My wife and Iare ex jws who were deemed to have disassociated ourselves over the blood issue. The elders have called on us many times over the past 5 yrs; trying to get us to return to the org. Each time we have informed them that we have no regrets over my wife receiving 11 blood transfusions. This seems to make no difference, the important thing seems to be that we return for the good of the org. We have been told that we only have to say we are sorry, even though they know that it is not true and we will be welcomed back with open arms. H OW WOULD GOD LOOK ON A RELIGION THAT THOUGHT THIS WAY?

Vatican Library? OK then, good luck with that. By the way did you hear oil companies say ethanol is a bad idea and george W. said he had credible intelligence on the weapons of mass destruction.

2 Timothy 2:24

The bible is very clear when it states – 16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work. (FULLY COMPETENT, COMPLETELY EQUIPPED ARE THE KEY WORDS HERE)
Now, that being the case why one would need all the shitty propaganda printed by the WT?
Listen here little prick, for some reason jw’s don’t celebrate birthdays because 2 people were killed on 2 birthdays mentioned in the bible. Now for the sake of the argument, how many jw’s die per year in car accidents? More than 2 for sure. What about the society prints in the WT that cars cannot no longer be used that witnesses must follow jesus example by riding an ass, an ass like yourself?

Since the anti-spam word was “salute”, I salute your stupidity!

The watchtower society emphasizes the guidelines given to all men through holy scripture. Each individual’s standing with god is or her own responsibility. As far as the date of december 25th I mentioned more and more people, i did not say this discovery was made within this time bracket. What matters to most Jehovah’s witnesses is who was originally worshipped on this date. I really should’nt have responded to any hostility but I do this for the benefit of anyone else that might read this.
(John 15: 17-21)

Erythropoietin therapy before the surgery(Increases red blood cell production to reduce the chances of anemia). Blood conservation techniques such increased use of artery clips, electrocautery(Nearly instantly seals surgical openings), blood volume substitutes. Same mortality rate as standard surgery shorter recovery time & less risk of rejection. It’s not a matter of risk just access to these techniques. Above all relax and try to look this objectively.

To Without hostility: –God given right of free will? What is that you my friend? Is that free will when the WT tells you what you can eat/not eat, wear/not wear, what to read/not to read, where to go/where not to go?
Are you so stupid to believe that was only less than 25 years ago people discovered jesus was not born on 25 December. Does the bible say it matters when jesus was born?
Are you one of those people that live in a small world called kingod-hell?

This would legally be considered negligence.

lol….mine’s an intelect of a 5 yrs old…? Well, 1 st thing for someone who adresses to me as a so called ”friend”…I find u quite rude…i dont know where did I try to insult someone…or where did I seek insults…for someone who is supposed to be mature…i wonder if u even have the m of the word…this question was to a JW or a former member, so ur not one and it does not concern u, so get lost with ur pathetic insults and spit ur venom on some other website…and if u can answer the question try to answer it 1st, than we will see if I can understand it with my 5 yrs old intelect…U should know that despite all ur human knowledge u will always look as a monkey in wisdom compared to God…so think harder next time u try to speak about intelect. Whatever my intelect may be… I rely on his knowledge…”knock and it will be opened” and ppl like yourself who wish to look more than mere dust itself will be reduced even more than they allrdy are. So bark all u want… it will do nothing but increase my faith in the Holy One thus increasing my endurence thus the reason we are on this kingdom of the devil! So, you see, a 5 yrs old who follows the way of the bible when speaking, which is holy knowledge according to me, is always superior to your kind…because….who dares to say that his knowledge is superior of the One who created the abys and the four winds!!!

From what you have just said, that you were a Jehovah’s Witnesses I assume that you are no longer a Witnesses.

What you just said is a complete lie, one is not disfellowshipped for taking blood. If someone takes blood it is not a judicial matter, and never has been, boy where did you come from. I am glad you are not an elder now.

Speaking of propaganda, you just spoke a mouth full. But from all misconceptions I have read it is apparent that you your self has an axe to grind, wake up and turn around and look at your self a little closer, and you just might see where the true problem lies. Apparently you were not a very good student of the Bible

I agree

I would gladly answer your post, however you seem to have the intellectual of a 5 year old and since I am a bit more mature I am afraid you might not understand my answer, therefore I will ask my 5 year old to reply to your post. Is that a fair answer? Take care my friend.

