FAQ
Frequently asked Questions
Frequently
Asked Questions
Questions For Those Who Accept the Society's
Position
“Questions For Those Who Accept the Society's Position”
One of the most effective ways we have found in assisting other Witnesses to
analyze the WTS blood doctrine is through
the use of questions. The following questions have been used by AJWRB members
and physicians in different parts of the
world:
Q. Why do all Christian faiths, and even
the most orthodox Jews, who are dependent on the Torah (Law), read it daily,
philosophize to its context, read it in the original Hebrew (so as to understand
the traditional context), and love the
Law of God more than their own souls, not forbid the medical use of blood?
Q. Why do all Christian faiths, and even the most orthodox Jews, who are
dependent on the Torah (Law), read it daily,
philosophize to its context, read it in the original Hebrew (so as to understand
the traditional context), and love the
Law of God more than their own souls, not forbid the medical use of blood?
Q. Is it reasonable that we are the only ones who believe this way?
Q. If Genesis 9:3-7 presents an "eternal covenant" that is binding upon all of
mankind, why did Paul recommend
singleness,…”
.
Q. and why does the society permit the use of birth control which would clearly
seem to be in violation of the third
element of this covenant: "And as for you, be fruitful and become many, make the
earth swarm with you and become many in
it?"
Q. Can we pick and choose which parts of an "eternal covenant" we shall keep?
Q. If these parts of the covenant are not binding, how can it be an "eternal
covenant?"
.
Q. Since even a thorough bleeding of a slaughtered animal leaves as much as 50%
of it's blood in the flesh, how can God
grant us permission to eat flesh if it is the actual consumption of blood that
is objectionable?
Q. Would this not also be a "taking in of blood" to sustain life?
Q. If consuming blood was a capital offense, why were Saul's men not executed
when they fell to eating blood along
with the meat? (1 Sam. 14:31-35) ‘
Q. Since an Israelite could eat an unbled animal that died of itself when
necessary, (See Lev. 17:15) and the result of
this would only be ceremonial uncleanness requiring bathing and washing of the
garments. Why does the society argue we
must disfellowship those who accept a blood transfusion to save life?
Q. Since the requirement that blood be poured out is contained in the Mosaic
law, and not repeated in the Greek
scriptures, and since Christians are not under the Mosaic Law, why would it be
wrong to store your own blood before an
operation?
Q. Jesus was willing to perform miracles on the Sabbath in order to save lives,
or simply heal the sick, and he did not
condemn the woman with the flow of blood for touching him and making him
ceremonially unclean.
Q. Rather, he condemned the Pharisees for their legalistic view. Wouldn't Jesus
make an exception to a dietary rule to
save a human life?
Q. How can the Society view the admonition to "abstain from EATING meat
sacrificed to Idols" as symbolizing the greater
issue of "Idolatry" and not dietary regulation.
Q. While at the same time view "abstain from EATING blood" as literal dietary
regulation and not symbolizing the greater
issue of "Sanctity of Life".
Q. How can they have this dramatic difference of view when the two dietary
remarks occur in the same sentence and verse
of the Bible? (Acts 15:29)
Q. Since it has been reasoned that food offered to idols may be eaten, and that
some blood components may be used, would
a little fornication also be OK?
Q: Would not withholding medical treatment from your child when death is the
alternative make you responsible for the
death?
Q. How can the death of a child be justified based upon a Jewish rule of food
preparation?
Q. If a blood transfusion is essentially an organ transplant, how can it be
viewed as "eating blood," since no digestion
or nutritional benefit accrues?
Q. Can it be an organ transplant and a meal at the same time?
Q: If storing your own blood for an autologous transfusion is wrong, than why
does the society permit the use of various
blood components that must be donated and stored before being used by Jehovah's
Witnesses?
Q. On what basis does the society use the expressions "sustaining life," or
"taking in" with respects to accepting a
blood transfusion when those words never occur in the Bible?
Q. What does the expression "abstain from blood" (See Acts 15:29) really mean?
Q. What does the context suggest?
Q: Why does the society have to quote doctors who lived hundreds of years ago to
find support for it's belief that a
transfusion is a feeding on blood?
Q: Don't modern doctors acknowledge that a blood transfusion is the same as
"eating blood?"
Q: Why does the society exaggerate the risks of blood transfusions, and make it
seem that they are always bad medicine,
when nearly all of the experts disagree?
Q: How does the society go about deciding which blood components are major and
which are minor?
Q: For example, why are white blood cells forbidden, but albumin allowed, since
albumin constitutes a larger percentage
of blood volume, and milk and organ transplants are full of white blood cells?
Q: Why is it that plasma is forbidden when all of its separate components are on
the approved list for Witnesses to take
in order to "sustain life?"
Q: Why does the society use ad hominem arguments and analogies like the one
about alcohol and blood being injected into
the veins, the error of which can be discerned by considering this analogy:
"Consider a man who is told by his doctor
that he must abstain from meat. Would he be obedient if he quit eating meat, but
accepted a kidney transplant?" Why does
the society resort to false analogies to support its position?
Q: If we must abstain from blood completely, as the society says, then please
explain why the society tells us that we
may accept derivatives or components of human blood?
Q: Is this not contradictory?
Q: Why can JWs accept those blood components and benefit from the blood that
others donate, but will not donate blood
themselves?
Q: Would not giving blood to help save others’ lives, including the lives of
your spiritual brothers and sisters, be the
loving and Christian thing to do?
Q: What should I do? My child is gasping for air. His blood count is perilously
low. His heart rate is at 200, and
climbing. The doctors have told us that without a transfusion, he will die of
respiratory distress and heart failure.
Blood expanders will not help at this point, he needs more red blood cells. He
is horribly pale and listless and with
wide eyes, he looks at me and whispers "Help me, Daddy." Should I let my child
die based on the word of an organization
that has changed its mind about organ transplants, vaccinations, civil service,
the "sheep and the goats," the
"generation", 1799, 1874, 1878, 1881, 1914, 1918, 1920, 1925, 1975, etc., etc.,
etc.? Should I let my child die? Is
this really what Jehovah and Jesus expect of me?
Q: How will I feel if the blood ban finally becomes just one more old doctrine
that is forgotten? Will I be able to
forgive myself?
Q: If the American Medical Association issued a recommendation that heart
patients abstain from meat, would they mean
that those patients should abstain from organ transplants, and in particular,
heart transplants? Why?
Q: If the Watchtower Society changed its mind about blood transfusions, as it
has about the "unscripturalness" of organ
transplants, vaccinations, aluminum poisoning, the efficacy of the Electronic
Radio Biola, etc., would you go along with
the change, or would you continue to shun Christians who exercised their
consciences in a way that differed from your
own private ideas?
Q: If two patients who are unable to eat are admitted to a hospital; one is
given a blood transfusion and the other I.V.
dextrose, which one will live?
Q: Is it not the one given dextrose?
Q: So how can we consider a blood transfusion a feeding on blood since there is
no nutritional benefit?
AJWRB: Try posing these questions to your local elders or others you want to
reason with. See if they can provide
satisfactory answers. Physicians interested in establishing informed consent may
want to pose some of these questions
to their Witness patients. This list of questions could also be enclosed with
the article "Do Jehovah's Witnesses Really
Abstain From Blood" and mailed to friends and relatives.”
.
QUESTION TO YOU!
Did the apostle Paul go along with the decision of the Governing body at
Jerusalem? Nothing shows that he didn’t. He
never questioned it nor railed against it. Do you think that was because he
lacked knowledge and understanding of
medical procedures or was he “borne along by Holy Spirit?”
.
TELL YOU WHAT!
I will endeavor to make these answers available to anyone who wants to quench
your misguided opposition to a Biblical
injunction. Your attitude is aptly described thus:
“Their throat is an opened grave, they have used deceit with their tongues.”
“Poison of asps is behind their lips.” …
“And their mouth is full of cursing and bitter expression.” … “Their feet are
speedy to shed blood.” … “Ruin and misery
are in their ways, … and they have not known the way of peace.” … “There is no
fear of God before their eyes.””
(Romans 3:13-18)
.
The WT society forces no one to do anything! They take the attitude of Paul who
wrote:
“. . .But without your consent I do not want to do anything, so that your good
act may be, not as under compulsion, but
of your own free will.” (Philemon 14)
.
Q: Should a Christian wife join her unbelieving husband at a funeral or wedding
in a church?
"When the Federal Administrative Court required of Jehovah’s Witnesses a higher
standard of loyalty to “Caesar” than the law demands, the Federal Constitutional
Court overruled the decision as unconstitutional and sent the case back to be
retried. (Mark 12:17) On March 25, 2004, the original court began its review of
the case. The court requested additional information about our stand on blood,
child rearing, disfellowshipping, and neutrality. The presiding judge stated
that the government’s case must be based on reliable evidence—statistics and
official documents—not on questionable quotes from the Internet and letters from
individuals with personal vendettas." (yb05 p. 14)
ANSWERS TO AJWRB’S
“Questions For Those Who
Accept the Society's Position”
Current JW Ken Wilson answers Questions for JWs who accept the
Society's position. His answers are in red, questions from AJWRB in black, and
responses to his answers from myself, Zen Shawn Dean are in blue.
One of the most effective ways we have found in assisting other Witnesses to
analyze the WTS blood doctrine is through the use of questions. The following
questions have been used by AJWRB members and physicians in different parts of
the world:
Q. Why do all Christian faiths, and even the most orthodox
Jews, who are dependent on the Torah (Law), read it daily, philosophize to its
context, read it in the original Hebrew (so as to understand the traditional
context), and love the Law of God more than their own souls, not forbid the
medical use of blood?
ANSWER: Biblical PRINCIPLES are always
at work.
Q. Why do all Christian faiths, and even the most orthodox Jews, who are
dependent on the Torah (Law), read it daily, philosophize to its context, read
it in the original Hebrew (so as to understand the traditional context), and
love the Law of God more than their own souls, not forbid the medical use of
blood?
ANSWER: They are free to forbid or permit whatever they like and because they
are a part of Babylon The Great, the world empire of false religion.
]
You might ask them: Do they think they have the true religion? Do you?
Why do they ignore Jehovah’s injunction against violence, and slaughter each
other in senseless warfare?
.
Q. Is it reasonable that we are the only ones who believe this way?
ANSWER: Yes - and the fact that there can only be
ONE true religion justifies that action. We believe in showing love for one
another. They believe they are right to kill each other. If two ideas are the
opposite of each other, they can’t both be right.
.
Q. If Genesis 9:3-7 presents an "eternal covenant" that is binding upon all of
mankind, why did Paul recommend singleness,…”
ANSWER: Where do you get the idea that Genesis 9:3-7 is an
“eternal covenant” that is binding upon all mankind? Not a hint of a covenant is
mentioned in verses 3-7!
The Bible itself was never given to all mankind, but only to the servants of
Jehovah.
Non-Jewish nations never had access to it, did not wish to live by Jewish rules
nor did they care to be bound by any covenant to a God they did not know.
“Why have the nations been in tumult And the national groups themselves kept
muttering an empty thing? The kings of earth take their stand And high
officials themselves have massed together as one Against Jehovah and against his
anointed one, [Saying:] “Let us tear their bands apart And cast their cords
away from us!”” (Psalm 2:1-3)
They, clearly, did/do not want to be bound to Him, as with cords, and this state
of mind is as old as the history of national groups. If you have information to
the contrary, show me!
.
Q. and why does the society permit the use of birth control which would clearly
seem to be in violation of the third element of this covenant: "And as for you,
be fruitful and become many, make the earth swarm with you and become many in
it?"
ANSWER: Permit? The question is silly because the Society
doesn’t!
In 1968, the Catholic Church issued a papal encyclical entitled “Humanae
Vitae,” which reaffirmed the
ban on the use of contraceptives in birth control. Have you ever protested
that?
Why do you say such things? The Society neither permits nor prohibits any
private activity.
Can you show me, from our literature, where the Society gave such “permission?“
If you can’t, you are lying! The Society makes no rules regarding the personal
use of birth control.
As a matter of fact, I would like you to show me where the Society has ever
issued a ban on anything!
.
Q. Can we pick and choose which parts of an "eternal covenant" we shall keep?
ANSWER: WE? Who do you mean by “We?“ You can only speak for
yourself.
Why have the nations not chosen to keep it? Can THEY pick and choose with
impunity? Incidentally - were not the animals included in that “covenant?”
.
Q. If these parts of the covenant are not binding, how can it be an "eternal
covenant?"
ANSWER: It might prove to be beneficial to you to read that
portion of scripture again:
“. . .My rainbow I do give in the cloud, and it must serve as a sign of the
covenant between me and the earth. And it shall occur that when I bring a cloud
over the earth, then the rainbow will certainly appear in the cloud. And I shall
certainly remember my covenant which is between me and YOU and every living soul
among all flesh; and no more will the waters become a deluge to bring all flesh
to ruin. And the rainbow must occur in the cloud, and I shall certainly see it
to remember the covenant to time indefinite between God and every living soul
among all flesh that is upon the earth.” And God repeated to Noah: “This is the
sign of the covenant that I do establish between me and all flesh that is upon
the earth.”” (Genesis 9:13-17)
.
Q. Since even a thorough bleeding of a slaughtered animal leaves as much as 50%
of it's blood in the flesh, how can God grant us permission to eat flesh if it
is the actual consumption of blood that is objectionable?
ANSWER: I have to wonder where you got that erroneous bit
of information! It simply is not true! Do you mind revealing the source of that
50% quote?
As to God’s permission, you’ll just have to ask Him.
.
Q. Would this not also be a "taking in of blood" to sustain life?
ANSWER: Jehovah’s requirements for the treatment of flesh
with blood is outlined here:
“‘As for any man of the sons of Israel or some alien resident who is residing as
an alien in YOUR midst who in hunting catches a wild beast or a fowl that may be
eaten, he must in that case pour its blood out and cover it with dust.”
(Leviticus 17:13)
Yes, the Law said that when animals were slaughtered, the blood had to be
drained before the meat was eaten. God did not demand taking fanatical measures
to drain the blood. By taking reasonable steps of drainage, his servants could
manifest respect for the significance of blood. (Deuteronomy 12:15, 16, 21-25)”
How much blood remained after the slaughtered animal was bled was not something
for Israel to worry about. Meeting Jehovah’s requirement was the most important
thing.
.
Q. If consuming blood was a capital offense, why were Saul's men not executed
when they fell to eating blood along with the meat? (1 Sam. 14:31-35) ‘
ANSWER: “Were the soldiers of King Saul deliberately
breaking the Law? Were they showing absolute disregard for the divine law on
blood?—Compare Numbers 15:30.
We need not conclude so. The record says that they were ‘slaughtering the
animals on the earth and eating along with the blood.’ So they may have been
making some attempt to drain the blood. (Deuteronomy 15:23) Yet, in their
exhausted, famished state, they did not hang up the slaughtered carcasses and
allow adequate time for normal blood drainage. They slaughtered the sheep and
cattle “on the earth,” which could retard drainage. And they quickly cut meat
from carcasses that might have been lying in blood. Hence, even if they had in
mind obeying God’s law, they did not follow through in proper ways nor to an
adequate extent.
The result was that “the people fell to eating along with the blood,” which was
sinful. Saul recognized this and ordered that a large stone be rolled to him. He
commanded the soldiers: “Bring near to me, each one of you, his bull and, each
one, his sheep, and you must do the slaughtering in this place and the eating,
and you must not sin against Jehovah by eating along with the blood.” (1 Samuel
14:33, 34) The guilty soldiers obeyed, and “Saul proceeded to build an altar to
Jehovah.”—1 Samuel 14:35.
Slaughtering animals on the stone probably effected ADEQUATE BLOOD DRAINAGE.
Meat from the animals would be eaten away from where the slaughtering occurred.
Saul may have used some of the drained blood on the altar in seeking God’s mercy
toward those who had sinned. Jehovah extended mercy, apparently because he knew
what attempts the soldiers had made even though they were very tired and hungry.
God may also have taken into account that Saul’s rash oath had pressed his men
into that desperate situation.
This account does show that AN EMERGENCY SITUATION IS NO EXCUSE for disregarding
divine law. It should also help us see the need for careful thought before
taking an oath, for a rash vow can cause problems for us personally and for
others.—Ecclesiastes 5:4-6.” (w94 4/15 p. 31 Questions From
Readers)
.
If you were really associated with JWs, you would have known the answer.
Q. Since an Israelite could eat an unbled animal that died of itself when
necessary, (See Lev. 17:15) and the result of this would only be ceremonial
uncleanness requiring bathing and washing of the garments. Why does the society
argue we must disfellowship those who accept a blood transfusion to save life?
ANSWER: “We?” “WE” do not disfellowship anybody! That is
Jehovah’s doing! HE it is that gave the command - it was not a request - and HE
it is that gives the discipline. Read this and see if you can make the
connection:
“Also, my bosom I shook out and then said: “In this manner may the [true] God
shake out from his house and from his acquired property EVERY MAN THAT DOES NOT
CARRY OUT THIS WORD; and in this manner may he become shaken out and empty.” To
this all the congregation said: “Amen!” And they began to praise Jehovah. And
the people proceeded to do according to this word.” (Nehemiah 5:13)
If you were really associated with Jws, you would not even ask such a question!
Nevertheless, there IS an answer: Leviticus 17:15 was referring to UNINTENTIONAL
sin. No one gets disfellowshipped for unintentional sin!
“We can find a clue at Leviticus 5:2, which says: “When a soul touches some
unclean thing, whether the dead body of an unclean wild beast . . ., although it
has been hidden from him, still he is unclean and has become guilty.” Yes, God
acknowledged that an Israelite might err inadvertently. Hence, Leviticus 17:15
can be understood as providing for such an error. For example, if an Israelite
ate meat served him and then learned that it was unbled, he was guilty of sin.
But because it was inadvertent he could take steps to become clean. This,
however, is noteworthy: If he would not take those steps, “he must then answer
for his error.”—Leviticus 17:16.
Thus eating unbled flesh was not a trivial matter; it could even result in
death. No true worshiper (Israelite or full proselyte alien) could voluntarily
eat unbled flesh, no matter if it was from an animal that died of itself, was
killed by another animal or was killed by a human. (Numbers 15:30) The apostolic
council confirmed this. Writing to Christians making up the spiritual “Israel of
God” it forbade eating that which was strangled, whether the unbled meat was
from an animal that died from accidental strangulation or it was from one
strangled by a man.—Galatians 6:16; Acts 21:25.” (w83 4/15 p. 31)
.
Q. Since the requirement that blood be poured out is contained in the Mosaic
law, and not repeated in the Greek scriptures, and since Christians are not
under the Mosaic Law, why would it be wrong to store your own blood before an
operation?
Again - the answer is available to any genuine JW.
“ That council also directed God’s servants to ‘abstain from blood.’ If those
anointed Christians could not consume blood in meat from a strangled creature,
they certainly could not take in blood from a living creature.” (ibid)
That means ANY living creature, humans included!
.
Q. Jesus was willing to perform miracles on the Sabbath in order to save lives,
or simply heal the sick, and he did not condemn the woman with the flow of blood
for touching him and making him ceremonially unclean.
ANSWER: Strange - you wrote these questions to embarrass
JWs, but your own words expose your doctrinal errors.
“So, if Jesus touched her corpse, would that make him unclean? No, not at all.
Jesus resurrected the girl, brought her back to life. Matthew writes: “He went
in and took hold of her hand, and the little girl got up.” (Matt. 9:25) Far from
Jesus becoming unclean, he removed the source of uncleanness, the dead body. He
did this by bringing the child to life. “Immediately the maiden rose and began
walking.” Thus, she was not unclean and was not making anyone touching her
unclean. Jesus was the means of bringing cleanness, and he had no need to
undergo any purification ceremony.—Mark 5:41, 42; Luke 8:54, 55.” (WT 72 7/15 p.
448)
Jesus was NEVER ceremonially unclean! No part of the Bible says so! Show me
where he ever had to undergo ceremonial cleansing! Show me where he EVER had to
make atonement for sin!
.
Q. Rather, he condemned the Pharisees for their legalistic view. Wouldn't Jesus
make an exception to a dietary rule to save a human life?
ANSWER: Would he? What did Jesus do? Did he EVER break the
Law for ANY reason? If he had, people would seek additional reasons for making
“an exception“ and the Law would become nullified.
.
Q. How can the Society view the admonition to "abstain from EATING meat
sacrificed to Idols" as symbolizing the greater issue of "Idolatry" and not
dietary regulation.
ANSWER: They never did! Can you tell me where you got that
information?
.
Q. While at the same time view "abstain from EATING blood" as literal dietary
regulation and not symbolizing the greater issue of "Sanctity of Life".
ANSWER: You got your facts mixed up! Acts 15:29 says
nothing about “EATING blood!” You are trying to twist God’s Word. (2 Pet. 3:16)
That ploy can only result in your “own destruction.”
The Governing Body at Jerusalem “thus made it clear that avoiding blood is as
morally important as avoiding idolatry and gross immorality.” (w91 6/15 p. 9
par. 7)
.
Q. How can they have this dramatic difference of view when the two dietary
remarks occur in the same sentence and verse of the Bible? (Acts 15:29)
ANSWER: THEY? I think the real you is creeping out! First,
it was “we.“ Now it is “they.“ Your deceit is apparent. I think you can see by
now, that there is no “dramatic difference of view” in that verse. In fact, NO
“dietary remarks” occur in that verse!
.
Q. Since it has been reasoned that food offered to idols may be eaten, and that
some blood components may be used, would a little fornication also be OK?
ANSWER: The question is a stupid one and does not deserve
to be addressed.
.
Q: Would not withholding medical treatment from your child when death is the
alternative make you responsible for the death?
ANSWER: Medical treatment is never withheld from the
children of JWs. And you cannot find ANY doctor who will swear that
administering blood to a child will definitely save its life. So you are in
serious error when you claim that “death is imminent.”
Do you know how many deaths have occurred BECAUSE of the transfusions of blood?
Dr. Neil Blumberg, Univ. of Rochester, N.Y., has compiled some sobering
statistics. Check it out - you’d be shocked!
.
Q. How can the death of a child be justified based upon a Jewish rule of food
preparation?
ANSWER:I don’t know! We don’t live by any “Jewish rule of
food preparation.”
Q. If a blood transfusion is essentially an organ transplant, how can it be
viewed as "eating blood," since no digestion or nutritional benefit accrues?
ANSWER: Can you show me anything in our literature that
says we do? We do not view transfusions as “eating blood.” That’s YOUR
conclusion. We view it as feeding the patient with blood. We also view blood as
something from which we must abstain.
“No nutritional benefit accrues?” This information is incorrect.
Then how do you explain this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmznYAaE0Rs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZV-_bSZMh6U&feature=related
“No nutritional benefit?“ This is food for these people. How many calories does
blood contain?
http://www.ehow.com/how_6956458_calculate-calories-human-blood.html
http://www.fitday.com/WebFit/nutrition/All_Foods/Meat_Beef_Pork_Misc_/Sausage_blood.html
That being the case, obviously, anyone assimilating blood into their system
would be assimilating the calories contained therein. That’s food!
.
Q. Can it be an organ transplant and a meal at the same time?
ANSWER: In view of the above information, that is for YOU
to say.
Meal? Who views it that way? Not us!
.
Q: If storing your own blood for an autologous transfusion is wrong, than why
does the society permit the use of various blood components that must be donated
and stored before being used by Jehovah's Witnesses?
ANSWER: Can you name any of Jehovah’s Witnesses who has
used donated and stored blood components?
The Society neither “permits” nor forbids any type of medical treatment. Again -
show me something in our literature that makes these authoritative
pronouncements.
.
Q. On what basis does the society use the expressions "sustaining life," or
"taking in" with respects to accepting a blood transfusion when those words
never occur in the Bible?
ANSWER: Give us an example and then we’ll tell you. Also -
check Genesis 36:7; Lev.25:35; Judges 19:5; Psalms 18:35; 20:2; 41:3; 119:117;
94:18; Song of Solomon 2:5; John 17:3. The word “theocratic” never occurs
either. Does that mean there is no such thing?
.
Q. What does the expression "abstain from blood" (See Acts 15:29) really mean?
ANSWER: Now it appears that, since you cannot eliminate
those words from the Sacred scriptures, you choose to question them. Those words
mean exactly what they say!
.
Q. What does the context suggest?
ANSWER: There is no suggestion in the context! That is a
direct command coming from Jehovah.
.
Q: Why does the society have to quote doctors who lived hundreds of years ago to
find support for it's belief that a transfusion is a feeding on blood?
ANSWER: If a dog is fed caviar once or twice and the rest
of the time on Alpo, would that constitute “feeding on caviar?” The term
“feeding” denotes a continuous action.
Q: Don't modern doctors acknowledge that a blood transfusion is the same as
"eating blood?"
ANSWER: I guess you just have to ask them.
.
Q: Why does the society exaggerate the risks of blood transfusions, and make it
seem that they are always bad medicine, when nearly all of the experts disagree?
ANSWER: No exaggeration! It is ALWAYS bad medicine! How do
these “experts” view participation in warfare and the tremendous waste of
precious blood that it causes? The Society chooses to concentrate on the
Biblical injunction involving abstaining from blood - not on medical opinions.
“They thus made it clear that avoiding blood is as morally important as avoiding
idolatry and gross immorality.” (w91 6/15 p. 9 par. 7)
.
Q: How does the society go about deciding which blood components are major and
which are minor?
ANSWER: You know how to communicate with them, so you can
ask them yourself.
Q: For example, why are white blood cells forbidden, but albumin allowed, since
albumin constitutes a larger percentage of blood volume, and milk and organ
transplants are full of white blood cells?
ANSWER: Again - the Society neither forbids nor permits any
type of medical treatment. They do not have that kind of authority.
“Jehovah’s Witnesses view organ transplant operations as a matter of individual
conscience.“ (g00 1/8 p. 3)
.
Q: Why is it that plasma is forbidden when all of its separate components are on
the approved list for Witnesses to take in order to "sustain life?"
ANSWER: I must repeat: The Society neither forbids nor
permits any type of medical treatment. Show me something in our literature that
makes those pronouncements.
.
Q: Why does the society use ad hominem arguments and analogies like the one
about alcohol and blood being injected into the veins, the error of which can be
discerned by considering this analogy: "Consider a man who is told by his doctor
that he must abstain from meat. Would he be obedient if he quit eating meat, but
accepted a kidney transplant?" Why does the society resort to false analogies to
support its position?
ANSWER: Give us an example! I have never seen any “ad
hominem” arguments on the blood issue in our literature.
.
Q: If we must abstain from blood completely, as the society says, then please
explain why the society tells us that we may accept derivatives or components of
human blood?
ANSWER: So - its back to “we” and “us” now, is it? The
Society neither permits nor prohibits any type of medical treatment. Show me
something in our literature that makes those pronouncements.
.
Q: Is this not contradictory?
ANSWER: You don’t even have a legitimate question.
.
Q: Why can JWs accept those blood components and benefit from the blood that
others donate, but will not donate blood themselves?
ANSWER: JWs are free moral agents. What they accept or
refuse is according to their own consciences in harmony with God‘s written Word.
Do you deny this?
.
Q: Would not giving blood to help save others’ lives, including the lives of
your spiritual brothers and sisters, be the loving and Christian thing to do?
ANSWER: What would you call it when Communists, atheists,
Muslims, Satanists, witches and agnostics do the same thing? “The loving and
CHRISTIAN thing to do?” If they do, then are they really CHRISTIANS?
Don’t be ridiculous! The “loving and Christian thing to do” would be to ABSTAIN
FROM BLOOD! The “loving and Christian thing to do” would be to stop using
Satan’s tactics of “accusing our brothers day and night before our God.” (Rev.
12:10)
Trickiness of tongue is what you employ - a “walking with cunning!”
“. . .but we have renounced the underhanded things of which to be ashamed, not
walking with cunning, neither adulterating the word of God, but by making the
truth manifest recommending ourselves to every human conscience in the sight of
God.” (2 Corinthians 4:2)
.
Q: What should I do? My child is gasping for air. His blood count is perilously
low. His heart rate is at 200, and climbing. The doctors have told us that
without a transfusion, he will die of respiratory distress and heart failure.
Blood expanders will not help at this point, he needs more red blood cells. He
is horribly pale and listless and with wide eyes, he looks at me and whispers
"Help me, Daddy." Should I let my child die based on the word of an organization
that has changed its mind about organ transplants, vaccinations, civil service,
the "sheep and the goats," the "generation", 1799, 1874, 1878, 1881, 1914, 1918,
1920, 1925, 1975, etc., etc., etc.? Should I let my child die? Is this really
what Jehovah and Jesus expect of me?
ANSWER: Such hypocrites! Why do you continue to identify
yourselves as Jehovah’s Witnesses? Speaking of “ad hominem arguments” - what in
the world are YOU doing now????????
.
Q: How will I feel if the blood ban finally becomes just one more old doctrine
that is forgotten? Will I be able to forgive myself?
ANSWER: More ad hominem!
What blood ban? Has the organization EVER banned, forbidden, prohibited,
ordered, commanded, prevented, stopped, restricted, proscribed or outlawed
ANYTHING that a Witness wanted to do? If you think so, then show me!
Pay careful attention to what is being taught here:
“Balance and good judgment are needed when assisting others to bring their lives
into harmony with Jehovah’s standards. People have different backgrounds and
abilities, and they progress at different rates. Be reasonable in what you
expect of others. (Phil. 4:5) Do not pressure them to make changes in their
lives. Allow God’s Word and his spirit to motivate them. Jehovah wants people to
serve him out of a willing heart, not under compulsion. (Ps. 110:3) Avoid
expressing your own opinions about personal decisions they face, and
even if others ask you to do so,
be careful not to make decisions for them.—Gal.
6:5.”
(be study 30 p. 188 par. 3)
.
Now if the Society is teaching all of us not to pressure nor force anyone into
compliance with theocratic principles, why do you insist that this is exactly
what THEY do? SHOW US THE PRINTED EVIDENCE!
Q: If the American Medical Association issued a recommendation that heart
patients abstain from meat, would they mean that those patients should abstain
from organ transplants, and in particular, heart transplants? Why?
ANSWER: What they would mean or not mean is of no concern
to us. You just have to ask them.
.
Q: If the Watchtower Society changed its mind about blood transfusions, as it
has about the "unscripturalness" of organ transplants, vaccinations, aluminum
poisoning, the efficacy of the Electronic Radio Biola, etc., would you go along
with the change, or would you continue to shun Christians who exercised their
consciences in a way that differed from your own private ideas?
ANSWER: What happened to “WE?“ Anyway, that is not going to
happen so don’t hold your breath! Let me stress “the importance of making it
absolutely clear that our position on blood is nonnegotiable.” (WT 85 4/15 p. 15
par. 18)
.
Q: If two patients who are unable to eat are admitted to a hospital; one is
given a blood transfusion and the other I.V. dextrose, which one will live?
ANSWER: Dumb question! Sorry - how should we know?
.
Q: Is it not the one given dextrose?
ANSWER: Now you’re answering your own dumb question! Sorry
- how could YOU know?
.
Q: So how can we consider a blood transfusion a feeding on blood since there is
no nutritional benefit?
ANSWER: So - its back to “we.” That is falsehood anyway!
Examine the facts! “….is it not true that when a patient is unable to eat
through his mouth, doctors often feed him by THE SAME METHOD in which a blood
transfusion is administered?” ( tr chap. 19 p. 167) He is FED by the same method
- is he not? Do the doctors not bypass the digestive processes by that method?
So it is with the blood. They are bypassing the normal digestive processes, but
still feeding him. Proof is the FACT that he is still being kept alive. He would
die without it - would he not?
Examine the scriptures carefully and notice that they tell us to ‘keep free from
blood’ and to ‘abstain from blood.’ (Acts 15:20, 29)
.
AJWRB: Try posing these questions to your local elders or
others you want to reason with. See if they can provide satisfactory answers.
Physicians interested in establishing informed consent may want to pose some of
these questions to their Witness patients. This list of questions could also be
enclosed with the article "Do Jehovah's Witnesses Really Abstain From Blood" and
mailed to friends and relatives.”
.
QUESTION TO YOU!
Did the apostle Paul go along with the decision of the Governing body at
Jerusalem? Nothing shows that he didn’t. He never questioned it nor railed
against it. Do you think that was because he lacked knowledge and understanding
of medical procedures or was he “borne along by Holy Spirit?”
.
TELL YOU WHAT!
I will endeavor to make these answers available to anyone who wants to quench
your misguided opposition to a Biblical injunction. Your attitude is aptly
described thus:
“Their throat is an opened grave, they have used deceit with their tongues.”
“Poison of asps is behind their lips.” … “And their mouth is full of cursing and
bitter expression.” … “Their feet are speedy to shed blood.” … “Ruin and misery
are in their ways, … and they have not known the way of peace.” … “There is no
fear of God before their eyes.”” (Romans 3:13-18)
.
The WT society forces no one to do anything! They take the attitude of Paul who
wrote:
“. . .But without your consent I do not want to do anything, so that your good
act may be, not as under compulsion, but
of your own free will.”
(Philemon 14)
.
Q: Should a Christian wife join her unbelieving husband at a funeral or wedding
in a church?
ANSWER: "The decision would be hers to make." (w02 5/15 p. 28 Questions From
Readers)
.
You will find this position a consistent one in the WTBTS.
The WTBTS does not dominate over anyone and all your charges to that effect are
false.
.
The society’s attitude is in harmony with Paul’s.
.
PS. On you allegations here:
http://www.ajwrb.org/basics/position.html
.
You do not have a single reference that supports them. All lies!
JWs take the position outlined here:
Germany.
"When the Federal Administrative Court required of Jehovah’s Witnesses a higher
standard of loyalty to “Caesar” than the law demands, the Federal Constitutional
Court overruled the decision as unconstitutional and sent the case back to be
retried. (Mark 12:17) On March 25, 2004, the original court began its review of
the case. The court requested additional information about our stand on blood,
child rearing, disfellowshipping, and neutrality. The presiding judge stated
that the government’s case must be based on reliable
evidence—statistics and official documents—not on questionable quotes from the
Internet and letters from individuals with personal vendettas."
(yb05 p. 14)
So far, this is all you've got on this "WTS ceases
disfellowshipping Jehovah’s Witnesses who accept blood transfusions – Why?"
So far, I have spent more that 40
years as a JW and I have never met, nor heard of, anyone being
disfellowshipped for accepting a blood transfusion. You've practically
admitted that you can't prove it.
Send me a provable case! No allegations, now.
You can continue to lie about the Society banning, prohibiting, forcing
poeople into positions they abhor, but you will achieve nothing!
Check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAWhRqCjT9w
Wilson
HOME