Silly GB Pharisees!
I have thought that same thing. It's almost as if the GB look up to the Pharisees, not as they truly were, but as they are depicted in the NT. It's like they use them as a blue print.
-Sab
Applying Genesis Laws to Blood Transfusions appears to be ridiculous!
by Terry 25 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
sabastious
-
Finkelstein
Its interesting that the ancient Hebrews thought animals that were recognized as being unclean or had been killed by others animals
were still good enough to be sold to Non-Hebrews for money or trade.
Meaning that if the meat had gone bad because the blood had not been bled out, well thats their problem.
Take their money and let them deal with it themselves.
Draining of Blood
The Torah prohibits consumption of blood. Lev. 7:26-27; Lev. 17:10-14. This is the only dietary law that has a reason specified in Torah: we do not eat blood because the life of the animal (literally, the soul of the animal) is contained in the blood. This applies only to the blood of birds and mammals, not to fish blood. Thus, it is necessary to remove all blood from the flesh of kosher animals.
The first step in this process occurs at the time of slaughter. As discussed above, shechitah allows for rapid draining of most of the blood.
The remaining blood must be removed, either by broiling or soaking and salting. Liver may only be kashered by the broiling method, because it has so much blood in it and such complex blood vessels. This final process must be completed within 72 hours after slaughter, and before the meat is frozen or ground. Most butchers and all frozen food vendors take care of the soaking and salting for you, but you should always check this when you are buying someplace you are unfamiliar with.
An egg that contains a blood spot may not be eaten. This isn't very common, but I find them once in a while. It is a good idea to break an egg into a glass and check it before you put it into a heated pan, because if you put a blood-stained egg into a heated pan, the pan becomes non-kosher. If your recipe calls for multiple eggs, break each one into the glass separately, so you don't waste all of the eggs if the last one is not kosher!
-
cofty
Terry - This is the one there is no sensible answer to.
JWs fail to see that blood is not intrinsically sacred. It only has significance insofar as it represents a life that has been taken.
If an Israelite discovered one of his flock had died he had a dilemma. Obviously he could not bleed a cold dead carcass but whether he ate it or buried it the situation was exactly the same.
‘If an animal that you are allowed to eat dies, anyone who touches its carcass will be unclean till evening. Anyone who eats some of its carcass must wash their clothes, and they will be unclean till evening. Anyone who picks up the carcass must wash their clothes, and they will be unclean till evening. - Lev. 11:39,40.
In the Deuteronomy text you quoted above Moses entreats the Israelites to go further than the demands of the Law and sell it to a non-Israelite.
There were additional regulations about cleanness that only applied to the priesthood. Not eating an animal found "already dead" was one of those.
-
Terry
I wonder if the Israelites found many already dead unicorns?
-
glenster
I think they read into v.5 that human blood/life isn't theirs to take without
permission (such as the requirement to take the life of a murderer):4 Only flesh with its soul—its blood—YOU must not eat.5 And, besides that,
YOUR? blood of ?YOUR souls shall I ask back. From the hand of every living
creature shall I ask it back; and from the hand of man, from the hand of each
one who is his brother, shall I ask back the soul of man.They interpret Mosaic law as not giving permission to eat human blood and Acts
15 as reaffirming the Noahide law.By the way I break these things down, there should be no harm for a possible
God, arbitrary harm being sadism and murder, and the arbitrariness of the GB
stance is further shown by the reasons that nobody else teaches their interpre-
tation (Christians don't have food rules, etc.). -
cofty
The key is not to debate about whether or not a transfusion is food, but to recognise that the words to Noah wee in the context of taking the life of animals. The pouring out of the blood was a symbol of returning the life to the life-giver.
In a transfusion no life has been taken so the blood is not sacred. In the same way the unbled flesh of an animal found "already dead" cold be eaten.
-
Finkelstein
An ancient perceived sacrament by a civilization that existed 2000 years ago turns into something containing importance today.
Even those past evil pagan religions thought blood contained some special sacramental significance too.
Isn't religion great ?
-
glenster
I'd cover all the rationalizations to be safe:
After the Flood, Noah and his sons, the progenitors of all persons alive to-
day, were commanded to show respect for the life, the blood, of fellowmen. (Ge
9:1, 5, 6)
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000774#h=15:0-17:710 -
Terry
Cofty said:
In a transfusion no life has been taken so the blood is not sacred.
In the same way the unbled flesh of an animal found "already dead" cold be eaten.
I think that is elegantly stated! Pithy, too.
-
Farkel
Terry,
Marvin Shilmer made some points, but he didn't make all the points and he knows it.
Around the turn of this Century there was a website called jwbloodreview and in it several very smart people made contributions to it. I know who they are and trust me, they are very smart and knowledgeable.
The site contained a paper which disected 3 topics regarding blood, and in fact discussed ALL of the Biblical evidence the WTS used to promote their no blood policy. Moreover, that paper demolished all three lines of arguments used by the WTS.
These were:
The Noachian Covenant (trashed)
The Mosaic Covenant (trashed)
The apostolic decree (trashed)
That paper alone destroyed the entire WT argument for its insane policies regarding the transfusion of blood. (I wasn't one of the smart ones asked to contribute, but I did fetch the burritos and take out the trash when asked.)
I happen to know someone who left the WTS who held a dead baby who was dead because of that insane WT policy. That experience is beyond my comprehension, but it is certainly a moment to take pause and ponder. While the WTS makes heroes out of the little children who died for no good reason (and puts them on the front page of an Awake! magazine), they never held a dead little baby in their arms who was dead ONLY because of their own WT idiocy. They NEVER take responsibility for ANY of their insanity and the unintended consequences of their insanity. They just trade an old insanity and replace it with a new insanity with total impunity. It bothers them not that people get hurt, ruined and even die for their insanities. They just force their drones to recruit new victims on whom they can try some new, unfounded theories.
One of my very good friends in my dub days did his four-year sentence in Bethel and in 1960 he lost his very young wife who bled after giving birth and who (because of the WTS) was not given a much-needed blood transfusion. The baby survived and in fact later became the best friend of my former wife. The father was still loyal when I left. I hope to God he finally wised up and got out of that sewer of lies and manipulation.
The thousands of lives lost due to this horrible policy is a perfect example of the Law of Unintended Consequences: it looked good on paper, but in reality it is a disaster because high school educated morons in Brooklyn listened to the insane reasoning of a college dropout mad man who insisted that millions of people live out the consequences of his Biblical fantasies.
I am talking about the man who made Judge Rutherford look like a saint. I'm talking about Frederick William Franz, the best friend Satan ever had.
Farkel