In Valis's thread "Discussion With My Dad --- Ended Badly", he requested some help explaining the reason that the Blood doctrine is faulty. This is something I wrote out a few years ago and I wanted to post it here in case someone could find it useful.
Feel free to use it any way you wish.
The Blood Issue
As you well know, the law on blood came into existence at the time of the flood. (Although the situation with Cain and Abel makes one wonder if there wasnt some understanding of it before that time.) I feel quite comfortable with the explanation offered in Vol. 1 of Insight on the Scriptures, page 344.
"With Jehovah is the source of life. (Ps 36:9) Man cannot give back a life that he takes. All the souls --- to me they belong, says Jehovah. (Eze 18:4) Therefore, to take life is to take Jehovahs property. Every living thing has a purpose and a place in Gods creation. No man has the right to take life except when God permits and in the way that he instructs.
"After the Flood, Noah and his sons, the progenitors of all persons alive today, were commanded to show respect for the life, the blood, of fellowmen. (Ge 9:1, 5, 6) Also, God kindly allowed them to add animal flesh to their diet. However, they had to acknowledge that the life of any animal killed for food belonged to God, doing so by pouring its blood out as water on the ground. This was like giving it back to God, not using it for ones own purposes. --- De 12:15, 16."
You are also undoubtedly aware of Leviticus 17:11; "For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon the altar for you to make atonement for your souls, because it is the blood that makes atonement by the soul in it."
These two things establish the following fairly well:
a. Life was to be respected and treasured, and never to be treated as inconsequential.
b. As blood was the container holding the life, it was to be respected as befitting the life within it.
These principles have come down to us unchanged in the Christian era. However, we are doing things now that our ancestors didnt even dream of. This means that if we are to be pleasing God now, we will need to come to an understanding of His intent in these matters in order to extend them into areas that were not touched upon at that time. It is the principle behind such things that is important. If we do not do this, then we run the danger of violating the principle while obeying the law. Let me illustrate.
Jesus said in John 15:12, 13; "This is my commandment, that you love one another just as I have loved you. No one has love greater than this, that someone should surrender his soul in behalf of his friends." I think few would argue in the light of this scripture that it would be a sin for someone to deliberately sacrifice his life in order to save someone elses. The example of a soldier smothering a hand grenade with his own body in order to save his buddies comes to mind.
But now we have the technology to give a portion of our life to someone needing it by giving them some of the container that holds it, the blood. Are we to believe that it is an honorable thing to give them all of our life, but a sin to give them only part of it?
There is an interesting dilemma we run into when we endanger life by refusing a blood transfusion. We are actually implying by our course of conduct that blood is more sacred than the life that sanctifies it. Which is holiest, blood, or the life within it that makes the blood holy?
Thankfully we have a passage in scripture that condemns such twisted reasoning. Check out not only Jesus words but his vehemence in saying them: "Woe to you, blind guides, who say, If anyone swears by the temple, it is nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is under obligation. Fools and blind ones! Which, in fact, is greater, the gold or the temple that has sanctified the gold? Also, If anyone swears by the altar, it is nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is under obligation. Blind ones! Which, in fact, is greater, the gift or the altar that sanctifies the gift? Therefore he that swears by the altar is swearing by it and by all the things on it; and he that swears by the temple is swearing by it and by him that is inhabiting it; . . ."
I would suggest that the question of which is holiest, blood or the life in it, is even more critical than the two examples that Jesus used. Can you see how it would be possible to violate the spirit of the law (the sanctity of life) by obeying the law (abstaining from blood)?
There are two other factors we need to crank in to the equation that throw more light on the subject. The first speaks directly to Jehovahs intent in this matter, and that is the respect and preservation of life. For us to stand by and allow our child to die when it is unnecessary is little different than the practice of sacrificing children to the god Molech. Jehovah emphatically recorded his opinion of that practice. "Furthermore, they built the high places of Baal that are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, in order to make their sons and their daughters pass through the fire to Molech, a thing that I did not command them, neither did it come up into my heart to do this detestable thing, for the purpose of making Judah sin." (Jeremiah 32:35)
What is the difference between sacrificing our child to God by throwing it in the fire, and sacrificing our child to God by withholding what it needs to stay alive?
Yes, there are situations where a Christian should be willing to risk his life in order to be faithful. But inasmuch as this situation under consideration has no connection with either demonism or false worship, I fail to see that this is one of them.
Just as we would condemn a man who ran around cutting others open with a knife as unchristian but give honor to a surgeon who does the same thing, so we should realize that intent is the important thing here. By refusing blood, we are demonstrating disdain for the life that makes it sanctified.
Finally, there is a precedent in the Bible as to how to handle the situation when confronted with two holy things and one must be chosen above the other. David and his men were fleeing for their lives and came to realize that their chances were not good unless they had food. None was available except for the cakes of showbread in the tabernacle, which were quite holy. These they took anyway, yet were not condemned for it. (1 Sam. 21:16) Why? Because as Jesus quite clearly shows (Matt. 12:1-4) when describing this incident, the lesser of the holy things (the showbread) must give way to the greater (their lives). That same principle should apply to the blood issue.
Hope it helps.
LoneWolf