Biblical Use of Blood - Was it All About Food?

[TwoWhalesInAPool]

A poem by TWIAP

Oh, sacred crimson fluid, so divine,
In the book it flows like rivers of wine,
From genesis to revelation, quite a sight,
The obsession with blood, a vampiric delight.

First we have Abel, who offered a lamb,
But no mint sauce with Cains humble yam,
The blood of the innocent, a pleasing scent?
Apparently it's what the almighty meant.

Then came Noah, with his mighty ark,
Size really matters, when animals embark,
But first, he must sacrifice creatures galore,
Their blood on his altar a final encore.

Next up, that man Moses, what a story!
Plagues and miracles all for gods glory,
To free his people, blood was the key,
There's that lamb again, a symbol of glee?

And, who can forget the great exodus?
Blood on the door with hardly a fuss,
The angel of death, passing on by,
All thanks to blood, that reason why.

Now lets move on to the priests of old,
With their red fluid rituals a sight to behold,
The splashing of blood, so pure, so grand,
To cleanse all sinners in the promised land.

But wait, there's more. What a surprise!
Jesus, the ultimate sacrifice,
His blood, shed on the cross, for our sins,
A rather extreme way to forgive human whims.

Hah, the biblical use of blood, how fucking absurd,
A fascination that is totally disturbed,
From animal sacrifices to christ crucifixion,
A gory tale that defies all reason.

So let us ponder this nasty obsession,
With blood as the ultimate divine expression,
It's time to embrace a different trend,
And leave the crimson fluid to finally mend.

Amen.

 

[A_Son_of_God]

A poem by TWIAP

Oh, sacred crimson fluid, so divine,
In the book it flows like rivers of wine,
From genesis to revelation, quite a sight,
The obsession with blood, a vampiric delight.

First we have Abel, who offered a lamb,
But no mint sauce with Cains humble yam,
The blood of the innocent, a pleasing scent?
Apparently it's what the almighty meant.

Then came Noah, with his mighty ark,
Size really matters, when animals embark,
But first, he must sacrifice creatures galore,
Their blood on his altar a final encore.

Next up, that man Moses, what a story!
Plagues and miracles all for gods glory,
To free his people, blood was the key,
There's that lamb again, a symbol of glee?

And, who can forget the great exodus?
Blood on the door with hardly a fuss,
The angel of death, passing on by,
All thanks to blood, that reason why.

Now lets move on to the priests of old,
With their red fluid rituals a sight to behold,
The splashing of blood, so pure, so grand,
To cleanse all sinners in the promised land.

But wait, there's more. What a surprise!
Jesus, the ultimate sacrifice,
His blood, shed on the cross, for our sins,
A rather extreme way to forgive human whims.

Hah, the biblical use of blood, how fucking absurd,
A fascination that is totally disturbed,
From animal sacrifices to christ crucifixion,
A gory tale that defies all reason.

So let us ponder this nasty obsession,
With blood as the ultimate divine expression,
It's time to embrace a different trend,
And leave the crimson fluid to finally mend.

Amen.

At least this one was on theme. Well done!
Still, being the creator, he has the right to determine blood as sacred if he wants to. And he does.

 

[Dropship]

In context, God okayed us eating whatever we fancied-
"Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything" (Genesis 9:3)

Later at times he had to tell people to lay off certain foods for a while, probably because livestock disease was going around, then later we got the all-clear..
"You may slaughter your animals in any of your towns and eat as much of the meat as you want, as if it were gazelle or deer, according to the blessing the Lord your God gives you" (Deut 12:15)
"He took his yoke of oxen and slaughtered them. He burned the plowing equipment to cook the meat and gave it to the people, and they ate" (1 Kings 19:21)
"On this mountain the Lord Almighty will prepare a feast of rich food for all peoples, a banquet of aged wine- the best of meats and the finest of wines" (Isa 25:6)
Jesus said - "What goes into a man's mouth does not make him unclean" (Matt 15:11)
Paul said - "I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself." (Rom 14:14)
"And one of the Pharisees asked Jesus if he would eat with him. And he went into the Pharisee's house, and sat down to meat" (Luke 7:36)

 

[A_Son_of_God]

In context, God okayed us eating whatever we fancied-
"Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything" (Genesis 9:3)

Later at times he had to tell people to lay off certain foods for a while, probably because livestock disease was going around, then later we got the all-clear..
"You may slaughter your animals in any of your towns and eat as much of the meat as you want, as if it were gazelle or deer, according to the blessing the Lord your God gives you" (Deut 12:15)
"He took his yoke of oxen and slaughtered them. He burned the plowing equipment to cook the meat and gave it to the people, and they ate" (1 Kings 19:21)
"On this mountain the Lord Almighty will prepare a feast of rich food for all peoples, a banquet of aged wine- the best of meats and the finest of wines" (Isa 25:6)
Jesus said - "What goes into a man's mouth does not make him unclean" (Matt 15:11)
Paul said - "I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself." (Rom 14:14)
"And one of the Pharisees asked Jesus if he would eat with him. And he went into the Pharisee's house, and sat down to meat" (Luke 7:36)

After the flood, there was indeed no law on eating animals, this is true. Still, Genesis 9:4 onwards shows the sanctity of blood.

