Blood

by Blind_Of_Lies 32 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Blind_Of_Lies
    Blind_Of_Lies

    I have been doing a lot of mind searching on the issue of blood. Like so many others who at one time or currently considered themselves a Jehovah Wittiness this subject has touched my life in profound ways. Being a history nerd I could not help but let my mind wander back in time and envision the writers of the bible sitting in their homes taking down these divine prophecies and instructions from what they thought was a greater force. Why do I term it that way “what they thought was a greater force”? Because the process of divine inspiration would in modern day constitute a mental disorder along the lines of schizophrenia (hearing voices and having multiple personalities that at times mysteriously break through)… but that is another topic altogether.

    The men who wrote the bible and more specifically wrote the scripture in Acts instructing people to “abstain from blood” could not have possibly known that at some point a few thousand years in the future a common medical practice would be to transfuse one human’s blood with another in an attempt to save a life. Common medical practices of the time included draining ones blood as a cure to many common ailments; he was familiar with the exact opposite practice! He also could have had no way of knowing that also several thousand years in the future vaccines and other drugs could possibly be derived from blood cells. In fact, explaining to the writer of Acts what exactly a “cell” is would be quite impossible. The notion of blood “fractions” would be as likely to be taken seriously as a man walking on the moon.

    Another disturbing thing to think about is that at this time Gladiators and Sacrifices of Blood were very common place, eventually coming to their climax during the Roman Empire. Blood was used for everything from casting out evil spirits to assisting in fertility. A Gladiator’s sole purpose in life was to bring honor to his master and to the people by spilling blood and eventually having his blood spilled. These games were often accompanied by other acts of false worship that undoubtedly included human sacrifice and always included some level of sexual perversion. These sacrifices and offerings of blood were made to false gods, something the ancient Israelites and the early Christians would later give their lives over.

    I propose the following:

    What is more likely… The person writing the book of Acts somehow knew that over the course of the next few thousand years, through all the twists and turns of the human condition we would eventually end up with the medical knowledge to transfuse not only a person’s blood.. but also his organs…and make medicines using extracts from the blood? Highly unlikely. One can argue that this was device prophecy however if that was the case would there also not be a scripture warning of the evils of online pornography? Perhaps god would also warn us of the dangers of radiation… driving too fast… global warming…global cooling… yet he did not.

    What I find more likely would be the following:

    The writer of the book of Acts knew of the abhorrent behavior of the nation’s surrounding his people. The Israelites and early Christians alike would have needed warnings and strict instructions so not to fall into false worship and lose their favored position with god (see: The Golden Calf). Would it not be more likely the warning “abstain from blood” would mean: Abstain from blood sacrifices, abstain from the blood of the arena, abstain from idolatry, abstain from human sacrifice, and abstain from demon worship by abstaining from blood…

    If find this much more likely that this scripture was penned for the benefit of those peoples living in that time dealing with those very real issues, as opposed to the WTBTS’s spin on it.

    Thoughts?

  • TD
    TD

    Thoughts?

    Probably the fundamental grammatical consideration vis a vis Acts 15:29 is that there is no such thing as abstinence from a physical object like "Blood."

    When "Abstain" is used in connection with a physical object like blood there is a finite action implicit in the context.

    In other words, although it doesn't actually say "Keep abstaining....from [eating or drinking] blood, you have to have a finite verb before you even have a complete sentence.

    In the context of a discussion over whether Gentile converts to Christianity should be circumcised and follow the Law, those are the only two interpolations that are justified.

    I think speculation over what else besides a simple prohibition against eating blood the injunction might mean has as its basis the semantic legerdemain Jehovah's Witnesses commit with this passage.

    Invoking an incomplete predicate apart from the context that completes as a stand alone construction conveys the idea of a simple and direct command, but it is ungrammatical at its core.

  • thetrueone
    thetrueone

    Wholly agree on your explanatory assertion on to why this particular law was firstly instituted in its original concept.

    I like to add that the ancients didn't know of what purpose blood had within all living bio-organisms animals, humans ...etc..

    It was just observed that if enough blood left the body of any animal or human, that life abruptly stopped.

    Another thing that was brought not long ago on this particular topic is that the priesthood of the ancient Hebrew nation,

    forbade any kind of human sacrifice toward gods and thought the act was disgusting, even though they sacrificed animals to Yahweh.

    The act of trying to save someones life by a using a BT should be under the guidlines set forth by Jesus himself as how we

    are to care for the sick and elderly.

    The god playing pretentious assholes in Brooklyn should read the bible with a bit more scrutiny, if they had, they would have realized that

    that making oneself into a human sacrifice toward God is wrong and unscriptural.

  • Blind_Of_Lies
    Blind_Of_Lies

    I also would like to point out that thos "The god playing pretentious assholes in Brooklyn" (love that btw) are in fact BLOOD GUILTY themselves. Their switching sides on the subject of blood and organ transplants over the years have caused the death of countless thousands of JW's and their innocent children. These men should be brought up on charges. Yes yes, one could argue that the people had a choice and they could have chosen to save their lives by taking a transplant (previously considered canibalisum) or a transfusion yet they did not. HOWEVER, the victums of Jim Jones in Ghana could have chosen not to drink the coolade laced with poison and they chould have chosen not to inject their childrens mouths wiht the poison as well... yet they did not. Who do we blame for this? Jim Jones and the men who followed his instructions and enfoced his twisted views.

    Who should we hold responcible for the deaths of the children and the sick who died becuase they were convinced it was caniblisum or the most dephorable sin to take blood fractions or an organ transplant? The Watchtower Bible Tract Society of Brooklyn New York and their cowardly army of "enfocers" we reffer to as elders. THey are blood guilty.

    Sorry for the spelling, in a hurry. Does this program have spellcheck?

  • thetrueone
    thetrueone

    Yes they are blood guilty as well profiteering false prophets. $$$

    Power and money two things men lust for and get it in the most unusual ways.

    No this forum program itself does not have a spell checker but if your using Internet Explorer, you can use this free bit of software

    within using the forum posts.

    Here's a link to download it, after its installed you'll see a ABC with a check mark underneath it in the tools bar.

    http://www.iespell.com/download.php

  • Maze
    Maze
    Probably the fundamental grammatical consideration vis a vis Acts 15:29 is that there is no such thing as abstinence from a physical object like "Blood."
    When "Abstain" is used in connection with a physical object like blood there is a finite action implicit in the context.
    In other words, although it doesn't actually say "Keep abstaining....from [eating or drinking] blood, you have to have a finite verb before you even have a complete sentence.
    In the context of a discussion over whether Gentile converts to Christianity should be circumcised and follow the Law, those are the only two interpolations that are justified.
    I think speculation over what else besides a simple prohibition against eating blood the injunction might mean has as its basis the semantic legerdemain Jehovah's Witnesses commit with this passage.
    Invoking an incomplete predicate apart from the context that completes as a stand alone construction conveys the idea of a simple and direct command, but it is ungrammatical at its core.

    For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!” Acts 15:28-29

    It also states to abstain from things sacrificed to idols (noun) from things strangled (noun) and from fornication (noun) and to keep yourself from these things. If you're going to add verbs or adjectives to Acts 15:29 you could just as well fill in the blanks with “to keep abstaining from intravenous blood use.”

    http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/DrinkTooMuch.html

    Here are practical suggestions for either cutting down or abstaining from alcohol along with tips for helping loved ones who have a drinking problem.

    A practical suggestion wouldn't be to inject alcohol into your veins even though alcohol enters the bloodstream upon consumption.

    The Bible's prohibition on blood has more to do with the sanctity of blood, not the health issues involved.

    Pursue peace with all people, and the sanctification without which no man will see the Lord, carefully watching that no one may be deprived of the undeserved kindness of God; that no poisonous root may spring up and cause trouble and that many may not be defiled by it; that there may be no fornicator nor anyone not appreciating sacred things, like E′sau, who in exchange for one meal gave away his rights as firstborn. Hebrews 12:14-16

    No one here has appreciation for such things so you're not expected to understand.

  • Maze
    Maze
    I also would like to point out that thos "The god playing pretentious assholes in Brooklyn" (love that btw) are in fact BLOOD GUILTY themselves. Their switching sides on the subject of blood and organ transplants over the years have caused the death of countless thousands of JW's and their innocent children.

    The decision to abstain from blood is a Bible based, voluntary decision based on a Christian conscience. It has little to do with the administrative position of Jehovah's Organization. If you want to burn down someones bridge, take aim at the pro-choice abortion advocates in this country that approve of carelessly disposing of millions of human lives annually. In comparison, the blood issue is a drop in the bucket.

  • cantleave
    cantleave

    Is the decision to use blood derived products and fractions also bible based spalimaze?

  • Blind_Of_Lies
    Blind_Of_Lies

    Maze,

    Your logic is flawed. Jehovah’s Witnesses do not enforce abortions because they view innocent unborn life as precious, a gift from god. However they will gladly condemn a toddler to death who needs a blood transfusion. That baby who dies because it’s parents are being strong-armed by the elders does not have a choice, in fact it would have been more loving for the mother to have an abortion than allow the child to suffer and die needlessly. They would allow a mother to die in child birth along with the child instead of allowing (yes allowing) her to have a blood transfusion. Do the parents technically have a choice? Yes, Yes they do. However they are blinded by false teachings and false promises. The similarity to the Jones Town Massacre is uncanny. These people could have easily turned on Jim Jones and his handful of thugs and killed them all OR they could have done what the few survivors of that mass murder did and ran into the jungle. Yet they did not. Why? Because they were convinced by Jones that by killing themselves they were setting themselves up for the ultimate heavenly reward. Parents could easily sign the papers and let a child or themselves and take the blood or the blood product HOWEVER their judgment is so twisted by the message of the WTBTS that they believe they are actually doing the child a favor by allowing them to die. They may die now, but at least they will wake up in paradise! What a crock of shit!

  • Blind_Of_Lies
    Blind_Of_Lies

    Probably the fundamental grammatical consideration vis a vis Acts 15:29 is that there is no such thing as abstinence from a physical object like "Blood."

    TD-

    You are absolutely right. We break this law several times a week! Anyone who has ever had dental surgery or a bloody nose or bit their own tongue or has eaten any kind of rare meat knows that they will undoubtedly swallow some blood.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit