Blood transfusions

[chevyontheriver]

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

IF the dogma is correct it should be followed. If the dogma is incorrect it should be abandoned. It's in the end that simple.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Contraception is not banned.
Except for Catholics.

If you knew a bit more about the history of contraception in the last hundred years you might consider it banned for yourself as well. Prior to 1930 there was not a single Christian denomination that accepted contraception. It was only in that year that the Anglicans decided that it was to be allowed in exceptional circumstances only. And then you all 'got religion' and accepted contraception. Why the change? I bet you have never even asked that. Ask your pastor? He probably wouldn't even know that his predecessors from 100 years ago would sound quite Catholic on the subject.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

So worshipping idols would be ok if you sincerely loved them - even though the Bible tells us that it's wrong?

Why would you think that?

 

[Strong in Him]

Why would you think that?

You said:

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

You seemed to be saying that love can even overrule the teachings of the Bible.
So, how far do you take that?

 

[Strong in Him]

If you knew a bit more about the history of contraception in the last hundred years you might consider it banned for yourself as well. Prior to 1930 there was not a single Christian denomination that accepted contraception.

So? Prior to the 1800s there was no one who used anaesthetics, or anti biotics. Teeth were pulled with pliers; diseased limbs were sawn off.
Even around 150 years ago people didn't know as much about mental heath as they did today. If a soldier, traumatised by battle, just walked out; if he was found, he was shot for desertion.
Are you saying that we shouldn't have these things today because we did without them for 1800 or so years?

Whatever the history, we have contraception now and it is not banned, or illegal.

 

[Strong in Him]

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.

Yes, they really believe that.
But they are wrong about other things as well - e.g they think Jesus was A God and don't believe in the Trinity. Those doctrines are far more serious than the issue of accepting, or eating, blood.

Many Christians eat blood. The English have black budding,

I hate black pudding - and we are not Jews.

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

What's "in the Bible" is always open to interpretation. That's why I specifically said "If Jesus had taught it". If part of the sermon on the mount had been "you shall not eat blood, not allow someone else's blood to enter your body - under any circumstances", that would have been crystal clear.
Acts 15 also told gentiles not to eat food offered to idols. But a few years later, Paul taught that an idol is nothing and eating meat offered to them was ok, as long as it didn't offend anyone else.

But I do care what the bible says.

I didn't mean to imply that you don't. I was just puzzled by your statement that love is greater than anything a book teaches, even if that book is the Bible.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

You said:

You seemed to be saying that love can even overrule the teachings of the Bible.
So, how far do you take that?

Well, God is love, so, I reckon God is the truth while the bible is a witness to truth. God must always supersede a witness if there is any conflict between the two; additionally, the book, and holy tradition are deposits of truth, but the Truth is God in Christ. And Love is the greatest of God's gifts, greater than faith and greater than hope. Love is also the chief element in the two great commandments. So, I reckon love triumphs over dogmas, because God triumphs.

 

[Strong in Him]

Well, God is love, so, I reckon God is the truth while the bible is a witness to truth. God must always supersede a witness if there is any conflict between the two; additionally, the book, and holy tradition are deposits of truth, but the Truth is God in Christ. And Love is the greatest of God's gifts, greater than faith and greater than hope. Love is also the chief element in the two great commandments. So, I reckon love triumphs over dogmas, because God triumphs.

But God, who is Truth, inspired the Bible to be written.
He doesn't contradict himself - though he often works in new ways. Then, of course, we have to consider the various cultures of the Bible, who the letters etc were written to. We are not compelled to follow the lifestyle of those in the Bible - e.g. sandals, speaking Greek/Aramaic. But their doctrines and revelations about God were from God.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

But God, who is Truth, inspired the Bible to be written.
He doesn't contradict himself

It's people who interpret the bible, and the prohibition on blood transfusion is a human interpretation. It's wrong according to the Catholic Church. But not everyone accepts Catholic Church teaching, so some people at least need to combat the interpretative framework that Jehovah's witnesses use to arrive at the prohibition. I say that the Catholic Church doesn't need to do that because the Catholic Church relies upon ancient Church teaching for its dogmas and their justification. Not everybody does that, Jehovah's witnesses certainly don't.

 

[chevyontheriver]

So? Prior to the 1800s there was no one who used anaesthetics, or anti biotics. Teeth were pulled with pliers; diseased limbs were sawn off.
Even around 150 years ago people didn't know as much about mental heath as they did today. If a soldier, traumatised by battle, just walked out; if he was found, he was shot for desertion.
Are you saying that we shouldn't have these things today because we did without them for 1800 or so years?

I’m talking about a change in moral teaching that occurred in 1930 and afterwards, not how medicine was practiced before the 1800’s.

Whatever the history, we have contraception now and it is not banned, or illegal.

It’s fine for you if what is legal defines what is moral but some of us think that should not be the Christian standard.

 

[Strong in Him]

It's people who interpret the bible, and the prohibition on blood transfusion is a human interpretation.

Yes - which is why the JWs are wrong.
On this, as well as on their other teachings.

It's wrong according to the Catholic Church.

What's wrong - blood transfusions, or forbidding them?

But not everyone accepts Catholic Church teaching, so some people at least need to combat the interpretative framework that Jehovah's witnesses use to arrive at the prohibition.

?? You mean that people might not accept it if you, as a Catholic, say that it's wrong so you write that the JWs forbid it, so that we will all challenge them and not the Catholic Church?

That's a question, by the way; I don't get what you're saying.

I say that the Catholic Church doesn't need to do that because the Catholic Church relies upon ancient Church teaching for its dogmas and their justification. Not everybody does that, Jehovah's witnesses certainly don't.

Well in that, they would be correct.
Scripture first - just because something is a tradition does not make it right. The fact that some things are traditions makes it harder for people to change, or accept change; i.e. "it's always been done this way."

The JWs would be right to accept Scripture over tradition, were it not for the fact that they have their own version of Scripture.

 

[Strong in Him]

I’m talking about a change in moral teaching that occurred in 1930 and afterwards,

I am sure there are lots of teachings/practices that were fine years ago but would not be accepted now - and vice versa.

It’s fine for you if what is legal defines what is moral but some of us think that should not be the Christian standard.

Scripture doesn't teach it or forbid it, so it's up to everyone to decide for themselves.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Why would you think that?

You did put 'love' over doctrine and dogma and Bible and Church teaching. They are not opposed as if you can decide based on 'love' that teaching is optional. Pastoral and doctrinal are not, in reality opposed. Which is to say that one is most pastoral when one follows truth even if it's hard.

'Love wins' was the message when the LGBTQ folks won at the Supreme Court. They obviously thought 'love' trumped rules too. It's the same logic you are using. Love means never having to follow any rules, no matter from the Bible or the Church. That is anarchistic. If you want it that way, fine, but it can be used to justify anything and everything.

Better to follow the teaching, even when hard, if it is true than to bend and accept whatever in the name of 'love'. Real love is like this:

1* If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2* And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, * but have not love, I gain nothing. 4 Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; 5* it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; 6 it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. 7* Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. 8 Love never ends; as for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophecy is imperfect; 10 but when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away. 11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became a man, I gave up childish ways. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood. 13 So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

 

[eleos1954]

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.

The Bible forbids eating blood, but not transfusion of blood ( Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 3:17, Leviticus 17:14, Deuteronomy 12:23, and Acts 15:29

The bible don't teach it ... we go by the teachings not hypothetical "IF's"

 

[chevyontheriver]

I am sure there are lots of teachings/practices that were fine years ago but would not be accepted now - and vice versa.

What other moral teachings do you reject that your ancestors in the faith held to? Just wondering how fluid your beliefs are.

Scripture doesn't teach it or forbid it, so it's up to everyone to decide for themselves.

That's a very debatable proposition. Both in terms of what the Scripture does say about 'pharmakeia' in Galatians 5:19-20 (potions for contraception and abortion common in Biblical times (my favorite was Egyptian crocodile dung, which probably caused a rip roaring infection that killed any baby and left the user sterile)) being forbidden AND the idea that anything goes if the Bible is silent (or in this case apparently silent to casual readers).

