Jehovah's Witnesses And Blood

Exploring the details of Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3353
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 257 times
Been thanked: 927 times

Jehovah's Witnesses And Blood

Post #1

Post by Miles »

.


After reading another thread mentioning Jehovah's Witnesses I became interested in their beliefs about blood. They reject blood transfusions and don't eat meat with more than a trace of blood in it. Searching around a bit I came across the following from a pro-JW web site.


"Do Jehovah's Witnesses Eat Red Meat Since it May Contain a Trace of Blood?

Though Christians are to abstain from blood (Acts 15:29), the Bible shows that the eating of flesh by Christians is proper, for God Himself told us that we could eat meat from "every animal". "Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for YOU." (Gen. 9:3)

But God commanded that before eating the flesh of an animal, his people were to pour out its blood on the ground and cover it with dust, being careful not to eat the blood, on pain of death. (Deut. 12:23-25; Lev. 7:27) This is our way for us to show respect for God's view of life.

So when someone carefully takes the strict precautions that God outlined by making sure that an animal is properly bled before consumption, they wouldn't be breaking God's command of eating blood. Since God Himself has issued these directions, obviously, if properly done, God does not have a problem with eating the meat from "every animal".

People can rest assured that nearly all blood is removed from meat during slaughter, which is why you don’t see blood in raw “white meat”; only an extremely small amount of blood remains within the muscle tissue when you get it from the store. (Also see: The Red Juice in Raw Meat is Not Blood (todayifoundit.com)"
source
(My emphasis)


However, from a comprehensive explanation of the slaughtering of animals: (I urge anyone who's interested to access the link below)

"Blood loss as a percentage of body weight differs between species: cows, 4.2 to 5.7%; calves, 4.4 to 6.7%; sheep, 4.4 to 7.6%; and pigs, 1.5 to 5.8%. Blood content as a percentage of live weight may decrease in heavier animals since the growth of blood volume does not keep pace with growth of live weight. Approximately 60% of blood is lost at sticking *, 20-25% remains in the viscera, while a maximum of 10% may remain in carcass muscles."
source

So my question is, if the muscle (meat) can contain up to 10% of an animal's blood wouldn't this make it unacceptable to Jehovah's Witnesses?



*"Cattle and pigs are usually exsanguinated [drained of blood] by a puncture wound which opens the major blood vessels at the base of the neck, not far from the heart. The trade name for this process is sticking"
Source: ibid.



.

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 5565
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 244 times
Been thanked: 205 times
Contact:

Re: Jehovah's Witnesses And Blood

Post #61

Post by tam »

Peace to you,
JehovahsWitness wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 5:56 pm
tam wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 5:02 pm Peace again to you,

[Replying to 2timothy316 in post #55]


Your religion connected this prohibition to eating and drinking blood as well. Why else fight to convince others that a blood transfusion was the same as eating blood?
“Each time the prohibition of blood is mentioned in the Scriptures it is in connection with taking it as food, and so it is as a nutrient that we are concerned with in its being forbidden.” W58 9/15 575 Questions from Readers

Obviously there is a connection, transfusing and eating are both means by which blood can enter the body. So? So what? How does this fact nullify any of the points made so far? A "connection" isnt synonymous with an absolute equivalent.
To illustrate: There is a "connection" between horseback riding and travel by train in that they are both terrestrial means of transpiration. That is not however to say that a horse is a train.
Perhaps you can explain in a few sentences what point you are trying to make with this statement that isnt staing the obvious.





JW

The connection was not in relation to blood 'entering the body'. The prohibition against blood transfusion was BECAUSE it was considered EATING blood (something that was prohibited).

"Each time the prohibition of blood is mentioned in the Scriptures it is in connection with taking it as food, and so it is as a nutrient that we are concerned with in its being forbidden."
- Non-religious Christian spirituality

- For Christ (who is the Spirit)

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 18072
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 431 times
Been thanked: 658 times
Contact:

Re: Jehovah's Witnesses And Blood

Post #62

Post by JehovahsWitness »

tam wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 6:41 pm Peace to you,
JehovahsWitness wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 5:56 pm
tam wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 5:02 pm Peace again to you,

[Replying to 2timothy316 in post #55]


Your religion connected this prohibition to eating and drinking blood as well. Why else fight to convince others that a blood transfusion was the same as eating blood?
“Each time the prohibition of blood is mentioned in the Scriptures it is in connection with taking it as food, and so it is as a nutrient that we are concerned with in its being forbidden.” W58 9/15 575 Questions from Readers

Obviously there is a connection, transfusing and eating are both means by which blood can enter the body. So? So what? How does this fact nullify any of the points made so far? A "connection" isnt synonymous with an absolute equivalent.
To illustrate: There is a "connection" between horseback riding and travel by train in that they are both terrestrial means of transpiration. That is not however to say that a horse is a train.
Perhaps you can explain in a few sentences what point you are trying to make with this statement that isnt staing the obvious.





JW

The connection was not in relation to blood 'entering the body'. The prohibition against blood transfusion was BECAUSE it was considered EATING blood (something that was prohibited).

"Each time the prohibition of blood is mentioned in the Scriptures it is in connection with taking it as food, and so it is as a nutrient that we are concerned with in its being forbidden."

Okay, So?
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

2timothy316
Prodigy
Posts: 3396
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 10:51 am
Has thanked: 96 times
Been thanked: 231 times

Re: Jehovah's Witnesses And Blood

Post #63

Post by 2timothy316 »

tam wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 6:41 pm "Each time the prohibition of blood is mentioned in the Scriptures it is in connection with taking it as food, and so it is as a nutrient that we are concerned with in its being forbidden."
Nutrient: a substance that provides nourishment essential for growth and the maintenance of life.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nutrient

Isn't that what a blood transfusion does? Isn't the main reason a person takes a blood transfusion is to maintain their life? If you say no then what is it's purpose?

So it is as the Bible says, a person's life is in their blood. Why? Because the blood gives a person's cells their nutrients so as to maintain life. So to take someone else's blood is to take that away from them and give it to yourself.

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 5565
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 244 times
Been thanked: 205 times
Contact:

Re: Jehovah's Witnesses And Blood

Post #64

Post by tam »

Peace to you,
2timothy316 wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 10:12 pm
tam wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 6:41 pm "Each time the prohibition of blood is mentioned in the Scriptures it is in connection with taking it as food, and so it is as a nutrient that we are concerned with in its being forbidden."
Nutrient: a substance that provides nourishment essential for growth and the maintenance of life.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nutrient

Isn't that what a blood transfusion does?
No. Blood transfusions do not provide nourishment essential for growth. Food and drink provide nourishment essential for growth.

Isn't the main reason a person takes a blood transfusion is to maintain their life? If you say no then what is it's purpose?
I assume that is correct (though I do not know all the different reasons a person might need a blood transfusion), but that is not the point. A person takes medicine to maintain their life as well (like blood pressure medications), but that doesn't mean medicine is food providing nourishment.

So it is as the Bible says, a person's life is in their blood. Why? Because the blood gives a person's cells their nutrients so as to maintain life.
I don't think that (the bold) is quite accurate. Blood CARRIES oxygen and nutrients to our tissues and organs. But a blood transfusion is not going to stop someone from starving, as intravenous feeding (providing essential nutrients and such) will do.
A quick lesson about blood

The blood in our bodies does many important things.

Blood carries oxygen and nutrients to all of our body’s tissues.

Blood helps remove carbon dioxide and other wastes from our body.

Blood helps fight against infections and heal wounds, and it provides all the substances that are necessary for it to clot.
https://pediatrust.com/Safety-of-Blood-Transfusions
Your blood carries oxygen and nutrients to all parts of your body. Blood transfusions replace blood that is lost through surgery or injury or provide it if your body is not making blood properly. You may need a blood transfusion if you have anemia, sickle cell disease, a bleeding disorder such as hemophilia, or cancer. For people in critical condition, blood transfusions can be lifesaving.
https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics ... ransfusion


So to take someone else's blood is to take that away from them and give it to yourself.