HI and greetings to whoever you are.

I am impressed by the things you said in your comment, especialy since you are an ”ex-member” of JWs. I have JWs friends and study the bible with them when i can cuz its fun and we have nice conversations overall. I am decieved by some things though, like i have to always wait to get some answers….and even if I find some answers by myself…they kinda ignore it or find somthing that can answer it too…but in a better way according to them. Now my purpose is to request an answer from you if you ever go to this site again… and it’s when you were a witness, were u like supposed to ignore some contacts if ppl like myself are not JWs unless they wish to find out the truth in some way? I am asking you this since they will proly tell me that i am not rdy to understand that yet, even if I know that…christians are not supposed to hang out with the non-christians in some way…Its sad though that they claim to know the answers..and the JWs do have them in most of cases…but i miss the time when I 1st red the bible, I understood all without question…the doubt in fact I belive now camed with the desire of learning the God’s word through ppl who study the bible…I am starting to think that that was a mistake…. Anyway your mom is realy special for teaching you to judge by yourself and not according to what ppl belive in….anyway masses of ppl have an average intelect an judgment i might add of a 5 year old kid…and God will judge withe the same way you judge the others .And one last thing, I myself am against transfusion, I dont realy now why but its just like that, but what are the other alternatives you would try before a blood transfusion? Thanx to whoever reads this and tries to answer it if at all. AND for ppl who complain bout spelling just quit it…spelling must be given a critic on paper and not on this…(unless ur gonna print it) typewriting is just a tool to ease the communication…so go at your ease…

Chris, I was a Jw for 18 years and the last 6 being an elder and you are wrong about the blood issue. If the elders find out you took blood you will be disfellowshipped! Unless of course in the last 2 years you had what you so call the “new light”?

I think you still live in the small world called “kindom hell” therefore you are like a puppy, you eyes are still closed.

Before you post any stupid propaganda in here, remember that most of us here were witnesses at one point or another in our lives, therefore familiar with all your propaganda.

Is Blood FORBIDDEN Among Jehovah’s Witnesses?
by Randall Watters

The Watchtower objects to the eating and even the transfusing of blood, as most of our readers know. What many do not know, however, are the inconsistencies in their position on blood and blood fractions. I believe the following information will be effective in illustrating the serious inconsistencies in their policy regarding such a vital issue. Countless Witnesses and Witness children have died since the ban on blood took effect in 1945, under the direction of the Watchtower’s third president, Nathan H. Knorr. Since the time of Knorr, many difficulties regarding their stand on blood have come up for vote in the sessions of the Watchtower’s Governing Body, revealing their attempt to play God in this matter.

The Watchtower of Feb. 15, 1963 (p. 124) told JWs that they could not receive anything derived from blood in medical treatment:

“It is not just blood, but anything that is derived from blood and used to sustain life or strengthen one that comes under this principle.”

Yet, six years earlier they had made exceptions in the case where blood serums might be injected in the form of inoculation. The Watchtower of 1958, p. 575 said,

The injection of antibodies into the blood in a vehicle of blood serum or the use of blood fractions to create such antibodies is not the same as taking blood, either by mouth or by transfusion, as a nutrient to build up the body’s vital forces. While God did not intend for any man to contaminate his blood stream by vaccines, serums or blood fractions, doing so does not seem to be included in God’s express will forbidding blood as food. It would therefore be a matter of individual judgment whether one accepted such types of medication or not.