Your ancestors in the faith didn't say that contraception was OK. They would have been quite clear about opposition to it. Then Modernism infected the Anglicans and they buckled, with an ever so limited special case exemption. And it took Protestants by storm. Was that Modernism infecting the mainstream of Protestantism, then steamrollering the rest, or was that merely following the Bible?

Are you even aware that your ancestors in the faith would have been unanimously opposed to contraception before 1930? Does that seem just normal change that what was once true is now false a mere 100 years later? What else can change? A mere ten years ago two men marrying each other did not comport with any Christian teaching outside of the Metropolitan Church. In 90 years will your descendants be shocked and incredulous to hear that at one time pastors would not marry to men or two women? I'm not going to live that long but I'm betting someone like you will be conversing with someone like me and they will say "It's legal. What's the problem." I'll be the one saying that 100 years ago no Christian group allowed it, and that the Catholics, despite some waffling in 2023 and 2024, still ban it. Your counterpart will look down on those un-Biblical Catholics and how superior the Bible believers are. Then she will go in to a long explanation about how the Bible never really condemned two men marrying and how I try to twist Scripture to say that's just not allowed.

 

[Strong in Him]

What other moral teachings do you reject that your ancestors in the faith held to? Just wondering how fluid your beliefs are.

No idea.
I reject the one about paying indulgences to have a vial of Christ's blood, or whatever it was.

That's a very debatable proposition.

No, the Bible doesn't teach, or advise, on whether to get married, how many children to have, if any at all, where to send them to school, whether to get the vaccinated or anything else. That's not its purpose.

Both in terms of what the Scripture does say about 'pharmakeia' in Galatians 5:19-20

This isn't about drugs, or contraception.
If a couple decide, before God, that they don't want children; if they don't want to add to the earth's over population or have another reason for not wanting children, the means to prevent pregnancy are in place.
Far better that than to have a child/children you don't want/can't afford, or become pregnant and then go for an abortion.

Are you even aware that your ancestors in the faith would have been unanimously opposed to contraception before 1930?

So?
We have it now, it's allowed and legal and not unscriptural.
It may be against the Pope's teachings, but that's not the same thing.

Does that seem just normal change that what was once true is now false a mere 100 years later? What else can change?

You could say/ask that about anything.
Years ago, people did not own guns; why is it ok now?
Less than 100 years ago, in the UK, capital punishment was legal. Centuries ago, people were hanged in public and going to watch someone else be horribly killed was almost a family outing - there were crowds of people. Here in the UK we don't do that now. Should we start again just because our ancestors did?
Years ago, children left school at 14 - my grandfather did, and joined the Navy. So why can't they now?
Years ago they had corporal punishment in schools; why don't they have it now?
Years ago we had orphanages, work houses and places probably known as "loony bins"; what about now?
Years ago people went underground, worked in mines, breathed in a load of coal dust and many lost their lives; why don't they do that now?
For many years - and in Bible times - they had slaves; why don't we have them now?
Years ago women could not vote, work or do very much else - even in Bible times women had a raw deal. Should we go back to those days?

In 90 years will your descendants be shocked and incredulous to hear that at one time pastors would not marry to men or two women?

I've no idea.
Will they also be horrified at some of the other things that we do now or take for granted; boxing, wrestling, extreme sports, reality tv programmes, allowing certain people to become politicians?
In 90 years time, will there even be a Pope who allows women to be ordained, or to use contraception?
Who knows? As you say, we won't be around.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

What's wrong - blood transfusions, or forbidding them?

Blood transfusions.

 

[Strong in Him]

Blood transfusions.

That's a matter of opinion.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

They are not opposed

Of course not, of course they are not opposed, yet they each have their own jurisdiction, so to speak.

To use an analogy; Love is like the pope, the universal sovereign, while the dogmas are like the other bishops, each sovereign in his own diocese yet each bishop rules under the ultimate sovereignty of the pope.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

That's a matter of opinion.

I really do not know why you wrote that.