Let's talk about Blood again....

by stuckinarut2 49 Replies latest watchtower medical

  • Old Navy
    Old Navy

    Quote from This Page:

    John 6:53-56 ESV

    So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

    Food for thought...

  • Fisherman

    Cofty, Lev 17:15 does not say that Israelites could eat animals found dead -but let's say that someone did eat- the verse only says what would happen to such a person for doing so and what such person was legally required to do ( the remedy) or face consequences. And it is non sequitur to conclude that since eating an animal found dead may not have incurred the death penalty for an Israelite, that God allowed the Israelites to store and use the blood of living animals and of human beings, or that blood taken from living creatures is not sacred to God, or that blood taken from human beings could be consumed under the Mosaic Law. It only applies to the dead animal that was eaten. Everything else you stated is not supported by the Bible.

  • cofty

    Fishy - We have had this conversation at great length and you repeatedly refused to respond to specific questions. I have much better things to do than to go through it again.

    Blood was only sacred in so far as it represented a life that had been taken. It represented the life which had to be returned to the life-giver by pouring the blood on the ground - or offered on the altar where the life of the animal took the place of the life of the penitent.

    If an animal was found "already dead" this did not apply - bleeding a dead animal is not possible - the life had not been "taken" and the animal could be eaten unbled with impunity. (Leviticus 11:38,39 & Leviticus 17:15,16)

    If the owner of the animal buried it he was unclean and had to wash his garments and bathe. If he ate it he was unclean and had to wash his garments and bathe. There was no punishment unless he neglected to follow the procedure for removing uncleanness.

    These facts are unassailable.

    If you cannot see any connection between these facts and blood transfusions then I cannot help you further. They ought to at least give a JW pause before they sacrifice the life of their child.

    Further information here...

  • Fisherman

    Ex 22:31, Deut 14:21 Forbids Israel from eating animals found dead and torned by wild animals.

    Blood was only sacred in so far as it represented a life that had been taken.

    Scripture and verse please and not your connections.

    before they sacrifice the life of their child.

    People have also died from BT and only known pathogens can be tested for in blood. I remember when the AIDS epidemic, everyone that ever received a BT was going around like a nervous wreck.

  • Fisherman

    Lev 11 distinguishes between clean and unclean. God forbade both priests and Israel to eat animals found dead and Lev shows that also it was an unclean thing to do both for Israel and priests. Healthy animals don't usually die and torn animals are also contaminated from the saliva of the predator and other causes.

  • Diogenesister
    The novice bible theologians namely F Franz screwed this up which costed thousands of human lives,

    I'm surprised, I thought it was Rutherford, did Franz advise him?

    ironsnake 656 animist

    The ancient Isrealites fetish with blood and "nephesh" or "spirit" has always reminded me of the animist tribesmen who thank the spirit of the animal they hunt and kill for giving it's "spirit" - or life - to preserve their (the hunters) life.

    You can see the connection there, the ritual probably evolved from this idea.

  • konceptual99
    People have also died from BT and only known pathogens can be tested for in blood. I remember when the AIDS epidemic, everyone that ever received a BT was going around like a nervous wreck.

    Even the WT does not claim that the bad consequences of the unsafe use of blood is a justification for their interpretation of the biblical texts.

    Surgeons take calculated risks every time they operate, with the risk factors escalating with severity of the condition, level of medical urgency, age and physical state of the patient on so on. Generally they do their best to inform the patient before hand and allow the patient to make educated choices. Sometimes they perform operations in far more risky situations than others (to use an extreme example; the difference between treating a soldier with severe blast injuries in a field hospital v. elective cosmetic surgery in a private facility).

    The point is that with blood the risks generally are far outweighed by the benefits, especially when considered in emergency medical situations.

    I would agree however that sometimes there is some pretty emotive language used in the argument and, whilst understandable, I think the subject is served best when treated simply on the facts.

  • nonjwspouse


    I find it interesting that Halal dietary requirements are so very similar to the Jewish.

    I imagine Birdie will be in here with a comment eventually :-)

    Bllood that equals life is the key the JW does not accept. .

    To elevate blood as higher /more sacred than life is the perversion the Watchtower has created. Jesus himself in the Bible showed that breaking "rules" dietary or otherwise, was necessary and if it meant to save a life to do so. For the Watchtower to dictate to the followers of the organization, to elevate the blood and allow the lives to be lost is actually murder/blood on their hands.

    The entire argument of possible problems with blood transfusions is completely irrelevant when speaking of a Biblical reason for blood refusal. The Watchtower strives to confuse with using occasional transfusion complication as an argument. ( Who is he Father of confusion...?) Every single medical procedure, drug, etc, has occasional risk and problems. Every single one. If a complication or side effect is a basis of an argument to refuse blood, then antidepressants etc, should also be banned under that logic.

    It's designed to confuse. It's a non-argument - no way to give Biblical reason from Biblical sources. Therefore, the Watchtower proclaims it off limits and immediately looks at anyone questioning it with huge suspicion. The questions mean they might be losing a emotional lemming, and could possibly voice their (gasp) opinion or concerns to a lemming, causing a possible domino effect in anyone with even a hairline crack in their emotional dedication to the cult.

    Facts mean nothing to an emotional lemming. Questions with no real answer, sometimes can. IMO

  • cofty

    Fishy - You have resorted to the dishonest tactic of waiting until enough time has passed so that you can pretend you have something to say when in fact all of your arguments were thoroughly debunked months ago.

    Our previous conversation was the very epitome of the futility of trying to debate somebody who is both dishonest and vacuous.

    Anybody who wishes can read the detailed answers to your objections starting on page 27 of this thread...

    See this post specifically...

    Sadly Nathan Natas decided to attempt the trash the thread in the last couple of pages but that has long been his style.

  • Finkelstein

    Making up a theoretical situation, lets say it became a practice to take the blood from a person who died and intravenously injected that blood through a transfusion to another person for medical reasons.

    That blood would be given an element of acquired sacredness for it came from a person who already died.

    Therefore blood from any living person or animal isn't deemed sacred so transfusing from one person to another should be acceptable from a theological viewpoint.

Share this