How Would You Prove That Abstaining From Blood Is Not Prohibiting Transfusions?

minimus

Last night my grandson got a blood transfusion. It occured to me how stupid the belief is that to "abstain from blood" refers to a transfusion. How would you reason with someone to show that abstaining from blood would not refer to accepting a blood transfusion?

leavingwt

How would you reason

You cannot reason with victims of Thought Reform. Persons who will allow their children to die, because of refusing modern medical treatment, are not reasonable people.

For everyone else, it's a non-issue.

-LWT

BurnTheShips

I don't know, but I made liver and onions for dinner a few nights ago. Anyone that opens a package of liver to eat and thinks they are not getting a a lot of blood is kidding themselves.

leavingwt

Anyone that opens a package of liver to eat and thinks they are not getting a a lot of blood is kidding themselves.

When I was in Brooklyn, many of the Bethel old-timers LOVED Liver Day (when it was served at the noon meal).

Most of the younger folks took Liver Day as motivation to eat out.

-LWT

PS: I don't mind a little thinly sliced, perfectly gravied calf liver, every once in a while.

BurnTheShips

I like mine thin sliced or cut into small pieces like for a fajita or stirfry, then seasoned and cooked on a pan, as hot as you can possibly get it.

Wash it down with homemade ale. ;-)

snowbird

Careful Bible readers recognize that the decree to avoid blood in Acts 15 was pertaining to dietary restrictions. This restriction was necessary in order to maintain harmony between Jewish and pagan Christians.

Yes, I said pagan Christians - non-Jewish.

From The Message Bible:

Acts 15:28 -29 It seemed to the Holy Spirit and to us that you should not be saddled with any crushing burden, but be responsible only for these bare necessities: Be careful not to get involved in activities connected with idols; avoid serving food offensive to Jewish Christians (blood, for instance); and guard the morality of sex and marriage. These guidelines are sufficient to keep relations congenial between us. And God be with you!

The Apostle Paul later expanded on this teaching, e.g., Romans 14.

There is nothing in this context to justify forbidding blood transfusions.

Sylvia

minimus

I agree that it's difficult to reason with unreasonable ones.

BTS, the fact that BLOOD DOES EXIST in meats, to me, shows the idiocy of the belief!

aSphereisnotaCircle

If we are commanded to obstain from apples, what does that mean?

Does it mean we shouldnt eat apples, or maybe it means we shouldn't eat or even touch apples.

Is it OK to look at apples? My neighbor has an apple orchard, does that mean i have to move? Or maybe I should burn his orchard to please god.

My friends like to eat apples, maybe i need to shun them.

Is it OK for me to cook with apple cider vineger, it's not an apple anymore, so shouldn't that be OK?

minimus

Abstain..."to refrain from something by one's own choice"....the dictionary.

So if you were forced to refrain from something because of an Organization's rule, not because of your own view and choice, you wouldn't be in violation.

aSphereisnotaCircle

Abstain..."to refrain from something by one's own choice"....the dictionary.

To refrain from something opens up all the same questions.

Does it mean I shouldn't touch it, or does it mean I shouldn't even look at it. Or maybe it means I need to go on a suicide mission to destroy all the apple growers in the world.

"obstaining" is open for interpretation, which the society does. They say it means we should not eat blood straight and we should not take transfusions. But eating meat from the supermarket filled with blood is OK and touching it is OK.

How Would You Prove That Abstaining From Blood Is Not Prohibiting Transfusions?

Share this