Malawi and MCP Cards?

[Srecko Sostar]

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I also recall being asked to visit a teen from some rural congregation who had been in an accident and was being advised a transfusion was necessary. His mom was a Witness, his dad was not. I went with the idea that if this lad, who I did not know, wished for no transfusion, I would back him in his wish.  He did not indicate any such desire and he was transfused. I do not know what became of him afterwards. The experience was awkward and uncomfortable for me, not knowing any of the people involved. 

Mom is JW, father is not JW. Is the teenager JW?

[JW Insider]

For me the issue is still a bit too complex:

I would agree with the Watchtower publication quoted earlier that we are not under the Mosaic Law and that, as far as blood is concerned, we are being held to a LOWER standard than what the Mosaic Law stated concerning blood. The primary basis for the Acts 15 stance on blood was not the Mosaic Law, but the decree that Jehovah gave to Noah regarding eating animal blood and bloodguilt. By that LOWER standard after Noah, a non-Jewish person could eat an animal that was not bled. According the Mosaic Law, a Jewish person could still make money off an unbled animal and would have no qualms of conscience about selling it to a gentile living in their midst, for them to make any use they wanted of that unbled animal, including eating it. 

But then there is the question about whether we are really held to that same lower standard that the gentile had. When the congregation and the elders at Jerusalem wanted to solve the problem of gentiles and Jews coming together as Christians, they agreed with the elders' statement that gentiles should "abstain from blood, things strangled, from things sacrificed to idols, and from fornication." Some commentators have said that this was a necessary solution until the Jewish Christians realized they no longer needed to follow the Mosaic Law which was still keeping them separate, not even eating at the same table as gentiles.

That temporary nature would seem to fit Paul's statements in Galatians and in 1 Corinthians about it being OK to eat things sacrificed to idols, and OK to eat anything set before them by a gentile (which could apparently even include unbled meat, of from a strangled animal). That would mean that Paul might have thought Christians were still held to the LOWER standard of people under Jehovah's decree to Noah (with respect to blood and things sacrificed to idols). In Galatians, Paul dealt with the matter of Jews eating at the same table with gentiles. But Paul still argued against those who thought their liberty and freedom under Christianity could include fornication. But for those other things, Paul said it only held for the times when Jews around them were still "weak." 

Of course, this isn't the only way to interpret why Paul said Christians could eat anything a gentile set on the plate in front of them making no question about it. 

[Thinking]

18 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

So what is that supposed to mean?

Are Christians to:

1) Abstain from blood, according to provisions found in Mosaic law?

2) Abstain from blood, according to requirements predating Mosaic law?

3) Abstain from blood, according to requirements predating Mosaic law AND provisions found in Mosaic law?

4) Abstain from blood, according to something else that's different than either of those two things?

What are you saying? I'm trying to understand. You just keep saying "Christ law". What does that mean when it comes to abstaining from blood. Be clear.

Oxford Dictionary……ABSTAIN 

1, Restrain oneself from doing or enjoying something 

2, Formally decline to vote either for or against a proposal 

3, To Refrain from something 

 

I cannot make it any clearer….

[Many Miles]

30 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Well it’s one of them..do you want me to find four more…

Thanks. The response you gave, now that I understand it was intended as a direct answer to my question asked, is helpful. Anecdotally is confirms my impression of how an elephant can be in the room and it goes unseen. This intends  no disrespect. I appreciate you responding, and that you took time to share info from sources accompanying your response.

[Many Miles]

1 minute ago, Thinking said:

I cannot make it any clearer….

I believe that. Thanks.

[Pudgy]

37 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

Is that supposed to answer the question:

If you had to name a primary medical issue leading to mortality related to blood, what would be your top five?

As long as people in general exclude  scriptural principles, who cares?

[Thinking]

1 minute ago, Many Miles said:

I believe that. Thanks.

Aaaah condescending at its best 

[Many Miles]

5 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

By that LOWER standard after Noah, a non-Jewish person could eat an animal that was not bled.

Correction.

By that LOWER standard after Noah, a non-Jewish person could eat an animal found dead of natural cause that was not bled.

Based on the written record of Gen 9, that is a distinction with meaning.

[Many Miles]

1 minute ago, Thinking said:

Aaaah condescending at its best 

My apology. What I wrote was not intended as condescension. I do appreciate and respect your responses. You are honest.

[Srecko Sostar]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

Yes we are held to a higher standard

Who is in a higher standard than whom? Jews were held to a "higher standard" than non-Jews because they had the Law.

In what standard are Christians? Is that standard higher than the Jewish one? If the rule from Gen.  9 is valid for Christians (formulated and adapted in Acts 15), so to the pre-Christian and pre-Jewish standard, then this standard is lower than the so-called "higher standard" of the Jewish religion.

[JW Insider]

25 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

By that LOWER standard after Noah, a non-Jewish person could eat an animal found dead of natural cause that was not bled.

To me, a distinction without a necessary distinction. Dead of natural cause could include a cow, sheep, horse, goat, or snake that had been strangled around the neck by a lion that ran off or was chased off before eating it.

Genesis 9 is also open to interpretation:

(Gen: 9:3,4) Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. ⁴ “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.

Technically, it doesn't say anything about bleeding an animal before eating it. Although that's a common-sense way to interpret it, especially in light of the Mosaic Law. One odd, but possible interpretation is this: You may now eat anything that lives and moves, but just don't eat it while it is still living and moving. You must kill it first. (or, even more technically: It must have died first.)

Some of the rabbis interpreted this to mean that you couldn't strangle off a portion of meat to eat it while keeping the poor animal alive. If you had a goat giving good milk, or raising a baby goat (kid), you couldn't strangle off a leg just because you were starving. You had to kill the whole goat. You couldn't have your cake and eat it too. 

By the way, I knew a Witness who killed their chickens by strangling them: wringing their neck until the neck twisted off. 

[Many Miles]

3 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

To me, a distinction without a necessary distinction. Dead of natural cause could include a cow, sheep, horse, goat, or snake that had been strangled around the neck by a lion that ran off or was chased off before eating it.

The text of Gen 9 stands as God's expression of what he expected of humans who opted to use a living animal as food ("Every moving animal that is alive"). There is nothing in the text suggesting it had anything to do with what happened otherwise in the world of nature, as created by God.

"Animals" are like "man". Each is "soul".

Based on the narrative of creation, a carcass Noah found dead of whatever happened in the natural world was neither "animal" nor "man". (Gen 2:7) Neither was soul. Noah had not taken soul (read: life) to use its flesh as food. It was just formed dust of the earth without breath of life. I don't particularly like the taboo that leads to, but there it is.