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.



.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Members of organized groups like this (and there are a great many) have likely already embraced the "statement of beliefs" and other doctrinal baggage (else they'd not have decided to become members).

That is not how it happened for me. So this statement is not true. Doctrinal baggage was lifted off of me. Jesus' load is light. (Matt 11:28-30). The death of the wicked doesn't burden me at all. Yet it seems from how you're reacting to scripture the Bible seems to burden you.

You sure like trying to guess how and why everyone is where they are. As Witnesses we are strongly encouraged not to judge a person before speaking with them. Are we perfect at it? No but as I said before, there are no perfect people.

1 Samuel 16:7 says, "mere man sees what appears to the eyes."
This is why as Witnesses we are taught to try and discern the heart, using God's Word the Bible. (Heb. 4:12)

Can we discuss blood transfusions then? how is that not doctrinal baggage? were you opposed to that before joining this organization?

I was not opposed. I didn't care. Now I do because of the following scripture. Not because of a religion. The JW religion can't do anything serious to me. Jehovah on the other hand can take away my life forever if I choose disobedience.
“Abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.” (Acts 15:19-21)

Even if that were true is losing one's own eternal life to save the life of another not a price worth paying?

Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.

There, right there, losing one's life is an expression of love toward others.

Yet to take an innocent's person life is wrong. The Bible says that one's life is in their blood. (Lev. 17:1, 2, 11.)
Just because one gives their life is not an reason to disobey Acts 15:19-21.
By my refusing blood I am taking the life of no one. When a person gives their blood it's not theirs to give and it's not mine to take. When Jesus died for us, his blood didn't go into our veins to save us.

But why do you think God would deny eternal life just because of blood?

"Whoever has my commandments and observes them is the one who loves me. In turn, whoever loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and will clearly show myself to him.” - John 14:21
However to disobey is to sin there is only one reward for sin. "For the wages sin pays is death." - Romans 6:23

He cares not, it is a made up rule, a yoke, and the lecture Christ gave to the Pharisees should be enough for you to understand that.

It is not a made up rule. Unless you think Acts 15:19-21 is made up?

So you are the parent of a three year old child who has been hurt and lost a great deal of blood, the doctor says "Unless we get her a transfusion in the next twenty minutes she'll die" do you approve or not?

Do you really think that Acts, the person who wrote Acts was thinking of blood transfusions?

The scripture says abstain from blood. Do you know what abstain means?

I don't think about what the person who wrote Acts was thinking. I do not view the book of Acts as from a man but from God. If wouldn't eat something that would take my eternal life, why in the world would taking it in the arm be different?

If it was my child they would not get the blood transfusion. If they die I will see them again soon in paradise. If I allow it while she might be resurrected because she had no choice I might not survive because of my lack of faith in the resurrection.

Those that ignore Acts 15:19-21 are in fact braking God's laws to save a temporary life and not thinking of their eternal life. "Whoever seeks to keep his life safe will lose it, but whoever loses it will preserve it alive." Luke 17:33

You cannot abstain (in the strict sense you mean) from blood, it is impossible to prove that some food is 100% free of blood!

Therefore, logically, it cannot, simply cannot mean what you seem to simplistically claim it means.

You should give some consideration to what the author may have been intending, the historical context is a part of the text, if you read it as if it were originally written in English yesterday you'll misunderstand.

If I were to say "Why don't you keep the seventh day sabbath" (which incidentally is described as an eternal covenant...) you'd possibly quote this:

“Therefore let no man judge you in eating and drinking or in respect of a festival or of an observance of the new moon or of a sabbath; for those things are a shadow of the things to come, but the reality belongs to the Christ.”

Yet here you are doing exactly that!

[2timothy316]

Members of organized groups like this (and there are a great many) have likely already embraced the "statement of beliefs" and other doctrinal baggage (else they'd not have decided to become members).

That is not how it happened for me. So this statement is not true. Doctrinal baggage was lifted off of me. Jesus' load is light. (Matt 11:28-30). The death of the wicked doesn't burden me at all. Yet it seems from how you're reacting to scripture the Bible seems to burden you.

