witnesses it is an interpretation of a passage in The Acts of the Apostles.

That’s their flawed interpretation. Not anyone else’s problem.

Anyway, even if it were infallible dogma isn't it true that there is a hierarchy of truths with Love at the apex? and I do think that every parent loves their children more than what is written in a bible or a dogma, I suppose others may see it differently.

Transfusions are not forbidden. For good reason. So deciding that IF they were forbidden that you would ignore the prohibition is on your part a rebellious spirit in a situation that would not otherwise even happen. As a mere hypothetical, because it cannot really happen, but let’s suppose transfusions were really banned. There would be a compelling reason for it and you should observe the ban. As it is, it is not banned and there is no reason to ban it. Other things, like contraception, are banned. And for good reason. Do you observe that ban? Or do you claim a higher right to decide for yourself?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Many people will know that Jehovah's witnesses forbid their members access to blood transfusions, and if one of Jehovah's witnesses receives one, they will almost certainly be excommunicated and shunned. If the bible really did teach that the use of blood in transfusions was a sin, would you be willing to forgo one or have your child do so even if their life was at risk?

Some of you will know that the passage used to justify their stance is,

Acts 15:20 ESV but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.​

Do you think there is a case, however weak it may be, for forbidding blood transfusions?

Just so you know, I would take a blood transfusion even if it appeared that the bible forbids it. I am not willing to die, or to effectively kill my child, simply because someone says that the bible teaches that blood transfusions are not okay. I believe that life, and love overrule anything that a book can teach, even if the book is the bible.

This becomes a confusing philosophical question, and it could be applied to anything. In fact, it is a kind of Euthyphro Dilemma, "Is what the gods say just because the gods say it, or is what the gods say just because it is just?" Which is actually asking: does God (or in the case of the Socratic Dialogue, the gods) command what is right because it is right, and therefore the standard is above God; or does God command what is right and it is right because God commands it; in which case right and wrong are mere whims of the Divine.

The way Christians have, insofar as they have at all, engaged with the Euthyphro Dilemma is by arguing God is constrained not by any external factor, but because He must always be Himself: God must always be God. And therefore what is good is not mere divine fiat, as though God could declare anything good and it would be good; and what is good is not a cosmic standard that is above God which God must abide by. Rather there is a kind of tautology: God is God, and good is good; God declares what is true of Himself, and He is Good.

Which, in the context of this discussion, would mean that any question of "what if God..." in some sense meaningless. What is good is already known, for God has revealed Himself to us, and He is good; indeed He is The Good. God could not command something other than what He has commanded, because God is Himself and is what He is, has done what He has done. And we cannot ascribe to God the kind of whimsy, capriciousness, nor pathos which we constantly shifting and swaying mortals have. God remains absolute in Himself as Himself.

So, taking up another oft-repeated question: If God told me to murder someone, I can quite safely recognize it is not God; because that isn't God's way, that would be contrary to God being Himself. It becomes a nonsense question in the same way that asking if God could make a rock so heavy that He couldn't lift it is a nonsense question.

And C.S. Lewis reminds us that nonsense is still nonsense even when we are talking about God.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[RandyPNW]

Many people will know that Jehovah's witnesses forbid their members access to blood transfusions, and if one of Jehovah's witnesses receives one, they will almost certainly be excommunicated and shunned. If the bible really did teach that the use of blood in transfusions was a sin, would you be willing to forgo one or have your child do so even if their life was at risk?

Some of you will know that the passage used to justify their stance is,

Acts 15:20 ESV but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.​

Do you think there is a case, however weak it may be, for forbidding blood transfusions?

Just so you know, I would take a blood transfusion even if it appeared that the bible forbids it. I am not willing to die, or to effectively kill my child, simply because someone says that the bible teaches that blood transfusions are not okay. I believe that life, and love overrule anything that a book can teach, even if the book is the bible.

Religious fanaticism is the product of religious pride. True religion is humble and receptive to truth, without bias. No, Acts 15.20 has nothing whatsoever to do with blood transfusions! That is not true even by extension!

The rule is based on the prohibition upon *eating blood.* JWs are just looking for some issue that they can claim elitist authority on, to validate their claim to prophetic authority.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

As a mere hypothetical, because it cannot really happen, but let’s suppose transfusions were really banned. There would be a compelling reason for it and you should observe the ban. As it is, it is not banned and there is no reason to ban it. Other things, like contraception, are banned. And for good reason. Do you observe that ban? Or do you claim a higher right to decide for yourself?

The answer to your questions is, no, I do not use contraceptives, or, as far as I know do anything that is specifically banned, but, of course, my knowledge is not exhaustive, so my claim is qualified with "as far as I know".

But were I a very poor woman living in a marriage where my husband insisted on sexual congress very frequently and where he never used any contraceptive, then I think I would take steps to prevent pregnancy because of my poverty and the terrible poverty my children would face if their number were great. But that is a hypothetical, and I have never faced such a situation, so my answer is just a speculation. But I still think that love is the apex of our moral and dogmatic system and where love is at risk because of some other moral precept or dogma then I believe that love ought to triumph over rules. Saint James wrote "Mercy triumphs over judgment." James 2:13.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

This becomes a confusing philosophical question, and it could be applied to anything. In fact, it is a kind of Euthyphro Dilemma, "Is what the gods say just because the gods say it, or is what the gods say just because it is just?" Which is actually asking: does God (or in the case of the Socratic Dialogue, the gods) command what is right because it is right, and therefore the standard is above God; or does God command what is right and it is right because God commands it; in which case right and wrong are mere whims of the Divine.

The way Christians have, insofar as they have at all, engaged with the Euthyphro Dilemma is by arguing God is constrained not by any external factor, but because He must always be Himself: God must always be God. And therefore what is good is not mere divine fiat, as though God could declare anything good and it would be good; and what is good is not a cosmic standard that is above God which God must abide by. Rather there is a kind of tautology: God is God, and good is good; God declares what is true of Himself, and He is Good.

Which, in the context of this discussion, would mean that any question of "what if God..." in some sense meaningless. What is good is already known, for God has revealed Himself to us, and He is good; indeed He is The Good. God could not command something other than what He has commanded, because God is Himself and is what He is, has done what He has done. And we cannot ascribe to God the kind of whimsy, capriciousness, nor pathos which we constantly shifting and swaying mortals have. God remains absolute in Himself as Himself.

So, taking up another oft-repeated question: If God told me to murder someone, I can quite safely recognize it is not God; because that isn't God's way, that would be contrary to God being Himself. It becomes a nonsense question in the same way that asking if God could make a rock so heavy that He couldn't lift it is a nonsense question.

And C.S. Lewis reminds us that nonsense is still nonsense even when we are talking about God.

-CryptoLutheran

Agreed, and then comes the question, which must struggle for a place in the thinking of any who are Jehovah's witnesses, "shall I obey the dictates of my religion, or shall I choose what is obviously good apart from anything written in my New World Translation?"

Does love triumph over judgement, as Mercy is said to, in James 2:13.

 

[Lukaris]

The Lord shed His blood for our salvation and teaches us to love our neighbor. If we can, should we not share our blood to help save a life?

 

[chevyontheriver]

Agreed, and then comes the question, which must struggle for a place in the thinking of any who are Jehovah's witnesses, "shall I obey the dictates of my religion, or shall I choose what is obviously good apart from anything written in my New World Translation?"

At that point, depending on their decision, I would think they would cease to be JW.

 

[chevyontheriver]

The answer to your questions is, no, I do not use contraceptives, or, as far as I know do anything that is specifically banned, but, of course, my knowledge is not exhaustive, so my claim is qualified with "as far as I know".

You are only responsible for what you know, presuming at least you didn't try not to know.

But were I a very poor woman living in a marriage where my husband insisted on sexual congress very frequently and where he never used any contraceptive, then I think I would take steps to prevent pregnancy because of my poverty and the terrible poverty my children would face if their number were great. But that is a hypothetical, and I have never faced such a situation, so my answer is just a speculation. But I still think that love is the apex of our moral and dogmatic system and where love is at risk because of some other moral precept or dogma then I believe that love ought to triumph over rules. Saint James wrote "Mercy triumphs over judgment." James 2:13.

