Blood, Deceit, Watchtower, Pirie (page 3)

myMichelle

An interesting topic...one that shouldn't fall off the board so quickly.

Pushing up...

Nicodemus

Lisa,

As to your question, here’s a brief overview:

Acts 15:28 records the apostles using the expression: “For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU, except these necessary things.”

They then listed among those “necessary things” to “keep abstaining . . . from blood.”

The question is: What made it necessary? Were the apostles instituting a new law? If they weren’t, then they must have been referring back to commands previously given by Jehovah.

Essentially, Jehovah had previously given commands regarding blood on two occasions:

1. To Noah (Genesis 9)
2. In the Mosaic Law (Leviticus 17, for example)

If, then, the apostles by that decision were not seeking to reinstitute part of the Mosaic Law (and it seems quite clear that they were not), they must have been referring back to God’s commands to Noah.

We understand God’s commands to Noah, as they were given long before he established a special covenant relationship with Israel, to be binding on all mankind.

And, Jehovah’s commands to Noah were certainly not oppressive. For the first time recorded in the Bible, Jehovah granted humans the right to kill, the right to take away the life, of an animal for food. At the same time, Jehovah commanded that the blood of such an animal not be eaten. By obeying this command, man would show respect for Jehovah as the one who had given life to that animal, and who had also allowed man to take that life, to sustain his own.

I tried to keep that brief. If you’re interested in a far more comprehensive discussion of this topic, a great one can be found at:

http://www.jwbloodreview.org/

Nicodemus

Lisa,

Just one more comment I should have included in my last post.

Some, even among active Jehovah's Witnesses, who argue against our current position re: blood transfusions, feel that the commands given to Noah do not apply to blood transfusions.

They feel strongly that an individual can completely respect and uphold Jehovah's commands to Noah, and yet accept a transfusion of blood, or the components of blood, if needed. One simple reason for this view is that no life was taken to supply such blood.

Nicodemus

Tina

bttt

Carl Sagan on balancing openness to new ideas with skeptical scrutiny..."if you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an ounce of skeptical sense-you cannot distinguish useful ideas from worthless ones."

hawkaw

Lisa,

Check out http://www.ajwrb.org

Where is your thread????

Thanks to all for your nice responses.

Did it also get posted on H2O

I hope people will be posting some of their comments on Pirie's work shortly.

hawk

hawkaw

bttt

hawkaw

One wonders what Pirie would think of the Watchtower showing support to a hemoglobin based solution (hemopure) made from cows (bovine) blood. This is especially true if the company, Biopure, is killing the cows (animals) for the blood and not pouring the blood on the ground.

hawk

waiting

Howdy Hawk,

Thank you for your many hours research to bring this topic here and to H20. Much appreciation.

1st, When love dictates a law, the law must be calculated to promote the happiness of the subjects since love seeketh not her own, but her neighbour’s good. Such is the law prohibiting blood. The more minutely philosophy has examined the constituent principles of blood, the more fully is she convinced that it is not only improper, but dangerous food for man. It is allowed to contain very little nourishment - it is exceedingly subject to putrescency, as daily experience proves. Scarcely is it extravasated and exposed to the air but it assumes obvious symptoms of putridity. Hence, wolves, foxes, &c. more sagacious than human blood-eaters, such it from the veins of the animals. Expose it a short time to the influence of the air, and the most vo-
Page 272 (Paragraph continued)
racious brute will refute to taste it. - Finally, blood is the seat and organ of almost every species of animal disease. Inflammation and putridity are the seeds of disease : and these have not only their origin in the blood, but are often concealed and secretly working in that fluid, long ere the disease itself gives visible symptoms of its existence in the system. Had we just views of the matter, then, we should not only forbear to eat blood, but we would give God thanks for manifesting his love to us in prohibiting a morsel so dangerous to the health of man.

Yuck. He certainly thought that blood was a tainted object, didn't he? Do you think he was speaking so lowly about it to give the reasoning "Why on earth would anyone want to EAT this stuff?"

if we consider, that to partake of the blood is a symbol of our oneness with the creature, of whose blood we partake. We are commanded now to drink the blood of the Son of God. Why? Because we are one body with him, living in his life, united to him as members of his body. Now, all the members of the same body must have a right to partake of the blood, i.e. the life of that body. This is finely expressed in the supper of our Lord. There we drink the blood of the Son of God, as an expression of our living in his life, ad our being members of his body. In this view, to eat the blood of a brute is a symbol of our union with that brute ; an expression of our living its life, as of the same spirit and temper of the animal, is not in the flesh, but the blood. Hence there is no impropriety in the law allowing us to eat flesh, which we possess in common with every other animal; but till we be one body and one spirt with the brute, it must be the highest absurdity to live on the brute’s life, by participating of its blood.

Well, even the WTBTS doesn't think that! I think he's saying that we become - or want to become - like the animal that we drink the blood from?

I think the most obvious thought is that this minister's complete argument was based on "You can eat the meat, but don't drink blood."

And he gave several different reasons - some pretty good - some bizarre - about not drinking blood.

But, that has nothing to do with organ transplants - as the WTBTS has quoted doctors and surgeons - not ministers saying that blood transfusions are organ transplants.

Why the WTBTS quotes Babylon the Great Ministers to support their blood doctrine is beyond me. Oh! That's right! They don't tell their members they get their reasoning from Christendom - how convenient.

Thanks again Hawk.

waiting

hawkaw

waiting,

Thanks for reading and adding an excellent comment. Check out bibleexaminer's post too - more will becoming on this shortly!

Hoping more come from others.

hawk

LDH

FYI, on the http://www.jw-media.org site, they have ONE ONLINE BROCHURE (from the freaking gajillions they've printed).. It's

How Blood can save your life! I scanned that document, and sure enough, Pirie is quoted even on the WT website.

They also attempt to bolster their position by saying "The Qu-Ran also had blood prohibitions!"

Does anyone know of these prohibitions?

Lisa

Blood, Deceit, Watchtower, Pirie

Share this