hi Jehovah’s Witness Guy,let me try to explain my problem a little better. something you wrote caught my eye. you said:
"It is not just about eating blood with pagan ceremonies as it is medically better to not take blood transfusions. I don't see the point of protesting. The Bible says to abstain from blood. So that would include no transfusions. But why place burdens on others from that which we don't know?"
So, if i understand you correctly, you reason that because it’s “medically better to not take blood transfusions,” the scripture must not only be referring to eating blood but also the medical use of blood? The context of the scripture in Acts makes absolutely NO reference to the medical use of blood. Acts 15:29 does end with the comment, “Good health to you!”, but every bible commentary I’ve looked at describes this as a cordial ending to a letter (much like me telling you, “See you later!”, or, “Have a good one!”), and not a reference to physical health.
The society says the command to “abstain from blood” applies in a DIETARY and MEDICAL context (no eating blood, no blood transfusions). Acts 15 contains instructions for Gentiles regarding what laws need to be observed. Some Christians were demanding that converted Gentiles be circumcised but since the Mosaic Law was no longer in effect they needed a ruling on the issue. James responded with the comments on ‘abstaining.’ The scripture lays out restrictions on these new coverts’ involvement with the practices that they used to take part in…eating things sacrificed to idols, practices involving blood, fornication, and eating strangled animals. Acts 15:28, 29 (NWT) says:
28 For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU , except these necessary things, 29 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!
So, the question is, what was intended by the comment ‘abstain from blood’? The society agrees that the apostles were only speaking of dietary restrictions (just like the Mosaic Law only referred to dietary restrictions on blood use); however, they argue that they had no medical applications for blood at the time and that’s the only reason that medical uses weren’t also commanded against. to me, that is even more reason to believe that this scripture did not refer to medical uses of blood. They didn’t even have any back then!!! If there were no such things as “blood transfusions” at the time, why would the apostles possibly be instructing people to not take them??? This scripture could be referring to:
1) EATING blood; and/or,
2) USING blood in religious ceremonies, both of which were common among the pagans at the time.
The society argues that as far as eating blood goes, it’s not the EATING of the blood through the mouth that was unacceptable, it was the INTRODUCING of blood into the body through any avenue that was unacceptable. However, that is merely speculation since, at the time of writing, the scripture was only referring to ORAL ingestion of blood. If someone today decides that their conscience will not allow them to accept blood as medicine, that’s completely fine by me, and I can understand their logic, but the by making something that is not mentioned in the bible and was completely nonexistent at the time of writing a DISFELLOWSHIPPING offense, the society is overstepping their authority and ADDING speculation to the command to ‘abstain.’
In addition, it can be shown that the scripture in Acts condemned these practices ONLY when done in connection with pagan religious rituals. in 1 Corinthians 10:25-29, it says that it is completely acceptable for a Christian to eat strangled, unbled meat if it does not bother his conscience. This is one of the exact things that was condemned in Acts!!! However, the context in 1 Corinthians points to mature Christians eating unbled meat privately for meals, whereas, the directions in Acts are specifically for newly converted Gentiles who still participated in pagan rituals. That is why I feel that the commandments in Acts are condemning these practices in connection with religious rituals, and these practices were not necessarily condemned in and of themselves. Again, considering the scripture in 1 Corinthians, clearly it’s the CONTEXT of the action, and not the action by itself.
Similarly, the bible is not explicit as far as condemning pornography. Jesus cautions that a man “looking at a woman so as to have a passion for her” has already committed fornication in his heart. there is room to believe that Jesus was referring to pornography, however, the bible does not explicitly condemn pornography. The society got this one right by not making pornography a disfellowshipping offense (although they have written guidelines steering people away from it), and ultimately, it is up to the individual to determine how they feel about pornography without fear of punishment by the society. The society should take a similar stance on blood transfusions. To condemn something that the bible does not puts their authority higher than the bible.
oh well. i don't know why i opened my big mouth to begin with. from now on, i'm staying on the sidelines .
