Re:Blood: Altogether Taboo or Dietary Restriction? - 2005/03/20 19:01Thanks Phi, Ish and MM,
All input is greatly appreciated. I wish Galileo were here because he made some excellent points as well. Phi, if you have the time, I would love to see those scriptures again.
MM, I really appreciate you line of reasoning.
Ish, I did not know this about the Torah. Can you explain more?
MAT
| | The topic has been locked.
Warrior
User Platinum Boarder
Posts: 128
Re:Blood: Altogether Taboo or Dietary Restriction? - 2005/03/20 19:24Shalkom MAT,
In Jewish tradition - or at least, the tradition in which I was raised - there are three cardinal sins - adultary, idolitary and murder. The adultery here refers not only to between people but to afultery against God.
Jewish law has it that one should be prepared to die - even kill oneself - rather than break these rules.
When I say "Torah" it can mean either just the law, the whole of the tanakh, or the whole of Jewish religion, but, above all these, life is held to be sacred because it is a direct gift from God and life should be preserved at all costs. (except by idolitay, killing someone else, or becoming an adulterer) I know some Jews who have difficulty taking their sick to a hospital if it's called after a Christian saint (as some are) because, to them, that would be adultary (and, to some extent - idolitary) Although this is pretty rare.
It's possible to be Jewish and have totally different ideas on the law and customs, depending, I suppose, on where you're brought up. (Jews brought up in America are quite different from those raised in Israel.) Yet there's still a comfortable unity.
Some Jews follow the dietry regulations more carefully than others. But I've never met a Jew who equated blood transfusions with kosher slaughtering of animals.
Ah well. Much shalom to you.
| | The topic has been locked.
Melancholymuse
Visitor Platinum Boarder
Posts: 72
Re:Blood: Altogether Taboo or Dietary Restriction? - 2005/03/21 07:40Oh I realize there are situation in which it is impossible to consult God first, but I'm talking about those situation that you can foresee or otherwise have a minute to pray. If you know you're pregnant, then you know you run some type of bleeding risk during delivery. You have months to discuss this situation with Jehovah. On the other hand, if you are in an accident, unconscious, and unable to accept or refuse blood, then it isn't your fault anyway because you were unable to make the choice to begin with, and Jehovah knows this.
Love, Tami
| | The topic has been locked.
Phi
Admin Admin
Posts: 278
Re:Blood: Altogether Taboo or Dietary Restriction? - 2005/03/23 08:37Hi All. Well I guess a Biblical debate about the rights of wrongs of the medical use of blood has to include the Scriptures themselves, so maybe its an idea to list those we feel have a bearing on the issue and then we can discuss them.
First of all, Genesis 9:3-6:
"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. 4 Only flesh with its soul-its blood-YOU must not eat. 5 And, besides that, YOUR blood of YOUR souls shall I ask back. From the hand of every living creature shall I ask it back; and from the hand of man, from the hand of each one who is his brother, shall I ask back the soul of man. 6 Anyone shedding man's blood, by man will his own blood be shed, for in God's image he made man."
Here is a link to what the Associated Jehovah's Witnesses for Reform on Blood website has to say about these verses for those who may be interested: http://www.ajwrb.org/bible/genesis9.shtml
Philia.
Phi
| | The topic has been locked.
Phi
Admin Admin
Posts: 278
Re:Blood: Altogether Taboo or Dietary Restriction? - 2005/03/27 23:32Hi All.
With regard to the last scripture posted. We could debate all day what it meant exactly, whether the focus was on blood or life itself, whether the Scripture actually referred to eating animals alive etc (see the link to the AJWRB article in previous post), whether or not it applies to all of Noah's descendants, but the crucial point, IMHO, is that WHATEVER it means it seems to be put into perspective by the following Scripture
"(Deuteronomy 14:21) "YOU must not eat any body [already] dead. To the alien resident who is inside your gates you may give it, and he must eat it; or there may be a selling of it to a foreigner, because you are a holy people to Jehovah your God."
So, the Gentile descendants of Noah were allowed to eat some flesh with it's blood in it by Jehovah - in fact he made provision for that. He did not hold these ones to some eternal covenant that was binding upon all mankind (or if he did, the covenant evidently did not mean that humankind could not eat blood under any circumstances). We too are Gentiles (most of us )just like those mentioned in Deuteronomy 14:21 and, in any case, the Mosaic law which forbade the eating of meat with blood in it - except under certain emergency circumstances - was terminated by Jesus.
So to argue that we must not 'take in' blood under any circumstances today cannot be justified by the Noachian covenenant IMHO. Nor could it reasonably be justified by appealing to the Mosaic laws that were binding upon Israelites (which I'll post about next), seeing as that law has been terminated for Christians.
Forum 
)just like those mentioned in Deuteronomy 14:21 and, in any case, the Mosaic law which forbade the eating of meat with blood in it - except under certain emergency circumstances - was terminated by Jesus.