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

[JW Insider]

3 hours ago, George88 said:

What does milk have to do with carrion, spoiled meat, and carcasses?

It's a matter of human's ingesting fat, whether breast-milk fat or beast-milk fat. A point may also be made that breast milk may sometimes contain blood cells of a type forbidden by Witnesses.

Also, Miles never mentioned spoiled carrion, and has only been referring to fresh, and therefore potentially edible carrion (depending on the condition of the animal when it died). I have seen cooked meat left out and remain more edible-looking than freshly picked strawberries which can begin to get moldy within hours when they are left out.

Like you, however, I wondered why so much emphasis on finding animals freshly dead from an accident, a fall, etc. Perhaps it is not acceptable to think that Jehovah killed animals for those skins he made (although Jehovah didn't need to; he could have created skins if it came to that).  But we already know that Abel would have killed animals for sacrifice. So why the emphasis on Noah or others "finding" the accidental animal? Perhaps Miles will make this clearer.

[Pudgy]

if you make a list of all the possible food sources to take on an ocean voyage lasting perhaps a year … not theoretically .., i mean YOU PERSONALLY making the list …. where would naturally dead animals be on YOUR list?

Remember …. Noah was presumably sane.

That’s why he waited 120 years for the Penguins to waddle aboard.

[Many Miles]

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Yes. I still believe that the implied food diet in Genesis for Adam and Eve was intentionally written without a reference to what they would drink. Obviously, what they drank would include water and milk, but the important part of the dietary food decree is what they were allowed to eat, with no concern for what they would drink.

Respectfully, the question asks about diet. Things like vegetation, animal flesh, water, milk and minerals of the earth are items of diet; the question asks about food. A child drinking milk is eating, and milk is the food.

Also, if we're talking about what you've referred to as "low-hanging fruit", "with no concern for what they would drink" then blood from authorized killing of animals would fall into the bucket of "drink". Right?

When it comes to what you term "the dietary food decree", when addressing humans alone the biblical record has God saying to humans "To YOU let it serve as food" without specifying whether He was referring only to 1) the vegetation he had just given to humans or to 2) the vegetation he had just given humans and the animals God had just given humans dominion of. The implication found at Gen 9 suggests the act of giving was the antecedent to the consequent of using as food.

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Your question was not about whether Eve had mammary glands (or a womb) as this would be too obvious to mention, although I had already mentioned it anyway. Whether she had a belly-button is not so obvious. Your question was whether I believe the account was intentionally written without a reference to what they would drink. Since the account was about a dietary food command to the pair placed in the garden of Eden, I answered the question with that in mind. And since we don't absolutely know whether Adam and Eve had milk while within the garden (or out, for that matter) I answered the question with that in mind.

Why you keep interjecting the question of whether Adam and Eve had a navel is, insofar as I can tell, just a distraction. If I thought you were leveraging that as relative to the question of what foods early humans could eat I'd call it out as a red herring.

Back to the issue of food, the fact of the matter is that the Genesis account is not exhaustive insofar as specifically mentioning vegetation for either humans or animals. We know animals were already eating meat, if for no other reason as part of earth's ecosystem where dead carcasses were eaten as the beginning of cycling the material back to the earth. We also know humans were designed to eat food other than just vegetation. At the very least humans were designed to eat milk and water as a necessity, and also vegetation.

The question posed was never just about Adam and Eve. It was about everyone to come from Adam and Eve as those two were designed to fill the earth.

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Personally, I am inclined more to believe that the first humans did not live by fruit or bread alone. I believe the first humans had millions of microbes in their intestines. I believe they likely needed protein sources from more than just beans and nuts and milk, but that's just me. I believe the reference to Abel killing livestock speaks to the fact that domestic animals were very early considered a meat food source in addition to a milk/cheese source. I believe that the idea of the Garden of Eden in Genesis was to show that Jehovah was ready to provide everything humans wanted and desired and it was easy picking. It was purposefully written to highlight this and left out what they would drink, and would leave us to believe that Jehovah would also provide sustenance for their protein needs without resorting to either killing or finding dead animals. 

The Genesis account includes a giving of dominion of animals and a giving of vegetation and "all the earth". This gave humans permission to use everything they had been given as they needed it, including for food.

Earlier in this discussion you commented about the text of Noah at Genesis 9. You commented, "When God first mentioned a diet that included both vegetation and something additional..." (Emphasis added)

What you wrote there is more telling than you might have imagined at the time. Your comment drew an inference from something that was said, but was not said in express terms. The text of Genesis 9 does not expressly mention anything about vegetation as a dietary item. You wrote what you wrote because in that text the use of vegetation as food is implied because, like animals, vegetation was said to be given to man. The giving implicated that humans had permission to use vegetation as food just as they could use everything else God had given man. This is precisely the presentation at Genesis 1 where humans are addressed alone and aside from being addressed jointly with animals. When addressing solely humans, God said "To YOU let it serve as food". This was said after humans had been given dominion of the animals and all vegetation.

There's another important inference in a text we've not spoke at length about (though it has been referred to often). God said to the early humans, "But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die." Later on (also in the Genesis account) a worshiper of God named Abraham asked something about God's character, His disposition. Abraham asked "Will the Judge of all the earth not do what is right?" (Gen 18:20-32) It ended up being the case, that God was going to do what was right. This leads to the question: How right would it be for it to be sin should Adam and Eve had opted to eat animal flesh, flesh they had been given dominion over, and God not let them know?

- The point here is that, in the vein of doing "right", if we have the presence of a prohibition then we should expect whatever related thing that is also forbidden is also expressed.

As it turned out, there was an express statement of prohibition related to food, and it didn't include meat. Humans had already been given dominion over animals, which are made of meat. Humans had also been given vegetation, yet there was one item of vegetation that, though God had given humans vegetation, He singled out that one item of vegetation and said you can't eat of that, if you do you will die. But of the animals God had given humans dominion over, no such prohibition was issued. Would it have been "right" of God to have known there was another item given that if eaten it would lead to death, and He didn't tell Adam and Eve?

 

 

[Many Miles]

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

So why the emphasis on Noah or others "finding" the accidental animal?

I've underscored this item of food because it is free of the baggage of Genesis 9 where soulical items are addressed related to a prohibition. An edible animal carcass dead of natural cause has neither been slaughtered by man nor is it soulical. These are non-soulical items "of the earth", and God had given "all the earth" to human domination.

Also, humans are opportunistic when it comes to food. If there's low hanging fruit that's what a human is most apt to go for at the time. Animal carcasses found dead of natural cause, whose flesh was edible, would be, for ancient people, low hanging fruit in the sense that as a food item it is loaded with nutrition, it's safe (you don't have to attempt to kill an animal who's going to defend itself!), and it's easy to harvest.

Moreover, because animals have always been subject to death, it would have been a relatively common thing to find an animal dead of natural cause whose flesh was edible.

[Many Miles]

12 hours ago, Thinking said:

I find it so frustrating when something is so simple…seems so complex to such seemingly highly intelligent people…

It's often the case that simple things explain what others see as complex issues. The problem occurs when those who see nothing but complexity fail to see how a simple thing resolves, what is to them, a complexity. 

- Sometimes a person can fail to see a forest because of focusing on a tree.

- Other times a person can fail to see a tree because of focusing on a forest.

But, oftentimes we have no choice but to dig through a lot of complexity to find a solution in a simple thing. This is where discussion with others is helpful. We can learn from one another. Sometimes a silly idea expressed aloud can lead a listener to an epiphany, only because the silly idea led them to a perspective they'd never considered before.

[Pudgy]

 Well ….  I have ENDURED a plethora ( def. “plethora”: Whole damn potload) of silly defenses of carrion to get to the point that Cornelius was neither Christian or Jew … and he was a Roman Soldier … and he was approved by God.

…. so, I guess it was worth it.

But now… I have to rethink my whole perspective on the boundaries of relative allegiances and subjection, political neutrality, and WHY Jehovah God allows war, and NEVER considered warfare murder.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, Many Miles said:

I've underscored this item of food because it is free of the baggage of Genesis 9 where soulical items are addressed related to a prohibition. An edible animal carcass dead of natural cause has neither been slaughtered by man nor is it soulical. These are non-soulical items "of the earth", and God had given "all the earth" to human domination.

That doesn't explain it well enough for me. The "baggage" of Genesis 9 appears to be retroactively applied to Adam and Eve or at least their descendants up until Noah. If an animal that died on its own is not "soulical" (whatever that means) then an animal that was killed by another animal or by a human (like Abel) is not soulical either.

Also, when coming upon an animal that appears to have died on its own, how do you diagnose that it wasn't chased by another animal or human until its heart gave out? How can you quickly diagnose that a bird that's dead from an apparent broken neck had accidentally run into something or if an animal or human had caused it? A buffalo may fall off a cliff, but it may have been part of a herd that was driven off, or maybe it had mad buffalo disease and jumped. What difference does it make to its "soulicalness?"

I know that some kosher butchering methods attempted to drain blood before an animal was thoroughly dead, and this seems to fit the idea of draining "LIFE"-blood from it, whereas if the animal were killed first and then strung up to drain blood, the animal is no longer a "soul" in some sense apparently, and one is draining blood from a non-soulical animal. (The method was used because the living heart helps push out the blood so it drains faster, although the method has been deemed very cruel to the animal.) 

Also, others have already pointed out that an animal that dies on its own may have been an unhealthy animal, perhaps even dangerous for eating or feeding to other animals, no matter how fresh it was, or how well it was treated to preserve it.

You mentioned that carrion were easier to gather without the dangers of hunting, but why are we worried about the dangers of hunting? Noah had to "capture" an awful lot of animals, and it would only have been an incremental effort to kill a few of the ones captured. Adam may have had the animals subdued to such an extent that they just walked right up to him as he decided on names for them. And, for what it's worth, Adam may also have had a tattoo in the shape of a red herring in place of a belly-button. We just don't know. 

So, I still don't see what makes carrion such an important part of this question that started out as a discussion of the scriptural basis for refusing certain whole or partial blood products.

You have provided a thorough attempt to support a specific conjecture about the dietary decrees given to Adam and then to Noah. Up to a point it's an interesting Bible discussion to me, but it still feels like we are beating a dead horse. Don't ask me how it died.

[Many Miles]

"But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die."

"Only flesh with its soul—its blood—YOU must not eat."

These two statements have something in common. Each is said of something that had been given to humans, and each carves out an exception to that gift.

The topic of this discussion is the scriptural basis for refusing a transfusion of products rendered from blood.

In the first statement above regarding the tree of knowledge, the sin of Eve is expressed this way: "So she began taking of its fruit and eating it."

"Taking of" and "eating" are the verbs at issue. Eve took something in a way she had been told not to. Eve had not been told to abstain from the tree. She had been told to abstain from eating from the tree. This becomes an issue because the blood the society says we must abstain from is precisely the blood from which all the products JWs accept are rendered. Under this doctrine, JWs are "taking of" the blood.

If it turns out to be the the case that there does exist a scriptural basis for abstaining from transfusion of donor blood, then accepting transfusion of products (the "fruit") rendered from that blood is equally forbidden, because that's what the "fruit" was picked from, which is what got Eve in trouble in the first case.

Or, would we dare suggest Eve could have taken of it's fruit, processed that fruit to get what she wanted to eat from it and thrown the rest away and all would have been good?

 

[Pudgy]

I can answer all your above questions thusly:

Without thinking you came out with the statement about the value and availability of “carrion”.

Since then you have twisted logic and reasoning every which way but loose to defend your original mistaken position.

A common mistake. Repeated every day in every area of human interaction.

I am mortified that I have done the same sort of thing when I was just learning the Truth.

[Many Miles]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

The "baggage" of Genesis 9 appears to be retroactively applied to Adam and Eve or at least their descendants up until Noah. If an animal that died on its own is not "soulical" (whatever that means) then an animal that was killed by another animal or by a human (like Abel) is not soulical either.

The text of Genesis 9 is not of my making. I'm just taking it for what it addresses, and what it says about what it addresses. The portion that required an abstention from eating blood was said of living creatures that would be killed to eat.

By soulical, I refer to that which is alive as a soul. A soul is composed of two things that must be joined, or else there is no soul, no life. Those two components are a body formed from the dust and the breath of life. (Gen 2:7; Eccl 3:19-20) As living flesh, humans are souls. As living flesh, animals are souls. Without life both are just formed dust of the ground. No more.

The text of Genesis 9 does not speak at all to animals that died of natural cause, but it does speak of animals killed by humans. Hence how an animal dies is relevant. Of natural cause, the text does not speak of it. Of human hand, the text does speak of it.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Also, when coming upon an animal that appears to have died on its own, how do you diagnose that it wasn't chased by another animal or human until its heart gave out? How can you quickly diagnose that a bird that's dead from an apparent broken neck had accidentally run into something or if an animal or human had caused it? A buffalo may fall off a cliff, but it may have been part of a herd that was driven off, or maybe it had mad buffalo disease and jumped. What difference does it make to its "soulicalness?"

Unless the animal's life was taken by human hand, then it's not subject to the text of Genesis 9. Otherwise, the sort of deaths you speak of would be natural cause in the animal kingdom. (2 Pet 2:12) How a person would determine cause of death would be up to each person before God's eyes. But there would be instances where cause would be discernible as natural. If, for instance, you see a goat fall from a cliff face it's attempting to climb, you could be pretty sure the cause was natural. If, for instance, you find a cow dead from hemorrhage during calving, you could be pretty sure the cause was natural. I could go on.

The relevance of "soulicalness" is addressed just above.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Also, others have already pointed out that an animal that dies on its own may have been an unhealthy animal, perhaps even dangerous for eating or feeding to other animals, no matter how fresh it was, or how well it was treated to preserve it.

This is irrelevant. The same could be said of vegetation. Humans are subject to illness from every food source known to man. This is true of fresh and preserved food, whether botanical or biological.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

You mentioned that carrion were easier to gather without the dangers of hunting, but why are we worried about the dangers of hunting? Noah had to "capture" an awful lot of animals, and it would only have been an incremental effort to kill a few of the ones captured. Adam may have had the animals subdued to such an extent that they just walked right up to him as he decided on names for them. And, for what it's worth, Adam may also have had a tattoo in the shape of a red herring in place of a belly-button. We just don't know.

Well, for starters, human hunting and killing of an animal would make food of that animal subject to the text of Genesis 9. Second, you legitimately raised the issue of 'low-hanging fruit', and making use of animal flesh found dead of natural cause whose flesh is fit to eat is 'low-hanging fruit' from multiple perspectives, including the fact that one didn't have to subject themselves to the dangers of trying to kill an animal who's going to fight in defense of itself.

What Adam or Noah may or may not have been able to do is speculation, and I don't like to build arguments on speculation. I'd rather start with premises that are actually evidenced.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

So, I still don't see what makes carrion such an important part of this question that started out as a discussion of the scriptural basis for refusing certain whole or partial blood products.

Hopefully my response in this case helps. If you still have questions to challenge things I've said, please do ask them. If I'm wrong I want to know it.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

You have provided a thorough attempt to support a specific conjecture about the dietary decrees given to Adam and then to Noah. Up to a point it's an interesting Bible discussion to me, but it still feels like we are beating a dead horse. Don't ask me how it died.

In this discussion I've addressed multiple subjects that impinge the issue of scriptural underpinnings for refusing transfusion of products rendered from blood. The subject of animal carcasses dead of natural cause is just one of many I've raised. These carcasses are potentially loaded with blood, and nothing said to Noah (or Adam!) prohibited the eating of this flesh one way or another.

 

[Pudgy]

If it takes 100,000 words to explain “abstain from blood” doesn’t really mean that, you missed your calling as a Watchtower Lawyer.

[Pudgy]

I do have one nagging question that keeps me awake .   

Where is the diode?