All Activity

Saturday, March 21 Exult and be joyful forever in what I am creating.—Isa. 65:18. There is a paradise on earth today that is full of life and activity. It is teeming with millions of people who enjoy genuine peace. Those who are already in this paradise are determined never to leave it. They also want as many people as possible to join them in this unique setting. What is it? The spiritual paradise! Amazingly, Jehovah has created a serene environment in the midst of a world that Satan has turned into a hate-filled, wicked, and dangerous place. (1 John 5:19;Rev. 12:12) Our loving God sees the damaging effects of this system of things and provides the security that we need in order to flourish spiritually. His Word describes the spiritual paradise as both a safe “refuge” and a “well-watered garden.” (Isa. 4:6; 58:11) With Jehovah’s blessing, those inhabiting this paradise are able to thrive during these difficult last days.—Isa. 54:14; 2 Tim. 3:1. w24.04 20 ¶1-2

The conclusion is simply that blood transfusion can, in fact, be recommended in certain medical situations for patients on hemodialysis. That’s not an opinion—it’s a documented part of modern medical practice. So it’s important not to present the issue in an overly simplified or absolute way. That is a factual statement, not a matter of interpretation. If a Jehovah’s Witness faces such a situation when starting hemodialysis, ignoring this possibility would not accurately reflect how such conditions are managed. It is important that this nuance is not overlooked. OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF NEPHROLOGY KDIGO 2026 Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Anemia in Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) JANUARY 2026 Pages S1-S99 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Anemia Work Group Chapter 4: Red blood cell transfusions to treat anemia in people with chronic kidney disease Page: S67 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0085253825004958

I think the focus on Col 2:13,14 was exciting. Wonder if more 'Mosaic' things will be looked into. Can we really pick and choose which part of the Mosaic law we apply principles from? Or not apply principles from? Like 'it tells us Jehovah's view on things'. Well, it did. But now? A multitude of former unclean animals was declared clean in Peter's vision. I don't think we'll get a specific 'no, this or that doesn't apply anymore, but here's something that still applies'. Col 2:13,14 " ... God ... erased the handwritten document that consisted of decrees and was in opposition to us. He has taken it out of the way by nailing it to the torture stake When a document is erased, what is left but a blank sheet? I am thankful for this clarification, albeit somewhat surprised

I’ve always looked at blood transfusion as a form of organ donation (a liquid organ), albeit one that comes with more nuances as rarely do the doctors give you all parts of a person’s blood: instead they give you only a person’s red blood cells, having isolated those cells and separating them from the platelets and plasma (white blood cells are discarded) in fact at one point I believe our organization said organ transplants were unacceptable for Christians, but that was later changed. as we know, there are no scriptures that specifically pertain to blood transfusions as they were not invented yet. So instead, we have to look for principles that are not directly about transfusions, but rather are about blood, and try and logically and scripturally apply them to medical procedures (such as red blood cell transfusion, whether auto- or allo- ) we used to say that auto- and allo- were both wrong but now auto- transfusion is ok, whether it’s red, plasma, platelet, or some other hypothetical scenario.

Not the same. Unlike selling knives, there is no neutral reason to donate blood - you know the purpose is for transfusions.

Yes. Of course.

When I watched the update I knew that I would see many of the comments that I see. We want to make sure we don't rush ahead of the organization and read into what's not there but also, we want to use our power of reason. Jehovah is providing us with clearer information and we will receive more clarification on this I'm sure. I'm thankful for the slave. I see the recent updates as proof the end of the system is very close. Will some of these updates cause some to stumble or question the FDS? There will always be refining. I pray I don't let anything separate me from Jehovah and Jesus.

So does that mean any reasoning based on the Mosaic law is unproductive? Do you really believe that?

Ok, but the penalty for eating an animal found dead was to be unclean until the evening, while the penalty for eating blood was to be cut off from among Jehovah's people. Lev 17:10, 15 Doesn't this imply that eating an animal found dead is not the same as deliberately eating blood? If it only resulted in being temporarily unclean rather than a death sentence, then selling it to a foreigner is not encouraging the sin of a foreigner; whereas donating blood would be encouraging a sin.

Something I came across on Linkedin: Firstly, THANK YOU everyone for your concern. I'm ok ...just a bit shaken up, but l'll be fine. For those who don't know what happened, I was robbed yesterday afternoon in broad daylight at the gas station. After it happened my hands were shaking, I felt dizzy and I was probably in shock. My money was gone, so I called the police. They were fantastic and even called an ambulance because my blood pressure was through the roof. The officer asked if I knew who did it... I said: "Yes... it was gas pump number 4" 💸⛽🤣

I have a store that sells kitchen knives. If you kill someone using one, is the blame mine? I have a liquor store. If you get drunk, is the blame mine? If you pay taxes and the government uses the money to make bombs, are you guilty of blood?

We can remind ourselves that the GB sometimes takes a decade to make such decision, out of a sincere desire to please Jehovah. When we are facing surgery, we do the same: do our best to please our God, Father and Friend. It's not about a rule, it's about our relationship with the Creator of life. Jehovah does not look at a medical technicality, He looks at the loyalty of his servant.

