JW Insider

I agree with him as well…all this thread does is make me stronger in my personal stand 

2 Samuel 23:13-17,In this passage, David's mighty warriors risked their lives to fetch him water from the well near Bethlehem because David expressed a longing for it. However, when they presented the water to him, David considered it as if it were the blood of his men who had risked their lives to obtain it, and he refused to drink it, instead pouring it out as an offering to Jehovah.

I think this is true. A lot of people have made the argument that blood is 80% water, or that the major component called plasma is 90% water, and we know there is nothing wrong with water. This is still a bad argument.
It reminds me of what David might have said if some of his men said, "David, you said you wanted water, and a lot of men were bleeding, but we found a way to separate the water from their blood. Here! Won't you have this bottle of water we got for you?"

I think this is true. A lot of people have made the argument that blood is 80% water, or that the major component called plasma is 90% water, and we know there is nothing wrong with water. This is still a bad argument.
It reminds me of what David might have said if some of his men said, "David, you said you wanted water, and a lot of men were bleeding, but we found a way to separate the water from their blood. Here! Won't you have this bottle of water we got for you?"

Soul patches and hair donuts should be grounds for immediate disfellowshipping and so should those with man-buns.

It's just beginning.

I think it indicates that people want a ‘king,’ somewhat like in Samual 8. They can’t handle subtle. They want a king.
’Alright, alright, we’ll give you king,’ says the visible org, ‘An entire Update to say ‘We don’t care about beards!’ That means you don’t have to either! Sheesh! We were trying to get away from that.’
Seen from a different standpoint, I think those seeking the downfall of the earthly organization also resemble those Israelites who demanded a king. Those ancients couldn’t handle the seeming vagaries of judges popping up here and there. They wanted a king, with all the trimmings, that they could see strutting around at all times.Similarly, people look real closely into the GB, see it is composed of men who have all the differing idiosyncracies of the first century disciples and they can’t handle it. How can God’s direction come from such a human arrangement? They either want an undisputed miracle-backed single entity (which we all know is not going to happen today) or they want dissolution of the whole model, going back to a ‘Jesus and me’ model. This usually means a ‘Me and Jesus’ model, since it is personal disagreements over this or that policy that motivates the desire to sink the earthly organization. They either imagine the ‘Jesus and Me’ model will continue to safeguard the unity and doctrinal uniqueness of JWs or they think that the unity and doctrinal uniqueness is not worth safeguarding—they are content to let it evolve, just like in the natural world of competitive struggle and how good things supposedly come of that. ‘Guardians of doctrine? Don’t make me laugh!’ they say.
My Bethel chum told me many years ago that it gets more challenging to see God’s hand as you get tighter with the organization. The friends in general will ooh and ahh over this new direction from God, and you will say, ‘Yeah….it’s only because so-and-so is too stubborn to……’
This is where faith comes in. It is the divine/human interface. Fleshly eyes can only perceive the ‘Indisputable miracle-backed, controlled Prophet’ model or the ‘Jesus and Me’ model for congregation headship. It takes spiritual eyes to see that, if God is really worth his salt, surely he can move dedicated men to adequately serve as his conduit. The GB is screened by being anointed, further screened by a lifetime of full time service, further screened by intensive Bible training on how to work with others by implementing Bible principles.
This training to work according to Bible principles, strive for unity, learn how to defer to one another, resist the temptation to run-over those with whom you disagree, produces good results. In individual congregations, elders periodically gather for such training in ‘elder schools,’ where they learn, among other things, that unity of the body is always the goal. This does indeed perform well, at least in my congregation, so I extrapolate it to others. (It might be different if my congregation was one of those basket-case Revelation 2 and 3 congregations) Though I am reliably informed (I can shake facts out if I want to but I usually refrain from doing it) that there is disagreement amongst our elders, you would never know it by the united front they display. Instead of shaking them down for disputes, I seek occasions to (genuinely) commend them for what they do.
It is not healthy to ‘expose’ present disagreements. (not that I don’t lap it all up if I hear of them here) People thereafter pick their favorite horses, which encourages further division. Of course people are going to disagree. The thing that counts is for them to resolve disagreements and carry on unitedly. That is the evidence of having God’s spirit.
Human traits will never disappear. ‘We have this treasure [of the ministry] in earthen vessels,’ but, being humble, God can work with such men as those comprising the Governing Body. Proud persons He can’t do much with other than squash them in time. ‘God is using imperfect people today because that’s all he has at the present time’ Mark Nourmair (approximately) says, not referring specifically to GB brothers. And, when the younger brothers fall to squabbling, the old-timer smiles, tilts back in his chair, and marvels, ‘It’s amazing what Jehovah accomplishes given what he has to work with.”
 

