Sanctity of Blood

Mile 0

This is why I believe the WTS is so totally wrong on the blood issue.

Blood, as it circulates through a living organism, is merely a bodily fluid. It does not take on any special significance until that organism expires. Then the blood becomes the symbol of the life that this organism had. As it relates to food, the Biblical requirement to properly bleed the animal was simply a gesture to acknowledge the life that the animal gave up in order to sustain human life. As this relates to blood transfusions, the same restrictions do not apply because death of the donar isn't part of the proccess.

Mile 0

Gopher

Mile0, I had never thought about it that way before. I like the reasoning you outlined, it helps me see the whole blood transfusion idea isn't so bad.

Of all the things I was taught as a JW, the fear of a blood transfusion has been the hardest one to shake. The organization really left a deep imprint with their teaching on this.

Since leaving the JW's, I k new I'd "hold my nose" and take blood if it was necessary to save my life. As with everything else JW, the key to leaving it behind is getting the right information and letting it sink in.

Thanks for the post.

stevenyc

Interesting take on this subject mile 0. Of course the JW would argue that the blood represents life, and Jehovah demands respect for this by abstaining from its use in medical treatments. We all know that JWs abstaining from blood is a scriptural misrepresentation, as you have shown. If fact we could say that they are going against scripture in two more ways.

I recently asked my local rabbi about the Jewish take on abstaining from blood, and his view of the Jehovah's Witness stance on blood transfusions. He explained that the food laws can be broken when life was threatened. That the Jewish people were to 'live by the law, not die by the law'. By dying for the Watchtower, they are in DISRESPECT for life. The very symbol of blood in scripture.

Also, if they use the 'abstain from blood' as a direct order, then they go against this by abstaining from SOME blood.

A good question to ask a JW in this respect is:

Which particular fraction represents life?

Awakened07

I question the whole "life is in the blood" thing that the Bible purports.

What does that really mean? Is it some supernatural property of blood, or does it simply mean that without blood, the organism dies?

My take on it while being an active witness, was that Jehovah wanted what's best for his people, and knew that eating blood could lead to sickness, especially at that time in history. But being a bit 'superstitious' as you also are when you're a JW, I guess I also thought perhaps there was something supernatural about blood. So what does the Bible actually say?

"Only be sure that you do not eat the blood, for the blood is the life; you may not eat the life with the meat." Deuteronomy 12:23 (NKJV) [highlighted by me]

-Now I searched this verse, and most translations agree that "the blood is the life". Doesn't this, especially in conjunction with "you may not eat the life with the meat", show that the author meant that there is a supernatural component here? How else could you eat the blood with the life when the animal is dead?

Now, as a JW, I would've said that this shows that we have no right to eat blood simply because it actually contains the life force of a creature. But as a rational, modern human being, I smell a rat.

Why is the life of a creature in it's blood? Well - to people living in biblical times, it's pretty obvious; someone gets hurt, their blood squirts out and they die. From the look of things, there's a direct correlation between blood and life. And that's true in some sense - you can't live without blood in your body. However - can you live without kidneys? Can you live without a liver? Are these organs less important to sustain your (or an animal's) life than blood? And yet, JWs and anyone else have no problems with eating these vital organs (from animals obviously...). Or for that matter have an organ transplant.

My point is - I think the ban on eating blood was partly due to superstition in biblical times, and partly to avoid illnesses that you won't get with a well bled animal. Of course - I say this with the world view of an atheist. But, having said that, I don't think it's logical that 'life' as in some supernatural entity is in the blood, not even if you believe in God.

Weirdly, the sanctity of blood (life) is pretty much not mentioned anymore when JWs argue against blood transfusions. If you go to the official Watchtower site and read the blood article there, it's pretty much all about demonising blood from a medical point of view - how incredibly dangerous blood transfusions are, and how rare blood is so that there are blood shortages (well, you could have helped that out, you know...).

Anyway... Even though I believe the above, I have to agree with Gopher in that this is one of those indoctrinations that is the hardest to shake. I would never for instance eat blood pudding or sausages containing a lot of blood, simply because I'd puke if I did. A blood transfusion to save my life though? I'll cross that bridge when I get to it, but I believe I would.

Mile 0

I think you're right, stevenyc. The WTS has misrepresented scripture on more than one level. They don't take into account that in the context of life back then; Jewish religious leaders no doubt had in mind the use of blood in various rituals practiced by neighboring nations. If Bible writers were speaking to the reality of Jewish life during that time, this could have easily been implied without specifying because outside of pagan rituals and the notions of special powers attributed to drinking the blood of certain animals, there were no other "uses" for blood.

Mile 0

Hi Awakened, it took me some time after leaving the org to gain some objectivity on the medical use of blood; even after having been out for years, I was still thinking in terms of it's negative aspects only. The idea of eating something like blood pudding or sausage still repels me, but I know a lot of non-JWs who feel the same way. The only real issue has always been medical.

Mile 0

jwfacts

properly bleed the animal was simply a gesture to acknowledge the life that the animal gave up in order to sustain human life.

This really is the issue, sanctity for life, hence showing respect when taking it, when killing an animal

I find it interesting that Noah was not forbidden from eating blood. At Genesis 9:4 "Only flesh with its soul-its blood-YOU must not eat" it does not say blood can not be eaten. Yet a JW has great difficulty reading the scripture.Even on close inspection a JW will drop the first half of the sentence and read this as "its blood you must not eat". NIV puts the scripture in more readable format "But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it." Noah was given the command to bleed an animal prior to eatting out of respect for its life.

http://jehovah.net.au/blood.html

jwfacts

double post

Mile 0

Hello Gopher, you're right. Those old feelings about blood transfusions took awhile to shake. I think a common thread is the fact that once you leave the WTS, you gradually start seeing various doctrinal issues in a more objective light. Without WT blinders on, one can allow themselves to actually think about what Bible writers were actually trying to say. And the best way to figure this out is to frame these issues in the context of life in those times. Then it becomes very clear. The average Jew or early Christian would have thought "the use of blood" to be associated with the the pagan rituals of other cultures they knew about. And the use of blood almost always involved the death of something or somebody. The requirement to properly bleed the animal before eating it is fairly straightforward; the blood is symbolic of the life that was taken for sustainance. The restriction against eating the blood of a slaughtered animal was just a simple acknowledgement of that.

Mile 0

Hortensia

your arguments are all much more logical than the WTBTS stance. Thanks - I never looked at it that way before. It makes sense to look at the issue in the context of the times in which the law was written, which the WTBTS doesn't.

Sanctity of Blood

Share this