Jehovah's Witnesses And Blood

[Miles]

.


After reading another thread mentioning Jehovah's Witnesses I became interested in their beliefs about blood. They reject blood transfusions and don't eat meat with more than a trace of blood in it. Searching around a bit I came across the following from a pro-JW web site.

"Do Jehovah's Witnesses Eat Red Meat Since it May Contain a Trace of Blood?

Though Christians are to abstain from blood (Acts 15:29), the Bible shows that the eating of flesh by Christians is proper, for God Himself told us that we could eat meat from "every animal". "Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for YOU." (Gen. 9:3)

But God commanded that before eating the flesh of an animal, his people were to pour out its blood on the ground and cover it with dust, being careful not to eat the blood, on pain of death. (Deut. 12:23-25; Lev. 7:27) This is our way for us to show respect for God's view of life.

So when someone carefully takes the strict precautions that God outlined by making sure that an animal is properly bled before consumption, they wouldn't be breaking God's command of eating blood. Since God Himself has issued these directions, obviously, if properly done, God does not have a problem with eating the meat from "every animal".

People can rest assured that nearly all blood is removed from meat during slaughter, which is why you don’t see blood in raw “white meat”; only an extremely small amount of blood remains within the muscle tissue when you get it from the store. (Also see: The Red Juice in Raw Meat is Not Blood (todayifoundit.com)"
source
(My emphasis)

However, from a comprehensive explanation of the slaughtering of animals: (I urge anyone who's interested to access the link below)

"Blood loss as a percentage of body weight differs between species: cows, 4.2 to 5.7%; calves, 4.4 to 6.7%; sheep, 4.4 to 7.6%; and pigs, 1.5 to 5.8%. Blood content as a percentage of live weight may decrease in heavier animals since the growth of blood volume does not keep pace with growth of live weight. Approximately 60% of blood is lost at sticking *, 20-25% remains in the viscera, while a maximum of 10% may remain in carcass muscles."
source

So my question is, if the muscle (meat) can contain up to 10% of an animal's blood wouldn't this make it unacceptable to Jehovah's Witnesses?



*"Cattle and pigs are usually exsanguinated [drained of blood] by a puncture wound which opens the major blood vessels at the base of the neck, not far from the heart. The trade name for this process is sticking"
Source: ibid.



.

[2timothy316]

David understood the principle of blood in 1 Chronicles 11:15-19.

"Three of the 30 headmen went down to the rock, to David at the cave of A·dulʹlam, while a Phi·lisʹtine army was camped in the Valley of Rephʹa·im. David was then in the stronghold, and a garrison of the Phi·lisʹtines was in Bethʹle·hem. Then David expressed his longing: “If only I could have a drink of the water from the cistern by the gate of Bethʹle·hem!” At that the three forced their way into the camp of the Phi·lisʹtines and drew water from the cistern by the gate of Bethʹle·hem and brought it to David; but David refused to drink it and poured it out to Jehovah. He said: “It is unthinkable on my part from the standpoint of my God to do this! Should I drink the blood of these men who risked their lives?* For it was at the risk of their lives that they brought it."

How far reaching is David's metaphor? In context, it applies to the risk of violent death of those bringing him the water. Even if we partake of nothing for which anyone has risked death, that doesn't apply to modern blood transfusions. In fact, the act of donating blood is statistically safer than just living an average life ("donation-associated deaths were found to be extremely rare and generally thought to be coincidental; the rate of coincidental deaths was less than what would be expected based on life insurance tables"). Communion is much more directly metaphorical of blood consumption than David's drinking of the water and Witnesses observe a form of Chrisian Communion.

You've missed the point. A person needlessly risking their life is not acceptable. A person's life is in their blood. You can't think in terms as what is acceptable to you but what was acceptable to David. For him that risk is 0% when comes to someone spilling their blood for a needless drink of water. I agree with him. Me accepting blood to save my life temporary only to die later because I didn't follow God's commandments, that blood given to me did me no good. As now I'm dead, forever. I think people that take blood fear death more than believe God's promises are real.

The wine is a symbol of Jesus' blood, but I do not drink it because it is not acceptable that I do. it is meant only for those that will rule with Christ in Heaven. Christ's death was not a needless death or unacceptable.

It's not an anachronistic extrapolation.

The first recorded blood transfusion was in 1795. The idea that either James or the author of Acts had anything akin to blood transfusion in mind could only exist after the dawn of the nineteenth century, so to read such back into the text is an anachronism by definition.

Romans were drinking and eating blood for food to stay alive before people were taking it in the arm. Method of putting it into the body doesn't matter. If I wouldn't drink poison why in the world would I but it directly into by veins. Acts says to abstain is acceptable to God. That's all there is to it. Not to try to find some loophole as faithless ones have done.

So thinking like David, why should I have a person give me their life when there is no guarantee they will save my life?

Since donating blood isn't even dangerous, what you're calling "giving their life" could only truly be considered sharing it. Once again, and perhaps not coincidentally, you're trying to stretch metaphors beyond their meanings.

And you're using YOU think is acceptable. And its not what I'M calling 'giving their life'.
"For the life* of every sort of flesh is its blood, because the life* is in it." Lev 17:14
That is where I'm getting the definition. I stretched nothing. If a person is giving their blood then they are giving their life away, period. If you find that unacceptable, that is your issue to deal with.

Blood is not a 100% cure all for disease or anything else.

Nobody said that it is. Your claim is a red herring.

Me taking blood will do the exact opposite of give me life. You pushing your argument suggests the opposite. That blood will save me life.

I don't need their blood to save my life. Jehovah can save my life, even if I die, I will live again.

This argument applies to any sort of medical care. "Don't bother setting my broken leg. Jehovah can fix it."

"If this then that" fallacy. It doesn't apply to 'any sort of medical care'. Luke was a physician and if Jehovah was going to cure everything Himself Luke wouldn't have been a physician. (Col 4:13) There is no command not to seek healing so this is a strawman statement.

Blood can't do that and I don't fear the death of myself to take life from someone else, even if offered, like David's men did.

Again, how far does this analogy extend? Since donating blood isn't dangerous to the donor, you've already taken us to the end of the slippery slope. Would you refuse to allow yourself or a loved one to be rescued from a flood or a burning building because of risk to the rescuers? Would you refuse to take such a risk yourself for someone else?

Again. The risk must be 0% to both giver and taker and acceptable to Jehovah. Taking blood fails all of those.

The water was frivolous to David. He didn't have to have it to live, for his men to risk so much for such a small thing was unacceptable.

Yes. The fact that you know exactly what the metaphor means shows that you should know that it doesn't apply to blood transfusion. In fact, the situation is reversed. To withhold "such a small thing" when it could save the life of another is unacceptable.

To you its a small thing, not to me. Taking someone's blood is a huge thing to me.

I don't have to have blood to live forever on a paradise earth.

You're right. That takes, what, ruby slippers?

This comment shows you'll never understand my stance or any JWs stance on blood as your focus is on a temporary life. If that is what you think that's all there is then that is the only thing you will see.

What DO I have to do?
"For this is what the love of God means, that we observe his commandments." 1 John 5:3
"If, though, you want to enter into life, observe the commandments continually.” Matthew 19:17 (not when convenient)

Oh. I was close.

Well, I'm tying to get as close as I can. If you gave up, that's on you. And if you take blood to extend your this life you don't have to answer to me. Yet for some reason I have to answer to others for not taking blood.

[Difflugia]

You've missed the point.

I'm pretty sure I haven't, but let's see what you've got.

A person needlessly risking their life is not acceptable. A person's life is in their blood. You can't think in terms as what is acceptable to you but what was acceptable to David. For him that risk is 0% when comes to someone spilling their blood for a needless drink of water.

That's not anything David said and you can't even reasonably infer that from context. The risk mentioned is that "the three broke through the army of the Philistines," which is what David found unacceptable. Whether he would find some lesser, but still nonzero risk is nothing more than your speculation. Have you ever brought someone else a glass of water and risked falling and hurting yourself? You're reading into the verses what you hope to find there.

I agree with him. Me accepting blood to save my life temporary only to die later because I didn't follow God's commandments, that blood given to me did me no good. As now I'm dead, forever. I think people that take blood fear death more than believe God's promises are real.

Again, God didn't command anyone to abstain from blood transfusions. You can infer that from the prohibition against eating meat with blood in it or from the way James worded his reminder to the assembled brethren, but if you see a command against blood transfusions, then you're again reading your own extrapolation back into the text.

The wine is a symbol of Jesus' blood, but I do not drink it because it is not acceptable that I do. it is meant only for those that will rule with Christ in Heaven. Christ's death was not a needless death or unacceptable.

Now you're making your own arbitrary rules. You're turning a prohibition against the literal eating of blood into a metaphor that include blood transfusions, but are making excuses for why sharing in the life of Jesus isn't at least as apt.

Romans were drinking and eating blood for food to stay alive before people were taking it in the arm.

Hence the reminder to avoid eating blood which pagans commonly do, but from which Jews were forbidden.

Method of putting it into the body doesn't matter.

Now you're putting that into the text yourself. That's not an altogether unreasonable interpretation, but it's misleading at best to claim that as the unambiguous state of the text.

