so if israelites had just drained a little blood to drink from the animal without killing it, it would be okay?
Reniaa, Reniaa, Reniaa........as per usual, you fail to grasp what is really being said. The scriptures that instructed the Israelites to drain the blood from an animal that had just been slain was simply to show respect for the life that had just been taken. Leviticus 17:12 says:
"For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life. Therefore I say to the Israelites, 'None of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood."
This law applied only to the Isrealites as Jehovah gave them the go ahead to sell unbled meat to foreigners (Deut. 14: 21) and most certainly was not "binding on all mankind" as the Society asserts. Furthermore, if it is soooo important that Jehovah's Witnesses abstain from blood, why are they now allowed to accept fractions of blood that (obviously) come from donors and are stored in medical facilities?
I doubt it. the blood issue is about sacredness to God and also a protection as most of his laws on principle are.
As noted above, yes, the blood issue was to make atonement for slaughtering an animal for food and to show respect to the Creator----that's the only reason blood was "to be poured out on the ground": when an animal had been killed for food. There are absolutely no scriptures indicating that blood was to be 'poured out' when an animal was still alive, are there? It applies only for dead animals. Since humans are not slaughtered for a blood transfusion, then there is no life to make atonement for and therefore, the law does not apply to transfusions which, by the way, saves lives. Ironically, in the March 15, 1980 WT, the Society had no problem using this reasoning when they suddenly allowed organ transplants:
"Some Christians might feel that taking into their bodies any tissue or body part from another human is cannibalistic. . . . It may be argued, too, that organ transplants are different from cannibalism since the "donor" is not killed to supply food..."
THis letter is just trying to find loopholes on the blood principle.
No Reniaa, we don't need to 'find loopholes'. We base our conclusions on common sense and rational thinking----two qualities that you are utterly lacking in.
Ask yourself one question. If blood transfusions were not life and death would you adhere to the blood laws?
This doesn't even make any sense. If blood transfusions were not 'life and death', no one would need them. That's precisely why they're given, because people die without them. Surely even you can grasp that concept.
and just clearly see that taking blood into your body by transfusion is if anything worse than eating.
And....you're basing that on what?