Jehovah's Witnesses And Blood

Exploring the details of Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 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
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: Jehovah's Witnesses And Blood

Post #41

Post by Difflugia »

2timothy316 wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 3:10 pmI have answered it but you're not happy with the answer and have given no Biblical support of your own.
I'm not happy with the answer because it's logically invalid.

As for support, I discussed why the quoted verses don't apply to the discussion at hand. I suppose I didn't add many new ones, but since my position is that the Bible doesn't prohibit transfusions, it might get tedious to actually list every verse that doesn't.

I suppose, though, that I could just make some sort of wild claim and provide a barely applicable verse while claiming it's your burden to make a cogent argument against it.

God commands us to not ride motorcycles! Romans 12:21:
Don’t be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
Now support with the Bible that God doesn't prohibit motorcycles, despite my devastating case. Or have I convinced you?
2timothy316 wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 3:10 pmJust opinion upon opinion.
Would it help if I support my opinions with a few circular arguments?
2timothy316 wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 3:10 pmAbstain from blood. That is the command.
No, the command is this. It appears multiple times in slightly different forms, but they all focus on eating specifically. This is Leviticus 3:17:
It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings, that you shall eat neither fat nor blood.
Acts 15:19-20 says this:
Therefore my judgment is that we don’t trouble those from among the Gentiles who turn to God, but that we write to them that they abstain from the pollution of idols, from sexual immorality, from what is strangled, and from blood.
As I said, one could conceivably argue that James' advice in Acts 15:19-20 is creating a law de novo that goes beyond any Old Testament law, but considering that the verse refers to paraphrases of other known Old Testament laws, that would be difficult to justify.
2timothy316 wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 3:10 pmYou want a loophole to which there is none.
If a law doesn't exist, reliance on its lack of existence isn't a "loophole."
2timothy316 wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 3:10 pmYou have made it clear that serving God is not for you.
I've also made it clear that if I did serve God, I'd pay much closer attention to His actual words than others that also claim to.
2timothy316 wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 3:10 pmSo be it. To me it is important and you can't just use your reasoning that sounds good to you and think it's right for me.
You can trust me when I say I lost such optimism a long time ago.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 6443
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 353 times
Been thanked: 324 times
Contact:

Re: Jehovah's Witnesses And Blood

Post #42

Post by tam »

2timothy316 wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 3:46 pm
tam wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 3:44 pm Peace to you,
2timothy316 wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 3:34 pm
tam wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 3:32 pm Peace again to you,
2timothy316 wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 3:28 pm
tam wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 3:24 pm permitted by the WTS,
This is not why I don't take blood. The WTS is a legal entity that publishes books. It makes sense that someone that doesn't understand JWs to say such a thing as they have no idea what the WTS even is.

The WTS can't stop anyone from doing anything.
Exchange WTS (Watch Tower Society) for JW leadership then, and the point is exactly the same.
Once again this is not correct. WTS doesn't hold the JW leadership. There is no one in the whole JW religion that can stop me from doing anything. That is not the role of the FDS. (Faithful and Discreet Slave) I am not accountable to them. I'm accountable to Jehovah God.
I did not say the WTS holds the JW leadership. I said exchange "WTS" for "JW leadership"... and the point is exactly the same. You're splitting hairs.

I'm not going to swallow up the rest of the thread arguing a moot point.


Peace again to you.
The incorrect things like you posts on sites like how people get the wrong information about Jehovah's Witnesses. Clearly it's not like you care, yet it is actually important to be accurate when speaking of something you claim to know a lot about.

The command to abstain from blood is not from the FDS. But you're trying to portray that it is and your wrong.

You know how people complain about big organizations, where you have a complaint, but each department says that is not their domain. Then they transfer you to another department, then another, and maybe you even end up back at the first department.

It is just a tactic to delay or avoid being held accountable for something.

That's all this is.

A big corporation dividing itself into separate entities so that it makes it harder to be held accountable for anything.


And complaining that I use the 'wrong' term to describe a religion and its leaders is just pointing out a gnat, but swallowing a camel.
- Non-religious Christian spirituality

- For Christ (who is the Spirit)

2timothy316
Under Probation
Posts: 4161
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 10:51 am
Has thanked: 175 times
Been thanked: 457 times

Re: Jehovah's Witnesses And Blood

Post #43

Post by 2timothy316 »

Difflugia wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 3:51 pm
2timothy316 wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 3:10 pmYou want a loophole to which there is none.
If a law doesn't exist, reliance on its lack of existence isn't a "loophole."
The principle behind the law does exist. You either can't understand this or do and don't care. Which is it?

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21073
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 1114 times
Contact:

Re: Jehovah's Witnesses And Blood

Post #44

Post by JehovahsWitness »

Difflugia wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 3:51 pm
As I said, one could conceivably argue that James' advice in Acts 15:19-20 is creating a law de novo that goes beyond any Old Testament law, but considering that the verse refers to paraphrases of other known Old Testament laws, that would be difficult to justify.

It doesn't have to be "justified" it just has to be stated. The word used covers more than mere oral consumption, that is not an interpretational issue it is linguistic....

Image

The bible command is to ABSTAIN from blood. To abstain means not to have something, how that thing is administered is irrelevant.





JW
Last edited by JehovahsWitness on Wed Jan 12, 2022 4:09 pm, edited 3 times in total.
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

Eloi
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1775
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:31 pm
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 213 times
Contact:

Re: Jehovah's Witnesses And Blood

Post #45

Post by Eloi »

tam wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 3:55 pm
2timothy316 wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 3:46 pm
tam wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 3:44 pm Peace to you,
2timothy316 wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 3:34 pm
tam wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 3:32 pm Peace again to you,
2timothy316 wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 3:28 pm
tam wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 3:24 pm permitted by the WTS,
This is not why I don't take blood. The WTS is a legal entity that publishes books. It makes sense that someone that doesn't understand JWs to say such a thing as they have no idea what the WTS even is.

The WTS can't stop anyone from doing anything.
Exchange WTS (Watch Tower Society) for JW leadership then, and the point is exactly the same.
Once again this is not correct. WTS doesn't hold the JW leadership. There is no one in the whole JW religion that can stop me from doing anything. That is not the role of the FDS. (Faithful and Discreet Slave) I am not accountable to them. I'm accountable to Jehovah God.
I did not say the WTS holds the JW leadership. I said exchange "WTS" for "JW leadership"... and the point is exactly the same. You're splitting hairs.

I'm not going to swallow up the rest of the thread arguing a moot point.


Peace again to you.
The incorrect things like you posts on sites like how people get the wrong information about Jehovah's Witnesses. Clearly it's not like you care, yet it is actually important to be accurate when speaking of something you claim to know a lot about.

The command to abstain from blood is not from the FDS. But you're trying to portray that it is and your wrong.

You know how people complain about big organizations, where you have a complaint, but each department says that is not their domain. Then they transfer you to another department, then another, and maybe you even end up back at the first department.

It is just a tactic to delay or avoid being held accountable for something.

That's all this is.

A big corporation dividing itself into separate entities so that it makes it harder to be held accountable for anything.


And complaining that I use the 'wrong' term to describe a religion and its leaders is just pointing out a gnat, but swallowing a camel.
We do not expect an "independent" Christian to accept the way our international community functions. Not Jew in the first century would accept how Christians were organized themselves under Christ direction at that time either.
Last edited by Eloi on Wed Jan 12, 2022 4:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

2timothy316
Under Probation
Posts: 4161
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 10:51 am
Has thanked: 175 times
Been thanked: 457 times

Re: Jehovah's Witnesses And Blood

Post #46

Post by 2timothy316 »

tam wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 3:55 pm
2timothy316 wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 3:46 pm
tam wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 3:44 pm Peace to you,
2timothy316 wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 3:34 pm
tam wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 3:32 pm Peace again to you,
2timothy316 wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 3:28 pm
tam wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 3:24 pm permitted by the WTS,
This is not why I don't take blood. The WTS is a legal entity that publishes books. It makes sense that someone that doesn't understand JWs to say such a thing as they have no idea what the WTS even is.

The WTS can't stop anyone from doing anything.
Exchange WTS (Watch Tower Society) for JW leadership then, and the point is exactly the same.
Once again this is not correct. WTS doesn't hold the JW leadership. There is no one in the whole JW religion that can stop me from doing anything. That is not the role of the FDS. (Faithful and Discreet Slave) I am not accountable to them. I'm accountable to Jehovah God.
I did not say the WTS holds the JW leadership. I said exchange "WTS" for "JW leadership"... and the point is exactly the same. You're splitting hairs.

I'm not going to swallow up the rest of the thread arguing a moot point.


Peace again to you.
The incorrect things like you posts on sites like how people get the wrong information about Jehovah's Witnesses. Clearly it's not like you care, yet it is actually important to be accurate when speaking of something you claim to know a lot about.

The command to abstain from blood is not from the FDS. But you're trying to portray that it is and your wrong.

You know how people complain about big organizations, where you have a complaint, but each department says that is not their domain. Then they transfer you to another department, then another, and maybe you even end up back at the first department.

It is just a tactic to delay or avoid being held accountable for something.

That's all this is.

A big corporation dividing itself into separate entities so that it makes it harder to be held accountable for anything.


And complaining that I use the 'wrong' term to describe a religion and its leaders is just pointing out a gnat, but swallowing a camel.
"For each one will carry his own load." Gal 6:5
"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of the Christ, so that each one may be repaid according to the things he has practiced while in the body, whether good or bad." 2 Cor 5:10

Everyone is accountable to Jehovah at the individual level. So your feelings on big organizations are moot as far as I'm concerned.

And complaining that I use the 'wrong' term to describe a religion and its leaders is just pointing out a gnat, but swallowing a camel.
Perhaps if you did spend more time being accurate, you'd have better arguments. Like in your use of the camel and the gnat. Both were unclean to eat. So swallowing either one would be breaking the Mosaic Law.

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 6443
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 353 times
Been thanked: 324 times
Contact:

Re: Jehovah's Witnesses And Blood

Post #47

Post by tam »

[Replying to 2timothy316 in post #46]

Like I said... gnat, camel. Matt 23:24



***


I am not going further to respond to comments that detract from the point, or to comments about me as a person. Hopefully that will keep the rest of the thread on track, since it was certainly not my intention to take anything away from the points being made by Difflugia.

Peace again to you all!
- Non-religious Christian spirituality

- For Christ (who is the Spirit)

Eloi
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1775
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:31 pm
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 213 times
Contact:

Re: Jehovah's Witnesses And Blood

Post #48

Post by Eloi »

tam wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 4:18 pm (...) it was certainly not my intention to take anything away from the points being made by Difflugia.

Peace again to you all!
It should, since you're supposed to be a Christian and take seriously what the Bible says about blood, even if what the Bible says doesn't make sense to the other posters from their own point of view.

The matter of blood was told to Noah as soon as he was allowed to eat animals (Gen. 9:3-5) ; then to the Israelites when they were given the law of Moses (Lev. 17:13,14) and in the first century it was given again to the Christians (Acts 15:28,29). If that doesn't seem like "enough" to someone ... then that someone has a big problem accepting God's point of view on the matter.

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 6443
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 353 times
Been thanked: 324 times
Contact:

Re: Jehovah's Witnesses And Blood

Post #49

Post by tam »

Eloi wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 4:29 pm
tam wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 4:18 pm (...) it was certainly not my intention to take anything away from the points being made by Difflugia.

Peace again to you all!
It should, since you're supposed to be a Christian and take seriously what the Bible says about blood, even if what the Bible says doesn't make sense to the other posters from their own point of view.

The matter of blood was told to Noah as soon as he was allowed to eat animals (Gen. 9:3-5) ; then to the Israelites when they were given the law of Moses (Lev. 17:13,14) and in the first century it was given again to the Christians (Acts 15:28,29). If that doesn't seem like "enough" to someone ... then that someone has a big problem accepting God's point of view on the matter.
Thank you, and as Difflugia has pointed out, those commands were about eating blood. Eating blood and a blood transfusion are not the same thing.

Peace again to you.
- Non-religious Christian spirituality

- For Christ (who is the Spirit)

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: Jehovah's Witnesses And Blood

Post #50

Post by Difflugia »

JehovahsWitness wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 3:57 pmThe word used covers more than mere oral consumption, that is not an interpretational issue it is linguistic....
Quite the contrary. A wise poster said this recently, with which I wholeheartedly agree:
JehovahsWitness wrote: Wed Jan 05, 2022 3:31 pmChristians that read the gospels without insight or regard for context make nonsense of the Word of God.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

Post Reply