Blood and the sacrifice of infants to ancient text
Often people wonder why there is hostility to religion. There is an idea that faith is noble, righteous – that some how devotion to god, even to the point of sacrifice of a child shows a piety that we can only wonder at of an ancient civilisation (think Abraham and Isaac). I do not count myself amongst such people. One reason is that in the modern age I was a child ready to die for such ancient superstition.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses have faith that runs thicker than water, which demands obedience to the doctrine of the current “Watchtower and Tract Society” which forbids having a blood transfusion or the use of blood products in surgery. In Acts 15:28, 29:
28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements:
29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.
Farewell indeed to reason, because this is based on this ancient of understandings as found in Leviticus 17:11, 12:
11 For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.
12 Therefore I say to the Israelites, “None of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood.”
This infantile understanding of the human body is the reason why as a child I was prepared to refuse a blood transfusion. To be convincing if ever called upon before a court I had those bible quotes memorised. Ready to sacrifice my life as a personal choice to die by god’s word. Gladly laying down my own life before a “supreme” being that needed the flesh of the first born animals to be burnt to him.
Hitchens made the comment at the AAI that he did give blood and had not done so for sometime. Sadly I did not get a chance to tell him how even religion poisoned the idea of giving blood that could save life. That somehow a transfusion counted as being eaten, even if its absence meant death to someone.
I have started a pledge, http://www.pledgebank.com/againstjwdogma which has now ceased. By the time it ended it had 78 signatures (28 more than the 50 aimed for) by 30th September 2007. 30 so far have carried out the pledge to give blood and when that reaches 50 then for the first time in my adult life I will give blood.
This has been made easier, in that with others outside the White House I renounced the Holy Spirit, a concept that theologically I was being asked by the Elders of my congregation to be prepared to lay down my life for.
So when people say to you that religion is a force for good in the world, and only evil people use it to further evil deeds please remember that that is not so. And that for a few scribbles by people who did not even know basic anatomic features, people in the 21st Century will hold the life of a child to ransom. A child who lacks the cognitive ability to reason independent of their parents wishes. A child of Jehovah’s Witnesses – not a Jehovah’s Witness child that knows the consequences of death and the man made fabrication of ancient texts.
Do not label children, and do not let them die in the mistaken belief that religion promotes the best interests of people, or liberty requires the sacrifice of those not old enough to make an informed choice.
[...] http://homoeconomicusnet.wordpress.com/2007/10/08/blood-and-the-sacrifice-of-infants-to-ancient-text... [...]
Atheist March on Washington DC « Homo economicus’ Weblog
October 13, 2007 at 5:19 pm
“Farewell indeed to reason, because this is based on this ancient of understandings as found in Leviticus 17:11, 12:”
Possibly one cannot be too sure of reason when it comes to transfusions. Google: “Schmid nitric oxide” and you will see recent studies show transfused blood is ineffective at transmitting oxygen once it has been stored for any lenght of time.
A surgeon speaking to before an Austrailan medical conference last yeer (my current post) declared blood transfusions are like a religion, because they are routinely practiced without any proof that they are effective.
tom sheepandgoats
October 15, 2007 at 11:06 pm
So you are saying that blood transfusions are not effective at all if you have a lack of blood? One would assume that by the way you worded it in your blog which I read.
If you want to make the argument that there are synthetic alternatives that are better than blood, then we can have a scientific inquiry into it.
But that is not the basis of the belief. That is not what you are arguing for – you are claiming it not on health grounds but religious grounds. Now if there really is a better medical alternative then it would be rational to want it.
To refuse a medical alternative because a bible scholar that did not know human anatomy says you should not eat blood is not rational. I know it seems that way if you think dying means the resurrection awaits, and kudos if you die refusing blood. By all means you as a human adult make that choice.
As for a child, they are not yours to indoctrinate with your ancient beliefs; if they need urgent medical attention and blood is there to save their life you would risk a life that is not yours to risk.
That is my bone of contention – if there was no alternative you would. Or would you too defy human dogma for the life of a child that cannot form their own opinion and judgment independently of a parents?
homoeconomicusnet
October 15, 2007 at 11:54 pm
the sources I cited speak for themselves insofar as the effectiveness of blood transfusion goes.
You are correct in that medical consensus is not the basis of our beliefs.
In general, small children assume the value systems of their parents, whether others agree with those systems or not. Do you feel that children should be placed in foster care so as to ensure that does not happen?
tom sheepandgoats
October 16, 2007 at 2:02 am
“then we can have a scientific inquiry into it.”
Why? Why should it not be a religious inquiry? Why should it be assumed science is all that matters? All Witnesses ask is that their conscience be respected, not trampled upon.
