This is the most comical answer to a question from readers w64 2/15 127/128.
•
WoulditbeaviolationoftheScripturesforaChristiantopermitaveterinariantogivebloodtransfusionstoapet?Andwhatofanimalfood?Mayitbeusedifthereisreasontobelievethereisbloodinit?Also,isitpermissibletousefertilizerthathasbloodinit?
quote 1. " Since God’s law on blood has not been altered over the centuries , Christians today realize that they are bound by it"
yes but the trouble for Jdubs is the WT position has changed and back flipped within a few decades.
quote 2 "T o use blood for transfusion purposes, even in the case of an animal, would be improper. The Bible is very clear in showing that blood should not be eaten. It should not be infused,
therefore, to build up the body’s vital forces, either in the case of a human or in the case of a pet or any other animal under the jurisdiction of a Christian.
how did they make the jump from "the bible is clear... to therefore it should not be infused....?"
hmm a mighty big reasoning gap there.
here comes the paranoia
quote 3
In harmony with this, surely a Christian parent could not rationalize to the effect that a pet belongs to a minor child and thus this unbaptized child might, on its own, authorize a veterinarian to administer the blood.
wow, to stoop so low!! how thick are these people?
and here is the old fertiliser argument again..
"But now, what about fertilizer that has blood in it? One who is going to show respect for God’s law on blood would not use it.......
The objective was, however, that the blood should serve no useful purpose when thus disposed of. It was not placed on the ground with the thought in mind that it would serve as fertilizer.
Paranoia again i am afraid. their reasoning being OH NO! plants might eat the blood!!
sorry but the argument is full of old fashioned plant fertiliser. good old BS.
MW