During the years when I was an active JW I never questioned the ban on blood transfusion. I have been inactive now for a number of years and even during those early years I reasoned I will never accept a blood transfusion. However, thinking about it with an open mind, I question the current teaching of JW's on banning blood transfusion on any account even if it means saving a life. So I've been thinking what was the spirit behind the original law on abstaining from blood? After the flood, Noah and his family are allowed to consume animal meat protein to supplement their dietary needs. This was perhaps due to the lack of vegetation after the flood. This would involve hunting, killing and consuming the animal. The exception was to pour out the blood as a sign of respect for the sanctity of life. This act would also discourage the wanton slaughter of animals for the thrill of the game. We can see how this was cast negatively in the case of Nimrod who the bible describes as a mighty hunter in opposition to Jehovah. His blood lust for killing animals also translated into hunting down and killing fellow humans. So again, what is the spirit behind the law? Wasn't it about respect and sanctity of life, so precious it should not be taken for granted. How is this compatible with the JW teaching of refusing a life-saving medical treatment as in the case of a blood transfusion? How can letting a child die by misapplying a law which in spirit is saying the opposite be justified?
Blood, what is the spirit behind the law?
by CookieMonster 9 Replies latest watchtower medical
-
-
Crazyguy
Youre so correct, in one of the main scriptures in Leviticus that the jw's use the word life is written two or 3 times in just that one verse. Its all about the life stupid but they think its all about blood.
-
Captain Obvious
However, thinking about it with an open mind, I question the current teaching of JW's on banning blood transfusion on any account even if it means saving a life.
There you go! Keep going with this reasoning. Use that open mind to figure out whether a worldwide flood actually happened 4600 years ago.
-
problemaddict
That is absolutely correct. Not to mention the false dichotomy drawn between eating blood and transfusing blood. Could not at the very least one use their conscience if they were going to use blood for whats blood intended purpose is for, namely, to nourish the organs and body through the circulatory system?
The blood doctrine is a nasty mess.
-
Pterist
@Cookie Monster ...:) me 2.....
The spirit behind it, besides what you have said already is specified in Leviticus 17:
11 For the life of a creature is in the blood,and ****I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.****
It is a symbol of what WAS and IS necessary for humanity to be at ONE (AT-ONE-MENT) with the creator. This pointed to the predestined "Lamb of God" and his death and resurrection that would enable God to restore humanity to himself on a higher level. Ephesians 1:4-10....The Eternal Life of God in Christ shared with humanity....1 John 5:9-12, 1 Corinthians 15:46
The destruction of the temple in 70 AD brought an end to the sacrificial system cult, and also the significence of blood.
The restrictions on Gentiles Acts15, coming into the Spiritual Israel of God aka Christianity, was merely for the "weakness" of the Jewish brethern's conscience in this regard. CT Russell was also of this opinion. As follows:
Until 1927, the Watchtower Society understood that Biblical laws against blood were not binding on Christians. Russell accepted the generally agreed theological understanding on this matter, including that the prohibition at Acts was not binding on Christians and was only observed in the first century to keep peace between Jews and Gentiles.
"He further suggested writing to them merely that they abstain from pollutions of idols, i.e., from meats offered to idols (verse 29), and from things strangled and from blood - as by eating such things they might become stumbling blocks to their Jewish brethren (See 1 Cor. 8:4-13)- and from fornication. ... It will be noticed that nothing is said about keeping the Ten Commandments, nor any part of the Jewish law. It was evidently taken for granted that having received the spirit of Christ thenew law of love would be a general regulation for them. The things mentioned were merely to guard against stumbling themselves or becoming-stumbling blocks to others." Watch Tower 1892 Nov 15 pp.350-351
As said previously...IF BLOOD IS SACRED BECAUSE IT SYMBOLIZES LIFE, WHEN DOES THE SYMBOL BECOME GREATER THAN THE REALITY OF LIFE ?
Shalom :)
-
adamah
Hey Cookie Monster,
I just wrote an article on this topic, explaining how Genesis 9:5 is the CONTROLLING principle found in the Bible, and really needs to be understood in the context it was offered: as part of the SOLUTION to the problem that led God to carry out the Flood, in the first place.
Since they don't really get that, JW's misread the verse, turning what was intended to be a blessing into an OBLIGATION. It's really a perverse reading....
I need to go back and do a tons of editing/proofing to make it "flow" better, but take a look:
Adam
-
jgnat
Blood represents life. The spirit behind the law is reverence for life. It is an abomination to sacrifice a life for the sake of the law.
-
notsurewheretogo
Blood represents life or is a symbol of life...we must respect life...I get that...but am I to preserve the Creator's view on blood at the cost of my life?
When Life is greater than blood? It doesn't make sense, why would I preserve the view on something that symbolizes the very thing I have to give up?
I am married...I have a wedding ring...my wedding ring symbolizes my marriage...would I give up my wedding ring to protect and save my marriage?
Of course...
Would I give up my marriage to save my wedding ring when my wedding ring symbolizes my marriage in the first place?
Of course not...so how can a God expect me to preserve His view on blood at the cost of my life when blood is the only the symbol of life? The symbol of something cannot outweigh the thing it represents.
What about the Jewish principle of Pikuach Nefesh? Where any law can be discarded to preseve one's life...surely God would be ok with taking blood to preseve my life based on that Jewish custom?
The WT's views on blood are easily proved false with just logic...
-
breakfast of champions
Like that 'marriage ring' logic, NOTSURE.
Was just thinking about this myself. . . The command in Lev to drain the blood and not eat it - was this a "ceremonial cleanness" issue or a moral issue? For instance, a moral issue would be not stealing, it's morally wrong. But is the eating of blood more like the command not to eat a ham sandwich?
-
Mary
Hi Cookie;
Here's a link with a lot of interesting information about the subject: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/best-of/76268/1/The-Best-of-Lee-Elder-Blood