Several inconsistencies must be pointed out in this statement. First of all, their later statement of 1963 contradicts it. Second, they argue that the Bible connects the prohibition on blood with its use as a FOOD, and since vaccinations are not a food, it really doesn’t apply the same way. Consequently, they are making BLOOD AS A NUTRIENT the issue, rather than BLOOD AS SACRED (a religious issue). If they really believe that blood is still to be considered the same way as in Gen. 9:4 and Deut. 12:23,24, they would not use blood for anything, but would always pour it out on the ground. In fact, they actually use this very principle in arguing against autotransfusions! The Watchtower of 1959 stated,

According to the method of handling blood prescribed by the Bible, blood when taken from a body was to be poured out on the ground as water and covered over with dust. (Lev. 17:13,14; Deut. 12:16,23, 24; 15:23; 1 Chron. 11:18,19) This is because life is in the blood and such shed blood is held sacred before Jehovah God. The covenant regarding the sanctity of blood stated after the Flood is still binding today, and it covers both animal and human blood, whether one’s own or anothers’. Consequently, the removal of one’s blood, storing it and later putting it back into the same person would be a violation of the Scriptural principles that govern the handling of blood…. Gen. 9:46. (p. 640)

So in one case, they say you can use parts of blood as long as it’s not used for “food,” yet elsewhere they say autotransfusions are wrong be cause blood should always be poured out on the ground!

This is only the tip of the iceberg of inconsistency. As late as 1975, JWs who were hemophiliacs were not allowed to use blood particles in therapy, including blood plasma and derivatives containing blood factors (Awake!, 2/22/75, p.30).

Not long thereafter, they changed their mind, but failed to put it into print for another three years, when the June 15, 1978 WT (p. 30) revoked its earlier ban, allowing certain blood particles to be used. Only those hemophiliacs who telephoned WT headquarters between 1975 and 1978 found out they had changed their stand on this issue; others who failed to “phone home” were left to follow the old mandate until 1978.

Organ Transplants

In the Nov. 15 WT of 1967 organ transplants were banned for JWs, whereas they had previously allowed such as late as 1961. They used this in reinforcing their stand on blood, saying that blood is also an organ transplant (see quote below for 1977). Then in 1980 they changed their stance, allowing organ transplants as a matter of individual conscience! Strangely, no mention was made of blood no longer being an organ, so one must assume they are contradicting themselves on this point, as they still refuse blood transfusions. In 1984, they allowed for a bone-marrow transplant… the very source of blood! Still, a blood transfusion would merit disfellowshipping from the organization.

Below are listed some of the “milestones” in the WT’s official statements regarding blood and organ transplants:

1909 Acts 15:135 (including prohibition on blood) not considered as law for Christians. WT REPRINTS 1909, p. 4374.

1945 Denunciation of blood transfusions as pagan and God-dishonoring. WT, July 1, 1945, p. 198201.

1961 Taking a blood transfusion is grounds for disfellowshipping. WT, 1961, p. 63, 64.

Donating organs (eyes) for transplant up to your conscience. WT, 1961, p. 480.

1963 Any fraction of blood considered as a nutrient not to be used in medical treatment. WT, Feb. 15, 1963, p. 124. (See also Awake! of Feb. 22, 1975, p. 30.

Ask your bakers and candy makers if blood is used to make the lecithin used in their products. WT, p. 123

1964 Cosmetics in which cows blood is used are condemned, as well as fertilizers which contained blood. Pet owners told it is wrong to allow transfusions to be given to sick animals. Food with blood in it not to be given to pets. Awake!, May 8, p. 30; WT p. 127, 128.

1967 Organ transplants are a form of cannibalism and to be shunned. WT, Nov. 15, 1967, p. 702704. (compare 1961)

1977 Blood transfusions are organ transplants: ” . . . many a person might decline blood simply because it is essentially an organ transplant that at best is only partially compatible with his own blood.” Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Question of Blood, 1977, p. 41. (compare 1961)

1978 Ban on certain blood fractions lifted for hemophiliacs. WT, June 15, 1978, p. 30. (compare 1963)

1980 Organ transplants are a matter of conscience, decided by the individual. WT, March 15, 1980, p. 31. (compare 1967, 1977)

1984 Accepting a bone-marrow transplant is up to your conscience. WT May 15, 1984, p. 31.

1985 An infant accepting an autotransfusion of minute amounts of blood for test purposes is up to the conscience of its parents (letter correspondence).

There has been much speculation as to what the next position taken by the WT will be on blood. It is likely that they will allow for more loopholes in their interpretation of what is “lawful.”

One thing is for certain, though. For the WT to admit that they were wrong would cause too great a stir in their ranks, so any changes must be presented as “new light” in order to make it appear that “Jehovah” is making the changes, rather than a few men on the Governing Body.

A Letter to the Watchtower Regarding Blood
Ron and Michelle Leeds of Pembroke Pines, FL. want to share with our readers the following exchange of letters that took place when they were members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Michelle points out that Witness theology absolutely prohibits both transfusions and autotransfusions. The blood gas test she describes includes returning blood to a newborn. Thus, it is essentially an autotransfusion. Yet, the Society told her it is permissible.

Dear Brothers:

I am writing you in regard to some questions that have arisen in my mind concerning certain medical procedures and how they should be viewed. My husband is a respiratory therapist. Although his specific job in the allied health field has little if anything to do with blood as used with a transfusion, there is a certain type of medical test he performs on infants in the neonatal unit which has brought up questions in our minds. Let me explain this procedure and my question as simply as possible. In medical practice, it is called a “blood-gas analysis.” This is a test given to premature infants to determine the blood oxygen level, PH balance, and other vital data about the child. This test will enable the medical profession to know how to proceed in further treatment. This diagnostic test is commonly administered to adults, also, whereby a blood sample is taken, analyzed, and the blood is then discarded after the test.

The question that comes to mind pertains to these newborn or premature infants. The procedure is described as follows: the medical personnel must first remove 13 c.c.’s of mixed blood and I.V. solution from an inter-arterial catheter to ensure a pure blood test sample. Then they will collect a 0.20.3 c.c. sample, analyze and discard it. But because a child at this stage of their life has so little blood, the first 13 c.c. mixture of I.V. and blood taken must be returned into the baby’s body. This must be returned, otherwise the volume removed would deplete the baby’s blood supply. In premature infants weighing as little as 2 pounds (approximately 1 kilogram), the entire blood volume may be only 80 c.c.’s, which is about two “shot glasses” full. This illustrates how vital this small amount of blood is to the infant. Medically speaking, the hospital does not consider this to be a blood transfusion, but simply a standard test. I am sure that many children of Jehovah’s Witnesses have had this test performed. My question is: how is this test viewed in the light of the Society’s prohibition on transfusions and autotransfusions?

My other question is regarding individuals who are hemophiliacs. We know these people are born with a very low blood-clotting factor. Modern medicine is now able to use “fibrinogen” to stop hemorrhaging and blood factor VIII for helping hemophiliacs. Again, what is the Watchtower Society’s view on using components of blood for these vital purposes? In light of the recent April 15th Watchtower magazine, I am anxiously awaiting your response.

In Jehovah’s Service,

Sister Michelle Leeds

The following photocopy is the reply given by the Watchtower’s Service Dept. to Michelle Leeds’ letter regarding autotransfusion with infants. Compare the letter with this statement in a 1982 Awake!, which information is still current “truth”:

Witnesses view [the scriptures] as ruling out transfusion of whole blood, packed RBCs, and plasma, as well as WBC and platelet administration. However, Witness religious understanding does not absolutely prohibit the use of components such as albumin, immune globulins, and hemophiliac preparations; each Witness must decide individually if he can accept these.

Witnesses believe that blood removed from the body should be disposed of, so they do not accept autotransfusion of pre-deposited blood. (Awake!, 6/22/82, p. 25)

While the Watchtower may deem it “new light” to “clarify” all the little rules and regulations they have made up over the last 113 years, the Bible is SILENT on the issue of blood transfusion. In the Old Testament, blood was to be poured out on the ground as sacred, since it meant the life of an animal was lost. Yet blood transfusions do not kill the donor and are used to SAVE lives! Who is truly acting in the spirit of the scriptures, and who disrespects life?

You stupid ass, couldn’t you figure out that most of us here were witnesses at some point in life and for decades. You know how the propaganda works. So don’t even bother coming here with your stupid rhetoric propaganda.
One thing you were right about, lack of knowledge can make you look a fool, and what a fool you are!
It is time you remove your head from the WT’s ass and start thinking for once.

From the first book of the Bible through to the last, “blood” is mentioned more than four hundred times. Certain Bible verses are especially pertinent to the question of sustaining life with blood.
10 The Bible record shows that early in mankind’s history the Creator and Life-Giver expressed himself on the issue of blood. Right after the global flood, when God first granted humans the right to eat animal flesh, he commanded Noah and his family: “Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to you. Only flesh with its soul—its blood—you must not eat.”—Genesis 9:3, 4.
God showed, however, that in killing animals for food more was involved than diet. That was because the blood of a creature represented its life or its soul. Thus, some Bible translations render Genesis 9:4 as: “Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.”—Revised Standard Version; Moffatt.
The above-quoted scripture applies to animal blood. Would the same principle apply to human blood? Yes, with even stronger force. For God went on to say to Noah: “Besides that, your blood of your souls shall I ask back. . . . Anyone shedding man’s blood, by man will his own blood be shed, for in God’s image he made man.” (Genesis 9:5, 6) Now, if animal blood (representing animal life) was of sacred significance to God, obviously human blood had a sacred significance of even greater value. Persons complying with these divine directions would not be shedding the blood of (killing) humans, nor would they be eating either animal or human blood.
Many Bible scholars recognize that God here set out a regulation that applied, not merely to Noah and his immediate family, but to all mankind from that time on—actually all those living since the Flood are from Noah’s family. (Genesis 10:32) Theologian and Reformationist John Calvin, for example, acknowledged about the prohibition on blood that “this law had been given to the whole world immediately after the flood.”2 And Gerhard von Rad, professor at Heidelberg University, refers to Genesis 9:3, 4, as “an ordinance for all mankind,” because all mankind has descended from Noah.
Rabbi Benno Jacob:
“Thus the two prohibitions belong together. They are the most elementary demands of humanity in the literal sense of the word. . . . The permission to eat meat, but without its blood, and the prohibition against shedding human blood indicate the place of man within the world of the living . . . In summary: the reason for the prohibition of blood is of a moral character. . . . Later Judaism regarded this passage as establishing fundamental ethics for every human being.” (Italics added.)4
Later in his law given to the nation of Israel, Jehovah God prohibited murder, bearing out that the mandate he had given to Noah was still in effect. (Exodus 20:13) Correspondingly, God also forbade consuming blood, saying:
“As for any man of the house of Israel or some alien resident who is residing as an alien in their midst who eats any sort of blood, I shall certainly set my face against the soul that is eating the blood, and I shall indeed cut him off from among his people.”—Leviticus 17:10.
(Leviticus 17:13-14) “‘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. 14 For the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood by the soul in it. Consequently I said to the sons of Israel: “YOU must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh, because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off.”
(Deuteronomy 12:23-25) Simply be firmly resolved not to eat the blood, because the blood is the soul and you must not eat the soul with the flesh. 24 You must not eat it. You should pour it out upon the ground as water. 25 You must not eat it, in order that it may go well with you and your sons after you, because you will do what is right in Jehovah’s eyes.
(Leviticus 7:26-27) “‘And YOU must not eat any blood in any places where YOU dwell, whether that of fowl or that of beast. 27 Any soul who eats any blood, that soul must be cut off from his people.’”
in 49 C.E., during a conference of the apostles and older men of Jerusalem who served as a central body of elders for all Christians. The conference was held in response to a question about circumcision. This apostolic council decided that non-Jews who accepted Christianity did not have to get circumcised. During the discussion Jesus’ half brother James brought to the council’s attention certain other essential things that he deemed important to include in their decision, namely, “to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.” (Acts 15:19-21) He referred back to the writings of Moses, which reveal that even before the Law was given, God had disapproved of immoral sex relations, idolatry and the eating of blood, which would include eating the flesh of strangled animals containing blood
(Acts 15:28-29) For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU, except these necessary things, 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!”
Eusebius, a third century writer who is considered the “father of Church history,” relates what occurred in Lyons (now in France) in the year 177 C.E. Religious enemies falsely accused Christians of eating infants. During the torture and execution of some Christians, a girl named Biblias responded to the false accusation, saying: “How can we eat infants—we, to whom it is not lawful to eat the blood of beasts.
”7Similar false charges moved the early Latin theologian Tertullian (c. 160-230 C.E.) to point out that though Romans commonly drank blood, Christians certainly did not. He writes:
“Let your unnatural ways blush before the Christians. We do not even have the blood of animals at our meals, for these consist of ordinary food. . . . At the trials of Christians you offer them sausages filled with blood. You are convinced, of course, that the very thing with which you try to make them deviate from the right way is unlawful for them. How is it that, when you are confident that they will shudder at the blood of an animal, you believe they will pant eagerly after human blood?”8
