. UK warns blood donors over human form of mad cow http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050720/hl_nm/britain_vcjd_dc_2 To bad the Watchmen, aka the Watchtower god(s) weren't busey in their assumed role but, they choose attentivness to the blood transfusion issues, rather than helping the meat industry to appricate that the blood of the slaughtered carcuss should not be feed back to the herd as a food source but that the scripture requires, 'pour its blood out and cover it with dust' that it should be treated as a waste product. Leviticus 17:13 Deuteronomy 23:13 Although the meat industry may not be feeding all of its blood or organs back to the herd, they certainly may have other profitable uses for their animal blood which may result in yet more unforseen occurances. The meat industry's scientist's might want to consider these scriptures. Good health to You.
Unbled Meat
by lowly one 35 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
aniron
Lowly One have you read this previous posting. http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/16/92976/1.ashxBLOOD
I would like to make it clear to anyone that might read this I need to know what Jehovah requires of us on blood. In no way am I stating that I’m correct. But I’m putting into words how I understand blood. I feel compelled to find the answers from the bible.
The first misuse of blood is found in the book of Genesis. Cain became a cultivator of the ground. Able was a herder of sheep. The time came for appreciation to be shown to Jehovah for what He had provided for them. As we all know, Cain offered the fruitage of the field to Jehovah but Able Killed and gave to Jehovah a young lamb. (It is very important that we remember the fact that before Noah, man had the right to kill animals). Cain became jealous of Able and murdered him. They had never seen a man die. They had seen animals die, and had even killed animals themselves. This was the first time that a human had died; complicating things further was the fact that Cain did the killing. Did Jehovah kill Cain for recompense? No. Why? Because there was not a law that stated you could not murder. Plus Cain may have not realized that he could actually kill his brother. Cain felt great pain for his actions at Gen. 4:13 he said, “My punishment for error is too great to carry”.The earth then became filled with murderous hybrids. Jehovah could not stand it any longer. He cleansed His earth from the bad that man had created by flooding it. He saved Noah’s family and the animals in the Ark. We now need to reflect on what Noah and his family had seen. Jehovah just killed almost all life on Earth. Stop here and reflect… What would you have done if you were Jehovah? This flooding showed Noah’s family how easy life could be taken. He needed to show Noah that life was precious. So, he asked the human family to respect life by not eating the blood, which represented the life that was taken. Plus, he now required that you give up your own life if you murdered another human. The whole reason for him asking to not eat the blood of an animal that you killed for food was to show Jehovah that you recognized the value of that life.
Man had no other requirements on blood given to him at Gen. 9:4 except, that he must not eat the flesh with its blood. He could use the blood for fertilizing the ground, as paint, or even animal feed. To show this point clearly we need only to look too the scriptures. At Duet. 14:21 it states “You must not eat any body [already] dead. To the alien resident you may give it, and he must eat it; or there may be a selling of it to a foreigner.”
There in Israel’s mist was the man of the nations, this foreigner represented the rest of mankind that Jehovah gave the command to at Gen: 9:4. Noah was instructed not to eat the blood of an animal that was to be eaten. This showed it’s not the blood itself, nor was it the act of eating the blood that God was addressing. He was instilling into man what was important, not the blood nor the eating of blood but Jehovah’s High regard for life. This is the key, God regards life higher than he does blood. This point can be proven clearly from the bible at Lev. 17:15 read “As for any soul that eats a body [already] dead or something torn by a wild beast, whether a native or a alien resident, he must in that case wash his garments and bathe in water and be unclean until evening; and he must be clean.” Here God say’s even the NATIVE could eat an animal that he personally did not kill and he knew that this animal had not been bled, and not be in violation of god’s law on blood. {A native, is a person that was clearly under the Mosaic Law and bound by it} How can this be? A Native, an Israelite eating unbled meat? If eating blood was in violation of god’s law on blood which we all know it was, how could we explain this verse? If Jehovah did not make an exception to the rule how can this be explained? If we truly know Jehovah, and understand his high regards for life it is very easy to understand. Look at Duet. 14:21 it is clear here that Jehovah told Israel not eat a body already dead. Then why would he change it at Lev. 17:15? Here it states a native {person under the Mosaic Law} could eat an animal not bled and not be put to death. Why? His only sin is one of touching a dead animal and then he became unclean. He did not violate God’s law on blood here or Jehovah would have put the sinner to death. His only sin was one of touching a dead animal. {The Law’s requirement for touching a dead animal is he became unclean by the act of touching a dead body}. Since he touched a dead body he was unclean until evening and he had to wash in water. At Lev. 17:15 Think about this example, Jehovah gave Israel away out of death. If there was a famine in the land or drought… and one happened upon a dead animal, the eating of that animal could literally have meant saving the life of that person and his family. If though he personally killed the animal and he did not drain the blood on the ground Jehovah would have killed this man for violating the law on blood why? Because he was the one that killed the animal the killing was charged to him. The act of killing was not charged to him if he found the body. If he killed it, Jehovah demanded that he acknowledge the life of that animal by pouring the blood on the ground. This showed that he respectfully proved to God that he realized that life was important. But finding the animal in which he had no responsibility of killing and he ate the body with its blood he did not break Jehovah’s law. Because eating it meant saving his life and that of his family. Thus showing Jehovah what was important life not death. That was the whole reason for Jehovah’s law on blood in the first place the sanctity of life. Now if that same person under normal times ate an unbled animal when there was no drought or famine, he would of have been put to death because it did not mean saving his life. He could have easily went without eating and be hungry until clean food was found. However the native could sell the animal for profit to a person that lived within the nation that wasn’t an Israelite. Then he could use the money to buy himself a meal that was bled. If one kills to sustain life by eating its flesh, then the one doing the killing must recognize that Jehovah requires the giving of the life represented by its blood back to Him. Jehovah wants us to live not die He values life more than sacrifice.
We can see that the law Jehovah gave Noah was not equal to, or the same as, the law he gave to Israel. Under the Mosaic Law, blood was more restrictive for Israel than the rest of the earth. Defining the law on blood given to Israel, and making it apply to the rest of mankind is unworkable in the scriptures. Blood was uniquely used by the nation of Israel for atonement sacrifices. There are two different worlds here, the world under the Law of Israel, plus the world that was not under the Law. This is clearly stated in the Insight On the Scriptures Vol 1 pages 345, paragraph 6 “At Deuteronomy 14:21 allowances was made for selling to an alien resident or a foreigner an animal that had died of itself or that had been torn by a beast. Thus a distinction was made between the blood of such animals and that of animals that a person slaughtered for food. {Compare Le 17:14-16} The Israelites, as well as alien residents who took up true worship and came under the Law covenant, were obligated to live up to the lofty requirements of that Law. People of all nations were bound by the requirement at Gen 9:3,4 but those under the Law were held by God to a higher standard in adhering to that requirement than were foreigners and alien residents who had not became worshipers of Jehovah.” Notice those under the Law were held by God to a higher standard regards blood. I would like to ask a question here. Could an alien resident break other Laws, stealing, dealing treacherously with his fellow man and get away with it? No, because he was under the legal Laws of Israel, not the Mosaic Law given to the Israelites.
At 2 Samuel 23: 13-16. David showed that the reckless act of risking the lives of the Soldiers needlessly was likened to risking their blood {Life} David said “It is unthinkable on my part, O Jehovah, that I should do this! Shall I drink the blood of the men going at the risk of their souls” The water here represented their blood {LIFE} David was given the water by the solders to drink but he could not drink the water {blood} so he poured the water out onto the ground giving it to Jehovah. Notice, David poured it on the ground, sound familiar? The water or blood represented life. The act of wanton waste of life is repulsive to God.
Let us take a look at how Jehovah reacted when the Soldiers of Saul disobeyed God’s law regarding blood. Remember they knew the command given to them on blood. [This was not the law given to the rest of mankind] At 1 Samuel 14: 31-35. “The people began darting greedily at the spoil…fell to eating along with the blood. Vs. 33...The people are sinning against Jehovah by eating along with the blood.” What happened to them? They were given a reprimand. They made atonement for their sin through sacrifices. Was it not the Law, that they were to be put death? These men had proven their loyalty on many occasions. In their mind it was a life and death matter. Their selfish hunger drove them to act greedily, so they did not take the time to properly give to God the blood [LIFE] back. As obvious the sin is here. Jehovah valued the Loyalty of the Soldiers from their past deeds. Jehovah shows he valued their life by not killing them.
During my life I have heard talks from the platform discussing Num 11:31-35. Here it talks about quail being sent to the camp of Israel. From the talks, the brothers usually point out that the people broke the law on blood given to Noah, which is no doubt true. But what is of interest to me is the fact the Bible does not mention this apparent sin. It states that the Israelites were killed because of their greed. Why is there no mention of the sin of blood here? Could it be that the sin of greed is worse? I do not know! If I was to ask any JW’s what the worst sin was here… they would say with out hesitation the sin of blood! The reason HE killed them is made clear at Num 11:34 it states “selfish craving”. If our answer were the sin of blood, it would not be in agreement with the mind of Jehovah. Have we really come to know Jehovah? Do we have the right to speak for him? We must come to know who this Jehovah is, and his thoughts are higher than ours.The Society clearly recognizes the fact that before Christ’s death, two different laws on blood were in effect, one for the world of mankind, [The laws given to Noah at Gen 9:4] and the other for his people Israel. Look at Insight On The Scriptures Vol. 1 pages 345, paragraph 6. Do we have two different laws today? No. Since the Law given to Noah still applies, and the Mosaic Law, the more ridged Mosaic Law is not binding on us. There were two different laws regarding blood. I would like to ask a question. Did Jehovah make an exception when it comes to blood and we are still under the same law on blood, that the Nation of Israel was under? [Insight Vol 1 page 345 par. 6] This is what we are told, that we are still under all the Laws regarding blood, even the law exclusively given only to the Israelites under the Mosaic Law, are we not!!! The Bible shows two different laws READ Duet. 14:21. And the Society clearly shows this in the book Insight On The Scriptures. Many churches of Christendom claim that we are still under portions of the law given to the nation of Israel. Like the law of the Sabbath and the law on Tithing, The Bible clearly states that we are not bound by the Mosaic law Col 2:14. But are we not still bound by laws given to all of mankind? We tell members of other churches that the Law given to Israel was taken away by Jesus death. For example, we are not bound by the Sabbath or Tithing. Paul's word's at Romans 7:7 say‘s "Really I would not have come to know sin if it had not been for the Law;I would not have known covetousness if the Law had not said:" Are we not doing the same thing in regards the Laws on blood?
Look at Acts 15: 17-20. It clearly say’s “abstain from blood”. Lets take a closer look. First we have to recognize the fact that this statement was given in harmony with the older men of Jerusalem on their decision over circumcision. This was a volatile time in the first century church. If you look closely, you will notice the bible does not state that the Mosaic Law on blood was still binding. But the law of Noah was to be kept. “Hence my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God,” Jehovah was not giving the nations a new command at Acts 15: The new converts came under the same law that had been in place for thousands of years they were to abstain from things polluted by idols, fornication from things strangled and blood. All of these laws were in effect before Jehovah gave Israel the Mosaic Law. Is this not the very reason we concluded that circumcision is not binding on us? Remember the Golden calf; remember Joseph and the wife of Potiphar remember the law on blood given to Noah? God did not ask anything more, than these necessary things to keep doing.
So let us pretend for a moment that the Law on blood is still exactly the same today as it was for the Israelites. Would it mean that Christians today should die in order to keep the law on abstaining from blood? How would dieing show God you respect his sanctity of life? Bible scholars state that Jehovah at Lev 17:15,16 made an exception and this exception was allowed during difficult times when their very lives were at stake. Heb 6:18 say’s “It is impossible for God to lie” Isaiah 55:8 say’s “For the thoughts of you people are not my thoughts”. By dieing, are we not saying, “Jehovah, you had no reason to given your Israel a way out of death over his law on blood.” Jehovah clearly shows us what HE wants! That is, for us to recognize that HE is the provider of life. Its blood represents life in the soul. At 2Samuel 23:16 life was even represented by water. Thus the sanctity of life is shown when blood is poured out or even water when it symbolizes blood. Dieing is the opposite of life, when life can be preserved. By making a standard today that one must die so as not to violate blood it is like telling Jehovah our thoughts are higher than his. There is no way we can ignore what Jehovah has penned in his Bible, it is clear HE gave Israel the right to choose life. I have to ask myself. When did HE make commandments for our day more stringent than HE did for HIS people Israel?
We should always look for ourselves by studying the Scriptures to understand Jehovah’s thoughts. We cannot hide from Jehovah’s wrath. He will deal with anyone whom he wishes. Can hiding under a blanket protect us, thinking we are not the one responsible and pretend we will not be held accountable to Jehovah? I know Jehovah penned these scriptures sited here in this discussion. HE also penned, “Better is a live dog than a dead lion.” If I am wrong, I wish someone could explain these scriptures to me. I do not want to believe something that Jehovah does not teach. If I am right, that Jehovah really meant that these scriptures should be in the bible and somehow HE really meant for us to read them and understand them, are not the implications huge? Even the point that the Israelites could profit from the selling of an unbled animal makes huge implications for today. We as Jehovah's Witnesses cannot even use blood for fertilizer let alone profit from its use. We would be Disfellowship if unrepentant. Since the Jews could profit from unbled meat means today we could own stocks in the so-called blood subtitles like Polyheme and Biopure. Biopure is 100% cows blood that has been highly filtered. Polyheme is 100% human blood that has been highly filtered. Both of these are safe for all blood types and free of known risks. They are used to carry oxygen in the body. Both of these are OK to use according to the Society. Both however are 100% blood. Both have not been properly poured out on the ground. Both coagulate while waiting to be filtered. We are not allowed to store our own blood for later use because the Society say's it can't be allowed to coagulate. So auto-transfusions are in violation of the scriptures according to the Society. It is punishable by Disfellowshiping. Hold it here!!! I can see a double standard, a big one. Even blood used for fractions have coagulated before the factions are taken out. Someone had to donate that blood. If we donated blood we would be Disfellowshipped. But we can use blood fractions that have been donated. We can however use blood fractions from blood that has coagulated. It really does not make any sense to me, how we can say one applies, but the other does not. We have clear scriptures that show what Jehovah's stand is on blood.
Plus we violate our own law when it comes to fractions because blood can't coagulate and be used if you are a Jehovah's Witnesses. Now the Society say’s we can use the new blood substitutes like Polyheme and Biopure. I think that the bible is so clear. We are told to wait on Jehovah. But there again, the bible teaches that we are held accountable to him. We are taught that if we take our own life it is self-murder. If we contribute in any way to the death of someone else, we are blood guilty. For example, if our car needs brakes and we don’t fix them and someone is killed because of the brakes not working properly, then we are blood guilty. Our own record on blood shows that there are big problems when it come to the biblical stand and making it applies to the world today, or our stand would not be so confusing. Every brother I have talked to about our stand on blood has a different way of viewing it. Some will take fractions, some will not. Some will use blood recycler’s, some will not. If the scripture sited in this discussion are really in the Bible and I know they are, someone is in trouble. I have shared my thoughts with several Elders and none of them have disagreed we me. Why?
Jehovah is not about change. It has been clear in the scriptures the whole time. HE will demand the blood of the little ones back to HIM. Just like HE will demand the blood of the prophets back to HIM. If someone, causes the death of a person because of a command that did not originate from God. Then it is nothing short of murder. Jehovah always asks for that blood to be paid back by the person or person’s responsible.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes and No. What is allowed is you wont be DF for taking whole blood. It is likened to a person joining the Army they are dissociated by their action. So you dissociate your self if you do take whole blood Here is the problem with the new stand. First the Elders can not investigate if a sister see are brother getting a blood transfusion and goes to the Elders the Elders tell her they will handle the matter. That is all they can do now. So If you have transfusion and you don't tell anyone the Elders can't tell anyone so it becomes a don't tell don’t ask policy if you don’t disassociate yourself the Elders can't tell anyone so it becomes a matter between you and GOD. The Elders have a real hard time when asked about this and I have found will usually lie when asked about this because they are ashamed of the obvious hypocrisy. -
lowly one
. Un-bled Meat Was wondering if their would be any practical benefit to informing the medical profession, not to the effect that they had been fooled by the people of the Watchtower because, they are a bright bunch of professional(s) but, that In this particular scripture, 'Only flesh with its soul --it's blood-- You must not eat' In context, Noah and his sons are given warning what they can and cannot eat of their food source. Later on, a more specific requirement is made which may show how they understood Genesis 9:4 to mean, were it reads, 'As for any man of the sons of Israel or some alien resident who is residing as an alien in Your midst who in hunting catches a wild beast or fowl that may be eaten, he must in that case pour its blood out and cover it with dust.' Leviticus 17:13 It's apparent that the animal needed to be bled and then the blood of the animal may have been treated as a waste product were it was poured out on the ground and covered with dust. Simular to that of, '...turn and cover your excrement...' Deuteronomy 23:13 note: In putting the medical profession on notice of the surounding context one should keep in mind that they may have accepted the Watchtowers doctrine of 'no blood transfusion' just as a typical Jehovah's Witnesses does, without the benefit of working it out for themselves to arrive at a...understanding. Good health to you. http://www.geocities.com/thepostings/un-bled-meat.html .
-
Scully
It's apparent that the animal needed to be bled and then the blood of the animal may have been treated as a waste product were it was poured out on the ground and covered with dust. Simular to that of, '...turn and cover your excrement...' Deuteronomy 23:13
This is a ridiculous comparison. If blood is supposed to be sacred and representative of something as sacred as life (both from God's standpoint and the standpoint of people who worship the God who requires that blood to be viewed as "holy"), how can you logically compare it to "excrement"?
-
lowly one
. God had just destroyed everybody on the earth by way of drowning them... " God now spoke to Noah, saying: "Go out of the ark,... And God went on to bless Noah and his sons and to say to them:...Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for You...Only flesh with its soul --its blood-- You must not eat.' Genesis 9:4 After warning them from blood of their food sources then, he went on to say, "And besides that, Your blood of Your souls shall I ask back." Genesis 9:5 Put yourself in Noahs sandels? Would these words have mean't to you that your blood was sacred and that you should be bled before you could be eaten or could it simply mean Jehovah told him in a very interesting way that death is inevitable. And, it came about after this, 'Noah continued to live threehundred and fifty years...and he died.' Genesis 9:28,29 . .
-
lowly one
.
Quote:This is a ridiculous comparison. If blood is supposed to be sacred and representative of something as sacred as life (both from God's standpoint and the standpoint of people who worship the God who requires that blood to be viewed as "holy"), how can you logically compare it to "excrement"?
One would think that if all blood was to be held in such a high regard Jehovah himself wouldn't refer to 'ways' Like the uncleaness of menstruation.
Ezekiel 36:17 "...they kept making it unclean with their way and with their dealings. Like the uncleaness of menstruation their way has become before me"..."as in the days of the impurity when she is menstruating she will be unclean..." Leviticus 12:2 Isaiah 64:6 "...like a garment for periods of menstruation..."