Ok, I responded on another thread about a blood issue, but I suddenly thought of a new point of view that, as far as I know, hasn't been touched on yet (I apologize if it has been) and I wanted to get your opinion.
As we all know, the Governing Body refuses blood transfusions based on the scriptures that talk about pouring the blood of a dead animal "out on the ground" because the life is in the blood, yada, yada yada. They have stated openly that there is no difference between eating the blood of a dead animal, and taking blood from a live human, even to save a life.
My point is this: If they don't equate any difference between a dead animal and a live human being, then why can't Christians practice cannibalism? According to the bible, we can eat the flesh of a dead animal, why not the flesh of a live human being? And if there's no difference between a dead animal and a live human being, then why couldn't Christians just continue to make animal sacrifices for sins like the Jews did? Why did Jesus have to offer his perfect human life for man if there's no difference between the two?? Doesn't the NT clearly show that the sacrifice of a perfect human life is far different then that of a dead animal?
Given this scenario, how do you think a Witness would answer this question?