Even though you don't personally do any of this you would be willing to do so under different circumstances. We have people who are opposed to abortion but then when their daughter gets pregnant they arrange an abortion. People who would never murder until they were so caught up in a situation where the death of another person solved their problem. People who get caught up in quandries who do what they didn't think they would do. It can always be rationalized. Love as the apex of our moral system manages to find room for one more person to love.

 

[Dan Perez]

I disagree with JWitnesses alot but one that point I agree with them.
I completely consider my life in the hands of Jesus. If it's my time to go then it's time to go.

I don't believe in health insurance or vaccinations either. Each of us need to walk with God. Then He promises you will never break a bone.

Back in OT times , there were no one that had the knowledge to check , what TYPE of blood they had and can be NEGATIVE or can be POSITIVE .
Christ was just protecting his people .

dan p

 

[Strong in Him]

Many people will know that Jehovah's witnesses forbid their members access to blood transfusions, and if one of Jehovah's witnesses receives one, they will almost certainly be excommunicated and shunned. If the bible really did teach that the use of blood in transfusions was a sin, would you be willing to forgo one or have your child do so even if their life was at risk?

If Jesus had said that blood transfusions were wrong, a sin and against God's law and if the Apostles also taught this, I wouldn't have one.

Some of you will know that the passage used to justify their stance is,

Acts 15:20 ESV but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.​

Do you think there is a case, however weak it may be, for forbidding blood transfusions?

No.
The OT taught it was forbidden to eat meat that still contained blood. A blood transfusion is not eating blood.

Just so you know, I would take a blood transfusion even if it appeared that the bible forbids it.

Even if Jesus had taught against it?

He didn't, but that's the only way I would consider a blood transfusion to be wrong.

I am not willing to die, or to effectively kill my child, simply because someone says that the bible teaches that blood transfusions are not okay.

But if JESUS taught that blood transfusions were not ok?

I believe that life, and love overrule anything that a book can teach, even if the book is the bible.

Dangerous.
So worshipping idols would be ok if you sincerely loved them - even though the Bible tells us that it's wrong?
That attitude isn't too far from saying "never mind what the Bible says, just love and you'll be ok." But people can love the wrong things.

 

[Strong in Him]

Other things, like contraception, are banned.

Contraception is not banned.
Except for Catholics.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

At that point, depending on their decision, I would think they would cease to be JW.

One would hope so, yet some parents, who clearly love their children, make the decision to follow the dogma of their religion.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

You are only responsible for what you know, presuming at least you didn't try not to know.

Even though you don't personally do any of this you would be willing to do so under different circumstances. We have people who are opposed to abortion but then when their daughter gets pregnant they arrange an abortion. People who would never murder until they were so caught up in a situation where the death of another person solved their problem. People who get caught up in quandries who do what they didn't think they would do. It can always be rationalized. Love as the apex of our moral system manages to find room for one more person to love.

It is a difficult moral issue, where does love supersede other dogmas, for surely there are matters where it does. Even the idea of a just war depends on love superseding the commandment "you shall not murder/kill".

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

If Jesus had said that blood transfusions were wrong, a sin and against God's law and if the Apostles also taught this, I wouldn't have one.

I believe that is how a faithful Jehovah's witness sees the matter. We both think that they are wrong, but they are convinced that Jehovah really does forbid blood to humanity under any circumstances where the blood is received as a means of sustaining human life.

The OT taught it was forbidden to eat meat that still contained blood. A blood transfusion is not eating blood.

Many Christians eat blood. The English have black budding, and similar dishes are common among Germans, French, Italians, and many others.

Even if Jesus had taught against it?

Even if the bible said no, as Jehovah's witnesses think that Acts 15:20 does.

That attitude isn't too far from saying "never mind what the Bible says, just love and you'll be ok." But people can love the wrong things.

But I do care what the bible says. I believe that there is a hierarchy of moral values, life and love being at the top along with loving God. And I am convinced that out of love for God and desiring to be faithful to Jesus' commandment that the commandment, the second in greatness, is to love one's neighbour as oneself. That's how I see it, you may see it differently.

 

[chevyontheriver]

It is a difficult moral issue, where does love supersede other dogmas, for surely there are matters where it does. Even the idea of a just war depends on love superseding the commandment "you shall not murder/kill".

Is doctrine AGAINST love? I don't think so. Ever.