One should consider the entire picture. In many ways, Jehovah’s Witnesses are model patients. Major sources of abuse: smoking, excess alcohol, recreational drugs….they are free of these. They are entirely cooperative with all aspects of medical care, barring only one, blood transfusions. The Australian surgeon I quoted claims transfusions are almost a religion…they are dogmatically insisted upon, despite any study as to whether or not they are effective. And now that science finally gets around to determining how effective they are, grave doubts arise, as the recent study re nitric oxide illustrates. If that study is correct, it would indicate that all the many transfusions given are with little to no effect insofar as oxygen transfer is concerned. (depends on how long the blood has been stored) Oxygen transfer is the only reason to chose blood over non-blood substitutes. If it doesn’t deliver on that count, it holds no advantage over non-blood volume expanders.
I didn’t do the study. Medical researchers did. Take it up with them. But preliminary results suggest that “science” has stomped all over religious conscience to no purpose.
tom sheepandgoats
October 16, 2007 at 3:22 am
“Do you feel that children should be placed in foster care so as to ensure that does not happen?”
No, but if you kidnap a child to stop them having a blood transfusion I would advocate that if your actions led almost to their death – may I ask would you do that in that situation?. The point is their life is not yours to risk, even if on the basis of religious dogma. As an adult you may refuse medical treatment
“Why? Why should it not be a religious inquiry? Why should it be assumed science is all that matters? All Witnesses ask is that their conscience be respected, not trampled upon.”
And I am not. You as an adult may make the choice to refuse medical treatment, even on religious grounds. My argument is that when it comes to children their life is not yours to risk for something that is irrational. Just because it is written in a book does not mean you should not reason as to whether a child’s life can be thrown away by its parents on the basis of ancient text in Bronze Age times. I know the theology, but it does not cut it with what we know about the human body and a book that has many reasons not to be revered.
Now you can say that it is just “one” thing – evidently you have not been reading all of my blogs. So we could talk about the position of women, the lack of involvement in the body politic, the separation of children from their peers as they grow up, the false teaching of science, the false prophecies of the Society that never came to pass.
But this “one” thing, that puts religious doctrine ahead of a child’s life, because with no alternatives to a blood transfusion you would refuse treatment for the child, is when life takes precedence over a belief that risks life.
homoeconomicusnet
October 16, 2007 at 9:30 am
[...] A reader suggested the latest addition to the blogroll which is the “Atheist Blog Roll” which links many atheist/agnostic writers. It is important that people do not feel they are alone, that there is a community out there that does have concerns about people believing that behaviour is excusable because it is based on faith that cannot be questioned or challenged. To see that have a look at this particular blog and the comments by a Jehovah’s Witness http://homoeconomicusnet.wordpress.com/2007/10/08/blood-and-the-sacrifice-of-infants-to-ancient-text... [...]
Atheist blogroll - side bar addition « Homo economicus’ Weblog
October 18, 2007 at 12:06 pm
[...] fact that I am involved in the Richard Dawkins Foundation has made it difficult for my mother. The blood campaign against Jehovah’s Witness Dogma has made it worse. This came to ahead when my mother visited me recently – the language would [...]
Surviving your family « Homo economicus’ Weblog
November 30, 2007 at 4:34 pm
[...] Personally I do not want to wait forever for my tears to be dried by an imaginary hand. I hope your revulsion has turned towards a belief system that is highly dubious, which I go into more detail here. [...]
Jose Mestre - the living impact of refusing blood transfusions « Homo economicus’ Weblog
December 5, 2007 at 7:03 pm
I have both given blood (In Australia you are not paid it is a donation) and had my life saved though a blood transfusion.
More recently, I watched my mother return from near death with the timely application of blood transfusions.
When we hear such tripe as denying vital medical aid based on a belief in doctrine, people become angry at religion – for clearly good reason.
If religion could evolve the way that science does, then I would have some time for it – but it remains mired on fantasies that have long since become outmoded.
Artemis
January 13, 2008 at 4:09 am
Same in the UK (where I am from and reside) that it is a voluntary donation. The charity of giving is one further reason to give blood.
Considering how they change theology one would hope that they may one day change this doctrine. The key thing is to highlight how dangerous and misguided the implications of this belief are to encourage that change.
homoeconomicusnet
January 13, 2008 at 10:39 am
[...] The courts and blood transfusions Posted in Jehovah’s Witnesses by homoeconomicusnet on April 26th, 2008 Thanks to Rebecca for sending me this story from the BBC News site. The court upheld a previous legal ruling that against her wishes it was legal for her to be given a blood transfusion against her wishes, after a haemorrhage from giving birth. Her refusal is based on the Jehovah’s Witness doctrine that a blood transfusion is the same is eating blood and that the blood is sacred unto god. [...]
The courts and blood transfusions « Homo economicus’ Weblog
April 26, 2008 at 2:41 pm
let’s take one teaching based on God’s word the bible the refusal of Blood Transfusion.
is that really based on the bible?
is that really only a dietary commandment. Let’s examine the fact.
Leviticus 17:10, 11 said:
as for any man of the house of Israel or some alien resident who is residing as an alien in your midst who” EATS ANY SORT OF BLOOD” and I shall indeed CUT HIM OFF from among his people.
For the live of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon THE ALTAR TO MAKE ATONEMENT FOR YOUR SOULS, BECAUSE IT IS THE BLOOD THAT MAKES ATONMENT BY THE SOUL IN IT.
IS THAT ONLY A DIETARY COMMENDMENT?
God’s People at that time will not blood for a reason, Blood had special meaning for God. It represents life. You eat to sustain your life, according to these scriptures God’s people should not eat blood to sustain their life.
it is true modern therapy employing blood did not exist at that time, but using blood in medecine is not modern. for some 2,000 years in Egypt human blood was used as remedy for leprosy.
Israel was slave in Egypte did they used blood as a remedy? Read Leviticus 13:46 and you will see the answer.
“the leper was isolated outside the camp.
how do you think God will feel if a family choose to give blood to their son for example to cure him from leprosy like the egyptians were doing? think..
we agree to say it was more than a dietary commendment.
what about the first century christians in Romans time?
Acts 15:29 said:”KEEP ABSTAINING FROM BLOOD”
what was the meaning for the first century Christians?
in Romans time human blood was also used in medecine. Pliny a contemporary of the apostles and the second century physician Aretaeus Report that Human Blood was a treatment for EPILEPSY.
Can you think of a Christian drinking Blood in other to cure his epilepsy?
not according to Tertullian, according to him: Early christian would risk death rather than take in Blood.
Experiment with blood transfusion began in the 16th century. Thomas Bartholin professor anatomy at that time objected:
Those who drag in the use of human blood for internal remedies of diseases appear to misuse it and to sin gravely. Cannibals are condemned. Why do we not abhor those who stain their gullet with human blood? Similar is the receiving of alien blood from a cut vein, either through the mouth or by instruments of transfusion. The authors of this operation are held in terror by the divine law, by which the eating of blood is prohibited.’
Jehovah Witnesses Value Life and we seek good medical care(there are many alternatives to blood transfusions), but as we see God’s commandment to abstain from blood also applied to medical use of Blood.
jack
June 21, 2008 at 1:07 pm
let’s take one teaching based on God’s word the bible the refusal of Blood Transfusion.
is that really based on the bible?
is that really only a dietary commandment. Let’s examine the fact.
Leviticus 17:10, 11 said:
as for any man of the house of Israel or some alien resident who is residing as an alien in your midst who” EATS ANY SORT OF BLOOD” and I shall indeed CUT HIM OFF from among his people.
For the live of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon THE ALTAR TO MAKE ATONEMENT FOR YOUR SOULS, BECAUSE IT IS THE BLOOD THAT MAKES ATONMENT BY THE SOUL IN IT.
IS THAT ONLY A DIETARY COMMENDMENT?
God’s People at that time will not use blood for any reason, except to receive forgiveness for their sin. Blood had special meaning for God. It represents life. You eat to sustain your life, according to these scriptures God’s people should not eat blood to sustain their life.
it is true modern therapy employing blood did not exist at that time, but using blood in medecine is not modern. for some 2,000 years in Egypt human blood was used as remedy for leprosy.
Israel was slave in Egypte did they used blood as a remedy? Read Leviticus 13:46 and you will see the answer.
“the leper was isolated outside the camp.
how do you think God will feel if a family choose to give blood to their son for example to cure him from leprosy like the egyptians were doing? think..
we agree to say it was more than a dietary commendment.
what about the first century christians in Romans time?
Acts 15:29 said:”KEEP ABSTAINING FROM BLOOD”
what was the meaning for the first century Christians?
in Romans time human blood was also used in medecine. Pliny a contemporary of the apostles and the second century physician Aretaeus Report that Human Blood was a treatment for EPILEPSY.
Can you think of a Christian drinking Blood in other to cure his epilepsy?
not according to Tertullian, according to him: Early christian would risk death rather than take in Blood.
Experiment with blood transfusion began in the 16th century. Thomas Bartholin professor anatomy at that time objected:
Those who drag in the use of human blood for internal remedies of diseases appear to misuse it and to sin gravely. Cannibals are condemned. Why do we not abhor those who stain their gullet with human blood? Similar is the receiving of alien blood from a cut vein, either through the mouth or by instruments of transfusion. The authors of this operation are held in terror by the divine law, by which the eating of blood is prohibited.’
Jehovah Witnesses Value Life and we seek good medical care(there are many alternatives to blood transfusions), but as we see God’s commandment to abstain from blood also applied to medical use of Blood.
jack
June 21, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Jack you make alot of sense, its nice to see peace being kept with something that is very emotional and means so much to so many people, if not all! After looking at Acts 15:28,29 it does NOT say at the end “FAREWELL” in which the writer of this article has written but says “Good Health to you”. I myself am a writer and have written an article on the safety of blood transfusions based on medical and scientific fact with very good responses from the public. (From those who have had transfusions and from those who seek ALTERNATIVES!) The article is called Blood or no blood – is it a question? with the sub-title Child abuse or Loving parent? The article looks at wether it is right to call someone a child abuser for not allowing blood to be given to a child.
I feel when i read this alot of anger and almost hatred is being directed towards a group of people that are peaceful, loving people who uphold truth! True, everyone falls flat on their faces and makes mistakes, do you continue to lay there or pick yourself up? Writing something that is not up building and attacks people can be harmful..even more so for you if you choose to out right attack God. Ok he may not exist to most people, but please think of the implications to yourself if he DOES! From the sounds of it, you may not already care 
I came across this site this evening as i was doing research to a follow up article that I’m writing,(Alternative Treatments? No Blood Needed?) and have to say that i was very impressed with Jacks comment…
xxx
I also looked at the story of Abraham and Issac, Issac was NOT sacrificed! People should be able to speak about all their diffrences without being so angry and accusing! Hell we claim to be intelligent enough to do so, but, unfortunatly i see no evidence of it in this article
JACK – I notice you are one of Jehovah’s Witnesses (one that seems to be upright and faithful) I would listen to what you have to say on the subject over anyone, since you are more informed and updated on these things. Good Health to you xxx
It is medical and scientific fact that transfusions can do more harm than good and from what I have researched, Blood transfusions are NOT even going to be an option in the future! To actually set up a group that’s in opposition to this group of people and their choices seems to me to be a way to settle your own mind and make you feel better about your anger, for whatever reason, sorry thats my opinion. You almost sound like a fanatic of sorts. Very disturbing to me, I hope things go well for you in the future
Jack – Would love to have contact with you xxxxx
Rebekah-Magdalena Rodowicz
February 12, 2009 at 10:01 pm
TOM also makes alot of sense too
Parents have the right to set the standards for their children! Do you have children of your own? You would provide the best medical care possible for your child. You would set rules down for your child so they wouldnt get hurt! ie: don’t talk to strangers!, don’t run across the road! Makes sense. Now with so many diseases appearing in blood that cannot be found in screening we have future epidemics on our hands…..we really do! Example: The human form of mad cow disease is passed on in blood transfusions, effects of that disease cannot be seen until a few years after it is in your body, a large portion of the British population is infected with the disease already from blood transfusions, this can be passed on from pregnant mum to baby, also from eating contaminated meat. People die every year from a simple thing as not receiving the right blood type! These mistakes should never happen! A large number die from the blood being stored incorrectly, and the list of diseases is increasing. It may be a bible principle..and what you consider to be ancient writings has modern day practicality, it is extremely beneficial for those who listen to its warnings, anyone need only look for the proof themselves by docters! I know Judges and Teachers, Docters, Surgeons, Lawyers and many others who will not accept blood and they are not religeous, whan asked why? They say its from their own personal findings. How do you feel about most of the medical profession saying NO! to the blood they would so readily give you? Concerns me a great deal!
Any parent who takes their child to the hospital to begin with obviously wants the best care for them, if they wanted the child to die – they would not bother taking the child to the hospital to begin with!
Its insane to say they would let their children die because off a scripture! They don’t want that! I feel you are very misinformed and outdated on your knowledge of Jehovahs Witnesses and of Medical and scientific facts.
From my research there are a number of alternatives that can be used instead of blood, If your child was allurgic to antibiotics would not the docter provide an alternative? Yes he would! Its the same thing, if someone does not wish to recieve blood an alternative is provided.
Because of groups like Jehovah’s Witnesses medical advancment has been pushed forward more then ever before in a more healthy and safer direction, for everybody, whole countries are performing bloodless surgery…The Baltic region is a great example of this, Docters all over the world are being encouraged more and more to learn bloodless surgery, its about time they pulled the finger out to be honest.
I believe your parents loved you and did the best thing for you in their eyes, true many have died as a result of this belief just as many have died needlessly recieving blood too. Everyone should face up to the fact that blood is no longer needed and hopefully very soon will be a thing of the past. For all our sakes!
PEACE XXX
Rebekah-Magdalena Rodowicz
February 12, 2009 at 10:55 pm