JWs... That's not "MEAT JUICE" that you're eating !

by AlphaOmega 37 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Hortensia
    Hortensia

    whoever writes that crap for the WTBTS doesn't know his anatomy and physiology. Where does that interstitial fluid come from? It is the same as plasma - blood vessels are permeable and plasma is forced out of the small blood vessels into tissues such as muscle (meat) and skin. It is called plasma in the blood vessels and interstitial fluid when it is in the tissues and lymph when it is in the lymphatic system, but it is all the same fluid! It bathes tissue cells, carries nutrients into cells and waste out of cells. Up to 90% of it is absorbed back into blood vessels and about 10 % of it is absorbed into the lymphatic system, where it passes through lymph nodes and is returned to the blood circulatory system!. It's all the same fluid, it is just called different things when it is in different spaces in the body.

  • AlphaOmega
    AlphaOmega
    It is called plasma in the blood vessels and interstitial fluid when it is in the tissues and lymph when it is in the lymphatic system, but it is all the same fluid!

    Plasma = Interstititial Fluid = Lymph

    All the same, yet all different.

    This sounds like a "Trinity" - no wonder JWs don't accept it.

  • glenster
    glenster

    One of the things I have on that so far, from p.12 of "GTJ Brooklyn":

    Even by current methods that are very effective at bleeding an animal (cutting
    deeply across the animal's throat, its body held so its head hangs downward),
    50-58% of the blood is left in it.
    "Aspects of Meat Inspection," 1973, Horace Thornton, E.V.S.C., D.V.H.,
    F.R.S.H., chap.2;
    "Meat Science," 1974, Ralston A. Lawrie, Ph.d., D.Sc., F.R.S.E., F.F.S.T., pp.
    132-133
    http://www.freewebs.com/glenster1/gtjbrooklyn12.htm

  • AlphaOmega
    AlphaOmega

    GLENSTER excellent link, however did you find it ?

    I have to say that this test is so sensitive, that I doubt that any method will ever be 100% sucessful at removing all the blood. But this is where the JW logic falls apart...

    If Kosher is acceptable to JWs as well as Jewish people, then surely they are accepting that SOME blood is okay... (so that clears the way for blood derivatives to be used for them in medicines etc)...

    BUT on the other hand, they liberally splash the "abstain from blood" scripture around... so which is it ?

    Abstain or Reduce ?

    I did read that "Kosher" has to do with preparation as well as slaughter methods, so maybe the "broiling" process and cooking methods further removes the blood ?

    Also read (on another thread ?) that the blood issue in the Old Testament only applies when the life of the animal is taken, which completely negates the ban on human transfusions as the donor doesn't die.

    Hope to get some Kosher meat to test soon.

    AO

  • AlphaOmega
    AlphaOmega

    Well...

    I repeated the experiment with Kosher meat and non-Kosher meat.

    Both contained traces of blood.

    In fact, the strips are so sensitive that it showed blood as being present after only 1 minute !

    So...

    I guess that the only thing that this shows is that even with all of today's modern Kosher processing, some blood is still present and therefore permitted by God.

    The "pouring out of the blood" must therefore be symbolic.

    So... blood should also be permissible to JWs.

  • TD
    TD

    In the same vein (No pun intended) it's worthy of note that bone marrow is a delicacy in many parts of the world.

    JW's don't forbid the eating of bone marrow because it is explicitly mentioned as a permissible food in the OT

    ...and bone marrow most definitely contains blood.

  • under_believer
    under_believer

    OK let's break down that QFR you posted. The fallacies in the blood ban are present RIGHT IN THAT ARTICLE.

    A Christian may eat meat only from animals that were drained of their blood at the time they were slaughtered. The Bible commands: "Keep abstaining . . . from blood and from things strangled."—Acts 15:29.
    Nice how they cut out the rest of the scripture, which might shed a little light on the proscription. Later Paul told Christians that food sacrificed to idols was okay, that it was only to avoid stumbling people that we might want to avoid that stuff, that what defiles a man comes from within, not from what he consumes.
    Of course, even the meat from properly bled animals may appear to be very red or may have red fluid on the surface. This is because bleeding does not remove every trace of blood from the animal. But God’s law does not require that every single drop of blood be removed. It simply states that the animal should be bled.

    They just said that eating blood was okay. Right there. See that? They're making our point for us. The Israelites were required to bleed the animal for symbolic reasons, not because they weren't supposed to eat blood. If you eat meat, you eat blood.

    As an aside, since when did the Mosaic Law convenant, from which they obtained those "requirements," still pertain to Christians? How do they get off calling the Law "God's Law?"

    As long as an animal has been properly bled, its meat may Scripturally be used for food.

    Even though that meat still contains lots of blood. Eating blood is okay with Jehovah's Witnesses, everyone! Shout it from the rooftops!!!!!!

    There may be times, however, when a Christian has reason to believe that an animal may not have been bled properly.

    Let me rephrase that for accuracy: "There may be times, however, when a Christian has reason to believe that an animal has not been ritualistically prepared in a way satisfactory to primitive tribal peoples 3000 years gone."

    So let's sum up.

    * Bleeding an animal does not remove all (or even most) of the blood.
    * Witnesses eat meat that is bled
    * Therefore, by the Society's admission, eating blood is okay for Witnesses.
    * The reasons Witnesses avoid blood are symbolic and the proscription can be fulfilled, not by avoiding eating blood, but by following ritualistic procedures that demonstrate respect for blood.
    * Therefore: Blood transfusions cannot consistently be forbidden. They are okay as long as proper respect for blood is demonstrated.

    Question: What is a more respectful use for something than using it to save someone's life?

  • greendawn
    greendawn

    In all large animals there are vessels carrying blood in all parts of the body, blood supplies nutrients and oxygen without which an organismm can't survive. The dietary iron that we get from meat comes mainly from the residual blood in it. So there is blood in meat.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit