Question: Why was it ok to sell unbled meat to a foriegner for them to eat?

by Lady Liberty 44 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  startingover

  I am floored by all the logic contained in this thread, and it's only on the first page.
• 

  Leolaia

  The blood was to be offered in sacrifice by pouring it to the ground, to atone for taking the life of the animal.

  "Any Israelite or any alien living among them who eats any blood -- I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people. 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' " (Leviticus 17:10-12).

  That is WHY blood is not eaten, as it is reserved for atonement. THIS IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO TRANSFUSIONS. Blood donors are not slaughtered in order to obtain their blood. There is no life to atone for. Every form of meat that is eaten, even meat obtained from animals that are not killed intentionally, is the result of death. Blood transfusions do not result from the deaths of blood donors.
• 

  AlanF

  A very good topic, Lady Liberty!

  Obviously, if God permitted Jews to sell an unbled carcass to non-Jews for consumption, then he was giving explicit permission for non-Jews to eat unbled meat. Therefore, if God is consistent, then his words in Genesis 9 about not eating "flesh with its soul -- its blood" cannot apply to animals found already dead. Therefore the prohibition in Genesis 9, supposedly to all mankind, can only apply to animals specifically killed for food, and the reason is simply to respect the giver of life when one takes an animal's life for food. That's really all there is to it.

  The Watchtower Society, though, cannot accept this obvious fact, because of its tradition since about 1945 that blood transfusions are wrong based on Genesis 9. Its leaders know perfectly well that abandoning this ridiculous doctrine would not only lose them a lot of followers, but a lot of money in the form of contributions and, especially, lawsuits. They would also have to admit gross bloodguilt. If they admitted this, then of course the entire "faithful and discreet slave" doctrine would collapse.

  Watchtower leaders are well aware of the scriptural problem, but cowards as they are, they won't discuss the issue in print. However, several years ago, shortly after I learned about this argument based on Deuteronomy 14:21, I called one Fred Rusk, who for many years has been one of the key WTS officials responsible for doctrine on blood. After I explained the issue (he was already familiar with it) he admitted that God indeed gave permission for non-Jews to eat blood, but that he did so only because of their "hard heartedness". He claimed that it's a situation similar to the way Jesus said that God had permitted Jews to divorce their wives because of their hard heartedness. Well of course this is pure special pleading, and there is not a shred of evidence to support Rusk's claim. The only reason for such a claim -- and this is the special pleading -- is that it's needed to get around the obvious logic as I explained above. And of course, JWs who hear an explanation like Rusk's from the Society will automatically accept it since it's coming from "the slave", who speaks for God. Obviously, with this kind of "reasoning" JWs can justify anything they like -- and they do! So this is yet another example of the house of cards doctrines that are the foundation of JW belief. In order to keep their belief in WTS leaders as God's spokesmen, the lot of them are forced to be intellectually dishonest.

  AlanF
• 

  shadow

  A post I made on another forum:
  
  (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

  OK, this is clear enough. Sell it to a Gentile, but Jews must not eat it. Of course, such an animal would be full of blood that would now be impossible to remove. Is Jehovah violating the law that he gave to Noah?

  (Genesis 9:3-4) Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for YOU. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to YOU. 4 Only flesh with its soul—its blood—YOU must not eat. . .

  We know the penalty for eating blood as shown here:

  (Leviticus 7:26-27) “‘And YOU must not eat any blood in any places where YOU dwell, whether that of fowl or that of beast. Any soul who eats any blood, that soul must be cut off from his people.’”

  Obviously then any Jew eating a dead animal full of blood should be executed. Wait, here is something odd:

  (Leviticus 7:22-25) And Jehovah continued to speak to Moses, saying: “Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘YOU must not eat any fat of a bull or a young ram or a goat. Now the fat of a body [already] dead and the fat of an animal torn to pieces may be used for anything elseconceivable, but YOU must not eat it at all. For anyone eating fat from the beast from which he presents it as an offering made by fire to Jehovah, the soul that eats must be cut off from his people.

  If a Jew could not eat such an animal and would face the death penalty for doing so, then why is there some distinction made here about eating the fat of a dead animal? Also note that while EATING the fat was strictly forbidden, the fat could be used for “ANYTHING ELSE CONCEIVABLE”. Perhaps there is something more.

  (Leviticus 17:13-16) “‘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 a fowl that may be eaten, he must in that case pour its blood out and cover it with dust. For the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood by the soul in it. Consequently I said to the sons of Israel: “YOU must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh, because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off.” As for any soul that eats a body [already] dead or something torn by a wild beast, whether a native or an alien resident, he must in that case wash his garments and bathe in water and be unclean until the evening; and he must be clean. But if he will not wash them and will not bathe his flesh, he must then answer for his error.’”

  Ahhhh! Here we find an Israelite out hunting. If he fails to properly drain the blood, he is subject to the death penalty. However, if the Israelite eats a body already dead, he must then wash his garments and be unclean until evening. This is exactly the same procedure that a married Israelite would follow after having intercourse. He would only face the death penalty if he refused to follow this procedure. However, the death penalty would still apply if he ate the fat of this dead body. The WT claims that within these few verses there was a drastic change in the scenario being presented. The claim is made that the washing of garments rather than the death penalty would only apply if the act were done in ignorance. The suggested scenario being that perhaps verses 15 and 16 apply when an Israelite was a guest at someone’s house and unknowingly ate the unbled flesh of an animal found dead. Hmmmmmmm, I’m having just a bit of difficulty swallowing that and even more so in the case of the next scripture.

  (Leviticus 11:39-40) “‘Now in case any beast that is YOURS for food should die, he who touches its dead body will be unclean until the evening. And he who eats any of its dead body will wash his garments, and he must be unclean until the evening; and he who carries off its dead body will wash his garments, and he must be unclean until the evening.

  Somehow the WT overlooked this particular scripture when they made their assertions about Lev 17. Is there any doubt that the Israelite was fully aware that he was eating a dead, unbled body in these verses?

  Also curious is the fact that an action that carried the death penalty under the Law is now a conscience matter, while an action that only required the washing of garments under the Law is now forbidden under WT policy. Even more amazing is the fact that the WT has reasoned that it is more acceptable to be a cannibal than to eat the body of a dead animal, but that is a story for another time.

  Much later we find the council in Jerusalem where the issue arose again.

  (Acts 15:28-29) For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!”

  What an odd choice of language! “Keep abstaining from . . . blood and from things strangled.” Now if there is a blanket prohibition to keep away from blood in any way, shape or form, why not just say blood and leave it at that? Why add things strangled? Could it be that the whole prohibition on blood has something to do with the fact that it symbolizes life and that man only takes the lives of animals with divine permission? Perhaps blood, like fat, is not to be used for food?

  Since they did choose to include the expression “things strangled”, did they make a mistake and forget to include “animals found dead”? Since some of those present were very well versed in the Law, it would take quite an imagination to believe that. On what scriptural basis would we now go beyond the laws God gave in the days of Noah, Moses and the apostles and impose this prohibition?

  Now would you still say that the scriptures clearly indicate that it is wrong for Christians to eat the body of an animal found dead?
• 

  AlphaOmega

  Why is this verse even there? Because in times of distress, for example in war, it might become necessary to eat an animal that had not been slaughtered the kosher-way. Why? To save lives! There were plenty of death-penalties in the OT-law. You couldn`t even yell at your own parents without being taken outside the city gates and stoned. But the law on blood has no death penalty! Only in jw-land.

  Totally agree with this above. That fits with the spirit of the Law but I've never been able to get my head round why it was okay to eat "blood laden" meat, if you found the animal dead but not if you killed the animal yourself.

  Lev 17:15-16 NRSV

  (15)

  All persons, citizens or aliens, who eat what dies of itself or what has been torn by wild animals, shall wash their clothes, and bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the evening; then they shall be clean.

  (16)

  But if they do not wash themselves or bathe their body, they shall bear their guilt.

  Scavenging in times of distress makes sense, but could they not "in an emergency" if the need arose?

  This all fits with God "desiring mercy not sacrifice", but this has always been something that I am waiting for a JW to pounce on.
• 

  Sarah Smiles

  That is a good one!
• 

  kicky

  Question:

  I am trying to understand Deut 14:21 and Lev 17:15.

  It seems to me Lev 17:15 is referring to a case where someone (Jew or alien) in hunting finds an already dead animal...is this correct? His eating in this case merely resulted in uncleanness.

  Deut is talking about simply an animal that dies of natural courses- not in the course of hunting but perhaps an animal owned by a resident. In this case the Jew can not eat it but can sell it. Is this correct?
• 

  Mary

  Leviticus 7:22-25) And Jehovah continued to speak to Moses, saying: “Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘YOU must not eat any fat of a bull or a young ram or a goat. Now the fat of a body [already] dead and the fat of an animal torn to pieces may be used for anything else conceivable, but YOU must not eat it at all. For anyone eating fat from the beast from which he presents it as an offering made by fire to Jehovah, the soul that eats must be cut off from his people.

  Another interesting point about this scripture is that animal fat was forbidden as consumption, the same as animal blood was forbidden as consumption. Yet both fat and blood could and were used in other areas, such as sacrifice. There was no blanket law stating that the Israelites had to abstain from fat and blood in every way, shape and form on pain of death. Yet this is exactly what the Governing Body has decreed. They take scriptures that were strictly dietary laws applicable ONLY to the Israelites and claim that Christians today cannot use blood in any way, shape or form, even if it means your life. The above scripture in Levitucus proves beyond any doubt that eating blood does not mean that God forbade its use in any other form.

  And since the WTS likes to 'follow the letter of the Law' when it comes to blood, why aren't they buying kosher meat? Why are they allowed to eat animal fat? Why are they allowed to consume dairy and meat products at the same meal? Talk about swallowing the camel and straining the knat.

  AlanF said: After I explained the issue (he was already familiar with it) he admitted that God indeed gave permission for non-Jews to eat blood, but that he did so only because of their "hard heartedness".

  WTF? And what scriptures did he use to back up such a stupid response? Is there any scripture that refers to the 'alien resident' as being "hard-hearted"? No, I didn't think so. As per usual, when faced with sound logic that deflates their bonehead doctrines, they simply pluck a few words out of thin air their asses, and hope no one notices.
• 

  AlanF

  More like they pluck nonsense out of their asses, Mary, for all their teachings are worth.

  AlanF
• 

  Liberty

  All great points on this subject. I have a Conservative Jewish friend who told me that Jews are allowed to eat blood in emergency situations of starvation. He explained that under Jewish Law your life is more valuable to God than following the dietary code if it is between life and death as these scriptures you all have recounted verify.

  Logically , it would follow that taking a blood transfusion to save your life in a medical emergency should fall into the same category even if you were attempting to follow the dietary prohibition. My Jewish friend also said that Jews do not consider blood transfusions to have anything to do with eating blood anyway.

  As Mary has pointed out, it also never made sense to me that as a JW it is OK to eat any old meat from the grocery store with not a thought given as to how the animals were slaughtered. Most meat sold is not bled in accordance with Biblical Law unless it is Kosher. Why JWs will die before taking a blood transfusion (which has no Biblical mention) and yet would happily eat blood in unKoshered meat (which is directly mentioned) never made sense to me even as a 12 year old child. The JW blood policy would at least have some consistancy if JWs only ate Kosher slaughtered meat or slaughtered it themselves so as to verify that the animals were bled properly but they don't.

  The JW policy is complete nonsense from every angle.

  My Jewish friend says that the prohibition against eating blood has more to do with "humanely" slaughtering animals than it does with what we eat. Kosher slaughter entails using a very sharp knife which cuts the neck from ear to ear, one of the few places on the body where there are the least nerve endings combined with the most blood vessels so that the cut is as painless as possible. Bleeding to death is likened to falling asleep also lessening the pain of death for the animal. This also explains why animals without necks or easily visible blood were prohibited such as shell fish, crabs, lobsters, and most insects. He also said that waiting until all the blood is drained before cooking or eating the animal avoids cooking animals while still alive as was done in other cultures. Not eating milk with meat has similar roots since it is cruel to boil a calf in it's mother's milk.