Hairyrapunzel:


At least in blood transfusion people don't get to eat the human being who donate blood. Bible was specific on what to eat and not eat.


At least this verse only talks about animals to be used as food. Not once does bible makes reference to the medical procedure called blood transfusion. So we all agree that its just an assumption that is also a speculation made by jws.

The distinction between eating and injecting is a moot point.

True the technology of injecting blood was nonexistent when the Bible was written.

But if you carefully study these bible commentaries, you will appreciate that the fine distinction between eating and injecting does not align with God's intended use of blood.

see the following non Witness Bible commentaries

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/genesis/9-4.htm

They basically align with the position of the witnesses that blood is life in the sight of God and the use of blood must be as directed by its maker and Giver and not as suggested by creatures.

That eating human flesh did not make sense is clear from the reaction of the crowd to his comments about eating his flesh and drinking his blood....although if you study the greek words he used, he didn't mean it literally,but even the thought was so unnerving, he lost disciples. Assuming but not conceding that the passage is limited to animal food, the issue is not about animal or human as food or nutrients, but about blood as nutrients or as medicine.

Since the religious group believes everything they do should honor God, they cannot fathom doing something that appears minimize God's right to lead man while also claiming to be worshipping the same God, and that sort of explains their position on taking blood via any channel.

You even have to lie on early Christians not using WHOLE BLOOD even for medical reasons.
Read about history of blood transfusion you will see that early Christians did not even know jack about blood transfusion.
Why lie about blood transfusion done in the time of the early Christians and you don't even have a reference.

Please do me the favor of highlighting in bold or via quotes the lie or lies in my previous post so I can do justice to the accusation. Thank you.

Until then the above statement will be treated as an unsubstantiated accusation.

Is this how you guys cook up stories just to make your doctrines look like it was mentioned in the bible?

Please do me the favor of pointing to any story or stories I cooked up in the above post. Thank you.

Is this yet another figment of your vivid imagination at work or are you actually referring to what I said?

I know jws first banned all forms of blood in 1945. They even banned vaccination and organ transplant around the same time.


But you know what? They banned vaccination for 13yrs and organ transplant for 26years.

Please provide references. And take the time to study https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/28/why-do-jehovahs-witnesses-abstain-blood, it would clarify a few issues for you.

Do you as an ardent student of the Bible remember that Jesus once said I have many things to tell you but you are not able to bear them at the moment?

Or you also recall that Jesus once instructed not to go with money pouches and provisions, but later on changed his stance?

Do you realize or have you forgotten how initially there was confusion whether circumcision was a requirement to be a true Christian and how subsequently that position was clarified?

The common thread? Time changes things, the principles remain the same, but the understanding and or application can change.

Did the Bible not talk of the light getting brighter over time?

Do you know that currently your leaders don't ban all components of blood? That it is just whole blood they ban?
Bible says abstain from blood and your leaders translate blood to whole blood transfusion?
Bible didn't even talk of components or fractions of blood to be accepted. Yet your leaders made a list of fractions to be accepted. Who is deceiving who.

Do you know your leaders added white blood cells and platelets as fractions their members can accept 2 years ago?

Do you know that these fractions/components of blood are gotten from blood donated by wordly, wicked, evil,unrighteous people? people who you consider pagans and satan worshippers?

You guys The so called followers of jehovah can never donate blood to save yourselves or another person yet you accept components of blood from blood donated by Satan worshippers.

Your leaders are masters of cherry picking.

Just say it's what your leaders want and not what the bible says. Stop blaming non biblical doctrines/beliefs on the bible.

You are being mischievous and you know it.

What did the Bible speak of? Blood or blood fractions? What do the witnesses refuse to take whole blood and main blood components. What is the stand of the witnesses on blood fractions and derivatives? Take? Don't Take? Or let your conscience lead you? You know the position is decide for yourself after weighing the facts and listening to the leadings of the inbuilt compass for determining right and wrong your conscience.

Why is this additional clarification necessary? You admit those derivatives did not exist when the Bible was written, in the same way as gentile christians did not exist when God required circumcision from his people. Changing circumstances requires applying the scripture to new developments such as has been highlighted here. It took a while for the oversight body to apply christian principles to chamging times.

All in all what you despise is what God has always valued and protection, where there is no express prohibition, individual choice reigns supreme.

There is NO list of fractions to be accepted....there is a list of fractions that you may apply your understanding of the scriptures and the proddings of your conscience to determine if you can accept or not in the absence of an express injunction against the use of blood components.

The BMJ link addresses the issue of blood donations adequately.

The US army last time I checked has not stopped doing blood transfusion. You are making a false impression about a situation. They adopted something doesn't mean they abandoned blood transfusion. Read things with sense.

It seems my point was lost in translation.

I never ever said that the US Army stopped using blood transfusion.

I said and the article made it clear that there are distinct advantages of bloodless surgery/medicine that were so outstanding that the US Army committed almost 5 million dollars to pursuing it further.

If bloodless surgery and medicine was as worthless of you make it seem, would they do that especially in the presence of according to you a more viable alternative....the holy grail of blood transfusion?

Maybe it is you who had problems distilling this subtle point from the article because of ingrained bias.

Thank Goodness you used you express they adopted....so you got my point afterall.

Now do me and your followers the favor of pointing to where I said or insinuated or even suggested talk less of hinting that they had abandoned blood transfusion for my education and further enlightenment. Thank you in anticipation.

Do you know when your so called bloodless surgery and medicine fails the last resort is blood transfusion?

Unless my memory has failed, for those who believe in bloodless medicine transfusion is not an option.....so the question of its being a last resort does not even arise.

Still johns Hopkins has never abandoned blood transfusion.
Do you know there are indications and contraindications to bloodless surgery?
Always read with sense.

I never ever said that John Hopkins stopped using blood transfusion, if I did, would you be kind enough to point to it? Thanks.

There is almost no medical procedure without both....and that includes blood transfusions which is why the US Army even gave attention to bloodless surgery in the first place since it appeared that the post surgery complications of bloodless were fewer than blood.

Meanwhile FDA banned polyheme and hemopure (from cow blood) that jws were championing because of deaths it caused. Think of the number of jws used as lab rats that died before the ban.

Even malaria medicines have been withdrawn or suggested as being inappropriate over time by the WHO, these things happen. Question is are there alternatives....if yes then substitute.

Every drug or medical procedure has a propensity for producing adverse effects. Don't come here to lie about things that your leaders are illiterate about.

This is so true of blood transfusions as well.
https://academic.oup.com/bjaed/article/14/3/112/341048

As time permits, I will address your other mentions of me....

Seun:
The Jesus of the gospels would have supported the eating of blood if he thought it would benefit his disciples, not to mention transfusions:



To me, this is an open and shut case. Regardless of the political decision of Acts 15, Jesus himself declared all foods to be clean. Even blood.

cc: OneJ, JMAN05, eyingueje, capitalzero, and achorladey

Seun, "Jesus declared all foods to be clean" , if U were served a tasty dish of jellyfish & jollof rice, U go eat ?

chiommy123:
no. Not every one that received blood lives. God just wanted to test Abraham's faithfulness. Loving God with all your heart and soul means obeying Gods commandments, loving your neighbor, serving God with all that is within you. God said I will that you prosper even as your soul prosperth. You know prosperity is not just money, good health is also prosperity. Pls where did God discouraged blood transfusion

It goes more than that . Between obedience to God & saving his son's life,which did Abraham choose?

The injunction "Abstain from blood" has no clause attached. Acts 15:20,29. Yes or no. pls reply.

Is intravenous injection of dextrose & saline /ringers solution , the same as intake of food ? Yes or no. pls reply.

chiommy123:
no. Not every one that received blood lives. God just wanted to test Abraham's faithfulness. Loving God with all your heart and soul means obeying Gods commandments, loving your neighbor, serving God with all that is within you. God said I will that you prosper even as your soul prosperth. You know prosperity is not just money, good health is also prosperity. Pls where did God discouraged blood transfusion

It goes more than that . Between obedience to God & saving his son's life,which did Abraham choose? what's the lesson u learnt from Abraham's action?

The injunction "Abstain from blood" has no clause attached. Acts 15:20,29. Yes or no. pls reply.

Is intravenous injection of dextrose & saline /ringers solution , the same as intake of food ? Yes or no. pls reply.

tintingz:
Medics are not saying blood transfusion is the Lazarus pit, blood transfusion gives high chances of surviving and it's needed when necessary.

Blood transfusion is a form of eating blood?, are we now vampires.

You guys should quit making fallacious statement.

Blood transfusion gives high chances of surviving" What a fantastic assumption ! No proof.

U no fit eat your favorite dish rice & beans, because of typhoid fever, doctor come put drip for your body, na your feeding be that? yes or no. reply

OneJ:


Na U be God to decide which things to dey approve or disapprove ?

Marital sex has God's seal of approval & sexual immorality has none. "Abstain from blood" no get clause, so receive sense !

Blood sustains the life of humans & animals. God's law & principles applies to both of them. Blood is for atonement of sins,both for humans & animals.

alBAHGDADI, my questions,
When U eat blood eee dey enter your body ? When u transfuse blood eee dey enter your body? When U eat food eee dey enter your body? When U do intravenous injection of saline & dextrose, eee dey enter your body? Yes or No. Reply.

Since una be one flesh, why dull yourself with blood transfusion ? Since there is love in sharing, dey take menses join , na life saving blood with instanta results.

What a lame comeback. You ended up saying nothing.

We showed you guys times without number that the blood to abstain from is animal blood which we must not eat. Yet you guys are still clutching on straws by saying it involves human blood as well. Did the Israelite ever eat human not to talk of its blood to make God make such law? No.

You gave no answer concerning exchange of blood during sexual immorality and sex in marriage. You only said one sex is approved by God while the other isn't. Does that mean the exchange of blood during that sex is approved?

OneJ:


It goes more than that . Between obedience to God & saving his son's life,which did Abraham choose?

The injunction "Abstain from blood" has no clause attached. Acts 15:20,29. Yes or no. pls reply.

Is intravenous injection of dextrose & saline /ringers solution , the same as intake of food ? Yes or no. pls reply.

You keep saying the injuction "abstain from blood" has no clause attached. But when I bring up the fact that you touch blood when you slaughter chicken, doctors touch blood when a baby is delivered or when treating an injured person, you immediately bring up a clause. Abstain from blood, yet you bring up a clause that allows you take some components of blood. Isn't that madness?

I showed you that the blood spoken of is about the blood of animals which we must not eat, yet you still keep on ranting lies. I showed you countless verses which we can use to understand that verse in the book of Acts, still you don't want to listen. You just want to keep holding on to the weak belief that it is about human blood.

You are too embarrassed to admit the false doctrine of jw GB

Abraham's case is a clear command from God. The case of blood transfusion is a command from 8 old men in New York who twisted the Bible to say what it doesn't say.