I'm not sure how that is relevant. A person who donates their blood is giving it of their own choice. Same as a person who donates a kidney for an organ transplant.

Christ gave His blood as well, even His life, and it is not a bad thing to accept that gift.

(though I have known some on this forum use a similar argument as yours in order to justify rejecting that gift from Christ and God)



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy
- Non-religious Christian spirituality

- For Christ (who is the Spirit)

2timothy316
Prodigy
Posts: 3396
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 10:51 am
Has thanked: 96 times
Been thanked: 231 times

Re: Jehovah's Witnesses And Blood

Post #65

Post by 2timothy316 »

tam wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 10:51 pm Peace to you,
2timothy316 wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 10:12 pm
tam wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 6:41 pm "Each time the prohibition of blood is mentioned in the Scriptures it is in connection with taking it as food, and so it is as a nutrient that we are concerned with in its being forbidden."
Nutrient: a substance that provides nourishment essential for growth and the maintenance of life.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nutrient

Isn't that what a blood transfusion does?
No. Blood transfusions do not provide nourishment essential for growth. Food and drink provide nourishment essential for growth.
No? Then there is no point to a blood transfusion if it doesn't maintain a person's life.
Everything is carried in the blood. To say it doesn't provide a substance essential for life, I have to ask, do you even know what blood is and what it does?

2timothy316
Prodigy
Posts: 3396
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 10:51 am
Has thanked: 96 times
Been thanked: 231 times

Re: Jehovah's Witnesses And Blood

Post #66

Post by 2timothy316 »

tam wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 10:51 pm
So to take someone else's blood is to take that away from them and give it to yourself.

I'm not sure how that is relevant.
That is because you don't follow the Bible and you apparently agree with taking someone's life away from them.
"For the life of the flesh is in the blood."(Lev. 17:11) Do you believe this scripture to be true?
To take someone's blood is to take life away from them and it is very relevant as why I don't take blood from someone.

A person who donates their blood is giving it of their own choice.
Only because there is demand for it and frequent donations for some people is not good for them. There will be no demanding from me. You go right on ahead take life away from people, that is completely up to you and you don't answer to me if you do.

nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3191
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 817 times

Re: Jehovah's Witnesses And Blood

Post #67

Post by nobspeople »

Miles wrote: Sat Apr 24, 2021 1:14 am .


After reading another thread mentioning Jehovah's Witnesses I became interested in their beliefs about blood. They reject blood transfusions and don't eat meat with more than a trace of blood in it. Searching around a bit I came across the following from a pro-JW web site.


"Do Jehovah's Witnesses Eat Red Meat Since it May Contain a Trace of Blood?

Though Christians are to abstain from blood (Acts 15:29), the Bible shows that the eating of flesh by Christians is proper, for God Himself told us that we could eat meat from "every animal". "Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for YOU." (Gen. 9:3)

But God commanded that before eating the flesh of an animal, his people were to pour out its blood on the ground and cover it with dust, being careful not to eat the blood, on pain of death. (Deut. 12:23-25; Lev. 7:27) This is our way for us to show respect for God's view of life.

So when someone carefully takes the strict precautions that God outlined by making sure that an animal is properly bled before consumption, they wouldn't be breaking God's command of eating blood. Since God Himself has issued these directions, obviously, if properly done, God does not have a problem with eating the meat from "every animal".

People can rest assured that nearly all blood is removed from meat during slaughter, which is why you don’t see blood in raw “white meat”; only an extremely small amount of blood remains within the muscle tissue when you get it from the store. (Also see: The Red Juice in Raw Meat is Not Blood (todayifoundit.com)"
source
(My emphasis)


However, from a comprehensive explanation of the slaughtering of animals: (I urge anyone who's interested to access the link below)

"Blood loss as a percentage of body weight differs between species: cows, 4.2 to 5.7%; calves, 4.4 to 6.7%; sheep, 4.4 to 7.6%; and pigs, 1.5 to 5.8%. Blood content as a percentage of live weight may decrease in heavier animals since the growth of blood volume does not keep pace with growth of live weight. Approximately 60% of blood is lost at sticking *, 20-25% remains in the viscera, while a maximum of 10% may remain in carcass muscles."
source

So my question is, if the muscle (meat) can contain up to 10% of an animal's blood wouldn't this make it unacceptable to Jehovah's Witnesses?



