But, James - I'm only questioning the claim that some on this thread have made, namely, that God's law to Noah concerning blood was nothing more than a prohibition against murder. It's clear to me that Genesis 9:4 was a prohibition against eating the blood of animals killed for food. You are are reading more into my previous post than was there.
BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS Twisting a life-affirming law into death
by Terry 80 Replies latest watchtower medical
-
-
james_woods
Well, maybe so...but I think that the thread poster makes a good point here anyway -
This biblical blood rule would not be there except for the so-called "life symbolism" of blood itself. Why else the sacrifice law, cutting the throats of the victim, the saying "drink the blood of Christ", etc...? There is also the issue of whether Christians are really under these Mosaic rules anyway - much of the NT context seems to have to do with pagan sacrificial rites.
So, it is not too big a jump to make the analogy that these rules were there to cause humans to respect life. (and, such respect would certainly include not murdering.) I do not believe for a moment that they were there for any kind of medical reason.
This would then make it ridiculous to create an unrelated (unrelated in the sense that a transfusion is not "eating" blood at all) set of doctrines which could in effect cause an otherwise preventable death. Such a thing would be contrary to the original purpose for of the respect of blood.
-
Warren
I agree that the purpose of the Noachian law was to cause humans to respect life, both human and animal. Therefore, the Noachian Law forbade the murder of humans and also forbade eating the blood of animals killed for food. Most certainly Christians are not under the Mosaic law, however, there is no good reason to believe they are not still under the Noachian Law. In fact, the Apostolic Decree at Acts 15:28-29 appears to be a reaffirmation of the Noachian law. Christians were not to commit murder or eat the blood of animals killed for food. I agree that taking a blood transfusion is not the same as eating blood.
-
M.J.
Let's see...what category does "blood eater" or alternately, "blood transfuser" fall under?
"...with any so-called brother if he should be an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler--not to even eat with such a one..." (1 Cor. 5:11)
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Cor 6:9-10)
-
Terry
To put it as ironically as possible:
Respect for life cannot possibly imply losing it on purpose to demonstrate that you respect it.
-
Leolaia
"You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meat of strangled animals, and from fornication. Avoid these, and you will do well" (Acts 15:29).
That's what it says in the Bible. Seems pretty black and white, right? But things are not always as simple as they seem. The Society's interpretation unfortuantely lacks any sense of jurisprudence. Take a look at the things being forbidden in the above list. And let's for the sake of argument take the reference to "blood" as dietary (Terry is correct that it corresponds to "bloodshed" in some Jewish lists of laws for foreigners). Does the text say these rules are to be followed without exception under all circumstances, even if the result is death? Not really. For most part, it would have been very rare that following such rules would require one choosing life over death. Fornication is not a life-or-death situation. Eating blood, the meat of strangled animals, or food sarificed to idols also would not have been a life-or-death matter 99.9% of the time. At the time the recommendations in Acts 15:29 were made for first-century Gentile Christians, blood transfusions did not exist. Obeying the "abstain from blood" stipulation generally would not have put your life at stake.
But consider this. The Jewish Law that these rules are derived from (cf. Acts 15:10, 21) recognized that not all laws could be observed all the time. Sometimes the requirements of one commandment must be relaxed in favor of another. The idea is that one must do the greater good. And according to Mark 12:31, "there is no commandment higher than" the one in Leviticus 19:18 that says that "you must love your neighbor as yourself" (cf. Romans 13:9, Galatians 5:14, James 2:8). So this is another commandment that Christians must observe. What did it involve? Loving your neighbor as yourself means that "you must not jeopardize your neighbor's life" (Leviticus 19:16). By the first century, it was widely understood that there are situations in which one must break another commandment in order to obey this "higher" law. One common law that had to be broken was Sabbath observance. Thus the Maccabeans were allowed to fight on the sabbath to prevent themselves from being "destroyed from the earth" (cf. 1 Maccabees 2:40-41), and the Mishnah also rules that doctors can care for their patients on the sabbath (b. 'Abod. Zar. 27b, Mek. Exodus 31:12). The general principle is the following: "Whenever there is doubt whether life is in danger, this overrides the Sabbath" (m. Yoma 8:6). And it isn't just the Sabbath...b. Sanhedrin 74a states that nearly all the laws (i.e. nearly "every law of the Torah") can be transgressed in order to save a life.
This was also the view of Jesus in the NT. Please take a look at the following story:
"One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. The Pharisees said to him, 'Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?' He answered, 'Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.' Then he said to them, 'The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath' " (Mark 2:23-27).
This refers to the episode in 1 Samuel 21:2-7. It was against the Law for the consecrated bread to be eaten by non-priests and to be eaten outside of the Holy (cf. Leviticus 24:5-9). But David broke this commandment because he and his soldiers were "hungry and in need". But by caring for his soldiers and seeing to it that they were fed, David did the right thing. Similarly, Jesus and the disciples were also truly famished and needed to gather food -- even if it were unlawful to do so on the Sabbath -- so Jesus says that when in need the requirements of one law can be relaxed when life is at stake. Hence, "man was not made for the Sabbath," as if the Sabbath were more important than the life of a man; it was the other way around: "The Sabbath was made for man". The Sabbath is for man's benefit, not to his detriment. In no way is a man expected to die for the Sabbath.
Jesus makes the point even more explicit a little later: "Is it against the law on the Sabbath to do good, or to do evil, to save a life, or to kill? (Mark 3:4). Clearly it is forbidden to kill and do evil on a Sabbath, and by implication, it is not forbidden to help people or to save lives on the Sabbath. Here Jesus states the same thing that later rabbis said.... the Sabbath can be overridden if life is at stake. Leviticus 19:16 would demand it.
All this is classic jurisprudence. So now take another look at Acts 15:29. If in some way one of these forbidden things can turn out to save a life, should we let a person die in order to adhere to the rule? Let's consider the matter of eating meat from strangled animals. If it turns out that -- like David and Jesus -- you were truly famished and the only thing to eat was a dead animal that had not been bled, e.g. a strangled animal, and if the life of yourself and your family depends on eating it, would it be lawful for you to endanger the lives of everyone by refusing it, just so that "Acts 15:29" can be obeyed? The lesson that Jesus teaches in Mark is that it is NOT against God's law to save a life, even if one must transgress a lesser commandment to do so. Same thing with the law on "bloodshed". The commandment is "Thou shalt not kill," but does this mean that one cannot save one's own life in self-defense or must let innocent people die at the hands of an attacker if the situation demands action, in order to obey this commandment? Again, out of "love for your neighbor," the principle in Leviticus 19:16 may take precedence.
Now there is a new way that blood can be used to prevent death. The Society interprets Acts 15:29 as an inviolable law that under no circumstances may blood be "taken in", even if death results. But that is not how the actual rule would have worked in the first century. Jewish jurisprudence would have recognized that there are times when the demands of some laws must be relaxed in order to protect the lives of people. But the Society is completely divorced from that original legal context and has no sense of basic jurisprudence. The suggestion given in the decree in Acts 15 is now codified as rigid hard-and-fast commandment that must be followed unto death.
This is also unreasonable because there are many other rules and commandments given in the NT that do not have this status. Colossians 3:9 says: "Do not lie". This is one of the commandments from the Decalogue. But JWs are not told that one must never lie under any circumstances, even if it means death. I would imagine that many JWs who end up putting their lives on the line to obey the "blood" rule wouldn't expend as much energy to prevent themselves from telling white lies. Yet this rule is stated in just the same black-and-white terms as the decree on "blood". And the Society is aware that there are situations when withholding the truth may be a greater good. When not telling the truth can help save the lives of others and protect "kingdom interests," they call it "theocratic war strategy" and note biblical examples in which it is lawful not to tell the truth:
*** w57 5/1 p. 285 Use Theocratic War Strategy ***
Did not Rahab hide the Israelite spies by both action and word? Did not Abraham, Isaac, David and others likewise hide the truth at times when faced with a hostile enemy? They certainly did, and never do we read a word of censure for their doing so. Rather, we read of their being termed exemplary servants of Jehovah.
Similarly, there are other situations such as deceiving others "in order to hinder some criminal action, to protect the innocent, or to save a life. Such situations, however, are rare in real life" (8 October 1987 Awake!, p. 19). The Society also recognizes the principle in Leviticus 19:16-18 as motivating one to not "needlessly jeopardize his life" and "not give up his life needlessly":
*** w68 6/1 p. 345 The Christian’s View of Self-Defense ***
Jesus said: "You must love your neighbor as yourself." (Matt. 22:39) As a person is to love his neighbor, he is also to love himself. That means he ought to take care of his mind and body. The Christian, therefore, should not needlessly jeopardize his life, for that would bring no honor to God.... Jesus did not give up his life needlessly.
And yet the Society insists that Christians must give up their lives to observe a rule that in its original context did not demand a life-or-death dilemma and which would have been relaxed on the very rare occasions in which life was at stake.
-
bebu
I truly enjoyed your post, Leolaia. Thanks so much!
Respect for life cannot possibly imply losing it on purpose to demonstrate that you respect it.
Excellent summary, Terry.
bebu
-
TD
Fab post Leo.
Pedant's point:You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meat of strangled animals, and from fornication. Avoid these, and you will do well" (Acts 15:29).
That's what it says in the Bible. Seems pretty black and white, right?
The only time abstinance in regard to a object makes any kind of sense is when a finite act is contextually connected to it. IOWAbstain from junk food Abstain from alcohol Abstain from dairy products
..all make sense whereas:
Abstain from sky Abstain from fields Abstain from pebbles
Do not.
Until an action is negated by "Abstain" the thought is not complete.
-
LDH
Superhooper is a troll, until he can prove me wrong. Two different posts he spouted off the JW rhetoric about blood, even using certain JW key words and phrases. He tried to appear neutral by claiming to be a student nurse--this is so we wouldn't 'hold him responsible' for knowing medicine per se.HOWEVER---one thing that medical/nursing students have in common, they immediately begin speaking in scientific terminology with regards to the make up of the human body, biology and medical procedures. Our friend here has done none of that, but instead pontificated that people who die under a state of delusion are happy.
i could but perhaps if look for your self in a un biased journal on that subject.
The poor grammar is just to throw you off. I asked Super twice on another thread to show me the most basic evidence for what he claimed. He ignored my very polite questions.
At this point, carry on with the conversation but a word to the wise is sufficient.
Lisa
I could be wrong but I doubt it Class
-
Khufu
What a post Leolaia!
Thank you so much for your research. It's a wealth of good sense. Have you published it any place? I think it would have helped me a lot if I had read such a study at the time I was considering to become a witness.