eyinjuege:
What caught my interest in this thread was the mention of Serena Williams. I felt it was unfair to just assume the problems she faced post partum/delivery was because of her JW beliefs

when it clearly wasn't and had nothing to do with blood transfusion.

When it comes to people's life choices, it's theirs. When it comes to people's beliefs, it's also theirs. You may not agree with them, but provided they are not hurting anyone else then let them own it. We can't always make the right decisions every time.

These people don't believe in receiving other people's blood, so what are the other practical options available for them?

Can a JW person live with themselves after being coerced into taking someone else's blood?

Can you make them not believe that again? Possibly, but definitely not by putting down their beliefs

or by lying on one of their members just to prove a point!

true2god:
JW official website that was designed to promote their beliefs and theology! How do you think he will get a balanced and uncompromised information from www.JW.org?

What Seun is asking is an independent response from the JWs, using their God-gjven brains. The truth is that if tomorrow the GB, at Brooklyn NY headquarters of JW, change their doctrine of this 'blood transfusion' issue, all JW zombies will immediately adjust to the 'new and brighter light'.

Why can't an average JW reason independently free from the manipulation and brainwashing of the 'watchtower organization'?

Seun:

I see what you did there. You used the facts that Serena shared about her case to lend credibility to your claim that her complications had nothing to do with transfusions. Random fact, baseless claim, random fact, baseless claim, rinse and repeat. It almost worked on me too. The fact is that you can't conclude that Serena Williams never needed a blood transfusion just because her publicists didn't explicitly say so. As a devout Jehovah's Witness, Serena Williams would never share any details of her story that would make the Watchtower Organisation look bad.


You cannot conclude that she didn't need a blood transfusion just because her publicists didn't explicitly say she did. She had multiple surgeries, each of which may have caused her to lose a lot of blood. And if she refused blood, this would have made things much more difficult for her. Also, as you mentioned, she was on blood thinners which means she probably lost a lot of blood when, as you mentioned, her wound broke down.


It's difficult to believe that you're not a Jehovah's Witness claiming not to be a Jehovah's Witness in order to make us feel that you're unbiased.

OneJ:

"Abstain from blood" na Arabic language wey una no fit understand wetin eee mean?

Blood is sacred , whether human or animal, God no dey joke with. am.

Don't come here to lie that "abstain from blood" does not mean U can not accept blood transfusion.


If your personal physician warned U to abstain from nicotine, & U went behind his back to use needle to inject yourself with that same substance into your body, have U obeyed or disobeyed your physician ?

Don't come here to distort Jesus ransom sacrifice for man's salvation.

Did Jesus give U his blood to transfuse into your body?

Jesus said "if anyone wants to come after me,let him disown himself..." Mark 8:34-37.
That is life of obedience & self sacrifice.

JWs are exclusively dedicated to do Jehovah's will in imitation of Jesus Christ who obeyed his Father, Jehovah in everything. We live for Jehovah & his son Jesus Christ .Rom14:7-9.

Jehovah values obedience (1 Sam 15:22,23) & faith in his word /promises. JWs have faith in Jesus words & God's promises This life is not all there is. Our faith is anchored firmly on the resurrection hope.
1 Pet 1:3. John 11:23-25. Rev 21:3-5. 2Pet 3:13.

If some one puts a gun to your head to renounce your faith/beliefs, your life is at stake, would U chicken out & take the easy option?

Jesus did not chicken out, that is why today we celebrate him,likewise Abraham. Their faith stood out.

If U don't have the faith in God's word to "abstain from blood" & his promises, to bring the dead back. to life, U have no right to be unduly critical of those who do.

Jehovah is the source of life, he has the sole right to determine how man should treat blood
Man can not know what God knows on this matter.

Them go dey talk like say blood transfusion na holy grail of medical treatment.

I was at a major hospital recently when 3 children were rushed into the. A& E, all of them received blood transfusion everyday, but sadly on the 4th day of their admission, they all passed away.
If them be JW,just imagine the news story headlines....

JWs are forever committed to the best Medicare available except..... what U already know, no blood transfusion. Pls visit www.Jw.org, to learn more about JWs.
Shalom.

OneJ:


Keep quiet there. Na who dey wash your brain? The Israelites were united under the leadership of Moses, na U wash their brain ? Jesus Christ united his followers under his leadership, na U wash their brain? His followers sought direction from the older men in Jerusalem, na U wash their brain?

The Cosmos is well designed & organized by the ALMIGHTY God, if such inanimate celestial bodies are in order ,no chaos, what would U expect from a group of humans,although imperfect, but who strive to reverence the ALMIGHTY God Jehovah?
U prefer them to wallow in chaos, infighting & diverse factions.
Pls , its high time U go see a shrink.
Shalom.

alBHAGDADI:
[s] What a pile load of junk.

Look at the great length you went just to justify lies.

I doubt your JW people believes this crap you concucted. [/s]

alBHAGDADI:

If you JW could extend it to mean blood transfusion, I wonder why you are comfortable touching blood of fish and chicken, even your own blood. Or doesn't the verse say abstain from blood?

