WATCHTOWER NINCOMPOOP BLOOD fetish

by Terry 6 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Terry

  The inhumane hunters in pagan tribes who felled an animal in the wild with an arrow and immediately began

  hacking off body parts for roasting, gave zero attention to the pain or suffering inflicted upon the poor creature
  dying in front of them.
  
  Animal rights activists were unknown in ancient times!
  
  Surely, however, there were more civilized people than the barbarians--right?
  Right! The Jews. In fact, compassion found its way in to the religious ritual slaughter for sacrifice.
  _________________________________________
  
  What would assure the faithful Jew the animal still contained LIFE or not?
  _____

  Gen 9:4 "Only you shall not eat flesh with

  its life, that is, its blood."

  According to Martin Luther's commentary to Gen 9:4 says exactly the

  same thing as what the Rabbincal scholars still say.
  
  Rabbi Raschi (living 1040-1105), a well-known Jewish Bible and Talmud commentator
  said that these words meant that 'as long as the life is in the flesh you shall not eat it.'

  This is the rabbinic traditional understanding of these words,
  and considering their expertise you would need awfullygood arguments to believe the opposite.

  Enter the Watchtower 'scholars'!
  
  The amateur Watchtower view reflects the education of its practioners as it rips away
  historical and traditional context immediately.
  This scripture becomes about BLOOD TRANSFUSION and the EATING OF BLOOD.
  
  No consideration is given to the suffering of the animal in Watchtower thinking!
  Blood is a fetish taboo without reference to anything more practical than
  offending Jehovah's penchant for rulemaking!

  Gen 9:4 is *not* about eating blood.

  It was illegal to eat meat which still had *life* in it.
  In other words, the animal was still alive!

  The motive is the principle of compassion.

  See also:

  Many commentators based the prohibition on humanitarianism. To cite
  Abraham Joshua Heschel:

  YOU SHALL NOT BOIL A KID IN ITS MOTHER'S MILK (Exodus 23:19)
  Vol. 32, No. 2, 2004
  [T]he goat . . . generously and steadfastly provides man with the
  single most perfect food he possesses: milk. It is the only food
  which by reason of its proper composition of fat, carbohydrate,
  and protein can by itself sustain the human body. How ungrateful
  and callous we would be to take the child of an animal to whom
  we so indebted and cook it in its very milk which nourishes and is
  given to us so freely
• 

  SAHS

  Excellent reasoning, as usual, Terry! JWs just fail to see the simple logic in all of this because they’re stuck on the belief that their golden calf organization is always right now matter what. The shocking, perplexing, and just plain sad part about it all is that they think that all those dead young children and babies (essentially murdered methodically and systematically by the wilful and culpable dictates of a pseudo-Christian cult) are just, well, quite fine and dandy – that is, versus ignoring a specific legal precept from an ancient Jewish Law, supposedly applicable to the JWs today and which is interpreted incorrectly by an obviously man-made sect in New York. But, I guess, the slaughter of the poor little sheep will continue as long as our free secular society continues to allow it.
• 

  sparrowdown

  WT say whaaaaaat is this historical and traditional context you speak of?
• 

  Magnum

  Thanks. Excellent. Just shared with my wife.

  I'm seeing more and more how many of those passages we mentioned so often as JWs and were so "familiar" with didn't mean what we were taught.
• 

  Fisherman

  Gen 9:4 is *not* about eating blood.

  Sure it is. That was the whole point. Noah was enjoined from eating blood.

  Noah could not eat flesh with blood Only flesh with its life—its blood—you must not eat. (Genesis 9:4) The quoted verse uses blood and life to mean the same thing even though they actually are not the same thing.

  But Noah could eat flesh without blood.

  Regardless of how the verse is interpreted to mean, God did not allow Noah to eat blood.
  
  
• 

  Fisherman

  Rabbi Raschi

  Actually," Rashi". True he is very respected and considered "Holy" , if not the "greatest" Jewish commentator amongst Ibn Ezra, Nachimedes, Rambam and others. He wrote his commentaries in "Rashi Script" so that the reader or students of his literature could distinguish the text from his comments. But he was not inspired nor his writings guided by God's Holy Spirit-not to say that his views are without merit. The WTS has used his comments on Ex 3:14. But his views are not "Gospel Truths" For example, Rashi is wrong to teach that the world was created in 6 x 24 hour days. He also speculates that God created the universe first in a 24 hour day. It is a fact that the earth is billions of years old but orthodox judaism continues to believe that God created the universe "aged" when he created it in 6 x 24 hour days. Anyway, Rashi's views are considerable but WT thinkers disagree with much of his commentary. At some point God will act, but until then Jewish thinkers have their views, the WTS have theirs.
  
• 

  SAHS

  “Fisherman”: “. . . orthodox judaism continues to believe that God created the universe "aged" when he created it in 6 x 24 hour days.”

  I’m glad you mentioned that. It is yet another classic example of how religious ideas are contrived and embellished by men. The quirky and whacky dogma, eschatology, and policy of the WTS is really not any improvement to any of the various inventions of first-century Judaism, or, for that matter, any other such man-made concoction, ancient or otherwise. All of it amounts to mere mythology and socio-political ideology wrapped up in what we call “religion.”