You sure like trying to guess how and why everyone is where they are. As Witnesses we are strongly encouraged not to judge a person before speaking with them. Are we perfect at it? No but as I said before, there are no perfect people.

1 Samuel 16:7 says, "mere man sees what appears to the eyes."
This is why as Witnesses we are taught to try and discern the heart, using God's Word the Bible. (Heb. 4:12)

Can we discuss blood transfusions then? how is that not doctrinal baggage? were you opposed to that before joining this organization?

I was not opposed. I didn't care. Now I do because of the following scripture. Not because of a religion. The JW religion can't do anything serious to me. Jehovah on the other hand can take away my life forever if I choose disobedience.
“Abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.” (Acts 15:19-21)

Even if that were true is losing one's own eternal life to save the life of another not a price worth paying?

Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.

There, right there, losing one's life is an expression of love toward others.

Yet to take an innocent's person life is wrong. The Bible says that one's life is in their blood. (Lev. 17:1, 2, 11.)
Just because one gives their life is not an reason to disobey Acts 15:19-21.
By my refusing blood I am taking the life of no one. When a person gives their blood it's not theirs to give and it's not mine to take. When Jesus died for us, his blood didn't go into our veins to save us.

But why do you think God would deny eternal life just because of blood?

"Whoever has my commandments and observes them is the one who loves me. In turn, whoever loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and will clearly show myself to him.” - John 14:21
However to disobey is to sin there is only one reward for sin. "For the wages sin pays is death." - Romans 6:23

He cares not, it is a made up rule, a yoke, and the lecture Christ gave to the Pharisees should be enough for you to understand that.

It is not a made up rule. Unless you think Acts 15:19-21 is made up?

So you are the parent of a three year old child who has been hurt and lost a great deal of blood, the doctor says "Unless we get her a transfusion in the next twenty minutes she'll die" do you approve or not?

Do you really think that Acts, the person who wrote Acts was thinking of blood transfusions?

The scripture says abstain from blood. Do you know what abstain means?

I don't think about what the person who wrote Acts was thinking. I do not view the book of Acts as from a man but from God. If wouldn't eat something that would take my eternal life, why in the world would taking it in the arm be different?

If it was my child they would not get the blood transfusion. If they die I will see them again soon in paradise. If I allow it while she might be resurrected because she had no choice I might not survive because of my lack of faith in the resurrection.

Those that ignore Acts 15:19-21 are in fact braking God's laws to save a temporary life and not thinking of their eternal life. "Whoever seeks to keep his life safe will lose it, but whoever loses it will preserve it alive." Luke 17:33

You cannot abstain (in the strict sense you mean) from blood, it is impossible to prove that some food is 100% free of blood!

Therefore, logically, it cannot, simply cannot mean what you seem to simplistically claim it means.

You should give some consideration to what the author may have been intending, the historical context is a part of the text, if you read it as if it were originally written in English yesterday you'll misunderstand.

If I were to say "Why don't you keep the seventh day sabbath" (which incidentally is described as an eternal covenant...) you'd possibly quote this:

“Therefore let no man judge you in eating and drinking or in respect of a festival or of an observance of the new moon or of a sabbath; for those things are a shadow of the things to come, but the reality belongs to the Christ.”

Yet here you are doing exactly that!

Actually no, you are. Witnesses didn't start this thread. You will never see Witnesses picketing hospitals with signs that say 'don't take blood'. Nor will you see threads stating those that take blood will die forever.
The decision to not take blood is a personal choice. it is my choice not to and you're judging me for it. I or anyone else have told you what you should be doing, only defended why we do what we do. Any Witness that takes a blood transfusion answers to Jehovah as far as their eternal life is concerned. No man or religion can stop Jehovah's judgement no matter His decision. Yet a person should be ready to accept that judgement and not try to excuse their way out of it.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Members of organized groups like this (and there are a great many) have likely already embraced the "statement of beliefs" and other doctrinal baggage (else they'd not have decided to become members).

That is not how it happened for me. So this statement is not true. Doctrinal baggage was lifted off of me. Jesus' load is light. (Matt 11:28-30). The death of the wicked doesn't burden me at all. Yet it seems from how you're reacting to scripture the Bible seems to burden you.

You sure like trying to guess how and why everyone is where they are. As Witnesses we are strongly encouraged not to judge a person before speaking with them. Are we perfect at it? No but as I said before, there are no perfect people.

1 Samuel 16:7 says, "mere man sees what appears to the eyes."
This is why as Witnesses we are taught to try and discern the heart, using God's Word the Bible. (Heb. 4:12)

Can we discuss blood transfusions then? how is that not doctrinal baggage? were you opposed to that before joining this organization?

I was not opposed. I didn't care. Now I do because of the following scripture. Not because of a religion. The JW religion can't do anything serious to me. Jehovah on the other hand can take away my life forever if I choose disobedience.
“Abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.” (Acts 15:19-21)

Even if that were true is losing one's own eternal life to save the life of another not a price worth paying?

Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.

There, right there, losing one's life is an expression of love toward others.

Yet to take an innocent's person life is wrong. The Bible says that one's life is in their blood. (Lev. 17:1, 2, 11.)
Just because one gives their life is not an reason to disobey Acts 15:19-21.
By my refusing blood I am taking the life of no one. When a person gives their blood it's not theirs to give and it's not mine to take. When Jesus died for us, his blood didn't go into our veins to save us.

But why do you think God would deny eternal life just because of blood?

"Whoever has my commandments and observes them is the one who loves me. In turn, whoever loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and will clearly show myself to him.” - John 14:21
However to disobey is to sin there is only one reward for sin. "For the wages sin pays is death." - Romans 6:23

He cares not, it is a made up rule, a yoke, and the lecture Christ gave to the Pharisees should be enough for you to understand that.

It is not a made up rule. Unless you think Acts 15:19-21 is made up?

So you are the parent of a three year old child who has been hurt and lost a great deal of blood, the doctor says "Unless we get her a transfusion in the next twenty minutes she'll die" do you approve or not?

Do you really think that Acts, the person who wrote Acts was thinking of blood transfusions?

The scripture says abstain from blood. Do you know what abstain means?

I don't think about what the person who wrote Acts was thinking. I do not view the book of Acts as from a man but from God. If wouldn't eat something that would take my eternal life, why in the world would taking it in the arm be different?

If it was my child they would not get the blood transfusion. If they die I will see them again soon in paradise. If I allow it while she might be resurrected because she had no choice I might not survive because of my lack of faith in the resurrection.

Those that ignore Acts 15:19-21 are in fact braking God's laws to save a temporary life and not thinking of their eternal life. "Whoever seeks to keep his life safe will lose it, but whoever loses it will preserve it alive." Luke 17:33

You cannot abstain (in the strict sense you mean) from blood, it is impossible to prove that some food is 100% free of blood!

Therefore, logically, it cannot, simply cannot mean what you seem to simplistically claim it means.

You should give some consideration to what the author may have been intending, the historical context is a part of the text, if you read it as if it were originally written in English yesterday you'll misunderstand.

If I were to say "Why don't you keep the seventh day sabbath" (which incidentally is described as an eternal covenant...) you'd possibly quote this:

“Therefore let no man judge you in eating and drinking or in respect of a festival or of an observance of the new moon or of a sabbath; for those things are a shadow of the things to come, but the reality belongs to the Christ.”

Yet here you are doing exactly that!

Actually no, you are. Witnesses didn't start this thread. You will never see Witnesses picketing hospitals with signs that say 'don't take blood'. Nor will you see threads stating those that take blood will die forever.
The decision to not take blood is a personal choice. it is my choice not to and you're judging me for it. I or anyone else have told you what you should be doing, only defended why we do what we do. Any Witness that takes a blood transfusion answers to Jehovah as far as their eternal life is concerned. No man or religion can stop Jehovah's judgement no matter His decision.

Very well, so you do not wish to discuss the matter any further.

[2timothy316]

Very well, so you do not wish to discuss the matter any further.

I'll discuss anything you want to know about why I, a Jehovah's Witness, will not take blood and what it means to me for my eternal future. What I will not discuss is judging what another's eternal future is based on if they take blood or not.

[onewithhim]

Members of organized groups like this (and there are a great many) have likely already embraced the "statement of beliefs" and other doctrinal baggage (else they'd not have decided to become members).

That is not how it happened for me. So this statement is not true. Doctrinal baggage was lifted off of me. Jesus' load is light. (Matt 11:28-30). The death of the wicked doesn't burden me at all. Yet it seems from how you're reacting to scripture the Bible seems to burden you.

You sure like trying to guess how and why everyone is where they are. As Witnesses we are strongly encouraged not to judge a person before speaking with them. Are we perfect at it? No but as I said before, there are no perfect people.

1 Samuel 16:7 says, "mere man sees what appears to the eyes."
This is why as Witnesses we are taught to try and discern the heart, using God's Word the Bible. (Heb. 4:12)

Can we discuss blood transfusions then? how is that not doctrinal baggage? were you opposed to that before joining this organization?

I was not opposed. I didn't care. Now I do because of the following scripture. Not because of a religion. The JW religion can't do anything serious to me. Jehovah on the other hand can take away my life forever if I choose disobedience.
“Abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.” (Acts 15:19-21)

Even if that were true is losing one's own eternal life to save the life of another not a price worth paying?

Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.

There, right there, losing one's life is an expression of love toward others.

But why do you think God would deny eternal life just because of blood?

He cares not, it is a made up rule, a yoke, and the lecture Christ gave to the Pharisees should be enough for you to understand that.

All that these human led organizations do, with their rules, regulations, checklists and so on, all they do is confuse and mislead people, they are wolves in sheep's clothing.

Every organization, every "sect" must have its own distinguishing set of rules, beliefs, people pick the one they like the most and then spend the rest of their lives under a yoke.

But JWs do not have their "own" set of rules. The Blood edict comes straight from the Bible, as timothy pointed out. You are suggesting to ignore what the Bible is telling us. Could it be that JWs are the only religion that is following the Bible?

To follow God's mandates is to ensure your eternal life. You ask "is losing one's own eternal life to save the life of another not a price worth paying?" The thing is---the person who dies as a result of not having transfused blood (as you might say) will be resurrected by Jehovah at a later date. So the person who refrains from giving blood and the person who dies are ensured a chance at eternal life. I have to say, too, that giving and taking blood is not necessary, according to the latest medical knowledge (which most people ignore). There are much better treatments that have better results and are cheaper. Blood banks are a big industry---lots of money involved there. Do some research on alternate treatments for blood loss.

.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Members of organized groups like this (and there are a great many) have likely already embraced the "statement of beliefs" and other doctrinal baggage (else they'd not have decided to become members).

That is not how it happened for me. So this statement is not true. Doctrinal baggage was lifted off of me. Jesus' load is light. (Matt 11:28-30). The death of the wicked doesn't burden me at all. Yet it seems from how you're reacting to scripture the Bible seems to burden you.

You sure like trying to guess how and why everyone is where they are. As Witnesses we are strongly encouraged not to judge a person before speaking with them. Are we perfect at it? No but as I said before, there are no perfect people.

1 Samuel 16:7 says, "mere man sees what appears to the eyes."
This is why as Witnesses we are taught to try and discern the heart, using God's Word the Bible. (Heb. 4:12)

Can we discuss blood transfusions then? how is that not doctrinal baggage? were you opposed to that before joining this organization?

I was not opposed. I didn't care. Now I do because of the following scripture. Not because of a religion. The JW religion can't do anything serious to me. Jehovah on the other hand can take away my life forever if I choose disobedience.
“Abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.” (Acts 15:19-21)

Even if that were true is losing one's own eternal life to save the life of another not a price worth paying?

Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.

There, right there, losing one's life is an expression of love toward others.

But why do you think God would deny eternal life just because of blood?

He cares not, it is a made up rule, a yoke, and the lecture Christ gave to the Pharisees should be enough for you to understand that.

All that these human led organizations do, with their rules, regulations, checklists and so on, all they do is confuse and mislead people, they are wolves in sheep's clothing.

Every organization, every "sect" must have its own distinguishing set of rules, beliefs, people pick the one they like the most and then spend the rest of their lives under a yoke.

But JWs do not have their "own" set of rules. The Blood edict comes straight from the Bible, as timothy pointed out. You are suggesting to ignore what the Bible is telling us. Could it be that JWs are the only religion that is following the Bible?

This is patently untrue, the Greek NT text says nothing about blood transfusions.

The edict against transfusions is someone's interpretation, someone's idea about the scope and intent of what's written.

Even a cursory study of history will show that Roman, pagan society (that is gentile society, some of whom were beginning to convert) engaged in all varieties of debauchery from the perspective of God fearing Jews, which included an attitude and use of blood quite alien to Jews.

The text is quite likely an expression of discouragement to gentiles to avoid such practices, such a lifestyle as it were.

The text includes this:

we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God

That's the context, that's the motive for what comes next:

Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.

That is discourage them from engaging activities that might otherwise lead Jews to despise and avoid them, rather than reacting with horror and refusing to fellowship with them.

Clearly there were tensions, difficulties between Jews and Gentiles converting to Christianity together, their cultures were different, often abhorent to one another, this text stems from that.

Furthermore the text says nothing about "losing eternal life".

The entire edict is a manufactured yoke, using fear to exercise control, wolves in sheep's clothing.

To follow God's mandates is to ensure your eternal life. You ask "is losing one's own eternal life to save the life of another not a price worth paying?" The thing is---the person who dies as a result of not having transfused blood (as you might say) will be resurrected by Jehovah at a later date. So the person who refrains from giving blood and the person who dies are ensured a chance at eternal life. I have to say, too, that giving and taking blood is not necessary, according to the latest medical knowledge (which most people ignore). There are much better treatments that have better results and are cheaper. Blood banks are a big industry---lots of money involved there. Do some research on alternate treatments for blood loss.

Eternal life is a gift, it is not something earned through following endless regulations, ifs and buts, the NT goes to great lengths in places to show that the law (the multitude of rules and regulations imposed upon Jews) were only in place because:

Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

Although that text arises during a discussion of circumcision it makes clear that Jews trying to impose their regulations on Gentiles is not necessary.

What is curious too is that despite this most JWs circumcise their baby boys, the irony is palpable.

Did you know also that the rule prohibiting transfusions only became a rule in 1945? or that individual blood components are not prohibited? ifs, buts, arbitrary fiddly rules and regulations, to this day there are Jews who refuse to touch a light switch on the sabbath - wake up!

A Christian does not need all this baggage, all these rules and regulations and ifs and buts, they are exactly the kind of burden that Christ reprimanded the Pharisees for, as soon as one "joins" a "Church" they are at serious risk of being misled and suffering misery and confusion, all of which is avoidable, all of which arises from other people imposing their beliefs.

[JehovahsWitness]

This is patently untrue, the Greek NT text says nothing about blood transfusions.

But it does speak about blood. You can't have a blood transfusion without blood, so what scripture has to say on the matter is relevant. And the bible is unambiguous on this: We must abstain from blood. How do you suppose one abstains from blood while transfusing it into one's body?

[onewithhim]

Members of organized groups like this (and there are a great many) have likely already embraced the "statement of beliefs" and other doctrinal baggage (else they'd not have decided to become members).

That is not how it happened for me. So this statement is not true. Doctrinal baggage was lifted off of me. Jesus' load is light. (Matt 11:28-30). The death of the wicked doesn't burden me at all. Yet it seems from how you're reacting to scripture the Bible seems to burden you.

You sure like trying to guess how and why everyone is where they are. As Witnesses we are strongly encouraged not to judge a person before speaking with them. Are we perfect at it? No but as I said before, there are no perfect people.

1 Samuel 16:7 says, "mere man sees what appears to the eyes."
This is why as Witnesses we are taught to try and discern the heart, using God's Word the Bible. (Heb. 4:12)

Can we discuss blood transfusions then? how is that not doctrinal baggage? were you opposed to that before joining this organization?

I was not opposed. I didn't care. Now I do because of the following scripture. Not because of a religion. The JW religion can't do anything serious to me. Jehovah on the other hand can take away my life forever if I choose disobedience.
“Abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.” (Acts 15:19-21)

Even if that were true is losing one's own eternal life to save the life of another not a price worth paying?

Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.

There, right there, losing one's life is an expression of love toward others.

But why do you think God would deny eternal life just because of blood?

He cares not, it is a made up rule, a yoke, and the lecture Christ gave to the Pharisees should be enough for you to understand that.

All that these human led organizations do, with their rules, regulations, checklists and so on, all they do is confuse and mislead people, they are wolves in sheep's clothing.

Every organization, every "sect" must have its own distinguishing set of rules, beliefs, people pick the one they like the most and then spend the rest of their lives under a yoke.

But JWs do not have their "own" set of rules. The Blood edict comes straight from the Bible, as timothy pointed out. You are suggesting to ignore what the Bible is telling us. Could it be that JWs are the only religion that is following the Bible?

This is patently untrue, the Greek NT text says nothing about blood transfusions.

Before you call anyone a liar, please reconsider the facts here. In ancient times they didn't have any methods set up to do any transfusions. Anyway, if your doctor told you to abstain from alcohol, would you stick a needle in your arm and take it into your veins?

.

[Sherlock Holmes]

This is patently untrue, the Greek NT text says nothing about blood transfusions.

But it does speak about blood. You can't have a blood transfusion without blood, so what scripture has to say on the matter is relevant. And the bible is unambiguous on this: We must abstain from blood. How do you suppose one abstains from blood while transfusing it into one's body?

Likewise you can't eat meat without eating blood, so by your reasoning one must avoid all meats, even fish. Clearly then since meat is not explicitly prohibited and transfusion is not explicitly prohibited, "abstain" must mean something other than total avoidance.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Members of organized groups like this (and there are a great many) have likely already embraced the "statement of beliefs" and other doctrinal baggage (else they'd not have decided to become members).

That is not how it happened for me. So this statement is not true. Doctrinal baggage was lifted off of me. Jesus' load is light. (Matt 11:28-30). The death of the wicked doesn't burden me at all. Yet it seems from how you're reacting to scripture the Bible seems to burden you.

You sure like trying to guess how and why everyone is where they are. As Witnesses we are strongly encouraged not to judge a person before speaking with them. Are we perfect at it? No but as I said before, there are no perfect people.

1 Samuel 16:7 says, "mere man sees what appears to the eyes."
This is why as Witnesses we are taught to try and discern the heart, using God's Word the Bible. (Heb. 4:12)

Can we discuss blood transfusions then? how is that not doctrinal baggage? were you opposed to that before joining this organization?

I was not opposed. I didn't care. Now I do because of the following scripture. Not because of a religion. The JW religion can't do anything serious to me. Jehovah on the other hand can take away my life forever if I choose disobedience.
“Abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.” (Acts 15:19-21)

Even if that were true is losing one's own eternal life to save the life of another not a price worth paying?

Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.

There, right there, losing one's life is an expression of love toward others.

But why do you think God would deny eternal life just because of blood?

He cares not, it is a made up rule, a yoke, and the lecture Christ gave to the Pharisees should be enough for you to understand that.

All that these human led organizations do, with their rules, regulations, checklists and so on, all they do is confuse and mislead people, they are wolves in sheep's clothing.

Every organization, every "sect" must have its own distinguishing set of rules, beliefs, people pick the one they like the most and then spend the rest of their lives under a yoke.

But JWs do not have their "own" set of rules. The Blood edict comes straight from the Bible, as timothy pointed out. You are suggesting to ignore what the Bible is telling us. Could it be that JWs are the only religion that is following the Bible?

This is patently untrue, the Greek NT text says nothing about blood transfusions.

Before you call anyone a liar, please reconsider the facts here. In ancient times they didn't have any methods set up to do any transfusions. Anyway, if your doctor told you to abstain from alcohol, would you stick a needle in your arm and take it into your veins?

.

I have not called anyone a "liar".

No, I'd ask the doctor for more direction, more specifics.