Reflections on belief and life.

[Gregory Matthews]

A few days after Thanksgiving, my wife and I, met with other friends and relatives with a relative.  They had all of the traditional foods, turkey and more.  But it was after Thanksgiving and  it was not called a Thanksgiving celebration.  The woman had converted to the Jehovah's Witness faith and therefore could not celebrate Thanksgiving.  She could only celebrate a simple time for family and friends to get together and relate to each other.  It should be noted that her husband and two children had not converted.  None of the rest of  us who attended were JWs.

Last night we were notified that she was in an emergency situation and would be  going into surgery in 20 minutes.  As might be expected, she had refused permission for the surgical team to transfuse certain blood products into her during the surgery.

The JW faith requires that its members refuse to receive whole blood and certain other products derived from blood.   However, they do allow their members to exercise individual choice as to certain other blood products which may be available.  I do not know where  this woman drew the line and what she was willing to accept and I do not know the boundaries of her refusal.

In the hospital where I previously worked, we successfully did surgery on JWs who refused certain blood products.  As a member of the hospital ethics committee, I fully  support the right of this adult,  competent, woman to chose whether or not to receive those blood products.  But, also know that outside of various lab findings of hemoglobin levels, red blood cell count and more there are limits beyond which life can not likely be sustained without the transfusion of whole blood products which JWs prohibit.

I do not know the laboratory findings as to those levels in her blood.

But, I do know enough about  her condition to  know that she was in a potentially critical condition where her blood loss was such that there is little likelihood that her life could be sustained.  Perhaps not in her case?  Perhaps that worst case situation was  not her situation?  I simply do not know.

But, I do know enough to  know that if she survives, she will face a long recovery.

I also know that the surgical team has carefully explained to her the consequences of her choices.  When she went into surgery, she understood the consequences of the decision that she was making.

NOTE:  To survive, she must not only live through the surgery but also the recovery period.

The real issue is not her choice.  The issue is:  If you and I were  to be in an apparent situation where following our theological beliefs would lead to death and violating them, in even an apparent small way would lead to life, what would we decide?

 

 

[Aliensanctuary]

Quote

It's better to die than to sin. EGW

 theological beliefs: We can create our own system of beliefs which may or may not be supported by the Laws of God. While important for us to obey them to the best of our ability in this life, God's Laws teach us about what is expected of those permitted entrance into his perpetual Kingdom.

[Gregory Matthews]

Please provide the reference for where EGW said what you have stated above.

I realize that what you have  quoted may sound reasonable and true.  But, that fact does not mean that she actually said it.  In addition, an actual reference provides context that will help us to understand the circumstances in which she said.

I ask in part because often people attribute sayings to her that she did not actually say.

 

[phkrause]

I tried googling that statement! No hits. Than I search EGW website, and again no hits!!

[Gregory Matthews]

That is my point.

 

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

 

Quote

The prevalence of a sinful desire shows the delusion of the soul. Every indulgence of that desire strengthens the soul's aversion to God. The pains of duty and the pleasures of sin are the cords with which Satan binds men in his snares. Those who would rather die than perform a wrong act are the only ones who will be found faithful. {5T 53}

 

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

also makes me wonder if people would choose to starve to death rather than eat an unclean food...  

At what point does "sinning" to preserve life, become suicide — or does it?

[Gregory Matthews]

Now we see exactly what EGW said. 

It is of value to provide a reference so we can check on the exact wording and to provide context.

 

[JoeMo]

On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 6:23 AM, Gregory Matthews said:

The real issue is not her choice.  The issue is:  If you and I were  to be in an apparent situation where following our theological beliefs would lead to death and violating them, in even an apparent small way would lead to life, what would we decide?

This may not be a "theological" issue, but it is a lifestyle choice that could have life-and-death implications:

Many people out there claim they would refuse chemotherapy or radiation treatment if recommended to treat cancer because of the residual damage.  I can see refusing the therapy if it is only palliative rather than curative.  But if there is a reasonable chance that radiation or chemo will actually "cure" the disease rather than simply delay death, IMHO it is a foolish choice to turn down something that has been proven helpful in preference of some unproven (usually fraudulent) "holistic" or "natural" cure only available in Mexico or China.  Before I got cancer, I was sure I would never bow to traditional western treatments.  But once I learned I had cancer,  it was not difficult to choose radiation as a curative treatment rather than die a slow and painful premature death. That was 8 years ago; and I'm cancer free and as healthy as a horse (albeit an old horse).   My new mantra - "Never say never".

[Gail]

Isn't that what freedom of choice is all about, though? Sometimes we are surprised at what people do with that freedom.

[8thdaypriest]

7 hours ago, rudywoofs said:

also makes me wonder if people would choose to starve to death rather than eat an unclean food...  

At what point does "sinning" to preserve life, become suicide — or does it?

The PURPOSE of avoiding "unclean" foods was not ceremonial.  It was to prolong healthful life.  If you're in a situation where the ONLY food available is an "unclean" food, then I certainly WOULD eat it, rather than starve.  In that hypothetical case, the unclean food would prolong life. 

I don't believe the LORD asked us to set aside our minds.  We can still reason from cause to effect. 

But I would NOT eat the ham prepared by my sister, for Christmas.  (Of course, I don't celebrate Christmas.  I regard it as baptized paganism.) 

[8thdaypriest]

I remember a JW patient I had, who had signed the forms to refuse blood.  I visited with him pre-op, and I asked him, just out of curiosity, why JWs have no problem EATING a rare steak.  He said that the blood was cooked, and therefore was no longer "alive", so then it was OK to eat.  I just said, "Very interesting". 

Wow!  What a twist of Scripture.  God told the Israelites that they were to EAT neither blood nor fat.  They were to drain all the blood from the carcass before roasting.  How many - non-vegetarians - eat Khosher meat.  Most seem to have left that commandment behind. 

[Lauralea]

In addition to the issue you raise of not sinning to prolong life which is very valid  issue, there is another issue which is that some believe things such as blood transfusions to be sin which are not sin. In our church there are also those who believe things such as chemo to be sin in cases where there is a real chance it may help. So it is not just avoiding sin that is important, but having a balanced view of sin and right.

[Gregory Matthews]

UPDATE ON THE WOMAN:

She survived the surgery.  That is really not a surprise.  Modern medicine is such that people can generally be kept alive during the surgery.

She has a serious infection that the docs are fighting. 

 

 

[Aliensanctuary]

Quote

It's better to die than to sin. EGW

Quote

Please provide the reference for where EGW said what you have stated above.

Quote

I tried googling that statement! No hits. Than I search EGW website, and again no hits!!

LDE 142.2
4T 495.1
CC 119.6
ST Dec20, 1883 par 13
MS 23-1897 March 13, 1897 par 23

I have never read the references just listed above, so I suspect that the phrase is found in GC, DA, STC, or one of her other more popular books which I have read. 

https://egwwritings.org/?module=writings&params=(search:%27it%20is%20better%20to%20die%20than%20to%20sin%27,bookcode:%27%27,filter:[{%27type%27:%27folder%27,%27key%27:%274%27},{%27type%27:%27folder%27,%27key%27:%271227%27},{%27type%27:%27folder%27,%27key%27:%275%27},{%27type%27:%27folder%27,%27key%27:%278%27},{%27type%27:%27folder%27,%27key%27:%279%27},{%27type%27:%27folder%27,%27key%27:%2710%27},{%27type%27:%27folder%27,%27key%27:%27253%27},{%27type%27:%27folder%27,%27key%27:%2714%27}])

or more simply, 

https://egwwritings.org/?module=writings&params

Perhaps the JW's would be open to receiving cooked blood transfusions. The refusal to accept whole blood transfusions is just another example of some of the artificial boundaries created by man-made religions. To compare a blood transfusion with eating fresh blood from an animal is a stretch of logic. I don't think that the anti-blood-transfusion belief originated with the JW founder, if I recall correctly. Of course, some people refuse treatments, medicines, imaging, injections, immunizations, etc., as a matter of principle within their personal beliefs.

[Lauralea]

As a practicing Seventh day Adventist it is difficult to think of a valid effective medical treatment that would violate my faith. Not denying Christ when demanded to by a radical extremist is the most likely scenario that comes to mind. During the time of trouble I remember reading we would not starve. So maybe during a local time of famine one could have this scenario or some radical extremist could imprison us and say eat pork or starve but Muslims do not eat pork so this is  unlikely. Religious persecuting powers could do this and have in others countries but never here to my knowledge. Most likely they would threaten us with death only if we did not repudiate our beliefs during the time of ttouble.

[phkrause]

8 hours ago, Aliensanctuary said:

https://egwwritings.org/?module=writings&params

That is the site I put "It's better to die than to sin" into and again no hits!!

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

1 hour ago, phkrause said:

That is the site I put "It's better to die than to sin" into and again no hits!!

try "better to die than to sin" -- I got a number of hits..

[LifeHiscost]

It seems to me Eve had been told which food was clean and which "unclean" . Who she trusted was probably the most important issue. God provided food for 40 years in the wilderness to the Israelites and yet all of the 1st generation perished in the wilderness except Joshua and Caleb, at least partially because they wanted to go back and get all that comfort food they were use to in the land of the enemy.

God is Love!~Jesus saves! 

[Tom Wetmore]

Sort of reminds me of the question I have raised a number of times - "Which is more important to God, people or His law?"  And on that same line of thought, I have heard some say they love God or God's law more than life itself.    Does obedience always trump life?    

[8thdaypriest]

17 hours ago, LifeHiscost said:

It seems to me Eve had been told which food was clean and which "unclean" . Who she trusted was probably the most important issue. God provided food for 40 years in the wilderness to the Israelites and yet all of the 1st generation perished in the wilderness except Joshua and Caleb, at least partially because they wanted to go back and get all that comfort food they were use to in the land of the enemy.

God is Love!~Jesus saves! 

There were THREE - Joshua, Caleb and Eleazar the High Priest.   (Joshua 24:33) 

Joshua was of the tribe of Ephraim.  Ephraim became the largest of the tribes of Israel, and symbolizes Israelites who will be among the saved. 

Caleb was actually a great grandson of Esau.  He had been "grafted in" to the tribe of Judah.  I think he symbolizes the "grafted in" Gentile believers. 

And the High Priest of course, symbolizes Jesus.  He traveled with us in this "wilderness". 

[LifeHiscost]

6 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

There were THREE - Joshua, Caleb and Eleazar the High Priest.   (Joshua 24:33) 

Joshua was of the tribe of Ephraim.  Ephraim became the largest of the tribes of Israel, and symbolizes Israelites who will be among the saved. 

Caleb was actually a great grandson of Esau.  He had been "grafted in" to the tribe of Judah.  I think he symbolizes the "grafted in" Gentile believers. 

And the High Priest of course, symbolizes Jesus.  He traveled with us in this "wilderness". 

Thank you for that clarification. Verse 31 appears to also lend credence to the belief that others were saved although I'm not sure how that correlates with this text below.

4 And this is the cause why Joshua did circumcise: All the people that came out of Egypt, that were males, even all the men of war, died in the wilderness by the way, after they came out of Egypt.....Joshua 5

 

God is Love!~Jesus saves!  

 

[phkrause]

On 12/13/2015 at 3:52 PM, rudywoofs said:

try "better to die than to sin" -- I got a number of hits..

Thanks

[8thdaypriest]

19 hours ago, LifeHiscost said:

Thank you for that clarification. Verse 31 appears to also lend credence to the belief that others were saved although I'm not sure how that correlates with this text below.

4 And this is the cause why Joshua did circumcise: All the people that came out of Egypt, that were males, even all the men of war, died in the wilderness by the way, after they came out of Egypt.....Joshua 5

 

God is Love!~Jesus saves!  

 

Males were NOT circumcised during the wilderness wandering.  The "adults" broke Covenant with the LORD, when they refused to enter "the land" and wanted to "select a leader and return to Egypt".  Their children were therefore not regarded as "in" Covenant  (Numbers Cpt 14). 

Joshua is a TYPE of Christ.  As Joshua (Yeshua/Jesus) lead Israel over the Jordan which rolled back as a scroll, so Jesus will lead His redeemed through the sky, which also will "roll back as a scroll." 

As Joshua "circumcised the people", so Jesus will cut away our mortal "flesh", to give us new spiritual bodies. 

AFTER that, Jericho falls - the fall of Jericho being a TYPE for the fall of Babylon, in Revelation. 

I think it most interesting that Joshua lead Israel across the Jordan on the 10th day of Nissan - the day when the lamb for Passover was chosen.  The 10th day of Nissan is directly opposite the calendar from Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement), the 10th day of the 7th month.  The two days are separated by a 23.5 degree tilt of the earth - Spring to Fall.  If the earth will "reel to and fro" at the Second Coming, then could not Nissan 10, become Tishri 10.  I have believed for a long time, that events at the Second Coming will fulfill the judgment prophecies of Yom Kippur.  Unrepentant sinners will be "cut off". 

 

[LifeHiscost]

7 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Males were NOT circumcised during the wilderness wandering.  The "adults" broke Covenant with the LORD, when they refused to enter "the land" and wanted to "select a leader and return to Egypt".  Their children were therefore not regarded as "in" Covenant  (Numbers Cpt 14). 

Joshua is a TYPE of Christ.  As Joshua (Yeshua/Jesus) lead Israel over the Jordan which rolled back as a scroll, so Jesus will lead His redeemed through the sky, which also will "roll back as a scroll." 

As Joshua "circumcised the people", so Jesus will cut away our mortal "flesh", to give us new spiritual bodies. 

AFTER that, Jericho falls - the fall of Jericho being a TYPE for the fall of Babylon, in Revelation. 

I think it most interesting that Joshua lead Israel across the Jordan on the 10th day of Nissan - the day when the lamb for Passover was chosen.  The 10th day of Nissan is directly opposite the calendar from Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement), the 10th day of the 7th month.  The two days are separated by a 23.5 degree tilt of the earth - Spring to Fall.  If the earth will "reel to and fro" at the Second Coming, then could not Nissan 10, become Tishri 10.  I have believed for a long time, that events at the Second Coming will fulfill the judgment prophecies of Yom Kippur.  Unrepentant sinners will be "cut off". 

 

You're conclusions seem to me to give a lot of important insight. What is your extent of knowledge about Jonathan Cahn? I've found his discourses about the Shmita to be highly intriguing. If what his conclusions reveal are even somewhat reliable, America is in for some difficult times in the immediate future. The book "The Harbinger" is his most well known work.I haven't studied his works well enough to know all of what I can or cannot agree with but until I see that which I could possibly disagree with, I'm satisfied God has given him much information to enable the serious disciple of Christ a better platform of faith to rest on.

7Surely the Lord GOD does nothing Unless He reveals His secret counsel To His servants the prophets. 8A lion has roared! Who will not fear? The Lord GOD has spoken! Who can but prophesy?…Amos 3

God is Love!~Jesus Saves!