[AUS] Jehovah's Witness boy ordered to have transfusion

Post Reply New Topic

The misinformed notions that Jehovah's witnesses seem to have about blood transfusions is something that stems out of the Middle Ages. Isn't it about time that these believes are challenged by society? Especially in the case of minors.

I have to add that I have nothing against Jehovah's witnesses. In comparison to others who call themselves christians they are pretty consequent when it comes to a peaceful, non violent attitude. The only thing that worries me are their ideas about blood transfusions.

Last edited by pokerface on 20 Apr 2013, 11:32 am, edited 2 times in total.

I don't how people can say that things like medical treatment should be up for the parents to decide. If parents refused to feed their children, it wouldn't be considered "up for them to decide". Refusing to give your child needed medical treatment is neglect, plain and simple. In such cases I would say that the children should be removed from the parents who would rather let them die than be treated.

In this case, however, the individual is old enough.

Oops sorry, wrong thread.

Very well said.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I think their spreading of creationism is pretty bad as well. Perhaps it is just because evolution and biology were some of my special interests as a kid, but I find the "arguments" (lies) pretty ridiculous.

I voted "undecided".
16 and older is an age where you can drive and understand the consequences of bad decisions.

Below that age, a child doesn't have the knowledge and reasoning skills to deny indoctrination.
In that case, the parents are causing wilful harm and neglect with their delusional beliefs, and their wishes should be overridden.

The Bible does indeed say Blood contains the Soul and so should not be touched so in this regard the JWs are the only ones taking Gods commandments literally as far as death, like the early Christians that would rather be fed to the Lions than renounce Jesus.

Wither the Bible intends one to go as far as death though is open to debate, even King David broke the Mosaic Law rather than let his men go hungry.

The thing that is really quite bad about the Witnesses, is that for years they insisted the congregation let their babies die rather than accept blood, then all of a sudden, they decide that its ok to accept blood factions after all, but not complete blood.
Where does it say in the Bible its ok to take parts of blood?
Where does it indicate what part of the blood contains the Soul?
It doesnt, what about all those kids that died in the past for this belief, now all of a sudden the JW leaders are saying in effect, that they died in error, they could have taken parts of blood after all, so their death was a total waste.

Here:-
LINK is a link that shows the JWs have compromised on their previously held belief that many had died for and that they now have abandoned to a certain extent.

Book, chapter and verse please.

The TNKH says not to eat flesh with the blood in it.

ruveyn

I doubt the witnesses are going to be convinced, regardless.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

No, the shedding of blood once atoned for the soul, under the Noahic / Mosaic covenant.

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life." - Leviticus 17:11

"Because the life of every creature is its blood. That is why I have said to the Israelites, "You must not eat the blood of any creature, because the life of every creature is its blood; anyone who eats it must be cut off." -- Leviticus 17:14

"But be sure you do not eat the blood, because the blood is the life, and you must not eat the life with the meat." -- Deuteronomy 12:23

Of course, some alternate translations of the Bible will contradict this.

Surely, giving one's blood so that another may live is very much a Christian principle.

This is what Barnes notes on the Bible say on these verses:-

Leviticus 17:11

11For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

Rather, For the soul of the flesh is in the blood; and I have ordained it for you upon the altar, to make atonement for your souls, for the blood it is which makes atonement by means of the soul. In the Old Testament there are three words relating to the constitution of man;

(a) "life" as opposed to death Genesis 1:20; Deuteronomy 30:15;

(b) the "soul" as distinguished from the body; the individual life either in man or beast, whether united to the body during life, or separated from the body after death (compare Genesis 2:7);

(c) the "spirit" as opposed to the flesh Romans 8:6, and as distinguished from the life of the flesh; the highest element in man; that which, in its true condition, holds communion with God. The soul has its abode in the blood as long as life lasts. In Leviticus 17:14, the soul is identified with the blood, as it is in Genesis 9:4; Deuteronomy 12:23. That the blood is rightly thus distinguished from all other constituents of the body is acknowledged by the highest authorities in physiology.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Most Bibles translate the likes of Genesis 9 v4 as "Flesh with its life, which is the blood" rather than Soul.

Some though, such as the Darby translate Leviticus 17 v 11 as :-
11 for the soul of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that maketh atonement for the soul.

The above Barnes notes and Jehovahs Witness view is that the word Soul doesnt have the meaning it is given today as in some inner being that floats off after death which would be more fittingly represented by the word Spirit, for in most translations at Genesis 2 v 7 is rendered :- 7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Not given a soul, but "became a soul".
Interesting how the Bible writers knew to connect breathing with life and blood, did they know the role blood plays in carrying around the air we breathe in the form of oxyhemoglobin, the breath of life which animates the flesh.

The notion therefore being that the word soul means life as a breather which does indeed tie in blood with soul and also indicates why the Bible calls animals "souls" whereas most religions will teach animals do not HAVE souls which is a difference from being one.

Would also indicate why Blood is the most suitable atonement for soul.

What the bible says here is completely irrelevant. The government shouldn't make these decisions based on mythical verses, because to do that would have to interpret them and pick a certain theology. Should the government pick the RC interpretation, the JW interpretation, or the Lutheran interpretation?
The right answer in any state with freedom of religion is of course: none. They should make these decisions based on a certain (debatable) balance between freedom of religion and welfare of the child. Whether the parents have the "correct" bible quote is not relevant.

Lutheran here - - I agree.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I'm and atheist and an agnostic, but I believe seperation between church and state goes both ways. The government should never engage in theology. People should decide for themselves how they interpret their scripture.

Absolutely.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer