Christ Alone vs IsaacAustin (blood) (page 4)

cofty

But to say that the Israelite would not have the time to properly bleed it is reading into it.

If an animal is "already dead" it is impossible to bleed it, ask your butcher.

Eating it unbled was not a crime.

Why not?

Christ Alone

Actually, there are JW's out there (Kidd, Furuli, etc.) who have invented their own arguments against transfusion without the more obvious errors of JW writers.

This has been interesting for me. I was never a JW apologist. So arguing an unreasonable point of view is proving to be pretty difficult. I've gotta say, arguing in this way is eye opening!!!

Heaven

These people are baptized; some are more than just 'publishers'.

That is proof of nothing. All those that get disfellowshiped are baptized also. Some get disfellowshiped for heinous acts. Just being baptized does not make them a true servant of Jehovah God. I'm sure there are SOME JWs that would actually disobey our God Jehovah and get a disgusting blood transfusion too! Shame on them! They will see the results of their disgusting ways at Armageddon!!!

CA you're doing a good job of scaring off any potential converts. Good job.

BTW, there is no such thing as a TRUE witness of Jehovah. This is just made up words to fit a cult's agenda. Anyone believing in doctrine that has changed is no longer true for they believed one thing and preached it and now they have to change said preaching to fit the noo-shiite. But carry on because this is quite entertaining.

cofty

Here is a quote from the 1977 Watchtower publication "Jehovah's Witnesses and the Question of Blood".

For an Israelite to show disregard for life as represented by the blood was viewed as a most serious wrong. The person deliberately disregarding this law about blood was to be “cut off,” executed. (Leviticus 7:26, 27; Numbers 15:30, 31) A measure of guilt resulted even from eating the blood-containing flesh of an animal that died of itself or that was killed by a wild beast.—Leviticus 17:15, 16; compare Leviticus 5:3; 11:39.

Why was an Israelite not "cut off" for " eating the blood-containing flesh of an animal that died of itself or that was killed by a wild beast"?

Christ Alone

If an animal is "already dead" it is impossible to bleed it, ask your butcher.

Actually I never knew that. I'm not a hunter or butcher, so I've always been unaware of how the bleeding process works. I'd assume most of Jehovah's people don't know much about it either. I guess most just figure that if the attempt to bleed the animal has been made, and one assumes that the animal has been bled properly, then there is no sin in eating the animal. Maybe we can go a bit further and become Jehovah's Vegan Witnesses?

cofty

To bleed animal it has to have its throat slit while it still has blood pressure.

If you discovered a dead sheep in your field there is nothing you can do to bleed it.

Whether an Israelite buried it or ate it the result was the same.

This is confirmed in your own official publication above.

How do you explain this?

Christ Alone

Very good question, cofty. I will have to do some research and get back to you with Jehovah's answer. (Remember using that at the door?)

I suppose that hunting should be forbidden as well since the animal would be dead before the bleeding process?

This must mean that Jehovah's command to abstain from eating blood would only apply to not attempting to drain the animals blood. Since we know that there is no way to COMPLETELY drain an animals blood, even in proper bleeding, then we have to look again at Jehovah's Law.

He DOES allow the eating of meat, which means that he recognizes that some blood would still remain in the animal. Since he allows us to eat meat, his prohibition must mean something else. Not attempting to drain the blood would be a violation of Jehovah's command.

I suppose to continue to follow Jehovah's law even greater... I will also soon not be consuming milk, eggs, red meat or ANY other product that contains parts of blood. I will also not allow my children to breast feed, so as to not to have them mistakenly violate God's command.

I also will not own a cat. Cats notoriously eat smaller animals, and these animals have not been properly drained of the blood. I will not allow such a wrongdoing animal into my home.

cofty

No Jehovah didn't require all blood to be removed from an animal before it could be eaten.

Let me reconcile the apparent contradiction for you.

Jehovah gave Noah permission to kill animals for food, however he demanded that the life of the animal should be respected. He chose blood as a suitable symbol of life and stipulated that by pouring out the blood on the ground the human who had taken the animal's life was returning it to the giver of life.

If an animal dies of itself or is killed by a wild animal this requirement would not apply. Nobody had taken the life so the blood was not significant.

Touching a dead carcass, whether or not it was eaten, resulted only in temporary uncleanness.

In the case of a blood transfusion no life has been taken and so blood is of no more religious significance than the blood of a dead animal.

Everything the bible says about blood is consistent with this position.

Christ Alone

Also, according to "Questions from readers", The Watchtower , November 1, 1961, pages 669–670, we are to check with our butcher to make sure that the animal was properly drained of its blood.

Christ Alone

In the case of a blood transfusion no life has been taken and so blood is of no more religious significance than the blood of a dead animal.

Then how can we explain the case of Acts 15 when the law had clearly been finished. There were to be no more animal sacrifices. An animals life was no longer taken to atone for the sins of the people. But yet, still, Jehovah's people were to abstain from blood.

Christ Alone vs IsaacAustin (blood)

Share this