Exactly.

Thanks for your concern. I didn't mean to give the impression that I had any medical ailments that I know about. I'm 66 and my body aches a bit more after a hard day's work, but I have no diseases that I know about. 
I have been sleeping in very dry air this winter and I have a sore throat that I get about 1 out of 3 winters. My voice gets so low (bass) that I start singing "Old Man River" from Show Boat about 100 times a day.
Ironically I also got a nose bleed last night, very rare for me, and even more ironically I could taste and smell the iron when bits of it trickle into the back of my throat and I spit it out. I typed a couple of long posts last night with my head tilted back and a tissue stuffed into my left nostril. I couldn't even see the screen as I typed.
Another bit of medical disclosure. I have been a near-vegetarian for almost a year now, still having milk and cheese, and making a once-a-week exception for fish, and about a once-a-month exception for an egg or two. I love the new international flavors I had never tried before. I have nothing against meat, but I'm on this diet because my wife is on a very similar doctor-recommended diet and it seems to be helping her quite a bit.  

I agree that it is. But that's if we are trying to claim we can take some fractions (especially the one you just alluded to) and claim we are still abstaining from blood. I'd say that it should be a matter of conscience if one accepts those fractions, but just don't go around claiming that you are still abstaining from blood. You are accepting blood, because your conscience has allowed you to take a risk that such a use of blood, even though technically not abstaining, is potentially life-saving. Also, that it is not the same as eating blood, and is still showing respect for life and the life-giving properties of blood itself. If it is a breaking of God's law, then it's only because one's conscience allows for the higher principles of Jesus about life over law, and the increased freedom of conscience that Paul promoted. 

Thanks for your concern. I didn't mean to give the impression that I had any medical ailments that I know about. I'm 66 and my body aches a bit more after a hard day's work, but I have no diseases that I know about. 
I have been sleeping in very dry air this winter and I have a sore throat that I get about 1 out of 3 winters. My voice gets so low (bass) that I start singing "Old Man River" from Show Boat about 100 times a day.
Ironically I also got a nose bleed last night, very rare for me, and even more ironically I could taste and smell the iron when bits of it trickle into the back of my throat and I spit it out. I typed a couple of long posts last night with my head tilted back and a tissue stuffed into my left nostril. I couldn't even see the screen as I typed.
Another bit of medical disclosure. I have been a near-vegetarian for almost a year now, still having milk and cheese, and making a once-a-week exception for fish, and about a once-a-month exception for an egg or two. I love the new international flavors I had never tried before. I have nothing against meat, but I'm on this diet because my wife is on a very similar doctor-recommended diet and it seems to be helping her quite a bit.  

… especially Hanna Barbarians …

It resonates with me too. Life is too important to put at so much risk, even for soldiers believing they are doing the right thing for the war effort.
That same idea can be interpreted to think of the importance of blood as representing life. So those who take that idea seriously, even those who would never drink a drop of blood, might be all the more anxious to use any means possible to save a life, even if it involves the medical use of blood. (e.g., fractions, reintroducing one's own blood into one's body during a surgery instead of pouring it out on the ground, etc)
Jesus said that saving a human life was more important than following the law.  
As an aside, Paul was a kind of Barbarian for a Jew. As a tentmaker he had a very undesired job for a Jew. He was working with the hides of dead animal bodies. It could be a stinky job, too. That's similar to the job that Simon the Tanner from Joppa had. Peter was staying at this tanner's house when he had the dream that he was supposed to slaughter and eat reptiles (et al). 
Tertullian's father was also a Barbarian of sorts. After Tiberius condemned the practice of sacrificing babies, Tertullian's father helped to crucify priests of Saturn who had been caught openly sacrificing babies. He crucified them on the very trees overlooking the temples of Saturn where their crimes took place. 
And of course Jesus himself leads a war resulting in the spilling of much blood, even to the point of making his enemies drink blood. 
(Revelation 14:20) The winepress was trodden outside the city, and blood came out of the winepress as high up as the bridles of the horses for a distance of 1,600 stadia.
(Revelation 16:5, 6) . . .I heard the angel over the waters say: “You, the One who is and who was, the loyal One, are righteous, for you have issued these judgments, . . . and you have given them blood to drink; they deserve it.” 
I'm guessing that not all Barbarians will see what David did and draw the same conclusions.

I agree that it is. But that's if we are trying to claim we can take some fractions (especially the one you just alluded to) and claim we are still abstaining from blood. I'd say that it should be a matter of conscience if one accepts those fractions, but just don't go around claiming that you are still abstaining from blood. You are accepting blood, because your conscience has allowed you to take a risk that such a use of blood, even though technically not abstaining, is potentially life-saving. Also, that it is not the same as eating blood, and is still showing respect for life and the life-giving properties of blood itself. If it is a breaking of God's law, then it's only because one's conscience allows for the higher principles of Jesus about life over law, and the increased freedom of conscience that Paul promoted. 

Nope I don’t think there is one because it’s the PRINCIPLE behind the abstain from blood.
You eating fractions when you eat the meat..yeah some of it’s washed with pink dye to make it look good but there is still fractions in there.
jehovah knew when you bled an animal you would not get all of the  blood out…but he is teaching us his right over us..the principle of the blood letting …
I’ve seen a number of Roos hung up and bled with their head cut of and skinned..hardly any fat on them …but they had muscle..and the blood in them was  visible …yet they had been correctly bled……...they butchered them cooked and ate them …lots of fractions in that meal….antidotes apparently have fractions in them.   Some medicines do..and people don’t even know it…so stop straining  the Nat and concentrate on the principle of abstaining from blood….anyway that’s how I see it…we are all different on it and going by scripture none of us are wrong. I respect your view but it’s not my view and this is where we get into not judging each other I suppose.

The fact that we as Christians are not under law does not mean that we would break just any law or advocate that anyone else would break just any law. I think we all have a proper aversion to eating or drinking blood and for me this includes avoiding any meat that hasn't been properly drained of its blood. 
Of course, when we say "properly drained" there are probably a variety of methods and I don't care to look into them too closely. Whenever I do, I end up being vegetarian for a few months. But I can look at meat and pretty much tell if it seems reasonably bloodless to me. I can't imagine that any meat eating Christians or Jews had methods that were so much better at squeezing out anything more.
I suspect that Paul thought Christians would use their best judgment (visually) and wasn't concerned that anyone should try to make rules about how best to butcher animals. For the most part, even among gentiles, there was a lot of natural aversion to eating/drinking blood, except for certain pagan rituals which, as Christians, they would already be avoiding. 
I've always thought this was important testimony, too. For those who haven't seen it, I'll include it here:
CHAP. IX. . . . . But to us, to whom homicide has been once for all forbidden, it is not permitted to break up even what has been conceived in the womb, while as yet the blood is being drawn (from the parent body) for a human life. Prevention of birth is premature murder, and it makes no difference whether it is a life already born that one snatches away, or a life in the act of being born that one destroys; that which is to be a human-being is also human; the whole fruit is already actually present in the seed. With regard to banquets of blood and such like tragic dishes, you may read whether it is not somewhere stated (it is in Herodotus, I think) that certain tribes had arranged the tasting of blood drawn from the arms of both sides to signify ratification of a treaty. Something of the same kind was tasted also under Catiline. They say that among certain tribesmen of the Scythians also each dead person becomes food for his own relations. But I am wandering too far. On this very day, in this very country, blood from a wounded thigh, caught in a palm of the hand and given to her worshippers to drink, marks the votaries of Bellona. Again, what of those who, by way of healing epilepsy, at the gladiatorial show, drain with eager thirst the blood of slaughtered criminals, while it is still fresh and flowing down from the throat? Or what of those, who dine on bits of wild-beast from the arena, who seek a slice of boar or stag ? That boar in the struggle wiped off the blood from him whom he had first stained with gore; that stag wallowed in a gladiator's blood. The paunches of the very bears are eagerly sought, while they are yet gorged with undigested human flesh; thus flesh that has been fed on man is forthwith vomited by man. You that eat such things, how far removed you are from the feasts of the Christians! . . . Your crimes ought to blush before us Christians, who do not reckon the blood even of animals among articles of food, who abstain even from things strangled and from such as die of themselves, lest we should in any way be polluted even by blood which is buried within the body. Again, among the trials of the Christians you offer them sausages actually filled with blood, being of course perfectly aware that the means you wish to employ to get them to abandon their principles is in their eyes impermissible. Further, how absurd it is for you to believe that they, who you are assured, abhor the blood of beasts, are panting for the blood of man, unless perchance you have found the former more palatable! . . .  

The fact that we as Christians are not under law does not mean that we would break just any law or advocate that anyone else would break just any law. I think we all have a proper aversion to eating or drinking blood and for me this includes avoiding any meat that hasn't been properly drained of its blood. 
Of course, when we say "properly drained" there are probably a variety of methods and I don't care to look into them too closely. Whenever I do, I end up being vegetarian for a few months. But I can look at meat and pretty much tell if it seems reasonably bloodless to me. I can't imagine that any meat eating Christians or Jews had methods that were so much better at squeezing out anything more.
I suspect that Paul thought Christians would use their best judgment (visually) and wasn't concerned that anyone should try to make rules about how best to butcher animals. For the most part, even among gentiles, there was a lot of natural aversion to eating/drinking blood, except for certain pagan rituals which, as Christians, they would already be avoiding. 
I've always thought this was important testimony, too. For those who haven't seen it, I'll include it here:
CHAP. IX. . . . . But to us, to whom homicide has been once for all forbidden, it is not permitted to break up even what has been conceived in the womb, while as yet the blood is being drawn (from the parent body) for a human life. Prevention of birth is premature murder, and it makes no difference whether it is a life already born that one snatches away, or a life in the act of being born that one destroys; that which is to be a human-being is also human; the whole fruit is already actually present in the seed. With regard to banquets of blood and such like tragic dishes, you may read whether it is not somewhere stated (it is in Herodotus, I think) that certain tribes had arranged the tasting of blood drawn from the arms of both sides to signify ratification of a treaty. Something of the same kind was tasted also under Catiline. They say that among certain tribesmen of the Scythians also each dead person becomes food for his own relations. But I am wandering too far. On this very day, in this very country, blood from a wounded thigh, caught in a palm of the hand and given to her worshippers to drink, marks the votaries of Bellona. Again, what of those who, by way of healing epilepsy, at the gladiatorial show, drain with eager thirst the blood of slaughtered criminals, while it is still fresh and flowing down from the throat? Or what of those, who dine on bits of wild-beast from the arena, who seek a slice of boar or stag ? That boar in the struggle wiped off the blood from him whom he had first stained with gore; that stag wallowed in a gladiator's blood. The paunches of the very bears are eagerly sought, while they are yet gorged with undigested human flesh; thus flesh that has been fed on man is forthwith vomited by man. You that eat such things, how far removed you are from the feasts of the Christians! . . . Your crimes ought to blush before us Christians, who do not reckon the blood even of animals among articles of food, who abstain even from things strangled and from such as die of themselves, lest we should in any way be polluted even by blood which is buried within the body. Again, among the trials of the Christians you offer them sausages actually filled with blood, being of course perfectly aware that the means you wish to employ to get them to abandon their principles is in their eyes impermissible. Further, how absurd it is for you to believe that they, who you are assured, abhor the blood of beasts, are panting for the blood of man, unless perchance you have found the former more palatable! . . .  

