Re:Blood: Altogether Taboo or Dietary Restriction? - 2005/03/20 12:05Thanks Phi. I also agree it's a conscience issue, however, I don't understand where an extrapolation between food and medical treament came to be. I believe it was you who had many scriptures to illustrate that a connection between the two may have, in fact, been manufactured.
MAT
| | The topic has been locked.
Stormy
User Expert Boarder
Posts: 31
Re:Blood: Altogether Taboo or Dietary Restriction? - 2005/03/20 12:11I think I'd have I'd have a pretty good idea if it was "altogether" taboo if I could reconcile acts 15 and 1co 10.
It says,
23 All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify. 24 Let no one seek his own, but each one the other's [well-being.] 25 Eat whatever is sold in the meat market, asking no questions for conscience' sake; 26 for "the earth [is] the LORD's, and all its fullness." 27 If any of those who do not believe invites you [to dinner,] and you desire to go, eat whatever is set before you, asking no question for conscience' sake. 28 But if anyone says to you, "This was offered to idols," do not eat it for the sake of the one who told you, and for conscience' sake; for "the earth [is] the LORD's, and all its fullness." 29 "Conscience," I say, not your own, but that of the other. For why is my liberty judged by another [man's] conscience? 30 But if I partake with thanks, why am I evil spoken of for [the food] over which I give thanks? 31 Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. 32 Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God, 33 just as I also please all [men] in all [things,] not seeking my own profit, but the [profit] of many, that they may be saved.
If eating things that had not been bled properly therefore still having blood in it (not that you can ever get all the blood out) or having a good amount of blood in it ... or things that had been strangled was a serious sin why is Paul saying eat what's in the meat market and don't ask anything about it. Eat what your "friend" puts on the table even though it could have been strangled and used in a pagan ritual just don't ask about it. If I can eat strangled unbled meat to fill my tummy then why couldn't I have a blood transfusion to save my life?
Agape, Stormy
| | The topic has been locked.
Phi
Admin Admin
Posts: 278
Re:Blood: Altogether Taboo or Dietary Restriction? - 2005/03/20 12:17Hi MissAnnThrope. I may have done. The problem with me is that I do a lot of research to reach a definite conclusion for myself....then, having done so, I remember the conclusion I reached......but quickly forget how I arrived at it LOLOL.
But I will retrace my steps and post again on this subject soon.
Much Philia.
Phi.
| | The topic has been locked.
Phi
Admin Admin
Posts: 278
Re:Blood: Altogether Taboo or Dietary Restriction? - 2005/03/20 12:46Oh, in line with your thoughts Stormy I posted this earlier in another thread, I thought it might be relevant (I can't believe Ive actually copied and pasted my OWN post! I'm quoting myself! How pompous is that??? )
Acts merely records the content of the letter that the older men sent out and that it was sent out, the letter itself was not Scripture, IMHO. I am not at all convinced that the letter itself was wholly in harmony with Jesus wishes (any more than the behvaiour of many of them prevously had been), because while it asked Gentile Christians to abstain from foods it claimed were "polluted" by Idols, Paul argued at length in his letters that this was not true, and that foods offered to idols were not actually "polluted" at all.
They can't both be right surely?
My point in sayig that is that a lot has been hung on a short letter mentioned in the Bible, that may not itself have been 'inspired'. That said, even if the Acts 15 letter of the 'older men' were seens as God's word on the matter, I don't think that the application to blood transfusions is as cut and dried as the Society has made out.
Philia.
Phi.
Post edited by: Phi, at: 2005/03/20 12:57
| | The topic has been locked.
Melancholymuse
Visitor Platinum Boarder
Posts: 72
Re:Blood: Altogether Taboo or Dietary Restriction? - 2005/03/20 18:09My take on this is:
All life belongs to Jehovah, and our blood hold our life, thus our blood belongs to Jehovah. So does this mean that taking an emergency blood transfusion would be a sin? Well, it is definitely wrong to steal something from God, so I would venture that taking a transfusion without even consulting God first would be a mistake. Could you ask God's permission for the blood then? My humble advice for covering all your bases would be this: Prayerfully explain to God that you will try all the non-blood treatments first, and ask that if those treatments aren't sufficient then you are asking that perhaps he either give you more of your own blood (it can work, I've seen it happen!) or, to allow you a blood transfusion. Then make a complete and honest effort to try all the non-blood treatments first. If God wants you to have blood, He'll get it to you, and if not, He'll be sure that the blood substitutes will suffice. Have full faith and trust in Him, and He will see you through the crisis.
Re:Blood: Altogether Taboo or Dietary Restriction? - 2005/03/20 18:54It's a little difficult to ask him when you're on an opperating table with an emergancy ceasarian going very wrong.
If my sister hadn't had a blood transfusion then my little niece and nephew would be without a mother and my brother-in-law without a wife.
I get your point though MM. You're right, our blood belongs to Yah as do our lives.
Yet I would give my life for another. (I hope) If giving a small piece of my life can let others live, then I see nothing but good in it. Most who give blood give it freely.
I'm not the biggest fan of the medical profession - they're far too good at thinking they know everything then changing their minds ten years along the road. But many of the people involved simply want to save lives and help people. Some are proud and arrogant, but they have saved lives. In this, the medical proffession has been known to bear good fruit (although plenty of bad stuff too unfortunately) In Jewish law (remember, this is law and tradition and not particularly right - it's just the mentality I was raised with) saving a life is good enough reason to set aside all the comnmandments of the Torah (and the many, many man-made ones) with the exception of adultary, idolitary and murder.
Forum 
)