Where is the scriptural precedent for this John in a medical or surgical situation?

(Gen. 9:4) The command you mentioned earlier, which involved all humans, was indeed in effect during the time of the Israelites? This means it included all residents, whether they were foreign or not?

That’s what I think, too. If the act of blood leaving your body and re-entering it were a sin in itself, the Organization would have to ban Heart-Lung machines and Dialysis. In those procedures, your blood leaves your veins, travels through meters of plastic tubing, is processed by a machine, and then comes back in.

I mean if you're terminally ill and given a finite time to live. The statement makes sense...

*** w04 9/15 p. 26 par. 2 Highlights From the Book of Deuteronomy *** 14:21—Why could the Israelites give to an alien resident or sell to a foreigner an unbled dead animal that they themselves would not eat? In the Bible, the term “alien resident” could refer to a non-Israelite who became a proselyte or to a settler who lived by basic laws of the land but who did not become a worshiper of Jehovah. A foreigner and an alien resident who did not become proselytes were not under the Law and could use unbled dead animals in various ways. The Israelites were permitted to give or sell such animals to them. The proselyte, on the other hand, was bound by the Law covenant. As indicated at Leviticus 17:10, such a person was forbidden to eat the blood of an animal. https://www.jw.org/finder?wtlocale=E&docid=2004686&srctype=wol&srcid=share&par=23

Remember also, the blood we are discussing is already in your body. It is/was your 'gift' from God. Taking some out ant putting it back in is different from taking someone else's blood (or life) and using it.

If conscience allows, some may consider using fractions and good standing, correct? Anyone work in the hospital and know if any blood fractions may come from donated blood?

I think I understand what you're saying or asking. Brother Losch said, "Furthermore, the Bible does not comment on the use of a person’s own blood in medical and surgical care." Apparently, this is the crux of the matter as far as the clarification is concerned. This might seem like a rather tenuous argument and something of a paradox, since the Bible doesn't comment directly on the use of blood transfusions either, as they weren't something being done in the first century. However, we've always viewed the command to "abstain from blood" to apply to the use of any and all blood whether animal, human or even our own, because it's not ours to do with as we please. It's sacred and belongs to Jehovah. The issue is, and always has been, the sanctity of life intrinsic in the blood of the creature.

Yes, and the issue of blood had already come up when the disciples—who, despite believing that Jesus was indeed the Messiah—turned their backs on him. His closest disciples may have been very surprised as well, perhaps even shocked, but they did not desert him. “Lord, to whom shall we go?” Let's remember that the one who appointed the Faithful and Discreet Slave is Jesus. The goal: to feed Jehovah’s little sheep. When? In due time. The brothers on the Governing Body have always worked very hard to fulfill their mission of caring for the sheep. Jesus’ own blood was shed; he died for and in place of each one of us. So if we are receiving these instructions only today, might we not think that it is Jesus who decided the timing? I’m not claiming anything; I’m just thinking that if the clarification is coming now, it’s because this is just the right time. Perhaps the future will reveal why... or perhaps not. Let’s put our trust in Jehovah, Jesus, and the FDS.

So… can we sell weapons? 🧐

I gave a look at the scriptures in Deut and I came to a different conclusion. It seemed that they would be considered unclean for eating an animal that had been found dead, but they could sell it to foreigners. It doesn't seem to be touching on the issue of blood at all. The person who buys it could bleed the animal or not, but it was considered unclean because it was found dead, not because it currently had blood in it. Maybe I'm missing something? edit: and unclean did not equate to a sin, either. They were considered unclean after sex and sex was not a sin.

But the foreign person was not under God's Law. Only the Jews were affected by this rule. You could analyze all the animals in the world eating blood, not part of God's Law either. God allowed those actions and his people could react accordingly. However, the command at Acts was like the command to Noah, it involved all humans.

This clarification is interesting, but we need to be careful not to read into it something that was not said. Would it be proper to feed someone poison, to load a gun they want to use to kill someone or themselves, or in any other way help them disobey the law? The obvious answer is, "No". Likewise, donating blood for someone else to use would be like giving them poison or loading the gun. You are helping then disobey Jehovah. Just as we won't accept someone else's blood, we would not give our blood to anyone else. Since we are told in Acts to abstain from blood, giving ours to someone else would not fit in with the principle in Acts. It really is that simple. As for Leviticus and the "pouring out the blood" - are we missing something? Leviticus 17:13 says, "If one of the Israelites or some foreigner who is residing in your midst is hunting and catches a wild animal or a bird that may be eaten, he must pour its blood out and cover it with dust." Are we forgetting that part of the Law was that we had to cover the blood with dust/dirt? When people hunt, they may bleed the animal at the time they kill it - but few actually bury the blood ... they just let it spill onto the ground and leave it. Since we are no longer under the Law, if we kill an animal for food, while we would not eat or use the blood, we are not required to bury it ... as the Law specified.