That is why I think some of JWI's tongue in cheek* predictions are not too far fetched.
*(Or maybe he was being completely serious, not sure this time) 

Yes, I see your point, I see your point...
I think that for any 1st century Christian of Gentile origin, when they learn that Jehovah from the beginning (Noah) prohibited the consumption of blood. This was later highlighted in dozens of mentions in the Mosaic Law and, finally, in the apostolic decree (with Paul present) of Acts 15. In short, I am sure that in no way would they want to consume blood.
As we know, even Tertullian writes that Christians abstained from the custom of drinking blood. Yes, the Early Church held this commandment as a whole.
So, from my point of view, any exegetical possibilities about some passages like the ones you mention pale next to the rest of the evidence. They are that, a possibility. For me, the certainty is that since Noah the servants of Jehovah did not drink/we don't drink/we will not drink  blood.

Each must do what they feel is right…..and I’m sure it was a nightmare for the apostles and the James's of the time to explain what was and wasn’t acceptable in their worship…we just look at those  scriptures differently…I guess I didn’t realise just how different we looked at things …
besides all that…I sincerely hope  you will be okay with your health and I mean that…I really hope things improve for you so you don’t even have to consider the above…..and nobody can judge what another does…and you should know by now I wouldn’t…..🤗
 

Don't know.
But the explanation for the differences in this particular example could easily be that the Acts 15 decree was right for the time and place, just as letting prophets speak up in the first century congregation was right for the time and place. Peter's "killing" of two members of the congregation for lying about the extent of a financial contribution might have been right for the time and place. Certain types of healing, use of oil, speaking in tongues, etc., might also have right for the time and place. The holy spirit may well have been "leading" through difficult periods in ways that were not going to be right for another time, or even for other congregations with different situations.  

Don't know.
But the explanation for the differences in this particular example could easily be that the Acts 15 decree was right for the time and place, just as letting prophets speak up in the first century congregation was right for the time and place. Peter's "killing" of two members of the congregation for lying about the extent of a financial contribution might have been right for the time and place. Certain types of healing, use of oil, speaking in tongues, etc., might also have right for the time and place. The holy spirit may well have been "leading" through difficult periods in ways that were not going to be right for another time, or even for other congregations with different situations.  

Just a quick recap. I flippantly predicted that all medical blood products become a matter of conscience in 2026 and you said then that means you could argue that fornication and idol worship would also be a matter of conscience:
I wanted to acknowledge that idea by saying that a Christian like James would react similarly if he knew Paul was now saying it was OK for gentiles to eat meat sacrificed to an idol, after James had written that gentile Christians should abstain from meat sacrificed to an idol. Thus: 
To that, you said: 
So I first wanted to point out that James was also a scriptural Christian and he would also have drawn his conclusions about blood (and meat sacrificed to idols) from the way Jehovah viewed blood (and sacrifice and idolatry) all the way throughout the scriptures. So I think that in this regard all of us should want to be Jamesian Christians. 
If anything, James was looking for a good scriptural compromise that would help Christian Jews and Christian Gentiles be able to associate more closely.
After all, Christian association involved feasts and eating together. So much so that some were even using the Memorial celebration as another time for a feast. 
(Galatians 2:11, 12) . . .However, when Ceʹphas came to Antioch, I resisted him face-to-face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12  For before certain men from James arrived, he used to eat with people of the nations; but when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself, . . . (Jude 12) . . .at your love feasts while they feast with you, shepherds who feed themselves. . . (2 Peter 2:13) . . .while feasting together with you.  (1 Corinthians 11:20, 21, 33, 34) . . .When you come together in one place, it is not really to eat the Lord’s Evening Meal. 21  For when you eat it, each one takes his own evening meal beforehand, so that one is hungry but another is intoxicated. . . . Consequently, my brothers, when you come together to eat it, wait for one another. 34  If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that when you come together it is not for judgment (Matthew 9:11) . . .“Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” (1 Corinthians 10:27) If an unbeliever invites you and you want to go, eat whatever is set before you. . .
  Without putting words in your mouth, or twisting them, like I did before, I'm going to try to guess what you probably mean. I think you are saying that Paul may have had a point in contradicting James on the "food sacrificed to idols" part of the decree, but that the blood part of the decree was too important, and there could be no rationale against such a longstanding decree that seems to go all through the entire Bible.  
If that's what you mean, then I'd say that personally I agree. The Bible remains clear on the blood issue, and I can't think of eating blood without finding it repulsive. I find the same thing goes on in my mind with medical uses of blood, even though I am aware that this isn't really the same as eating blood. Making use of whole blood or fractions of blood for medical purposes is more like a partial organ/tissue transplant. And it can be just as dangerous as other organ/tissue transplants. 
But I think that the central body of elders for modern day congregations of Witnesses have done something similar to what James was doing. They have looked for a scriptural compromise in allowing once-forbidden organ transplants and once-forbidden tissue transplants, but have still tried to show a respect for the idea of abstaining from blood, even in medical procedures that have nothing to do with eating blood. 
So although I am still a bit revulsed at the idea of using blood for medical purposes, I remember that I had the same revulsion for heart, kidney and liver transplants. To a smaller extent I still do. What you said before about heart transplants resonated with me. And what Pudgy said about David's refusal to even drink water representing blood resonated with me too. 
But the more we understand about medical procedures, and the more we can make our own decisions about safety risks, we can start to be less revulsed by the medical use of fractions, and less revulsed by other tissue/organ transplants. In fact, I long ago decided that I wouldn't impose my own conservative conscience upon my children. Then more recently I decided that some of these medical options might even become viable for me if a situation ever called for it. 
On David's choice, it seems that Jesus made a point that it actually would have been OK for David not just to drink that water, perfectly legal, but to actually break God's law and even eat the shewbread that only the priests could eat upon penalty of death for anyone else:
(Matthew 12:2-7) . . .the Pharisees said to him: “Look! Your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” 3 He said to them: “Have you not read what David did when he and the men with him were hungry? 4 How he entered into the house of God and they ate the loaves of presentation, something that it was not lawful for him or those with him to eat, but for the priests only? . . . 7  However, if you had understood what this means, ‘I want mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless ones.
(Matthew 12:11, 12)  He said to them: “If you have one sheep and that sheep falls into a pit on the Sabbath, is there a man among you who will not grab hold of it and lift it out? 12  How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! . . .
(Matthew 15:6-11) . . .’ So you have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition.. . .11  It is not what enters into a man’s mouth that defiles him, but it is what comes out of his mouth that defiles him.”
Perhaps we are just not ready for what may well have been Paul's outlook for gentiles on blood, things strangled, and meat sacrificed to idols. But we are slowly moving in the right direction. Previously, I think I made too much of a point about James going for the Noahide decree as opposed to the Mosaic decree when making a burden for gentiles. Now, I am looking at Paul's view which is apparently against ALL LAW, no matter how good those laws appear. Under Christ, we are no longer under law at all. We don't need to be. There will always be those who will fight the idea and say that if we don't put Christians under at least some law, they are going to go "hog-wild" as a friend of mine at Bethel used to put it. They'll say we can't trust the brothers to do what's right unless we give them rules and goals and quotas. But Paul would have been against the Noahide laws, too. Christians are under "undeserved kindness" not law. 
I like the way Colossians puts it.
(Colossians 2:8-3:5) . . .Look out that no one takes you captive by means of the philosophy and empty deception according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ; because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily.  . . .  God made you alive together with him. He kindly forgave us all our trespasses and erased the handwritten document that consisted of decrees and was in opposition to us. . . . Therefore, do not let anyone judge you about what you eat and drink or about the observance of a festival or of the new moon or of a sabbath. . . . Let no man deprive you of the prize who takes delight in a false humility and a form of worship of the angels, “taking his stand on” the things he has seen. . . .  If you died together with Christ with respect to the elementary things of the world, why do you live as if still part of the world by further subjecting yourselves to the decrees: “Do not handle, nor taste, nor touch,”  referring to things that all perish with their use, according to the commands and teachings of men?  Although those things have an appearance of wisdom in a self-imposed form of worship . . . they are of no value in combating the satisfying of the flesh. . . .  Deaden, therefore, your body members that are on the earth as respects sexual immorality, uncleanness, uncontrolled sexual passion, hurtful desire, and greediness, which is idolatry. 

Don't know.
But the explanation for the differences in this particular example could easily be that the Acts 15 decree was right for the time and place, just as letting prophets speak up in the first century congregation was right for the time and place. Peter's "killing" of two members of the congregation for lying about the extent of a financial contribution might have been right for the time and place. Certain types of healing, use of oil, speaking in tongues, etc., might also have right for the time and place. The holy spirit may well have been "leading" through difficult periods in ways that were not going to be right for another time, or even for other congregations with different situations.  

Just a quick recap. I flippantly predicted that all medical blood products become a matter of conscience in 2026 and you said then that means you could argue that fornication and idol worship would also be a matter of conscience:
I wanted to acknowledge that idea by saying that a Christian like James would react similarly if he knew Paul was now saying it was OK for gentiles to eat meat sacrificed to an idol, after James had written that gentile Christians should abstain from meat sacrificed to an idol. Thus: 
To that, you said: 
So I first wanted to point out that James was also a scriptural Christian and he would also have drawn his conclusions about blood (and meat sacrificed to idols) from the way Jehovah viewed blood (and sacrifice and idolatry) all the way throughout the scriptures. So I think that in this regard all of us should want to be Jamesian Christians. 
If anything, James was looking for a good scriptural compromise that would help Christian Jews and Christian Gentiles be able to associate more closely.
After all, Christian association involved feasts and eating together. So much so that some were even using the Memorial celebration as another time for a feast. 
(Galatians 2:11, 12) . . .However, when Ceʹphas came to Antioch, I resisted him face-to-face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12  For before certain men from James arrived, he used to eat with people of the nations; but when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself, . . . (Jude 12) . . .at your love feasts while they feast with you, shepherds who feed themselves. . . (2 Peter 2:13) . . .while feasting together with you.  (1 Corinthians 11:20, 21, 33, 34) . . .When you come together in one place, it is not really to eat the Lord’s Evening Meal. 21  For when you eat it, each one takes his own evening meal beforehand, so that one is hungry but another is intoxicated. . . . Consequently, my brothers, when you come together to eat it, wait for one another. 34  If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that when you come together it is not for judgment (Matthew 9:11) . . .“Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” (1 Corinthians 10:27) If an unbeliever invites you and you want to go, eat whatever is set before you. . .
  Without putting words in your mouth, or twisting them, like I did before, I'm going to try to guess what you probably mean. I think you are saying that Paul may have had a point in contradicting James on the "food sacrificed to idols" part of the decree, but that the blood part of the decree was too important, and there could be no rationale against such a longstanding decree that seems to go all through the entire Bible.  
If that's what you mean, then I'd say that personally I agree. The Bible remains clear on the blood issue, and I can't think of eating blood without finding it repulsive. I find the same thing goes on in my mind with medical uses of blood, even though I am aware that this isn't really the same as eating blood. Making use of whole blood or fractions of blood for medical purposes is more like a partial organ/tissue transplant. And it can be just as dangerous as other organ/tissue transplants. 
But I think that the central body of elders for modern day congregations of Witnesses have done something similar to what James was doing. They have looked for a scriptural compromise in allowing once-forbidden organ transplants and once-forbidden tissue transplants, but have still tried to show a respect for the idea of abstaining from blood, even in medical procedures that have nothing to do with eating blood. 