If I wouldn't drink poison why in the world would I but it directly into by veins.

You wouldn't, because it's literally poison. If blood were actually poisonous rather than merely metaphorically so based on an incorrectly interpreted Bible verse, I wouldn't take a blood transfusion, either.

Acts says to abstain is acceptable to God. That's all there is to it.

If we completely ignore both the context of the verse in question and the Old Testament prohibitions that it refers, then I guess you're right.

Not to try to find some loophole as faithless ones have done.

I'm pretty sure most Christians would balk a bit at the Old Testament being referred to as "some loophole."

And you're using YOU think is acceptable.

I absolutely am. You, however, are telling me that your concept of acceptable was present in the quoted verses before you put it there yourself. It absolutely wasn't.

And its not what I'M calling 'giving their life'.

And if that's not an intentional equivocation, you may want to think about what other things would constitute "giving their life" according to your argument and make sure you abstain from those, too.

"For the life* of every sort of flesh is its blood, because the life* is in it." Lev 17:14

Yep. That's why one isn't supposed to eat meat that still has blood in it. I get it.

That is where I'm getting the definition. I stretched nothing. If a person is giving their blood then they are giving their life away, period.

Now you're just using "blood" and "life" as synonyms, but that's not how the text uses them. Since one's body regenerates lost blood, the metaphor "giving away of life" would equally apply to spending your time with someone or offering someone a gift that required your personal labor.

If you find that unacceptable, that is your issue to deal with.

The only thing I find unacceptable is the insistence that the Bible contains such a command.

Me taking blood will do the exact opposite of give me life.

If you already believe that, but use it as an argument for why you believe that, you're just making a circular argument.

This argument applies to any sort of medical care. "Don't bother setting my broken leg. Jehovah can fix it."

"If this then that" fallacy.

You just made that up, right?

It doesn't apply to 'any sort of medical care'. Luke was a physician and if Jehovah was going to cure everything Himself Luke wouldn't have been a physician. (Col 4:13) There is no command not to seek healing so this is a strawman statement.

A straw man? You literally said that you don't want potentially lifesaving treatment because Jehovah will protect your life, even if that means the later resurrection. If you meant that in some way that couldn't apply to any other medical treatment, you haven't made that clear. A poor argument on your part isn't somehow my fallacy.

Would you refuse to allow yourself or a loved one to be rescued from a flood or a burning building because of risk to the rescuers? Would you refuse to take such a risk yourself for someone else?

Again. The risk must be 0% to both giver and taker and acceptable to Jehovah. Taking blood fails all of those.

So does rescuing someone from a flood or burning building. That's why I asked the question. I'm also guessing that's why you haven't answered it.

To you its a small thing, not to me. Taking someone's blood is a huge thing to me.

I certainly can't tell you what things to find important. You're claiming to know, though, that the water was unimportant to David and basing at least part of your argument on that.

Yet for some reason I have to answer to others for not taking blood.

No, I'm expecting you to answer for why you think it's a biblical command. You don't have to do that either, but in case you're lost, this is the theology subforum of a debate site.

[2timothy316]

Yet for some reason I have to answer to others for not taking blood.

No, I'm expecting you to answer for why you think it's a biblical command. You don't have to do that either, but in case you're lost, this is the theology subforum of a debate site.

I have answered it but you're not happy with the answer and have given no Biblical support of your own. Just opinion upon opinion.
Abstain from blood. That is the command. You want a loophole to which there is none. You have made it clear that serving God is not for you. So be it. To me it is important and you can't just use your reasoning that sounds good to you and think it's right for me.

[2timothy316]

Romans were drinking and eating blood for food to stay alive before people were taking it in the arm.

Hence the reminder to avoid eating blood which pagans commonly do, but from which Jews were forbidden.

Yes, even if there was nothing to eat and what was forbidden to eat was the only thing available. There are no examples of any faithful person ever eating blood ever in the Bible. If there was you'd have a scriptural case, but there isn't. Their life depended on following God's laws which I can't seem to get through to you. You think my life depends on blood but doesn't. This too I cannot get through to you. Or it does and you don't care. A person's opinion do not convince me to think they are right. You need scriptural backing.

[tam]

Peace to you all,

I was reading through some of the comments in this thread when I was received a reminder in the spirit that jws also refuse the body and blood of Christ. Something He said one must do (eat and drink) in order to have life in oneself. So I guess it makes sense that they refuse a potentially life saving blood transfusion when they also refuse to partake of HIS blood... and/or RATHER... it makes sense that the JW leadership would forbid jws from receiving a potentially life saving blood transfusion, considering that the same leadership teaches them NOT to do something that Christ said one MUST do in order to have life in oneself.