*"Cattle and pigs are usually exsanguinated [drained of blood] by a puncture wound which opens the major blood vessels at the base of the neck, not far from the heart. The trade name for this process is sticking"
Source: ibid.



.
The best way to get around this is to not eat meat at all. I think the idea of 'blood' and what it comes with is an interesting one, for sure!
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

2timothy316
Prodigy
Posts: 3396
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 10:51 am
Has thanked: 96 times
Been thanked: 231 times

Re: Jehovah's Witnesses And Blood

Post #68

Post by 2timothy316 »

tam wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 10:51 pm A person takes medicine to maintain their life as well (like blood pressure medications), but that doesn't mean medicine is food providing nourishment.
Did you know more research has been done on aspirin and its effects yet there is research on blood and it's short or long term effects? Both giving and taking blood, neither have many long term research studies. There are in some studies that say blood is bad for some people.
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/me ... e_patients
“Transfusion is not as safe as people think,” says Steven M. Frank, M.D., leader of the study described in the journal Anesthesiology.
"Transfused blood also has a suppressive effect on the immune system, which increases the risk of infections, including pneumonia and sepsis, he says."

Blood is not a medication, its a transplant which as we know the body doesn't take kindly to a foreign substance in it.
People keep passing it off as this great thing but it is not what its cracked up to be.

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 5565
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 244 times
Been thanked: 205 times
Contact:

Re: Jehovah's Witnesses And Blood

Post #69

Post by tam »

Peace to you.
2timothy316 wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 8:37 am
tam wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 10:51 pm Peace to you,
2timothy316 wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 10:12 pm
tam wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 6:41 pm "Each time the prohibition of blood is mentioned in the Scriptures it is in connection with taking it as food, and so it is as a nutrient that we are concerned with in its being forbidden."
Nutrient: a substance that provides nourishment essential for growth and the maintenance of life.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nutrient

Isn't that what a blood transfusion does?
No. Blood transfusions do not provide nourishment essential for growth. Food and drink provide nourishment essential for growth.
No? Then there is no point to a blood transfusion if it doesn't maintain a person's life.
Everything is carried in the blood. To say it doesn't provide a substance essential for life, I have to ask, do you even know what blood is and what it does?
You have chosen to accept a small part of that definition and rejected the rest.

When you cherry-pick a definition, you can make a word mean something it does not mean.
- Non-religious Christian spirituality

- For Christ (who is the Spirit)

2timothy316
Prodigy
Posts: 3396
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 10:51 am
Has thanked: 96 times
Been thanked: 231 times

Re: Jehovah's Witnesses And Blood

Post #70

Post by 2timothy316 »

tam wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 9:58 am Peace to you.
2timothy316 wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 8:37 am
tam wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 10:51 pm Peace to you,
2timothy316 wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 10:12 pm
tam wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 6:41 pm "Each time the prohibition of blood is mentioned in the Scriptures it is in connection with taking it as food, and so it is as a nutrient that we are concerned with in its being forbidden."
Nutrient: a substance that provides nourishment essential for growth and the maintenance of life.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nutrient

Isn't that what a blood transfusion does?
No. Blood transfusions do not provide nourishment essential for growth. Food and drink provide nourishment essential for growth.
No? Then there is no point to a blood transfusion if it doesn't maintain a person's life.
Everything is carried in the blood. To say it doesn't provide a substance essential for life, I have to ask, do you even know what blood is and what it does?
You have chosen to accept a small part of that definition and rejected the rest.

When you cherry-pick a definition, you can make a word mean something it does not mean.
Said the pot to the kettle.
Taken in the arm or eating it the benefits are the same, providing growth, nutrients and life and this is a fact.
https://www.eater.com/2020/2/13/2080507 ... ingredient
Blood has "protein, it’s packed with iron, vitamin D, and other nutrients." These things don't go away when transfused into a person.

Post Reply