Jgnat said:
If abstaining from blood is strictly a religious choice, why does the Watchtower society cite concerns over blood transfusions (i.e. hepatitis)? Does this not create an aversion to blood, aside from the religious reason? Why would the society do this?
I think we know why. In the event a bible discussion comes up, it will turn into circular reasoning, then the alternate will be needed to fall back on. It would be cool to stick to one subject in a discussion eh?
Putting so much emphasis on Asymbol of life - even to the death - puts blood right up there with birthday cakes, national flags and crucifixes. This "life" that is "in the blood" its like the manmade version of "the immortal soul" (term for it used by some religions) or the "spirit of Christ Jesus that lives in you" (Romans, Galatians, John).
To keep things in line with JW doctrine it is always a physical thing since the abstract and spiritual is uncontrollable from New York. Literaly the bible says if you choose to live by the law you will die by the law. Where as the mature believer by faith lives by the spirit of the law (ie. it is the man's life that is sacred, not his blood)
Jesus talked in parables (repeated by the apostles) about HIS body and blood, about drinking his blood, his life in the blood, the wine is his blood...... Even in our advanced civilization, think of how difficult it is for some people to understand abstract concepts - can you imagine what it was like back then - when magic and curses, demons and superstition ruled the world.
My questions (after all that) are..... What part, if any, did the other blood cults of the time play in the warning given to "abstain" from blood?
and
What part, if any, did the push to "give blood" during the war as citizen's patriotic duty play in the watchtower's stance against it?