***

I also came across the following forum while searching for an article on blood fractions (the components that make up blood, broken down into fractions) that JW's are permitted to accept (I found this forum being linked to in a medical study from the UK, regarding the possibility that jws might be changing their position on blood transfusions again). I thought I would post a few informative links, perhaps adding also some perspective on the reasoning and 'interpretative abilities' of the men behind these doctrines. The content of what is being discussed is described in the link. And of course there are many links on that forum, if anyone is interested. Including a breakdown of blood fractions that are permitted, and personal testimonies of people who are still jws.


https://www.ajwrb.org/organ-transplants

https://www.ajwrb.org/vaccination

https://www.ajwrb.org/the-historical-pe ... ood-policy



As to the earlier comment about someone refusing to take blood because the donating person's life is somehow at risk (even though it is important to note that people are not endangering their lives by donating blood, people are helping to save other lives by donating blood)... where do you think the fractions of blood come from that ARE permitted by the WTS, if not from blood that has been donated?



Peace again to you all,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[2timothy316]

permitted by the WTS,

This is not why I don't take blood. The WTS is a legal entity that publishes books. It makes sense that someone that doesn't understand JWs to say such a thing as they have no idea what the WTS even is.

The WTS can't stop anyone from doing anything.

As far as fractions, I would use only my own blood for that purpose. I wouldn't use other's blood as that to me would be a violation of the principle of the law.

[tam]

Peace again to you,

permitted by the WTS,

This is not why I don't take blood. The WTS is a legal entity that publishes books. It makes sense that someone that doesn't understand JWs to say such a thing as they have no idea what the WTS even is.

The WTS can't stop anyone from doing anything.

Exchange WTS (Watch Tower Society) for JW leadership then, and the point is exactly the same.

[2timothy316]

Peace again to you,

permitted by the WTS,

This is not why I don't take blood. The WTS is a legal entity that publishes books. It makes sense that someone that doesn't understand JWs to say such a thing as they have no idea what the WTS even is.

The WTS can't stop anyone from doing anything.

Exchange WTS (Watch Tower Society) for JW leadership then, and the point is exactly the same.

Once again this is not correct. WTS doesn't hold the JW leadership and leadership is not the correct word to use. They are ones that take the lead. Much like a trailblazer marks a trail for others, that people can choose to follow. There is no one in the whole JW religion that can stop me from doing anything. That is not the role of the FDS. (Faithful and Discreet Slave) I am not accountable to them. I'm accountable to Jehovah God. The worst the anyone in the JW religion can do is disfellowship me. Which is nothing compared to eternal death that Jehovah can give me.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Peace again to you,

permitted by the WTS,

This is not why I don't take blood. The WTS is a legal entity that publishes books. It makes sense that someone that doesn't understand JWs to say such a thing as they have no idea what the WTS even is.

The WTS can't stop anyone from doing anything.

Exchange WTS (Watch Tower Society) for JW leadership then, and the point is exactly the same.

Once again this is not correct. WTS doesn't hold the JW leadership. There is no one in the whole JW religion that can stop me from doing anything. That is not the role of the FDS. (Faithful and Discreet Slave) I am not accountable to them. I'm accountable to Jehovah God.

I did not say the WTS holds the JW leadership. I said exchange "WTS" for "JW leadership"... and the point is exactly the same. You're splitting hairs.

I'm not going to swallow up the rest of the thread arguing a moot point.


Peace again to you.

[2timothy316]

Peace to you,

Peace again to you,

permitted by the WTS,

This is not why I don't take blood. The WTS is a legal entity that publishes books. It makes sense that someone that doesn't understand JWs to say such a thing as they have no idea what the WTS even is.

The WTS can't stop anyone from doing anything.

Exchange WTS (Watch Tower Society) for JW leadership then, and the point is exactly the same.

Once again this is not correct. WTS doesn't hold the JW leadership. There is no one in the whole JW religion that can stop me from doing anything. That is not the role of the FDS. (Faithful and Discreet Slave) I am not accountable to them. I'm accountable to Jehovah God.

I did not say the WTS holds the JW leadership. I said exchange "WTS" for "JW leadership"... and the point is exactly the same. You're splitting hairs.

I'm not going to swallow up the rest of the thread arguing a moot point.


Peace again to you.

The incorrect things like you posts on sites like how people get the wrong information about Jehovah's Witnesses. Clearly it's not like you care, yet it is actually important to be accurate when speaking of something you claim to know a lot about.

The command to abstain from blood is not from the FDS. But you're trying to portray that it is and once again your loose explanations have made you wrong again. However, that it is ok to take blood transfusion is from people like you, a true human driven entity with no Bible backing.