What is our scriptural basis for refusing transfusion of products rendered from blood?

[Many Miles]

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Yes, it would, if it were meant to be taken literally AND if we had evidence that animals were eating carcasses that died of natural causes.

I take the Bible for what it says unless something suggests it should be taken another way. In the case of Gen 6:21 reasonableness and context should drive. 

As for evidence that animals were eating carcasses that died of natural cause, do you seriously dispute the notion that this very thing was always part of earth's ecosystem as created? The natural world all around us evidences this. (2 Pet 2:12)

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The likely meaning in context would be that he needed all the foods to fit the diets of all the different animals and whatever the fateful eight ate. And that might mean "dust" for the snakes (Gen 3:14, just kidding) and

Two things,

First, there is no disagreement between us regarding what the context of Gen 6:21 probably referred (i.e., "all the foods to fit the diets of" humans and animals). Noah would have reasonable choices about putting resources on his ark. He would have naturally gathered major food items that he could readily stow on the ark. Since there was nothing prohibiting him from gathering and stowing the flesh of animals dead of natural cause, and given the rich nutrition of this food, then I see no reason he wouldn't have included such food and every reason to think he would. After all, God did take the time to issue a food prohibition, and it wasn't meat.

It's interesting that you raise "dust" in relation to the snakes. (Gen 3:14) Snakes are obligate carnivores. They can't thrive unless they eat meat. Snakes employ more than one mode for prey acquisition. Mainly, they are opportunistic hunters and eaters. This includes eating carrion. Now, regarding the biblical notion of dust, Gen 2:7 tells us lifeless biological bodies are no more than formed dust of the earth. In effect, when a snake (an obligate carnivore) eats carrion it's eating what the Bible depicts as a "form" that is "dust from the ground". 

 

 

[Anna]

15 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Here: 

 

How to survive Armageddon. (Just kidding). 

 

[Many Miles]

9 hours ago, George88 said:

Noah's diet before the flood was based on the plants and fruits that he could find. He did not eat any dead animals, or carrion, because that was not allowed by God.

Where did God disallow the pre-flood Noah from eating the flesh of animals found dead of natural cause?

 

9 hours ago, George88 said:

Carrion was not a suitable food for Noah or his family, whether the animal died naturally or by accident.

Why? Even to this day people find excellent nutritional value in eating just such food so long as it is gathered and processed so it is fit to eat. The same thing is true of vegetation.

9 hours ago, George88 said:

Carrion could have diseases, parasites, or blood that was not drained properly.

Vegetation can also carry diseases and parasites.

What suggested that the pre-flood Noah had to drain blood from anything?

 

[Many Miles]

19 minutes ago, Anna said:

How to survive Armageddon.

Don't knock it until you've tried it. I've eaten crickets, snails, worms, grasshoppers and much more. Opossum is a little on the greasy side for my palate, but it's edible and some folks really like it!

[Pudgy]

To prepare Roadkill Possum for long term storage you need to flatten it out and sun dry the meat. This is called “Himalayan Possum” for obvious reasons.

After the Possum has been repeatedly flattened and sun-baked, store on hot asphalt until the buzzards get it.

Their saliva and stomach acid is a natural disinfectant, and can eat through 3 decks of the USCSS Nostromo.

…. and it’s only pronounced “Opossums” by drunk Irish.

[Pudgy]

Are we on Candid Camera?

[Many Miles]

1 hour ago, George88 said:

Is there any biblical evidence that states Noah had permission to consume meat ...

Who or what required that Noah needed express permission to eat anything he wanted to eat, short of eating of the tree of knowledge? Your question presents a fallacy of presupposition. It presupposes a particular permission was needed without evidence that it was needed at all.

Is there any biblical evidence that states Noah had permission to consume milk, or water? Where is this?

God did disallow a food item to early humans. It was the tree of knowledge. If he wanted humans to refrain from something He told them that. So where did God disallow the pre-flood Noah from eating the flesh of animals found dead of natural cause? 

1 hour ago, George88 said:

However, before the flood and inside the Ark, this food was not forbidden. What you need to demonstrate is Noah's consumption of meat based on your claim. I also don't see Noah eating spoiled vegetables or fruits. You would have to explain your stance on that assumption.

The ONLY food item forbidden pre-flood was the tree of knowledge.

As for Noah, he was told to gather from every food eaten to feed himself and the animals. Since creation of animal life, carcasses of animal dead of natural cause has been a food eaten.

Noah was as free to eat rotten spinach as he was to eat rotten meat. He'd probably get sick eating either. But nothing other than his own palate and health compelled him to refrain from either or both.

[Srecko Sostar]

It is not for me to introduce "order" into the discussion, but I would be more interested in seeing and determining, by the participants in the discussion, what they conclude about the current JW doctrine on blood.
That seems to me to be more important than the discussion about meat products. Because there will be blood in the meat one way or another and no one will call you to account if you ate more or less blood in the meat. It is interesting to read various arguments about the diet of people from the past, but .....

 

 

[Many Miles]

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

I would be more interested in seeing and determining, by the participants in the discussion, what they conclude about the current JW doctrine on blood.

It's wrongheaded, unsound and outright refuted as wrong. It has no scriptural support whatsoever. None.

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

That seems to me to be more important than the discussion about meat products.

The subject of meat products is just one string of many that, when pulled, unravels the very fabric the society has woven its blood doctrine from.

Another thread that, when pulled, has the same effect is the question of whether animals were created to live forever and, if not, then what was the created means of returning this flesh to the earth from which it was made?

Another thread that, when pulled, has the same effect is the question of whether God's permission for humans and animals to eat vegetation was exhaustive?

Another thread that, when pulled, has the same effect is the question of whether the prohibition against eating of the tree of knowledge was the sole food prohibition placed upon earliest humankind?

Another thread that, when pulled, has the same effect is the question of whether when God told Noah to gather and take onto the ark every food eaten was Noah given permission to gather from all viable foods that were eaten at the time or not?

Another thread that, when pulled, has the same effect is the question of whether God's words to Noah that "Only flesh with its soul—its blood—YOU must not eat" was said of all flesh or the flesh of living animals?

Any one of these threads, when pulled, unravels the tapestry of the society's blood doctrine.

[Pudgy]

With false premise logic, you can unravel EVERYTHING!

 

Jehovah God HIMSELF mentions cannibalism several times …. and NOWHERE prohibits it.

 

[Many Miles]

31 minutes ago, George88 said:

Therefore, the fallacy lies when people can't prove their view.

The fallacy in this case is that you've failed to prove Noah needed permission to eat something he was never told he couldn't eat. I guess, in YOUR world, Noah was not supposed to eat milk either, since milk is not a "green plant." Right?

 

33 minutes ago, George88 said:

Noah had nothing to do with inside that Garden.

So, this means that somehow Noah had to abstain from eating things that Adam and Eve were never told they had to abstain from eating?

[Pudgy]

No.