Blood Ban and Your Pets

by compound complex 21 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • compound complex
    compound complex

    How irrational the Society could be was experienced by the sister-in-law of ex-bethelite William (Bill) Cetnar when ...

    at the suggestion of her veterinarian, she had a blood transfusion given to her poodle to prolong its life. She couldn't believe Bill [Cetnar]when he told her that the Society would say she had violated God's law. At his urging she wrote the Society on the matter and the response she received informed her that she had done wrong. Phyllis thought that this was ridiculous. She wrote again and asked if her cat eating a mouse would also be a problem; was this too against God's law? She was told that she should keep the cat under restraint and be more careful in handling it. She thought to herself, "How many cats have I seen which have drained the blood of their mouse victim before eating it?"

    Recounted by Joan Cetnar

    The Four Presidents of the Watch Tower Society (Jehovah's Witnesses), by Edmond C. Gruss, page 76.

  • truthlover

    There is a QTR somewhere about what you feed your animals -- part of it does state that they should be given foods that do not contain fillers that contain blood products... I too find this crazy, seeing the my cats eat just about anything live, as God intended them to do, and try to find packaged food that does not have something added.. it cost a bundle ...................

    JESUS did not die for animals, he died for the humans, the blood decree, albeit, looked at improperly today, was directed toward the human population, not animals - animals do not have a hope of everlasting life if they put faith in Jesus' sacrifice...

  • cuckoo in the nest
    cuckoo in the nest

    Oh deep joy, is there nothing the Collective won't stick their noses in? Or is there a (very profitable) sideline in kosher kitty kibble about to be released. Perhaps I should report my Maine Coon Augustus to the elders next time he brings a mouse, or half a mouse, in the house? They could try and counsel him into only hunting halal carrots instead..?

    It had never occurred to me that pets wouldn't be there on the "Paradise Earth". The Borg bang on about loved ones coming back, but there's no mention of species restrictions. I can't be the only person who finds the company of my cats infinitely preferable to that of most humans I know, Borg or otherwise. Quite frankly, if my Maines and their predecessor, my late abyssinian cross Claudius, aren't there then it wouldn't be paradise and you can shove me back in my box and nail the lid down again.

  • diamondiiz


    I have a better experience. When I was raising snaked while a dub, the elders asked me if I drained the blood from the "food" items before I fed them to the snakes, to which I obviously said no. :)

    Never heard nothing about it afterward. But imagine the stupid question? Was funny then and it is still today.

  • alanv

    The whole of the animal kingdom is full of animals eating each other, blood and all. I wonder how they feel about God creating the leach. Maybe it was created originally to eat straw. Hmm.

  • Amelia Ashton
    Amelia Ashton

    When I was a veterinary nurse one of the not so nice aspects of the job was putting animals to sleep. Sometimes to stop suffering but other times just because the owner no longer wanted their pet. We also used to collect and sell blood from greyhounds to other practices. I was told by an elder I should not participate in blood collection and I would have to "answer to God" for every life I assisted in destroying.

  • compound complex
    compound complex

    I appreciate your replies, fellow posters.

    You've presented information and viewpoints I would never have considered.

    Many thanks!


  • Bangalore

    *** w64 2/15 pp. 127-128 Questions From Readers ***

    Questions From Readers

    • Would it be a violation of the Scriptures for a Christian to permit a veterinarian to give blood transfusions to a pet? And what of animal food? May it be used if there is reason to believe there is blood in it? Also, is it permissible to use fertilizer that has blood in it?

    The psalmist declared at Psalm 119:97: "How I do love your law! All day long it is my concern." Such a love of God's law and a concern for it would surely cause a dedicated servant of God to avoid any violation of God's law whatsoever. God's law on blood is very clear. Blood is not to be used as food and, when withdrawn from a body, it is to be poured out on the ground. (Gen. 9:3, 4; Lev. 3:17; Deut. 12:16, 23, 24; Acts 15:20, 28, 29) Christians certainly would not wish to do anything in violation of Jehovah's law on blood. Love for God and for the righteous laws and principles of his Word calls forth that response from them in matters pertaining to blood.

    Since God's law on blood has not been altered over the centuries, Christians today realize that they are bound by it. Please note, however, that it is not fear of some reprisal that moves them to comply with Jehovah's law on blood. They do not obey God's law simply because violation of it might result in the imposing of sanctions by the Christian congregation of which they are a part. They love what is right. Furthermore, because of their love of God's law they will not rationalize or seek ways in which it appears possible to circumscribe it with seeming impunity.

    How, then, must we answer the question, Would it be a violation of the Scriptures for a Christian to permit a veterinarian to give blood transfusions to a pet? By all means, to do so would be a violation of the Scriptures. To 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.

    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. No. The baptized parent bears the responsibility, for that parent has authority over the child and over the pet and should control the entire matter. That is the parent's obligation before God.-Eccl. 12:13, 14; Jas. 4:17.

    What, then, of animal food? May it be used if there is reason to believe there is blood in it? As far as a Christian is concerned, the answer is No, on the basis of principles already mentioned. Therefore, if a Christian discovers that blood components are listed on the label of a container of dog food or some other animal food, he could not conscientiously feed that product to any animal over which he has jurisdiction. He could not conclude that doing so would be excusable, for this would not be a case of an animal killing another animal and helping itself to the blood of that creature. No, this would be a direct act on the part of the Christian, making him responsible for feeding blood to a pet or other animal belonging to him.

    Of course, if there is no indication on the label of a package of animal food that the product contains blood, a Christian might conclude that it could be used. Still, his conscience might trouble him. In that case he should put his conscience to rest by making reasonable inquiry and acting in accord with the information he receives, for a Christian surely desires to have a good conscience before God.-1 Pet. 3:21.

    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. True, according to the Mosaic law, blood when taken from a body was to be poured out upon the ground and covered over with dust. (Lev. 17:13, 14) 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. Hence, no Christian farmer today could properly spread blood on his fields to fertilize the soil, nor would he use commercial fertilizer containing blood. Such blood use would be a commercializing on something that God has reserved for himself. It would be a violation of God's Word.

    Servants of God have been told in the Scriptures what is to be done with blood. So they know that they would be held responsible by Jehovah for any misuse of blood over which they might have control. What is more, because they love God they are prompted to observe the laws and principles of his Word. Thus they are moved to keep Jehovah's law on blood even in ways that might appear to some to be insignificant. They do not view compliance with it as an encumbrance, for they hold in remembrance the words of 1 John 5:3, which states: "For this is what the love of God means, that we observe his commandments; and yet his commandments are not burdensome."


  • cuckoo in the nest
    cuckoo in the nest

    So to paraphrase, Jehovah hates animals. Unless they're offered up as a sacrifice or burnt offering, so I guess Big J loves barbecues...

    If they mean so little, why bother to make so many in the first place? (Anyone might think they evolved for themselves...) Why bother to get Noah, that biblical captain Birdseye, to save them? (Except the unicorns, mmm, tasty.....)

    Leeches originally were meant to feed on tomato juice, but could never get the bottles open. That's why man was made last, the opposable thumbs were an afterthought. Just lucky we don't have a bottle opener or corkscrew on each hand.

  • ThomasCovenant

    Thank you Bangalore for finding that 'Questions from Readers'.

    To paraphrase Chevy Chase/Clark Griswold ''They're all f..ked in the head''.

Share this