Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Editor
Choosing to take blood: you can't hide it from God
This article originally appeared in BMJ USA
EDITOR
I understand the fear of the vast majority on the issue of
blood, since I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses. The question is not,
"How can I hide my choice of taking blood or blood products from the
congregation"; it is "How can I hide it from God?" The Holy
Scriptures, the Word of God, states that all true
worshipers of Jehovah God must abstain from blood. If one makes the
choice to ignore this command from God, one makes the choice to
disassociate oneself from those who do follow the command. There are
many scriptures that can be cited in this matter. Everyone must make a
personal decision based on the information they have.
tonyb_72432{at}yahoo.com
Which part of the blood does God want you to abstain from?
IN REPLY I agree with him that this is a matter of personal choice and
decision. Suppose a Jehovah's Witness believed that there is no
"Word of God" to pick and choose which part of blood to abstain from, and therefore he personally decided to take one part of blood for
his medical treatment. If the part of blood he chose happened to be not
included in the parts of blood the WTS determined to be acceptable, is
he ignoring God's command? If he does not believe he is ignoring
God's command, since there is no such "Word of God," he does not
need to hide it from God. Yet, if he is forced to disassociate himself
from the community, to be ostracized and shunned by family and friends,
is it not understandable that he would want to hide it from the congregation?
The changing word of God
EDITOR The WTS has had a hard job reinterpreting the "Word of God" ever
since. For example, in the not-too-distant past, vaccinations and
aluminum cookware were campaigned against by the WTS as sinful but are
now fully accepted.
It seems that not all components of blood are sinful now, although who
has made that decision seems uncertain. What is the betting that in
another decade, the WTS will have abandoned this untenable and
intellectually dubious position, and this will be an issue of
historical interest only?
Dissident Jehovah's Witnesses
EDITOR
Mr Barrett's response as a Jehovah's
Witness raises important questions. He reiterates the Watchtower
Society (WTS) policy, but he does not address the fundamental issues
raised in my paper and by reform-oriented Witnesses: Which part of the blood is it that the "Word of God" tells one to abstain from? Whole
blood or parts of blood? If you must abstain from only certain parts of
blood and not the other parts, which command from God tells you to do
so? He wrote that there are many scriptures that can be cited in this
matter. Which scripture can he cite to show that you should abstain
only from certain parts of blood?
muramoto{at}aracnet.com
Before July 1, 1945, there was no restriction on the acceptance
of blood by Jehovah's Witnesses. After that, the biblical phrases
"no soul of you shall eat blood" and "abstain from meats offered
to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from
fornication" were interpreted to mean that blood transfusion was sinful.
Newcastle, UK iannesbitt{at}yahoo.com
Since 1997 the Associated Jehovah's Witnesses for Reform on
Blood (AJWRB) has lobbied on behalf of dissident Jehovah's Witnesses
who believe that there is no biblical basis for banning the use of
blood or certain blood products. We believe that Jehovah's Witnesses
should have a free choice in their medical care, without the threat of
controls or sanctions (disassociation) from the WTS that would separate
them from their Jehovah's Witness family members and friends.
AJWRB (www.ajwrb.org) leeelder{at}ajwrb.org
© BMJ 2002