Some practical information that could be added to this discussion is that many ancient civilizations deemed blood had some sacredness within their beliefs and this can be contributed to the observance of life stopping when blood left the body of animals or humans.
The Watchtower are Right About Blood...
by cofty 556 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Finkelstein
-
pressman
I would like to discuss the bible with you cofy as I don't know how someone cannot see the it is inspired. I enjoy talking about the bible nonetheless -
Finkelstein
The bible was inspired upon human ignorance by men who were self motivated to create embellished imagined stories to create power and relevance to their select god.
Human ignorance is a factual evidential occurrence.
-
Jonathan Drake
Personally, I think the OP is great. I've brought up this subject a few different ways and was met with opposition. Establishing that common ground might just do the trick better than coming off instantly with opposition, no matter how reasonable the opposition.
@Marvin, it was only the blood and not the flesh that was seen as having the life in it. I have no idea why that is so specific, but Cofty is right. It's in Leviticus 17:14. How they rationalized eating the flesh as not part of it I don't know, that's a good question.
@pressmen how can the bible be inspired? It tells the story of a flood which we can prove never happened. Depending on your belief you might believe the earth is only 6000 years old, which is demonstrably wrong. The book of Daniel was likely written in something like the 160s BCE? So every prophecy in it is AFTER the fact. The bible itself, in Hebrews 11 says that faith is the assured expectation of something not seen - it's accepting something about which there is no proof. But when the proof, the real evidence, is stacked AGAINST the bible then why do we need faith at all?
In my experience, you're likely to have rationalization a for all of this and anything else I could think of; so bible discussions are pointless until you see it for yourself IMO. I think researching evolution would open your eyes, it did mine.
-
Fisherman
Cofty:they fail
I saw the photos you posted of yourself and of your family. I enjoyed them very much. I wondered if I was looking in the mirror.
A lot of people have a lot of views about a lot of things. According to WT interpretation of the Bible, JWs believe that blood transfusions are offensive to God. That is the JW position. The reason why a lot of people care to challenge that JW position is because under certain conditions doctors believe that a person will die without one. Arguments in favor of a blood transfusion under such conditions is: "How can a reasonable person refuse lifesaving medical treatment?" "Given the opportunity to live with a blood transfusion , why would God require anyone to die?" "Where there is life, there is hope." "JWs eat a lot of blood anyway because it is impossible to squeeze out every drop of blood from steak or pork chops" and there are many other arguments that challenge a hard line interpretation of the Bible. The rebuttal to all arguments is: 1. "That is our position 2. "Blood transfusions carry a risk of infections and or other resulting medical problems including death, I choose to believe the wts because previously, medical blood treatment infected a lot of people with HIV, Hepatitis, and a lot of other things. Medical Science challenged and mocked the wts back then but they stopped sneering once it was exposed to the public that many people got infected while trusting medical science. so doctors were forced to admit that wts blood position was not so fanatical as it seemed to them and to a lot of other people"
From a religious interpretation position, that is how the wts interprets the BIble to mean.
From a medical position JWS feel blood treatment is too risky and more of a risk than non blood even in the face of death.
-
Marvin Shilmer
@Marvin, it was only the blood and not the flesh that was seen as having the life in it. I have no idea why that is so specific, but Cofty is right. It's in Leviticus 17:14. How they rationalized eating the flesh as not part of it I don't know, that's a good question.
My remarks are not said of requirements presented in Leviticus. My remarks are said of the Noachian decree of Genesis 9. The Noachian decree prohibited eating a living animal without killing it first because it prohibited eating flesh with its life still in it, its blood. How does a person eat flesh from a living animal without eating flesh yet with its life, with its blood without killing the animal first? Blood is flesh.
-
Marvin Shilmer
From a medical position JWS feel blood treatment is too risky and more of a risk than non blood even in the face of death.
I strongly disagree with that sentiment.
The moment Watchtower doctrine removes a prohibition against some blood product JWs who need that blood product line up to get it. Take for example the blood product known as cryo-poor plasma (also known as cryosupernatant and cryoprecipitate-reduced plasma). When JWs learn they can accept this product rendered from blood they line up willing to accept it to the tune of 96 percent. (See: Over 96% Accept 99%! )
As for risk, Watchtower makes JWs think they're protected from blood borne pathogens, but it's a horrible lie. (See: Death from TRALI? )
-
Jonathan Drake
@Marvin
i feel really dumb, but for some reason I am not following. I don't see a difference between Gen 9:4, 5 and Lev 17:14. I think I get what you are saying, you can never FULLY drain blood right? Watchtower has addressed that line of reasoning though. I don't remember where, but I remember reading it.
-
Marvin Shilmer
I don't see a difference between Gen 9:4, 5 and Lev 17:14. I think I get what you are saying, you can never FULLY drain blood right? Watchtower has addressed that line of reasoning though. I don't remember where, but I remember reading it.
The text of Leviticus 17:14 is a prohibition stated of eating blood of any sort of flesh.
The text of Genesis 9:4 is a prohibition stated of eating blood obtained from one sort of flesh, that of living animals killed to use as food. Another sort of blood the text of Genesis 9 never mentions or addresses is that of animal carcasses dead of natural cause. Nothing in the text of Genesis 9 prohibited Noah from eating all the blood he wanted from that sort of flesh, which was then and always had been readily available and safer to obtain and use as food for the ancients.
There's another critical difference too between Leviticus 17 and the text of Genesis 9. Leviticus 17:13 stipulates that blood obtained from killing animals had to be disposed of by pouring it into the dirt (this speaks of animals killed other than those used for sacrifices). Nothing whatsoever in the text of Genesis 9 required Noah to waste perfectly good blood by throwing it away into the dirt. Noah was free to do whatever he wanted with blood he drained from animals he killed to eat, so long as he did not eat it.
By the way, nothing I've said or presented requires any special measures in relation to bleeding other than general bleeding of animals killed to eat. There will always be residual blood left in flesh.
-
pressman
Finkelstein aka the fink, that is your assumption. the bible was entrusted by the lord and all the stories are genuine. It is not a production of ignorance. They just did not know the stuff we know now. God would have told them all that if he wanted to but he wanted humans to learn for themselves