OneJ:


Blood transfusion gives high chances of surviving" What a fantastic assumption ! No proof.

U no fit eat your favorite dish rice & beans, because of typhoid fever, doctor come put drip for your body, na your feeding be that? yes or no. reply

The tonnes of people who have survived after the process is enough proof. But I know you don't keep track of that. You only keep track of the few people in your organization that survived even after refusing blood transfusion.

Seun:
Dear Jehovah's Witnesses,

When I heard that Serena Williams almost died during the birth of her child, I couldn’t understand why a strong and rich lady like her in a first world country would face such difficulties. When I learned that she is a Jehovah's Witness I immediately understood what the problem was.

Please help me to understand why blood transfusions are so bad. What makes you think that God is against life-saving blood transfusions? Why would God give doctors the wisdom to perform life-saving blood transfusions and then forbid his followers from accepting them?

Please don’t just copy and paste content from apologetics websites. Use your own words and reasons to explain what you personally believe.

This is a religious issue rather than a medical one. Both the Old and New Testaments clearly command us to abstain from blood. (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 17:10; Deuteronomy 12:23; Acts 15:28, 29) Also, God views blood as representing life. (Leviticus 17:14) So we avoid taking blood not only in obedience to God but also out of respect for him as the Giver of life.

eyinjuege:


You indeed have a right to question yourself on other people's choices. But definitely have no right to question them about their choices.
You simply don't have that power.
As per academic purposes, it would be interesting if you could do a proper research and proper study to find out how many deaths in hospitals due to bleeding out were JW. Of the JW amongst them, how many refused transfusion. That would be really interesting.
You can choose a popular hospital with lots of patients like Island maternity in Lagos. They treat only women, and take a lot of deliveries/cs. You can start from there.
Like I said earlier, provided its not a child, or someone without mental capacity, they can choose to refuse a medical treatment.
Some people don't believe in science, they don't believe in the whiteman's medicine and would rather stick to their local roots and herbs. It's their choice.
Some people feel they should be euthanized because of their dementia, and would rather die than not have their memories again. Their choice, if they're not breaking any law.
I may not agree with it, but don't ever put down the power of choice or the freewill of others because you think you're doing good.
Some JW would rather choose death than blood transfusion. Some non-JW would rather choose death than multiple sclerosis or dementia and can also refuse medical treatment that can help them.
You may not understand their decisions, but it is still theirs.

When your choice is totally imposed on you by a a set of fickle-minded people called a governing board, then that choice can be questioned. Just like how people question Islamic terrorists beliefs.

The Bible commands that we not ingest blood. So we should not accept whole blood or its primary components in any form, whether offered as food or as a transfusion. Note the following scriptures:

Genesis 9:4. God allowed Noah and his family to add animal flesh to their diet after the Flood but commanded them not to eat the blood. God told Noah: “Only flesh with its soul—its blood—you must not eat.” This command applies to all mankind from that time on because all are descendants of Noah.
Leviticus 17:14. “You must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh, because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off.” God viewed the soul, or life, as being in the blood and belonging to him. Although this law was given only to the nation of Israel, it shows how seriously God viewed the law against eating blood.
Acts 15:20. “Abstain . . . from blood.” God gave Christians the same command that he had given to Noah. History shows that early Christians refused to consume whole blood or even to use it for medical reasons.
Why does God command us to abstain from blood?
There are sound medical reasons to avoid blood transfusions. More important, though, God commands that we abstain from blood because what it represents is sacred to him.—Leviticus 17:11; Colossians 1:20.

Seun:
Dear Jehovah's Witnesses,

When I heard that Serena Williams almost died during the birth of her child, I couldn’t understand why a strong and rich lady like her in a first world country would face such difficulties. When I learned that she is a Jehovah's Witness I immediately understood what the problem was.

Please help me to understand why blood transfusions are so bad. What makes you think that God is against life-saving blood transfusions? Why would God give doctors the wisdom to perform life-saving blood transfusions and then forbid his followers from accepting them?

Please don’t just copy and paste content from apologetics websites. Use your own words and reasons to explain what you personally believe.

The Bible commands that we not ingest blood. So we should not accept whole blood or its primary components in any form, whether offered as food or as a transfusion. Note the following scriptures:

Genesis 9:4. God allowed Noah and his family to add animal flesh to their diet after the Flood but commanded them not to eat the blood. God told Noah: “Only flesh with its soul—its blood—you must not eat.” This command applies to all mankind from that time on because all are descendants of Noah.
Leviticus 17:14. “You must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh, because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off.” God viewed the soul, or life, as being in the blood and belonging to him. Although this law was given only to the nation of Israel, it shows how seriously God viewed the law against eating blood.
Acts 15:20. “Abstain . . . from blood.” God gave Christians the same command that he had given to Noah. History shows that early Christians refused to consume whole blood or even to use it for medical reasons.
Why does God command us to abstain from blood?
There are sound medical reasons to avoid blood transfusions. More important, though, God commands that we abstain from blood because what it represents is sacred to him.—Leviticus 17:11; Colossians 1:20.

OneJ:


Blood transfusion gives high chances of surviving" What a fantastic assumption ! No proof.

U no fit eat your favorite dish rice & beans, because of typhoid fever, doctor come put drip for your body, na your feeding be that? yes or no. reply

What a messed up logic.

