Quote# 29815

[Explaining the rationale behind Jehovah's Witnesses rejecting blood transfusions]

As for the blood transfusions, in the Bible it speaks of blood 400 times in the Hebrew Scriptures alone. Genesis 9:3, 4 says: “Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to you. Only flesh with its soul—its blood—you must not eat.” Of course, this has nothing to do with transfusions, but it is but one example of how God did not want his people of old having anyhting to do with blood.

_gonzalez, MPA Network 27 Comments [10/9/2007 7:03:48 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Icestorm

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 2 | bottom

Tiny Bulcher

So .... you eat kosher food, do you?

10/9/2007 7:16:05 AM

Brain_In_A_Jar

Of course, this has nothing to do with transfusions, but it is but one example of how God did not want his people of old having anyhting to do with blood.

I wonder if that's where stoning came from - it lets you brutally gore your victim without getting blood on yourself, but preserves the traditional torture aspect of a hand beating compared to other ranged attacks such as spears or arrows, which are comparatively swift and merciful.

10/9/2007 7:55:09 AM

jsonitsac

First thing's first. When the Bible talks about consumption of blood, it is often in reference to slaughtered animals. Essentially, in order for meet to be Kosher all of the blood must be drained from the proper animal. Second, God laid exclusive claim on animal blood. Many of the ancient temple sacrifices involved particular organs being burnt and the blood of sacrifices sprinkled on the altar. God was interested in the blood as the life force of the sacrifices. The meat was then cooked and distributed to the people.

Blood transfusions are not consumption of blood. You do not eat it, instead it is donated to you to save your life.

10/9/2007 8:04:30 AM

Nutz

I'm not very good at translating to modern language, but that sounds more like God telling us not to eat bloody food. Sounds like he was advocating cooking meat before you eat it, but maybe that's just me.

10/9/2007 8:06:30 AM

Caustic Gnostic

Well duh, god wanted all the blood to himself.

10/9/2007 8:12:45 AM



Because his people have no idea what DNA is, for example, in a pre-scientific time?

10/9/2007 8:47:04 AM

John

Ancient people saw that when people lost their blood, they died; so they assumed that the blood was where the "life" was stored. God only knows why they were obsessed with not eating the "life" of an animal, but they wrote it into their Bible. Yet another indication that the Bible was written by men, not by God, who theoretically would know better.

10/9/2007 9:12:21 AM

moose

Yeah, I'm going to go contemptuously eat some black pudding now.

10/9/2007 9:34:21 AM

bluelithium

Apart from the bits where they were told to brutally murder their enemies.

10/9/2007 9:39:13 AM

Sideshow Bob

Ah, here we have a prime specimen of the JW fundie. We now see it twisting itself, and making such a task look easy, in its attempt to justify an excessive restriction by applying multiple degrees of separation to an existing, less restrictive Biblical OT decree.

10/9/2007 9:57:33 AM

Osiris

But does it say anything about blood transfusions?

10/9/2007 10:25:00 AM

anevilmeme

Refusing blood transfusions? Think of it as evolution in action.

10/9/2007 10:48:49 AM

Berny

I don't have a problem with an adult rejecting a potentially life-saving blood transfusion. It's their problem if they wish to let superstition and ignorance rule their life.
I start having a problem when they refuse it for a minor in their care.

10/9/2007 12:12:53 PM

Old Viking

God didn't want his people of old having anything to do with blood? Well they were very naughty, then.

10/9/2007 1:12:18 PM

flipper

Damn, does this mean everyone who likes their steak rare is going to hell?

10/9/2007 2:41:45 PM

tracer

Brain_In_A_Jar wrote:

"I wonder if that's where stoning came from - it lets you brutally gore your victim without getting blood on yourself, but preserves the traditional torture aspect of a hand beating compared to other ranged attacks such as spears or arrows, which are comparatively swift and merciful."


I suspect the idea behind stoning was to let the whole community have a chance to vent their anger against the condemned man/woman. Your average household didn't have a ready-made supply of arrows and spears.

10/9/2007 2:51:14 PM

Frank

If god didn't want them to have anything to do with blood, he probably shouldn't have give them that cirularitory system

10/9/2007 2:54:56 PM

Brian X

Jaydubs are possibly among the most pathetic religious people who aren't actually members of an obvious cult. They willingly subject themselves to a church with strict rules and a long history of false prophecy, and deny themselves basic medicine and certain enjoyments of life (like voting and holidays).

10/9/2007 6:47:53 PM

Oriet

Nothing to do with blood? Then why did they have to splatter some around their door? And don't circumcisions kinds bleed when done?

Course, that still doesn't explain about transfusions, which you even admit, but you still didn't answer the question.

10/9/2007 8:18:36 PM

The Jamo

Do you think that Jewish people don't eat pork because pigs have souls too?

10/9/2007 8:35:27 PM

Adrian

No "Blood for the Blood God!" yet? ^^

10/10/2007 12:48:56 AM

Brian X

And yet, after all that, the wide prominence in western Europe of the blood sausage. Pretty safe bet that's not something that developed recently.

(I've tried blood sausage -- once. It was an Irish-style black pudding. It tasted okay, but I couldn't get the thought of "blood clot with oatmeal" out of my head. I'm American like that.)

10/10/2007 1:12:46 AM

Brain_In_A_Jar

I suspect the idea behind stoning was to let the whole community have a chance to vent their anger against the condemned man/woman. Your average household didn't have a ready-made supply of arrows and spears.

Fun for all the family! Plus, you've got the sense of diminished responsibility because of the crowd mentality.

10/10/2007 5:28:51 AM

cyborgtroy

So.. People are animals... And you think that a blood transfusion is the same as eating other people's blood?

No.

10/10/2007 10:47:24 AM

_gonzalez

Well, it didn't completely finish my post. The rest of my post said:

Acts 15:19-21 tell us "to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.” So abstaining from blood was (and is) just as important as abstaining from fornication, from idols and other things.

I'd also like to bring out (didn't post this before) that if our doctor told us to abstain from alcohol, and then we injected a bottle of Jack Daniels into our vein via needle or something, would we be abstaining from blood?

10/17/2007 1:40:59 PM

1 2 | top: comments page