Too much is told about the way Jehovah Witnesses deal with blood questions.
But are they wrong?
In my point of view, Jesus gave his PERFECT blood to SAVE OUR SOULS.
Wouldn't be the same as denying it once we accept any IMPERFECT blood as a attempt to SAVE OUR SOULS???
Leave your opinion, not your criticism please.
| perlpoint wrote: |
Too much is told about the way Jehovah Witnesses deal with blood questions.
But are they wrong?
In my point of view, Jesus gave his PERFECT blood to SAVE OUR SOULS.
Wouldn't be the same as denying it once we accept any IMPERFECT blood as a attempt to SAVE OUR SOULS???
Leave your opinion, not your criticism please. |
Point 1.
Opinion can be criticism. If you don't want criticism then don't post.
Point 2.
I'm not religious but I think the meaning is quite clear and unambiquous and that the JWs are just misguided and rather stupid.
- a) Jesus gave his blood, he did NOT give it as a transfusion or a blood donation, he gave it in the sense of suffering and dying.
- b) Let's imagine, for the sake of argument, that it DOES mean he gave his blood, directly, to humans (even though it is pretty obvious that is not the meaning). If this were true it would mean that Human blood is perfect, wouldn't it? So what would be the problem with a transfusion? It would simply be transferring perfect blood from one person to another wouldn't it?
The blood question was not originally about blood transfusions but of ingesting it. Some societies practiced the ingesting of anothers blood.
The imperfect blood you mention is not for saving souls but for saving lives, there's a difference. And who's to say this blood is imperfect?
A decade or two ago, and I would have argued that the JW's and others would have been insane. However, with AIDS, Hepatitis, and STD's, I'm not so sure if they don't have the right idea. Of course, it is interesting to note that their belief did make it necessary the ability of doctors to create ways in order to use much less blood for operations as well as to recycle blood more rather than use transfusions.
So on the whole I would say that it's a bit extreme, but not necessarily that stupid...
HM
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| A decade or two ago, and I would have argued that the JW's and others would have been insane. However, with AIDS, Hepatitis, and STD's, I'm not so sure if they don't have the right idea. Of course, it is interesting to note that their belief did make it necessary the ability of doctors to create ways in order to use much less blood for operations as well as to recycle blood more rather than use transfusions. |
Well, firstly STD's are (as the name suggests) transmitted sexually.
As for AIDS - the transmission of HIV via blood transfusions was at a peak in the 1980s before screening and other techniques were applied. For the period 1985 to 1993 the British Medical Journal records that the incidence of HIV via blood transfusion was between 0.5 and 2 cases per million here in Europe.* Nowadays the incidence is far lower since blood is routinely tested.
Given the choice between dying as a result of refusing a blood transfusion, and possibly being infected with AIDS as a result of the transfusion, I know which one I would choose.
* http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/311/7019/1534Aw, Bikerman...Sometimes I think that you are so used to debunking things that you forget to let things go a bit...
1) STD's: Although I know that STD's are generally passed through sex, a number are passed through other fluids as well (this is why "blood brother" rituals use something like the St. Christopher's medals). Obviously I'm not saying that only STD's could be passed that way, but STD's would be the most obvious (unless, of course, you happened to be passing Ebola, TB, or something as nasty).
2) Same pretty much goes for AIDS (and pretty much increased the St. Christopher's medal business). However, given that the panic caused by it has created more fear of other's blood than others, it does sort of merit special attention.
3) That said, I'm not saying that given the choice between donated blood no blood at all should go to the latter. Just noting that using your own blood carries the smallest risk of infection, and saves on donated blood at the same time, making it the optimal solution.
In essence, although we basically agree, I just wanted to throw in another perspective. You don't always have to come out shooting, Tex...
HM
{holsters guns}
I agree with the general points. My objection was that you seemed to be saying that the JW's position was rational, whereas I believe it is based in irrationality. The position is adopted not because of any rational fear of medical problems, though this is sometimes used nowadays by the 'watchtower' to justify the stance, but rather it is based on an irrational belief. This belief has led to several documented cases where children have died.
When a fear hits the point that a child dies because of it, then it's definitely irrational. I've never really understood the point of not allowing doctors to do what they can, especially given that The Bible stresses that you need to help yourself before asking God for help...
HM