I'm talking about critical situation, e.g accidents, CS childbirth, deep cuts etc where there are lose of blood, blood transfusion is necessary!

But believing in God will make life meaningless, your anthropomorphic fairy daddy in the sky didn't state any medical treatment in your fairy book yet he hates what could give high chances of surviving. What a delusion!

OneJ:



It goes more than that . Between obedience to God & saving his son's life,which did Abraham choose? what's the lesson u learnt from Abraham's action?

The injunction "Abstain from blood" has no clause attached. Acts 15:20,29. Yes or no. pls reply.

Is intravenous injection of dextrose & saline /ringers solution , the same as intake of food ? Yes or no. pls reply.

Abraham obeyed God which is still our duty here on earth. The bible wasn't even talking about accepting or giving out blood in Acts 15:20 that you quoted. Its talking about things sacrificed to idols, formication, staining your hands with blood I.e killing/ murder. To me its not cos its not every food they can take with that. Thou the medics may see it differently

OneJ:
Seun, "Jesus declared all foods to be clean" , if U were served a tasty dish of jellyfish & jollof rice, U go eat ?

Don’t ask me, ask Jesus, the author of your salvation. He is the one who declared all foods to be clean. Do you follow Jesus, or do you follow the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses?

chiommy123:
Abraham obeyed God which is still our duty here on earth. The bible wasn't even talking about accepting or giving out blood in Acts 15:20 that you quoted. Its talking about things sacrificed to idols, formication, staining your hands with blood I.e killing/ murder. To me its not cos its not every food they can take with that. Thou the medics may see it differently

"The Bible wasn't even talking about accepting or giving out blood in Acts 15:20". "Abstain.... from blood" Acts 15:20
U dey smoke weed ?

tintingz:
What a messed up logic.

I'm talking about critical situation, e.g accidents, CS childbirth, deep cuts etc where there are lose of blood, blood transfusion is necessary!

But believing in God will make life meaningless, your anthropomorphic fairy daddy in the sky didn't state any medical treatment in your fairy book yet he hates what could give high chances of surviving. What a delusion!

Deluded bigot, dey form atheist.

alBHAGDADI:


The tonnes of people who have survived after the process is enough proof. But I know you don't keep track of that. You only keep track of the few people in your organization that survived even after refusing blood transfusion.

Your. tonnes of people who transfuse blood only succeeded in playing with a double edge sword. It's no guarantee of eternal longevity. Many JWs don't take blood transfusions, yet they survived & recovered faster than those who transfused blood.

Many have died after blood transfusions just as some JW died with out taking blood . JWs faith in Jehovah word "Abstain from blood" is solid & Jehovah's promises is assured. Abraham offered his son , Isaac on the altar, his faith was considered righteous by God.
James 2:18-23. John 11:23-25.
Make una atheist & fairweather churchianity
label it any how U want, we JWs dont bother.

My God Jehovah& his son Jesus Christ, has guaranteed our firm hope of resurrection, that's all that matters. Isaiah 25:8. Rev 21:3-5.

OneJ:


"The Bible wasn't even talking about accepting or giving out blood in Acts 15:20". "Abstain.... from blood" Acts 15:20
U dey smoke weed ?

the type your Church smoke and will be interpreting the bible upside down and when you try to make them see the truth they result to insults and name calling just like you're doing here. Big shm

OneJ:

Deluded bigot, dey form atheist.

Show me medical treatments on how to treat a patient in need of blood from your bible.

alBHAGDADI:


What a lame comeback. You ended up saying nothing.

We showed you guys times without number that the blood to abstain from is animal blood which we must not eat. Yet you guys are still clutching on straws by saying it involves human blood as well. Did the Israelite ever eat human not to talk of its blood to make God make such law? No.

You gave no answer concerning exchange of blood during sexual immorality and sex in marriage. You only said one sex is approved by God while the other isn't. Does that mean the exchange of blood during that sex is approved?

Married sex is signed & sealed with approval from the exalted throne of the Almighty God Jehovah. No law against whatever transpires in their sexual life.

But alBAGHDADI (the Senate President without office )done put law against "exchange of blood" during marital sex.
A mere mortal playing God !
However "Abstain from blood" is an explicit command.
Is the blood of animals & humans performing similar function? Yes.
Same law applies to them.
Receive sense.

AutoElectNG:


The distinction between eating and injecting is a moot point.

Then why create a distinction for God when he was mute on what eating blood meant at that time? It's like your leaders love making laws for their jehovah because when he is silent on issues your religious group will always find a way to assume what he was thinking at that moment.


At least you now agree that everything you believe ain't even in the Bible. You just speculated and made it your belief. You are uncertain about the belief sef

First time a Jw has admitted that their blood transfusion ban is based on a comment they are uncertain about. A good start

True the technology of injecting blood was nonexistent when the Bible was written.

At least you have agreed that the blood transfusion was non existent during the bible times.
So why lie that early Christians refused blood transfusion when medically prescribed then?

What did you stand to gain by deceiving people viewing this thread?

But if you carefully study these bible commentaries, you will appreciate that the fine distinction between eating and injecting does not align with God's intended use of blood.

BUT AND IF again? So much uncertainty in your statement. Don't put injection of blood there. No bible commentary has ever talked about injection of blood only watchtower magazines.
You still want to lie on bible commentators head so as to fuel your belief in your non biblical doctrines?
Stop lying on bible's head cos it never for once mentions injection of blood. Let's stick to what's in the Bible not something your leaders assume in their head.

Let's stick to the words seen in the Bible biko

see the following non Witness Bible commentaries
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/genesis/9-4.htm
They basically align with the position of the witnesses that blood is life in the sight of God and the use of blood must be as directed by its maker and Giver and not as suggested by creatures.

All the commentaries talk about lives of animals being used for food according to the verses exact words. It's like you guys never read the Bible. If God sees animal life the same as human life why will he allow humans slaughter animals and eat them?
It should mean also that humans can slaughter humans and get away with it.
Because you want me to believe that non witness bible commentaries say blood is life you remove the fact that the all commentators talked about the life of the animals killed for food.
What are you guys even hiding?
Are you an animal meant for food?
Is your blood more important than your life?
So if God said your life is important why did he ask humans not to take life of other humans? I no fit laugh.

That eating human flesh did not make sense is clear from the reaction of the crowd to his comments about eating his flesh and drinking his blood....although if you study the greek words he used, he didn't mean it literally,but even the thought was so unnerving, he lost disciples. Assuming but not conceding that the passage is limited to animal food, the issue is not about animal or human as food or nutrients, but about blood as nutrients or as medicine.

Since you kill animals for food and since your jehovah values the life of animals just the way he values the life of humans they should still kill humans for food too. You guys will choose the one that is literal and figurative.
If to you David poured water on the floor and it meant that we should pour/discard blood because of its sacred nature that means Jesus giving us a command to drink his blood means we can drink blood.

You cannot say David's water is literal blood and Jesus wine is figurative blood. Do you think we are daft?
It's like your jehovah loves cherry picking. When he sees that one thing he said in a place is the same with another one he said in another place, he tries to make one literal and the other figurative.

Since the religious group believes everything they do should honor God, they cannot fathom doing something that appears minimize God's right to lead man while also claiming to be worshipping the same God, and that sort of explains their position on taking blood via any channel.

So at the end of the day their beliefs are based only on speculation not the actual word of God. At the end of the day they are doing what they feel like and not what the Bible said.

Please do me the favor of highlighting in bold or via quotes the lie or lies in my previous post so I can do justice to the accusation. Thank you.

Why will you say early Christians refused whole blood even for medical purpose? Why lie about it?

Until then the above statement will be treated as an unsubstantiated accusation.

You that made a claim that early Christians refused whole blood for medical purposes. I no fit laugh
You think we are daft? We are not jws that gb will tell that early Christians refused whole blood and will swallow the lie o.

Please do me the favor of pointing to any story or stories I cooked up in the above post. Thank you

You said early Christians refused whole blood for medical purposes.

Is this yet another figment of your vivid imagination at work or are you actually referring to what I said?

You want to lie that you didn't say early Christians refused whole blood even for medical purposes without any biblical or worldly secular reference?

Please provide references. And take the time to study https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/28/why-do-jehovahs-witnesses-abstain-blood, it would clarify a few issues for you.

You said that you are uncertain about a medical procedure. And why you guys don't take it is based on speculations that your jehovah may not like it. In fact he prefers you die rather than take the symbol of life because the symbol is very sacred to him

Do you as an ardent student of the Bible remember that Jesus once said I have many things to tell you but you are not able to bear them at the moment?

The disciples were not able to bear them that moment then Nathan knorr in 1945 felt he could bear them then? What are you trying so hard to prove? That God did not show them blood transfusion then and since blood transfusion is present now it is bad? Is it what you are trying to say?

Or you also recall that Jesus once instructed not to go with money pouches and provisions, but later on changed his stance?

No bible reference of Jesus changing his stance on something? What are you guys afraid of sef? You just blow lie and think you will get away with it? Shame no let you bring out bible verse

Do you realize or have you forgotten how initially there was confusion whether circumcision was a requirement to be a true Christian and how subsequently that position was clarified?

So since apostles in the Bible told the gentiles that whether they are circumcised or not it doesn't matter so your leaders who are imperfect, uninspired and fallible now feel it is their duty to assume a doctrine and say God said blood is very sacred to him so blood transfusion is against his will? In fact it is better to choose death than be transfused?
Since circumcision didn't matter why would you think the medical procedure called blood transfusion which is prescribed by doctors only will be a problem to God?

The common thread? Time changes things, the principles remain the same, but the understanding and or application can change.

Which principle remain the same? Everything human is prone to change but God remains the same yesterday today and forever.


Numbers 23:19
19 God is not human, that he should lie,
not a human being, that he should change his mind.
Does he speak and then not act?
Does he promise and not fulfill?

Hebrews 13:8
8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

James 1:17
17 Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.


If your jehovah can direct people who in future will correct a mistake they said God told them to believe in before that means your jehovah is definitely a liar.

Did the Bible not talk of the light getting brighter over time?

The Bible never talks about doctrines or beliefs. It was referring to behavior of the righteous person. Read the whole chapter.
That's the only passage you can hold on to to your ever changing beliefs. Lol

You are being mischievous and you know it.

it's called having to think for myself aka independent/critical thinking. Something you lack because you are constantly told by gb that if you think something contrary to their views you are an apostate

What did the Bible speak of? Blood or blood fractions? What do the witnesses refuse to take whole blood and main blood components. What is the stand of the witnesses on blood fractions and derivatives? Take? Don't Take? Or let your conscience lead you? You know the position is decide for yourself after weighing the facts and listening to the leadings of the inbuilt compass for determining right and wrong your conscience.

So now it's the bible did not say blood fractions rather it said blood. Lol. Then you should allow red blood cell and plasma because they are fractions of blood just like the rest you allow. I just can't laugh. Conscience ke? So after Paul said you should abstain from blood you guys say blood fractions should be a conscience matter. Lol
Is blood fractions not from blood donated by worldly people? I thought the blood was meant to be discarded just like David discarded the water and not to be drank like Jesus told his disciples to drink his blood. Rotflol

Why is this additional clarification necessary? You admit those derivatives did not exist when the Bible was written, in the same way as gentile christians did not exist when God required circumcision from his people. Changing circumstances requires applying the scripture to new developments such as has been highlighted here. It took a while for the oversight body to apply christian principles to chamging times.

Since blood transfusion didn't occur in the Bible, why is it a problem to God?
If blood transfusion which didn't occur in the Bible is a problem to God according to jws then blood fractions only gotten from blood of worldly people should also be a problem to God. You don't get to Cherry pick. Abi your god loves cherry picking?

A

ll in all what you despise is what God has always valued and protection, where there is no express prohibition, individual choice reigns supreme.

Which individual choice is there? If you take blood transfusion in the face of imminent death, and are lucky to survive you will be disfellowshipped and shunned whereas if you refuse and are unlucky to die you will be hailed as strong in Jw faith. Lol choice ke. If you take blood and you live you will be shunned. If you take blood and you die your family will be shunned.
Does this sound like choice to you?

There is NO list of fractions to be accepted....there is a list of fractions that you may apply your understanding of the scriptures and the proddings of your conscience to determine if you can accept or not in the absence of an express injunction against the use of blood components.

Which blood fractions did bible ever mention? Don't call applying Scriptures to list any kind of blood fraction when bible didn't mention anything about it. Just say is humans in your religion that decided the fractions of blood from blood donated by worldly people they would accept or reject. You want to lie that all blood components you guys accept are in the Bible. No dey lie again. It's only written in your website.

The BMJ link addresses the issue of blood donations adequately

Blood of worldly people can save you when you desire their blood fractions whereas you say your jehovah hates blood donation and he prefers you discard your blood instead while the blood of worldly, wicked, unrighteous and evil people are not discarded so as to provide provide blood transfusion for Jehovah's people.
Isn't your jehovah a legend?

It seems my point was lost in translation? I never ever said that the US Army stopped using blood transfusion.

So since they didn't stop blood transfusion what's the big deal about looking into bloodless medicine? Abeg e
You were stylishly implying that us army is using bloodless medicine so blood transfusion isn't important.

I said and the article made it clear that there are distinct advantages of bloodless surgery/medicine that were so outstanding that the US Army committed almost 5 million dollars to pursuing it further.

The same way bloodless surgery has advantages is the same way blood transfusion has advantages too.
What's the big deal? Did it stop us army from using blood transfusion even with the advantages of bloodless medicine? So let me ask this questions

What's the moral lesson of telling us that the us army is looking into bloodless medicine?
What conclusion did you want us to draw from telling us that us army is now into bloodless medicine?

If bloodless surgery and medicine was as worthless of you make it seem, would they do that especially in the presence of according to you a more viable alternative....the holy grail of blood transfusion?

When did I ever make it seem bloodless surgery is worthless? You want to lie on my head abi?
You that thinks everyone who receives blood transfusion dies or gets a problem Nko? Have I ever told you you make blood transfusion seem worthless?
Be very careful.

Maybe it is you who had problems distilling this subtle point from the article because of ingrained bias.

You did not say anything after telling us us army is looking into bloodless medicine. We are not daft. We can read in between the lines.

Thank Goodness you used you express they adopted....so you got my point afterall.

So what conclusion should we now make from us army looking into bloodless medicine?

Now do me and your followers the favor of pointing to where I said or insinuated or even suggested talk less of hinting that they had abandoned blood transfusion for my education and further enlightenment. Thank you in anticipation.

I asked a question.
Has the US army abandoned blood transfusion?

Unless my memory has failed, for those who believe in bloodless medicine transfusion is not an option.....so the question of its being a last resort does not even arise.

They will be dead by then. So there won't be need to proceed to blood transfusion.

I never ever said that John Hopkins stopped using blood transfusion, if I did, would you be kind enough to point to it? Thanks.

Did john Hopkins having a blood less medicine centre stop them from doing blood transfusion?

There is almost no medical procedure without both....and that includes blood transfusions which is why the US Army even gave attention to bloodless surgery in the first place since it appeared that the post surgery complications of bloodless were fewer than blood.

Reference please
What kind of cases?
Was it planned surgeries?
Was it emergencies?
Was it done in children?
Was it done in severe anemic?
In what country did they do these studies?
How rich are these countries?
Was it done on pregnant women who had severe anemia or DIC?

You people will just be yarning nonsense because some illiterates in new York are spewing lies.

Even malaria medicines have been withdrawn or suggested as being inappropriate over time by the WHO, these things happen. Question is are there alternatives....if yes then substitute.

Malaria drug isn't bloodless medicine. If its to lie that receiving blood transfusion has caused more deaths for those who receive it than those who don't you guys will open your wide mouth.
Polyheme and hemopure caused more deaths amongst Jw Guinea pigs when it was used than when it was not used so fda had to ban these substitutes.
Don't try to water down the side effect of your jehovah right treatment. It won't work

This is so true of blood transfusions as well.
https://academic.oup.com/bjaed/article/14/3/112/341048 As time permits, I will address your other mentions of me....

Yet FDA has not banned blood transfusion. Interesting
Well I never said blood transfusion doesn't have adverse effect.
If you remember I said all medical procedures and drugs have the propensity to cause adverse reactions.

Stop hiding the fact that jw blood substitute has been banned by FDA (worldly man made group) because it has killed so many jws.
Worldly people helping jws.
First worldly people donate their blood so jws can get blood fractions
Next they banned substitutes championed by jws which caused the death of jws. That is they are pained when jws die.

Worldly people are so nice

blezzy080:
The Bible commands that we not ingest blood. So we should not accept whole blood or its primary components in any form, whether offered as food or as a transfusion. Note the following scriptures:

Genesis 9:4. God allowed Noah and his family to add animal flesh to their diet after the Flood but commanded them not to eat the blood. God told Noah: “Only flesh with its soul—its blood—you must not eat.” This command applies to all mankind from that time on because all are descendants of Noah.
Leviticus 17:14. “You must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh, because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off.” God viewed the soul, or life, as being in the blood and belonging to him. Although this law was given only to the nation of Israel, it shows how seriously God viewed the law against eating blood.
Acts 15:20. “Abstain . . . from blood.” God gave Christians the same command that he had given to Noah. History shows that early Christians refused to consume whole blood or even to use it for medical reasons.
Why does God command us to abstain from blood?
There are sound medical reasons to avoid blood transfusions. More important, though, God commands that we abstain from blood because what it represents is sacred to him.—Leviticus 17:11; Colossians 1:20.

When did the Bible say you cannot take whole blood or its primary components but take other components?

blezzy080:
The Bible commands that we not ingest blood. So we should not accept whole blood or its primary components in any form, whether offered as food or as a transfusion. Note the following scriptures:

Genesis 9:4. God allowed Noah and his family to add animal flesh to their diet after the Flood but commanded them not to eat the blood. God told Noah: “Only flesh with its soul—its blood—you must not eat.” This command applies to all mankind from that time on because all are descendants of Noah.
Leviticus 17:14. “You must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh, because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off.” God viewed the soul, or life, as being in the blood and belonging to him. Although this law was given only to the nation of Israel, it shows how seriously God viewed the law against eating blood.
Acts 15:20. “Abstain . . . from blood.” God gave Christians the same command that he had given to Noah. History shows that early Christians refused to consume whole blood or even to use it for medical reasons.
Why does God command us to abstain from blood?
There are sound medical reasons to avoid blood transfusions. More important, though, God commands that we abstain from blood because what it represents is sacred to him.—Leviticus 17:11; Colossians 1:20.

Why are you people always ashamed to state that Genesis and leveticus was talking about blood of animals used as food?
You guys always quote a phrase.
It's like you people are hiding something.

blezzy080:
This is a religious issue rather than a medical one. Both the Old and New Testaments clearly command us to abstain from blood. (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 17:10; Deuteronomy 12:23; Acts 15:28, 29) Also, God views blood as representing life. (Leviticus 17:14) So we avoid taking blood not only in obedience to God but also out of respect for him as the Giver of life.

So out out respect for god as the giver of life you choose death instead of taking a symbol?
You loose what a symbol represents instead of accepting the symbol?
Your God must really love suicide.

OneJ:


Married sex is signed & sealed with approval from the exalted throne of the Almighty God Jehovah. No law against whatever transpires in their sexual life.

But alBAGHDADI (the Senate President without office )done put law against "exchange of blood" during marital sex.
A mere mortal playing God !
However "Abstain from blood" is an explicit command.
Is the blood of animals & humans performing similar function? Yes.
Same law applies to them.
Receive sense.

I doubt you understood my post which you replied to. Now, let me ask you a question which will make you understand it.

Since we both agree that there is no problem with blood exchanged between couples during sex in a marriage approved by God, why should there be problem with a husband giving his wife blood through transfusion in a marriage approved by God?

Hope you understand now.

OneJ:


Your. tonnes of people who transfuse blood only succeeded in playing with a double edge sword. It's no guarantee of eternal longevity. Many JWs don't take blood transfusions, yet they survived & recovered faster than those who transfused blood.

Many have died after blood transfusions just as some JW died with out taking blood . JWs faith in Jehovah word "Abstain from blood" is solid & Jehovah's promises is assured. Abraham offered his son , Isaac on the altar, his faith was considered righteous by God.
James 2:18-23. John 11:23-25.
Make una atheist & fairweather churchianity
label it any how U want, we JWs dont bother.

My God Jehovah& his son Jesus Christ, has guaranteed our firm hope of resurrection, that's all that matters. Isaiah 25:8. Rev 21:3-5.

Look at the way you reeled out statistics without any credible stats.

If blood transfusion doesn't guarantee longetivity, how come you take medicine which also doesn't guarantee the same?

I repeat, the doctrine against blood transfusion is man-made which you people are teaching as commandment of God.

alBHAGDADI:
Funny you.

I'm glad you established that it has to do with EATING.

Are humans EATING blood when they undergo blood transfusion?

A young man and a woman reads Abstain from fornication, the Lady is a virgin . so they believe so far her virginity is intact they haven't commit fornication , but continues to engage in Anal or MouthAction . You would agree with me that they are deceiving themselves ? but to them, so far they are not doing it through her main private part , it's not fornication.


Likewise , either orally or intravenously . Accepting blood into ones system violate the commandment to Abstain from Blood

Act 15:29

To think otherwise is to deceive oneself.

homesteady:


When your choice is totally imposed on you by a a set of fickle-minded people called a governing board, then that choice can be questioned. Just like how people question Islamic terrorists beliefs.

Are you really calling JW terrorists or even comparing them to terrorists?
I'm really surprised at the way you want to rationalise that
Remove sentiments, remove bias and remove prejudice from your story. Only then can you start seeing things clearly.

Blood transfusion is a medical treatment. Life saving. But these people don't want it. They have a right to chose, afterall its their life.

I'm very sure there must be some JW who have had blood transfusion before, and they still continue in their worship. Life is all about choices. They can choose to follow their doctrines or not.

I believe in the use of blood and blood products for people that need it. I can never preach against blood transfusion.

I have being called JW because I chose to see things differently. I have even being called some borderline names by people one would assume are not blinded by religion, but unfortunately have both eyes obviously blinded by bias and prejudice. Jokers.

The story of animal farm comes to mind.

Terrorists choose to take the lives of others.JW don't do that.

They have simply refused to receive certain medical help, and most importantly the LAW stands with them on that.
It may be seen as stupidity, foolishness but it is theirs and not anyone else's. It's as simple as that.

If you really care so much about transfusion as a life saving procedure, and really genuinely want to save lives of those that want to be saved there are more practical ways of doing that.
Donate blood regularly, it's a noble act. Many non JW people need it, and some places still don't have access to such transfusion services.

eyinjuege:



Are you really calling JW terrorists or even comparing them to terrorists?
I'm really surprised at the way you want to rationalise that
Remove sentiments, remove bias and remove prejudice from your story. Only then can you start seeing things clearly.

Blood transfusion is a medical treatment. Life saving. But these people don't want it. They have a right to chose, afterall its their life.

I'm very sure there must be some JW who have had blood transfusion before, and they still continue in their worship. Life is all about choices. They can choose to follow their doctrines or not.

I believe in the use of blood and blood products for people that need it. I can never preach against blood transfusion.

I have being called JW because I chose to see things differently. I have even being called some borderline names by people one would assume are not blinded by religion, but unfortunately have both eyes obviously blinded by bias and prejudice. Jokers.

The story of animal farm comes to mind.

Terrorists choose to take the lives of others.JW don't do that.

They have simply refused to receive certain medical help, and most importantly the LAW stands with them on that.
It may be seen as stupidity, foolishness but it is theirs and not anyone else's. It's as simple as that.

If you really care so much about transfusion as a life saving procedure, and really genuinely want to save lives of those that want to be saved there are more practical ways of doing that.
Donate blood regularly, it's a noble act. Many non JW people need it, and some places still don't have access to such transfusion services.

Jws too need the donated blood for blood components/fractions.

eyinjuege:



Are you really calling JW terrorists or even comparing them to terrorists?
I'm really surprised at the way you want to rationalise that
Remove sentiments, remove bias and remove prejudice from your story. Only then can you start seeing things clearly.

Blood transfusion is a medical treatment. Life saving. But these people don't want it. They have a right to chose, afterall its their life.

I'm very sure there must be some JW who have had blood transfusion before, and they still continue in their worship. Life is all about choices. They can choose to follow their doctrines or not.

I believe in the use of blood and blood products for people that need it. I can never preach against blood transfusion.

I have being called JW because I chose to see things differently. I have even being called some borderline names by people one would assume are not blinded by religion, but unfortunately have both eyes obviously blinded by bias and prejudice. Jokers.

The story of animal farm comes to mind.

Terrorists choose to take the lives of others.JW don't do that.

They have simply refused to receive certain medical help, and most importantly the LAW stands with them on that.
It may be seen as stupidity, foolishness but it is theirs and not anyone else's. It's as simple as that.

If you really care so much about transfusion as a life saving procedure, and really genuinely want to save lives of those that want to be saved there are more practical ways of doing that.
Donate blood regularly, it's a noble act. Many non JW people need it, and some places still don't have access to such transfusion services.

The extra story wasn't necessary. My post specifically addressed a point you made in your post about questioning people's choices.

If i suddenly wake up and decide not to take blood products, it's entirely different from I not wanting to take blood products because the leader of my religious sector said I shouldn't.
You saying we shouldn't question their choices would also mean we don't have the right to question the choices made by anyone.

Please don't try to whip up sentiments by telling me to donate blood again because I'm hell sure you would. I'm not eligible to donate.

Barristter07:


A young man and a woman reads Abstain from fornication, the Lady is a virgin . so they believe so far her virginity is intact they haven't commit fornication , but continues to engage in Anal or MouthAction . You would agree with me that they are deceiving themselves ? but to them, so far they are not doing it through her main private part , it's not fornication.


Likewise , either orally or intravenously . Accepting blood into ones system violate the commandment to Abstain from Blood

Act 15:29

To think otherwise is to deceive oneself.

Abeg which fractions of fornication are acceptable?
Is it the whole fornication or primary components of fornication or is it smaller components of fornication that are acceptable?

Whether you like it or not, intravenously no dey Bible you are just assuming/speculating that Paul meant both oral and intravenous ly when there was nothing like intravenously in Paul's time.

All these one is just to pacify yourself and give yourself hope that your non biblical doctrines which has killed so many jws even more than Hitler, may be correct.

Last last you believe in an assumption.


Fornication isn't blood transfusion. Anyway since you now equate it to blood transfusion

which fractions of fornication are acceptable?

Which type of fornication is acceptable is it self fornication or fornication with other people?

Since your jehovah/gb is now equating fornication to blood transfusion answer these questions.