I was having a discussion with my mom about the blood issue. She asked me a good question which I did not have the answer for.
What was the purpose of the God saying to abstain or dont eat blood?
Thank You
Need some help on the blood issue
by TemeculaMole 12 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Francois
I believe you will find that "God" said to abstain from blood because it was supposed to contain the "soul" of the man or animal through whose veins it flowed.
Remember we are at this point dealing with a very, very primitive, illiterate, savage people whom logic says had been engaging in human sacrifice, just like all the neighboring tribes had been, for time out of mind. Moses made a distinct advance among these people by substituting animal sacrifice for human sacrifice. But he still had to dress up the sacrificing with those things that caused awe and fear, so he reserved the blood for God remembering of course how bloody human sacrifice was. Can you imagine what the Hebrew's alter looked like and smelled like after just a few months of animal sacrificing? Can you imagine what kind of God thought the smell of burning animals was a restful odor? What about the character of a God who was into being gifted with "enemy" foreskins, forskins by the tens of thousands?
(We still like our places of worship to incite awe. Look especially at some of the bigger Catholic Cathedrals, the one at Chartres, for instance. Awe inspiring places all. And remember fear comes just after awe, and fear is a mighty motivating force.)
Taking into consideration that now so many of the components, or fractions, of blood can now be transfused according to the WTBTS, it certainly follows that they have figured out which of the blood fractions contains the soul and which do not. This knowledge alone allows the governing body to permit the transfusing of certain blood components because they don't have the soul in them. Of course, this directly contradicts the WTBTS's hard and fast teaching that there is no such thing as a soul, that a soul is the individual himself. They've never essayed on this topic, likely because it would land then in a paradox of their own making, from which there is no escape.
The entire blood issue is phony, made up, a figment of the imagination of the WTBTS, a device designed to give the JWs power over their membership. And power "over" anyone and everyone is what the JWs are after.
francois
-
AlanF
The God of the Bible never gave any commands to mankind as a whole not to eat blood. He only gave commands to the Jews about this.
A careful reading of Genesis 9:4 and its context, along with a few other considerations, proves this. Genesis 9:4 states (NWT): "Only flesh with its soul -- it's blood -- you must not eat." Contrary to the Watchtower Society's and others' claims, this does not say not to eat blood. It says not to eat flesh and blood together. The proof of this is in Deuteronomy 14:21: "You must not eat any body already dead. To the alien resident who is inside your gates you may give it, and he must eat it; or there may be a selling of it to a foreigner, because you are a holy people to Jehovah your God." If God had given a universal law not to eat blood to all mankind via Gen. 9:4, then it would have been inconsistent for him to give explicit permission for non-Jews to eat blood from an animal that died of itself. Since Bible believers claim that God is perfectly consistent, Gen. 9:4 must mean something other than not to eat blood at all. What? This: do not kill an animal for food without draining its blood. Note that the reason for this is to show respect for the giver of life; the point is not about not eating blood, but about making this symbolic gesture of respect.
The New Testament describes Jesus as castigating the Pharisees about the Sabbath issue, and he stated clearly that it was permissible to break the Sabbath Law -- violation of which normally carried the death penalty -- in order to save the life of even an animal. The point of this is that life is more important than obeying symbolic gestures. That is only reasonable, and it shows why the JWs are Pharisaically stupid in terms of their claim that blood transfusions are divinely forbidden.
For a comprehensive look at the above arguments, see http://mindshadows.morloc.com/articles/jwbloodreview/AbstainFromBlood.htm
AlanF
-
onacruse
John Gill even "reduces" the Noachian prohibition to a simple "not to eat a living animal:" (bold added)
But flesh with the life thereof, [which is] the blood thereof, shall you not eat.] This is the only exception to the eating of flesh; it was not to be eaten with the blood in it, which is said to be its life; not that the blood is of itself the life, but because it is a means of life, and that being exhausted, the creature must die, and because the animal and vital spirits appear to us most vigorous in it; yea, it is the ailment and support of them, and which furnishes out the greatest quantity of them: or rather it may be rendered, "the flesh with its life in its blood"; while there is life in the blood, or while the creature is living; the meaning is, that a creature designed for food should be properly killed, and its blood let out; that it should not be devoured alive, as by a beast of prey; that raw flesh should not be eaten, as since by cannibals, and might be by riotous flesh eaters, before the flood; for notwithstanding this law, as flesh without the blood might be eaten, so blood properly let out, and dressed, or mixed with other things, might be eaten, for aught this says to the contrary; but was not to be eaten with the flesh, though it might separately, which was afterwards forbid by another law. The design of this was to restrain cruelty in men, and particularly to prevent the shedding of human blood, which men might be led into, were they suffered to tear living creatures in pieces, and feed upon their raw flesh, and the blood in it. The Targum of Jonathan is,
“but the flesh which is torn from a living beast at the time that its life is in it, or which is torn from a beast while it is slain, before all its breath is gone out, ye shall not eat.”
And the Jewish writers generally interpret this of the flesh of a creature taken from it alive, which, they say, is the seventh precept given to the sons of Noah, over and above the six which the sons of Adam were bound to observe, and they are these;
1. Idolatry is forbidden.
2. Blasphemy is forbidden.
3. The shedding of blood, or murder is forbidden.
4. Uncleanness, or unjust carnal copulations is forbidden.
5. Rapine or robbery is forbidden.
6. The administration of justice to malefactors is required.
7. The eating of any member or flesh of a creature while alive is forbidden.(Item #7 is by Maimonides.)
Craig
-
-
DJ
Hello Temeculamole,
It was actually a pagan practice to literally drink blood to seal an agreement, much like we shake hands to seal a deal... I tend to believe that God did not want us engaging in that behavior and that was the only intent of His command. Drinking blood is just what is says.... Imo, It would not be a heathful practice to drink blood and since the laws of God are generally for our own good....that is likely what was meant. The laws were not for God's sake but our's. Read Mathew 12. It helped me tremendously at one time to understand the purpose of a law. Mercy not sacrifice is of God. Jesus's blood was the sacrifice for us. We are to be merciful to one another. There is a lot packed into Matthew 12. Try reading it over and over again and pray.
Your mom....how can she justify the fraction allowance of the jw's if she believes it's "eating blood"? love, dj
-
Litebriterstill
Thank you all for those good answers on the blood issue. Our family always had a problem with that issue. I have a daughter 33 who was in a severe car accident at 19. She broke her neck, elbow and had a hemotoma removed from her head. They said they may need to use blood but never did. We decided if needed, we would permit this because we were were not firm in the JW belief on that issue.
-
rainbow2003
Most normal identical twins transfuse blood through a common placenta to one another, evidence that God's saying abstain from blood was not a blanket statement but applied rather to the unnecessary use of blood, not natural or emergency usage. God's way is that of love and mercy, not of impossible perverted rules that destroy life.
-
proplog2
"Are you aware that NOTHING from outside that passes into a man can defile him? - it passes not into his heart but into his intestines and it passes out into the sewer? Thus he declared ALL foods clean." Mark 7:18,19
You can eat blood if you desire. You can transfuse blood if needed. Hey, you can even smoke cigarettes - nothing, NOTHING, NO-THING, ...that passes into a man can defile him!!!!
-
A Paduan
The literal use of the law is a burden.
We know that the law is spiritual: ... a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal.
it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things
The apostles burdened some for the sake of living among others, but we don't need that from jws - indeed it puts people off. The pharisees burdened people without cause also, not lifting a finger (pointing it out) to help those who were burdened - just like the wt.
paduan