Actually it doesn't sound goofy at all. It's a great understanding of the blood principle. I have always told Witnesses that one could show no greater respect for blood than to give one's blood to save another's life. We are following Christ's example in fact by saving a life with one's blood!
Trapping a Wittness in blood doctrine...
by Burger Time 12 Replies latest watchtower medical
-
-
Burger Time
True, true Jeff! The logic does trap themselves. In hind sight I probably should have titled the subject a bit better I suppose. As for your thoughts Leo, as you know the Dubs have a convenient circular argument for the Mosaic principles. Claiming that this was a adding on of God's law to Noah. As ridiculous as it is strong (weak), JW's won't budge on this as I am sure you are well aware of. So I guess thats why I wrote this. Tried searching but didn't find anything on it (could be the idiot factor in me) so I thought it was a neat little way to turn it on a dub.
-
Leolaia
Burger Time....Actually a very similar theme to the one in Leviticus 17 is present right there in Genesis 9:
"Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man" (Genesis 9:3-6).
Notice that the focus is on bloodshed, both of animals and of people. Earlier God has granted man dominion over the animals (1:26-28) and here God extends this dominion to include the killing of animals for food. That is why the killing of people are mentioned in 9:6 because man has this kind of dominion only over the animals, not over other men (who are different by being made in the image of God as stated in both 1:26-28 and 9:6). However food obtained through killing is limited to meat that no longer has life in it, i.e. the life that is in the blood. As the NWT puts it, "Only the flesh with its soul [i.e. life] -- its blood -- YOU must not eat". This is very close to the concept in Leviticus 17 that the life of the animal is in the blood. Here the life is the blood. In both cases, this life must not consumed but be left unused. The reason for this is also similar. Although the word "atonement" is not used here, God does "demand an accounting" for all those who shed blood. Just as Leviticus 17 instructs the Jews to "make atonement for YOUR souls" for taking the life of another creature, so Genesis 9:5 claims that God demands an accounting for the blood of "YOUR souls" (NWT) for the same thing. The verb used here (drsh) means "to demand account for it, to revenge" and has a similar meaning in Psalm 9:12, Ezekiel 33:6, and 2 Chronicles 24:22. Being held accountable for the death of another is the situation that atonement is supposed to resolve. Notice also that there is a threefold accounting described here. Those who kill animals for their meat are held accountable for their actions. God will also hold animals accountable for taking the lives of men. This is what is expressed legally in Exodus 21:28-32 which says, among other things, that "If a bull gores a man or a woman to death, the bull must be stoned to death, and its meat must not be eaten". Why must the meat not be eaten? Because the blood is given to compensate for the death of a person and because the blood remains part of the meat in a death by stoning. The important thing to recognize here is that this is an accounting for shedding blood. And so it is with the third situation involving accounting, man shedding man's blood. In like manner, capital punishment is prescribed as the means for taking account of killing another person. So just as in Leviticus 17, this passage has little relation to the practice of blood transfusions which do not involve killing and murder. In fact, quite the opposite situation is being described -- the taking of another's life rather than saving it. Saving life is not what God would "demand an accounting," it is the taking away of life that God is described as demanding a recompense.