Why are Jehovah Witnesses sacrifice the life of their premature born or growing up child by refusing life important medical care if there is NOT ONE quote in the bible tells them to do this?

Answer 1

All most all religions are misunderstood and wrongly practiced by majority of the followers of the respective religions. I don't think any religion permits to kill a human in the pretext of the religious law. There are exceptions for all and there cannot be force in any religion especially in a life of an innocent.

The only medical procedures Jehovah's Witnesses refuse are those containing the use of blood.

Acts 15:29

The reason is simple. Jehovah's Witnesses are very misguided and follow a skewed religion based on their founder Charles Taize Russell's beliefs rather than the Christian belief of love as taught by Jesus Christ, and as preached by his followers - especially Paul - amongst the many learned teachers that have lived over the last 2000 years.

Witnesses will cite scripture as evidence for refusing to accept blood transfusions. The two references used are in Leviticus and in Acts.

The Levitical law applied to the Jews in those days, but in the coming of Jesus Christ, Paul makes it very clear that Christians are not subject to Levitical Law any more. If we were, then we would also have to be circumcised, not eat shellfish, not wear two different types of cloth at the same time - and stone adulteresses (but not adulterers!)!!

JWs are notorious for taking Bible quotes out of context, or, if the quote is not in accord with their own rather warped beliefs they engineer the scriptures to back up those beliefs - hence their own translation of the ible - the new World Translation. As for the 'rule' in Acts, this is a prime example of JWs taking a solitary verse out of context, and reading into it a tragic message that is not only a bastardisation of the correct meaning but has caused the deaths of many many people since the JW organisation came to be. They accept only their own biased view of scripture, ignore the Greek original with its nuances that make the passage very clear, and mis-translate and misunderstand just to what Luke was referring in his account.

If you read the previous verses in Acts 15, there is an argument among the Christians regarding circumcision, and other Jewish religious practices as there were some Pharisees who were lawkeepers who had become Christians and they were convinced that all Jews who converted to Christianity should still be circumcised. The actual quote in question comes from a letter that Paul sent to the people in that church to quell the dissent. The problems arose when Jews who wished to carry on with the old practices in the Levitical Law (ie 1. not eating blood, 2. not eating meat that had been offered to idols, and 3. not engaging in sexual immorality) wanted to become Christians.

If those Christians who were Gentiles (who did not uphold the Levitical law anyway) or were Jews who had abandoned the Leviticval Laws were to encourage the new Christians, then Paul made it clear that they should take care not to offend them. Paul's advice (and, note - it was ONLY ADVICE), therefore, was that they should not eat blood nor meat offered to idols in case the new Christians were offended - although historical records from that time suggest that non-kosher meat (ie not drained of blood) was perfectly acceptable to all Christians, and that there is much historical evidence of early Christians eating non-kosher meat. It is a bit like me, a pork eater, not serving up pork if I have a Jewallow Christians ish guest in the house, as it may well offend him. This does not mean that I am forbidden myself to eat it - merely that I do not offend him out of my Christian love for him. However, the advice 'not to eat blood' has nothing to do with any rule of life for a Christian, but was included so that new Jewish converts to Christianity would not be offended. To add fuel to this argument, Paul continues in other letters to reiterate his thoughts on the three Levitical laws mentioned in this passage in Acts. Whilst he upholds the ban on sexual immorality (and rightly so), he allows meat to be eaten that was once offered to idols, and, also in Acts, Luke records a vision that Peter had where all food was now acceptable - blood or not.

Furthermore, the verb used in this verse in Greek does not mean to 'take into oneself' but means, as it did in Levitical Law, to 'take into your stomach as nourishment'. So the JWs have got it wrong on two accounts. Firstly, the verse was never meantto be a rule of life for Christians. Secondly, even if it was a rule of life, it meant the "taking of blood into the stomach as nourishment" - and not as a blood transfusion which is not nourishment, but is used to preserve life. So I can partly (only just) understand JWs not eating a rare steak, but not their insane rules on blood transfusions.

I say insane, but sadly, their misguided rules have caused the deaths of many JWs and others over the years. If they wish to allow themselves to die that is their right. However, last year, near where I live in the UK, two JW parents watched their little girl die after a minor operation that developed complications and needed a blood transfusion to save her. The parents refused and the innocent young girl died in pain a few hours later. Under human rights laws in the UK the doctors and nurses were powerless to act despite their begging of the parents to change their mind. If that is 'Christianity', then that is a different religion to the warm, loving, relationship with God, where all life is sacred, that I enjoy.