35 Also, referring to the decree of Acts 15:28, 29, he says: “The interdict upon ‘blood’ we shall understand to be [an interdict] much more upon human blood.”9
36 Minucius Felix, a Roman lawyer who lived until about 250 C.E., makes the same point, writing: “So much do we shrink from human blood, that we do not use the blood even of eatable animals in our food.”10
37 The historical evidence is so abundant and clear that Bishop John Kaye (1783-1853) could state categorically: “The Primitive Christians scrupulously complied with the decree pronounced by the Apostles at Jerusalem, in abstaining from things strangled and from blood.”11
Not at all. Commenting on Acts 15:29, Catholic Biblical scholar Giuseppe Ricciotti (1890-1964) refers to the incident at Lyons (described previously) as evidence that early ‘Christians could not eat blood.’ Then he adds, “but even in succeeding centuries down to the Middle Ages, we encounter unexpected echoes of this early ‘abomination’ [of blood], due unquestionably to the decree.”12
39 For instance, the Quinisext Council held in 692 C.E. at Constantinople stated: “The divine Scripture commands us to abstain from blood, from things strangled, and from fornication. . . . If anyone henceforth venture to eat in any way the blood of an animal, if he be a clergyman, let him be deposed; if a layman, let him be cut off.”13 Similarly, Otto of Bamberg (c. 1060-1139 C.E.), a noted prelate and evangelist, explained to converts in Pomerania “that they should not eat any thing unclean, or which died of itself, or was strangled, or sacrificed to idols, or the blood of animals.”14
40 Moving closer to our time, Martin Luther also recognized the implications of the decree of 49 C.E. In protesting Catholic practices and beliefs he was inclined to group the apostolic council with later church councils whose decrees were not part of the Bible. Still, Luther wrote regarding Acts 15:28, 29:
“Now if we want to have a church that conforms to this council (as is right, since it is the first and foremost council, and was held by the apostles themselves), we must teach and insist that henceforth no prince, lord, burgher, or peasant eat geese, doe, stag, or pork cooked in blood . . . And burghers and peasants must abstain especially from red sausage and blood sausage.”15
41 In the nineteenth century Andrew Fuller, viewed as “perhaps the most eminent and influential of Baptist theologians,” wrote concerning the Genesis 9:3, 4 prohibition on blood:
“This, being forbidden to Noah, appears also to have been forbidden to all mankind; nor ought this prohibition to be treated as belonging to the ceremonies of the Jewish dispensation. It was not only enjoined before that dispensation existed, but was enforced upon the Gentile Christians by the decrees of the apostles, Acts XV. 20. . . . Blood is the life, and God seems to claim it as sacred to himself.”16
42 Might a Christian claim that the exercise of what some call “Christian liberty” should allow him to ignore this prohibition on blood? In his book The History of the Christian Church, clergyman William Jones (1762-1846) replies:
“Nothing can be more express than the prohibition, Acts XV. 28, 29. Can those who plead their ‘Christian liberty’ in regard to this matter point us to any part of the Word of God in which this prohibition is subsequently annulled? If not, may we be allowed to ask, ‘By what authority, except his own, can any of the laws of God be repealed?’”—P. 106.
43 The conclusion is plain: Under the guidance of the holy spirit the apostolic council decreed that Christians who want God’s approval must ‘abstain from blood,’ as God has required since the days of Noah. (Acts 15:28, 29; Genesis 9:3, 4) This Scriptural view was accepted and followed by the early Christians, even when doing so would cost them their lives. And down through the centuries this requirement has been recognized as “necessary” for Christians. Thus the determination of Jehovah’s Witnesses to abstain from blood is based on God’s Word the Bible and is backed up by many precedents in the history of Christianity.
Note, for example, the command that Christians “keep abstaining . . . from blood.” (Acts 15:29) Nothing is there stated that would justify making a distinction between taking blood into the mouth and taking it into the blood vessels. And, really, is there in principle any basic difference?
48 Doctors know that a person can be fed through the mouth or intravenously. Likewise, certain medicines can be administered through various routes. Some antibiotics, for instance, can be taken orally in tablet form or injected into a person’s muscles or circulatory system (intravenously). What if you had taken a certain antibiotic tablet and, because of having a dangerous allergic reaction, were warned to abstain from that drug in the future? Would it be reasonable to consider that medical warning to mean that you could not take the drug in tablet form but could safely inject it into your bloodstream? Hardly! The main point would not be the route of administration, but that you should abstain from that antibiotic altogether. Similarly, the decree that Christians must ‘abstain from blood’ clearly covers the taking of blood into the body, whether through the mouth or directly into the bloodstream.
The issue of blood for Jehovah’s Witnesses, therefore, involves the most fundamental principles on which they as Christians base their lives. Their relationship with their Creator and God is at stake. Furthermore, they wholeheartedly believe the psalmist’s words: “The judicial decisions of Jehovah are true; they have proved altogether righteous. . . . In the keeping of them there is a large reward.”—Psalm 19:9, 11.

Here is how several religions view blood transfusions. As you can see a lot of them had the same beliefs as Jehovah’s Witnesses. So rather then listen to slander Why not look up why your religion changed it’s views if they are one of these. If more people did research like the question you asked and checked the information out then there wouldn’t be so much confused and disheartening things said. This is a belief held by more then one religion. They have simply taken the biggest stand. Look up all the negative aspects of transfusions. Trust me when you watch someone die of getting a transfusion before your eyes you’ll not view them in the same light.

Thx for taking the time to read this and I hope it helps you find the answers your looking for. If you want to get more in detail ask the Witnesses they’ll explain their beliefs to you if you ask nicely.

Jehovah’s witnesses do not divorce unless one of them commits adultery. I’m sorry to ruin your seemingly intense argument, but it is said, ‘lack of knowledge can make one look the fool.’
As for the blood issue why don’t you ask a witness to explain it to you. They are not how you think them. A cult doesn’t let anyone in it. J.W.’s will allow anyone who wants to learn bible knowledge join them.
And trust me I work in the health field. All witnesses who refuse blood due it by their own choice. Since no one could know if they had received blood or not due to HIPPA laws enforced in the health care setting. Don’t slander us health care workers by presuming we would tell anyone what treatments a patient gets. If the patient doesn’t want anyone to know we can’t tell anyone including their spouse. I know because I’ve been put in the situation of having to tell someones spouse their husband wasn’t in our facility when in fact they were.
My advice is to ask some questions like a grown adult to a Jehovah’s Witness and maybe you’ll understand your brother’s beliefs better. Right now it just seems like your trying to get attention. I pray that your brother is very forgiving, since you might very well be fighting against what he believes in with all his heart. And think of what your doing to his family. I truly hope you find peace and do more research before you desecrate an admirable act your brother did. Who’s to say your brother’s death for something he believed in is any less admirable then those early christians who died for their faith?
I truly hope you seek answers in a peaceful way and stop filling yourself with hate on a matter you sound like you haven’t done much research on. Personally I admire your brother for what he did and I ask you not to down play it.
an outsiders point of view.

mr. hans i really respect your view on blood transfusion.
Mr.hans the only thing i could say is that you dont have full information on why jw’s refuse blood transfusion.

If you want information onthis contact any of the jw’s they will defenetly help you out.

Refusing a blood transfusion when it can save your life is suicide. You can point out the rare occasions when a person lives without a transfusion all you want, but this is the minority. When you kill your children by not allowing them a blood transfusion it is a form of human sacrifice. To think that the Holy Scriptures even address a medical treatment that didn’t exist for another 1900 years after the last book was written is ignorance. The scriptures only address eating the blood of animals.

To KMT, Geez, for a person who has studied religion all over the world you are very close minded. If being a Jw is such a great thing, by all means become one and let it be the end of it. Don’t try however tell us how great the jw’s are, after all you have not been there, we have! And for many years at that. So, put a cork in your ass as apparently every time you open you mouth shit comes out or flies go in.

Raymond Franz was een lid van het Besturend Lichaam van Jehova’s getuigen van 1971 tot 22 mei 1980 en diende – op uitnodiging van Nathan Homer Knorr – vijftien jaar op het hoofdbureau van het Wachttorengenootschap (van 1965 tot 1980). Hij was een neef van Frederick William Franz (voormalig president van het Wachttorengenootschap).

Nadat hij het hoofdbureau van het Wachttorengenootschap had verlaten, werd hij (vanwege een etentje met zijn uitgesloten werkgever) eind 1981 uit de gemeenschap van Jehova’s getuigen gesloten. Over zijn uitsluiting werd zelfs een artikel (inclusief interview) gepubliceerd in Time magazine (zie onderaan).

Na zijn uitsluiting heeft Franz twee boeken geschreven die op gedetailleerde wijze de interne (bestuurlijke) werking van de organisatie van Jehova’s getuigen beschrijven: “Gewetensconflict” (oorspronkelijk: “Crisis of conscience”) en “In search of Christian Freedom” (niet in het Nederlands verschenen

to catina: “Jessica I am not a JW, but what you have to realize is that these people really don’t want to hear the truth”

If it talks like a duck walks like a duck must be a duck! Are you sure you are not a duck (JW)?

Jessica I am not a JW, but what you have to realize is that these people really don’t want to hear the truth. They do not read the BIBLE and obviously are ignorant to the lesson being taught, not by you only but by everyone. RESEARCH PEOPLE. READ the BIBLE. Maybe they can’t read. Based on their spelling. Before you pas judgement on someone’s life do the research.

Then all religions should be considered cults. They all have their beliefs they follow. From what I see the religious leaders are the worse.

Who gave you all the right to decide what is right for everyone else. Everyone has their individual beliefs. Let them decide for themselves. If they deny their child blood who is going to feel the pain if thier child dies. You or them. Get over it people. I love the USA, Freedom of Speech and my right to make decisons for my children. Something no government or other person will be able to make for me.

I could not have said it better myself……..

Hey Marcus, did you ever consider that maybe those patients were going to survive anyway? Why don’t you make it easier for us and provide the proof that it was the transfusion that saved their lives.

For everyone that’s reading this, here’s a broader concept and definitely less charged by personal and religious convictions.

While the Canadian Government is considering making it illegal to refuse blood transfusions, will they make it illegal to do the following:

1. Refuse Chemo and/or Radiation treatment?
2. Refuse Dialysis for kidney disease?
3. DNR refusal?

Do you see where these questions are headed? Do you realize the principals involved?

Why don’t you drop your obvious hatred for JW’s and focus on the pricipals involved? Or do you hold the people who refuse any of the three questions above in contempt as well?

PS. All of you knuckleheads out there, PLEASE RESPOND.
It’s nothing personal.

Go right ahead fri. Be blissfully happy to catch infections and Aids and all the rest. By the way when you get that opportunity ask the doc if he can gaurantee you that will live after the transfusion. I asked. I won’t deprive you of the joy of getting the answer to that question while you are on your dieing bed. OOPs did I mispell dying!@# Ignorance truly is bliss……

dear Jessica,
from your post it’s clear that your education is…non-existent. You must have dropped out at kindergarten or earlier.
Usually people are bored by the parroting of misinformation by the Filthful and Disgraceful Slavebugger. Whom you yourselves don’t believe either as shown by your engaging in convos with “apostates” in an “apostate” site.
Your thinking powers are so zero that you forget that the Towers of All Terrors rule of no-blood transfusion is based on religous grounds not on medical ones.
Nobody advocates indiscriminate use of blood but only in the face of life/death where there are no alternatives. So you add nothing with your hopeless cave-men-like ignorance.
More disturbing still, is seeing that you imply that the blasphemous handbook for terrorists, mindless abusers, perverts, murderers, paedophiles, genocide-mongers known as the bible is worth reading and following.

I think you will have a great career as a jouevuuah’s witless.

thank god for doctors like you.