Shed light

tom sheepandgoats said...
Your post seems addressed to a specific person, yet it it on a public blog. So I'm not sure how to comment, for fear you might say "who asked you?".

So I will commment on an aspect of transfusions you haven't asked about.

The stand of Jehovah's Witnesses regarding transfusion is, ever so gradually, entering medical mainstream. For different reasons, of course, but it is still happening. For example, New Scientist magazine ran an article recently entitled "An Act of Faith in the Operating Room." The act of faith was not refraining from a transfusion. It was giving one. Details here:

http://tinyurl.com/6n9lvx

6:26 AM


Eiko Onoda said...
Thanks Tom.. I appreciate your link which sheds light on new aspect in my thought.

I think basically any literal work is meant for only one reader. Both personal letters and literature have same value on it.

Only for one reader, therefore we become serious.

8:42 AM

edit comment publish this comment

Hello good afternoon Br **..

I think I send one query per week since it takes at least one hour for you to reply. You have lots of responsibility over English congregation now, so please spare me one or two hour for me per week.

I hadn't noticed I was asking particularly about the matters in Torah, because Old Testament has much more volumes than Greek Scriptures I might seem to have asked more about Torah, but I hadn't noticed about it till I was remarked from you. ..OK.. I try to ask more about New Testament from now.

But first sorry my next query relates to both New and Old Testaments. It is about blood transfusion.

Jehovah's Witnesses is well-known for their refusal to participation in World War II first and later they came to be known by refusal to one of modern medical treatments - blood transfusion.

As I confessed many times I have carefully read all Scriptures both New and Old already and I found two parts Jehovah's Witnesses has been relied on for their refusal to blood transfusion. I don' t mention them now because you must know them as well.

One is from Old Testament, which reads we can eat any meat but we need to get rid of blood and in New Testament it reads we get away from blood. No one scriptures say we mustn't inject others blood into our body.

Blood transfusion is a modern medical treatment started from 18th century- if I recall it correctly, so it's out of question we can't find such verses written before the first century.

As I pointed out in my last query that swine was banned from eating because it was contaminated from various germs, so the command was so proper for us to keep.

I don't think no modern humans from early civilisation had had blood for daily dietary. It must have related to very different heretic traditions though it was very sane for us not to have blood in our ordinary life. But how about transfusion? It is a medical procedure necessary for our urgent occasion. Sometimes this act is held out of pure philanthropic viewpoint, let alone it's nothing to do with heretic traditions.

Refusal to blood transfusion often bring about end of life immediately. I know one of my acquaintances who's dead after he refused it.

In this particular issue we can read in Revelation 16:6 that 'drink blood' and of course Jesus compared the red wine to his blood in Eucharist. How do you interpret them?


Best wishes,

Eiko
posted by Eiko Onoda at 12:36 AM on May 11, 2009