So although I am still a bit revulsed at the idea of using blood for medical purposes, I remember that I had the same revulsion for heart, kidney and liver transplants. To a smaller extent I still do. What you said before about heart transplants resonated with me. And what Pudgy said about David's refusal to even drink water representing blood resonated with me too. 
But the more we understand about medical procedures, and the more we can make our own decisions about safety risks, we can start to be less revulsed by the medical use of fractions, and less revulsed by other tissue/organ transplants. In fact, I long ago decided that I wouldn't impose my own conservative conscience upon my children. Then more recently I decided that some of these medical options might even become viable for me if a situation ever called for it. 
On David's choice, it seems that Jesus made a point that it actually would have been OK for David not just to drink that water, perfectly legal, but to actually break God's law and even eat the shewbread that only the priests could eat upon penalty of death for anyone else:
(Matthew 12:2-7) . . .the Pharisees said to him: “Look! Your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” 3 He said to them: “Have you not read what David did when he and the men with him were hungry? 4 How he entered into the house of God and they ate the loaves of presentation, something that it was not lawful for him or those with him to eat, but for the priests only? . . . 7  However, if you had understood what this means, ‘I want mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless ones.
(Matthew 12:11, 12)  He said to them: “If you have one sheep and that sheep falls into a pit on the Sabbath, is there a man among you who will not grab hold of it and lift it out? 12  How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! . . .
(Matthew 15:6-11) . . .’ So you have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition.. . .11  It is not what enters into a man’s mouth that defiles him, but it is what comes out of his mouth that defiles him.”
Perhaps we are just not ready for what may well have been Paul's outlook for gentiles on blood, things strangled, and meat sacrificed to idols. But we are slowly moving in the right direction. Previously, I think I made too much of a point about James going for the Noahide decree as opposed to the Mosaic decree when making a burden for gentiles. Now, I am looking at Paul's view which is apparently against ALL LAW, no matter how good those laws appear. Under Christ, we are no longer under law at all. We don't need to be. There will always be those who will fight the idea and say that if we don't put Christians under at least some law, they are going to go "hog-wild" as a friend of mine at Bethel used to put it. They'll say we can't trust the brothers to do what's right unless we give them rules and goals and quotas. But Paul would have been against the Noahide laws, too. Christians are under "undeserved kindness" not law. 
I like the way Colossians puts it.
(Colossians 2:8-3:5) . . .Look out that no one takes you captive by means of the philosophy and empty deception according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ; because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily.  . . .  God made you alive together with him. He kindly forgave us all our trespasses and erased the handwritten document that consisted of decrees and was in opposition to us. . . . Therefore, do not let anyone judge you about what you eat and drink or about the observance of a festival or of the new moon or of a sabbath. . . . Let no man deprive you of the prize who takes delight in a false humility and a form of worship of the angels, “taking his stand on” the things he has seen. . . .  If you died together with Christ with respect to the elementary things of the world, why do you live as if still part of the world by further subjecting yourselves to the decrees: “Do not handle, nor taste, nor touch,”  referring to things that all perish with their use, according to the commands and teachings of men?  Although those things have an appearance of wisdom in a self-imposed form of worship . . . they are of no value in combating the satisfying of the flesh. . . .  Deaden, therefore, your body members that are on the earth as respects sexual immorality, uncleanness, uncontrolled sexual passion, hurtful desire, and greediness, which is idolatry.