You might as well drain all the blood in your body to fully obey the doctrine "abstain from blood".

capitalzero:
Blood transfusions do not necessary save lifes and not a cure. It is like treating symptoms of a disease. I have seen cases where blood transfusions were done and patients still died. Why even with blood transfusion? I have seen cases where patients refuse blood and still survive. Do we have such data? why they survive? Also, we do not have data of patients that actually died because they refused blood and their cause of death can only be due to lack of blood absolutely. Even blood transfusions could worsen some cancer cases(modulation of immunity). In medicine,nothing is absolute. Yes, blood transfusion is seen as gold standard in some medical or surgical emergencies PRESENTLY. But can any doctor quarantee a patient will not die if transfused with blood? If you see anyone, let me know. In future, blood transfusion may be obsolete as medical researchers are recording success in blood alternatives.
Furthermore, eating blood is wrong and Bible forbids that. Blood transfusion is a form of eating blood intravenously. Both serve different purposes. Blood transfusion is therapeutic while eating orally is nutritional. Both is wrong.

Barristter07:



Someone already explains that abstain has nothing to do with touch , the Early Christians recognize that the priest at the temple comes in contact with blood in the discharge of their duty.


Humans bleed when injured and preserving the wound's would require contact with blood ( See the story of the Good Samaritan Luke 10:34)

Your reasoning is flawed , it deals with consumption . and earlier it has been established that this includes both man and animals blood .

Luke 17:11 You must not eat the blood of ANY CREATURE . emphasis on " Any "

David understands what you find hard to grab

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.



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.

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

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.





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




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

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.

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.

Barristter07:



Someone already explains that abstain has nothing to do with touch , the Early Christians recognize that the priest at the temple comes in contact with blood in the discharge of their duty.


Humans bleed when injured and preserving the wound's would require contact with blood ( See the story of the Good Samaritan Luke 10:34)

Your reasoning is flawed , it deals with consumption . and earlier it has been established that this includes both man and animals blood .

Luke 17:11 You must not eat the blood of ANY CREATURE . emphasis on " Any "

David understands what you find hard to grab

Mark 7:14-19: Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them.”

After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)

Evangkatsoulis:


I remember reading one of their awake/watchtower publications. There they said that taking blood into the body by injection is not much different from drinking it. Their rationale was that taking alcohol/drugs orally is similar to taking by injection.

AutoElectNG:


https://www.jw.org/en/medical-library/ lots of peer reviewed literature in support of their position

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 reason


Even the US Army decided to pay attention to it for a number of reasons
http://m.digitaljournal.com/article/287219

Arguably the best hospital in the world has a bloodless medicine center
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/bloodless_medicine_surgery/index.html

1Sharon:


Consuming blood orally is different from taking it intravenously!!

AutoElectNG:


Clearly both are medically disimilar.

The similarity is that both are forms of ingestion that is to say breaking the barrier of the body.

But beyond the similarity or disimilarity, what seems to be in issue here is whether it is ingested orally or intravenously, the religious group is worried by doing one or the other or both, they would be disrespecting God, and so they opt to avoid either method of ingestion out of an abundance of respect for what blood represents to the maker of blood and the giver of life and irrespective of any medical advantages of the medical procedure.

e

The similarity is that both are forms of ingestion that is to say breaking the barrier of the body.

But beyond the similarity or disimilarity, what seems to be in issue here is whether it is ingested orally or intravenously, the religious group is worried by doing one or the other or both, they would be disrespecting God, and so they opt to avoid either method of ingestion out of an abundance of respect for what blood represents to the maker of blood and the giver of life and irrespective of any medical advantages of the medical procedure.

It seems to me that this is the real issue at hand which even courts have agreed to respect if the person involved is up to the age of reason and where he or she is not, shows that he knows his or her choice and its consequences and is willing to live with the same.

Everyone else or nearly everyone else takes blood yea.

They will not take blood through any means to show respect and reverence to God by choice the same way as others reject a couple of things out of respect for God or culture or whatever while acknowledging the rights of others with a different background to do otherwise and not forcing it or those on them.

It seems as has been pointed out by one other person, the right to choose and their right to choice which includes medical treatment and procedures should be respected even if not appreciated or understood or even if it is a right we do not agree with.

It is in the end a question of faith....forcing them to take blood against their wishes makes us no better than those who sided with the Inquisitions of centuries long gone and is synonymous with religious intolerance

AutoElectNG:
Hope this helps the discussion

https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/28/why-do-jehovahs-witnesses-abstain-blood

Barristter07:



Someone already explains that abstain has nothing to do with touch , the Early Christians recognize that the priest at the temple comes in contact with blood in the discharge of their duty.


Humans bleed when injured and preserving the wound's would require contact with blood ( See the story of the Good Samaritan Luke 10:34)

Your reasoning is flawed , it deals with consumption . and earlier it has been established that this includes both man and animals blood .

Luke 17:11 You must not eat the blood of ANY CREATURE . emphasis on " Any "

David understands what you find hard to grab

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:
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

chemystery:
OneJ

Case 1:
How about medical laboratory tests that requires extracting the blood of a patient. Will you also refer to that as abstinence from blood?

Case 2:
When someone donates blood, can we say such person have not abstained from blood?

Considering that both cases require extracting of blood, why do JWs see problem with Case 2 but not with Case 1?

triplec93:
If a doctor suggests his patient abstains from alcohol, would it make sense if she avoids taking it orally but intravenously? The word Abstinence is absolute, there are bloodless alternatives nw, and the bible says good health to those who abstain from such, sincerely speaking there are also dangers associated in blood transfusion, and studies have found out that a person who isn't infused on during surgery, heals faster than one who does, for those who respect and believe the bible as God's word, that instruction is cut clear, one's belief in God especially when well founded in the scriptures is worth dying for, (read luke 9 verse 24), for more info on this and other of our beliefs as logically explained from the bible, do well to visit jw. org under category teachings.

OneJ:


First & foremost, life & blood is sacred to God. Blood is blood, whether human blood or animal blood, it serves the same functions & purposes. The same law & principles applies to them.

Case 1: God's word says "Only the blood you must not eat.On the earth (dust) you should pour it out as water ..., cover it with dust " Deut 12:16,23. Lev 17:13.

b) On the issue of medical lab tests, the blood is extracted ( leaves the body) for medical tests,U conduct your tests & the remnants be disposed of. That's OK.

c) The law is "do not eat blood" , "abstain from blood", that is, eating, consumption of blood ,or any other means of taken in blood into your body is prohibited by God. For instance, it covers blood covenant, blood transfusion etc.

U donated blood for transfusions, have U complied with "c"?

The noise makers will tell U all sorts of excuses why U should do it, but in the end, Jehovah's righteous laws are contravened.

Abraham knew he would lose Isaac none the less he put obedience to Jehovah above preserving the life of his only begotten son (Genesis chapter 22). That's called faith & obedience. That's the key principles JWs believe in.

Love Jehovah with your whole heart , life & soul. matt22:36-40.
It makes no sense to atheists & fairweather Christians.
If u believe in your country so much, u can risk your life to do so. Do u equate it with suicide?

triplec93:
If a doctor suggests his patient abstains from alcohol, would it make sense if she avoids taking it orally but intravenously? The word Abstinence is absolute, there are bloodless alternatives nw, and the bible says good health to those who abstain from such, sincerely speaking there are also dangers associated in blood transfusion, and studies have found out that a person who isn't infused on during surgery, heals faster than one who does, for those who respect and believe the bible as God's word, that instruction is cut clear, one's belief in God especially when well founded in the scriptures is worth dying for, (read luke 9 verse 24), for more info on this and other of our beliefs as logically explained from the bible, do well to visit jw. org under category teachings.

OneJ:


First & foremost, life & blood is sacred to God. Blood is blood, whether human blood or animal blood, it serves the same functions & purposes. The same law & principles applies to them.

Case 1: God's word says "Only the blood you must not eat.On the earth (dust) you should pour it out as water ..., cover it with dust " Deut 12:16,23. Lev 17:13.

b) On the issue of medical lab tests, the blood is extracted ( leaves the body) for medical tests,U conduct your tests & the remnants be disposed of. That's OK.

c) The law is "do not eat blood" , "abstain from blood", that is, eating, consumption of blood ,or any other means of taken in blood into your body is prohibited by God. For instance, it covers blood covenant, blood transfusion etc.

U donated blood for transfusions, have U complied with "c"?

The noise makers will tell U all sorts of excuses why U should do it, but in the end, Jehovah's righteous laws are contravened.

Abraham knew he would lose Isaac none the less he put obedience to Jehovah above preserving the life of his only begotten son (Genesis chapter 22). That's called faith & obedience. That's the key principles JWs believe in.

Love Jehovah with your whole heart , life & soul. matt22:36-40.
It makes no sense to atheists & fairweather Christians.
If u believe in your country so much, u can risk your life to do so. Do u equate it with suicide?

Hairyrapunzel:

Did johns Hopkins or us army say blood transfusion is bad and they have abandoned it?

alBHAGDADI:
What you are saying now is that engaging in sexual immorality exposes one to receiving blood through exchange of body fluid. Perhaps that's why God warns against sexual immorality.

One thing about you is that when you say something, it first sounds legit until thoroughly scrutinized. Now, let's have a second look at it.

If the sex that takes place during sexual immorality leads to the exchange of blood, a thing you say God warns about, then what about the exchange of blood that takes place during the sex between legally married couples? Aren't married couples breaking the commandment of "abstain from blood"? Can you now see the stupidity in your submission?

You might want to go ahead and play smart by saying married couples can exchange blood through sex because they have become one flesh according to Mark 10:8. Shouldn't that also mean that a man can give his wife blood through transfusion since they are one flesh?

A doctrine that is not inspired by God cannot stand the test of reasoning. Your doctrine is man made and not inspired of God.