And yes, the laws changed, most likely related to things such as disease. Again, when the Christian congregation was formed, those of hte nations were not being put under obligation to follow the former Jewish law code.

 

[Dropship]

After the flood, there was indeed no law on eating animals, this is true. Still, Genesis 9:4 onwards shows the sanctity of blood.

And yes, the laws changed, most likely related to things such as disease. Again, when the Christian congregation was formed, those of hte nations were not being put under obligation to follow the former Jewish law code.

Early humans probably ate filthy stuff and even drank blood, so God probably had to straighten them up by telling them to clean up their act..

 

[A_Son_of_God]

Early humans probably ate filthy stuff and even drank blood, so God probably had to straighten them up by telling them to clean up their act..

Prior to Noah, people weren't allowed to eat of meat. The blood issue wasn't there for obedient folks. What the demons did though, and the offspring of demons, and those who followed them, we don't really know, as it isn't written. But that they were only eating vegetation is noted in the first two chapters of Genesis. So, yeah, you could be right.

 

[LadyOnArooftop]

@TwoWhalesInAPool
Your poetry is exquisite, I really get it. It's too good to be buried away in some esoteric subject. You should preserve it for posterity in your own poetry thread.

 

[Altair]

Prior to Noah, people weren't allowed to eat of meat. The blood issue wasn't there for obedient folks. What the demons did though, and the offspring of demons, and those who followed them, we don't really know, as it isn't written. But that they were only eating vegetation is noted in the first two chapters of Genesis. So, yeah, you could be right.

Prior to who? Mother Fekker.

Who came before Noah?

Say that again you freak. PRIOR to WHO?

 

[Billyliar]

Son of god, I know they went on the arc two by two, my wife said she got a invite, sadly they couldn't find another animal as ugly as her, she looked like peter Beardsley are you familiar with him,

 

[Kev45]

"Esoteric" LOL!

"Intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest."

Plagiarising someone else's work, in fact a copy and pasted mish mash of a yet to be identified "article", and then deceitfully passing it off as your own thoughts and ideas, refusing to post a link to an original source, and then angrily demanding a response to the actual article and that article only without giving the individual the opportunity to access the original, I suspect does not fall under the umbrella of theological debate.

Followed by irrational insults "a lack of education" and the stock response "God is right, and you are wrong", I suspect is not theological debate or any kind of debate at all.

But hey what would I know.

What I do know is that when you lob insults along the lines of "learn how to debate" and or "get an education" you really should have some knowledge of how academia works.

Within academia, plagiarism is considered to be unethical and fraudulent.

So please, do NOT fraudulently steal someone else's work, and then attempt to pass it off as something far more complex and philosophical than it actually is.


Have a happy Sunday.

Edited. I agree that your poem was brilliant, TwoWhalesInAPool said:. Delved far deeper and asked more questions than the actual plagiarised article and was almost immediately met with the simplistic response "Still, being the creator, he has the right to determine blood as sacred if he wants to. And he does."

 

[TwoWhalesInAPool]

to @LadyOnArooftop and @Kev45

In a chat world that can be so debased,
gratitude often gets misplaced.
But, today, I want to take a genuine moment,
to express my thanks, heartfelt and potent.

Thank you both for the words you have shared,
allowing me to feel you truly care.
With both your fonts and forum taste,
you bring sunshine to this wi-fi space.

So, here is a poem, short and sweet,
To let you know my gratitude runs beyond ether-deep.
I value the words my chat-forum bards,
touching my <3 you're the real rhetoric stars!

 

[Dropship]

I've eaten meat all my life (I'm 75) with no ill effects, and I feel sorry for grass-eaters..-

 

[Kev45]

Also, I frequent the debate room often. I don't see you raising your so-called challenges in there. Just silence, and on occasion an insult.

The lobby iggy has left you absolutely raging, hasn't it?

You yourself took the decision to post a controversial thread, publicly and specifically on a DEBATE forum, therefore it is actually you who issued the "challenge" (lol).

Secondly, I have NOT a single time even entered, let alone debated, in the debate room on this site. I have no need to skulk away in a room barely no one else uses. My views are moderate and as such can be aired publicly, and so not only are you a 'scofferer' of blood, you are also a dammed liar and BOTH sins in the eyes of YOUR God. Which also probably explain why you plagiarised someone else's body of work, deceitfully passed it off as your own hard graft, and without a single shred of remorse afterwards.

Proverb 12:17.

Whoever speaks the truth gives honest evidence, but a false witness utters deceit.

I have, in FACT, crossed swords with you in the lobby sometime last year, a single time, and when you were angrily preaching to those who you CAN'T convert anyway, and when you were, as I was too, told to shut our cakeholes by the moderating team.

I politely suggest that you stick to PREACHING hidden away anonymously in the "debate" room, where you can SPEED type to your heart's content, drowning out EVERY other voice in the process, on your journey to yet another glorious e-victory in the Lord's name.

Now, one more time for the dummies!

LOL!

 

[A_Son_of_God]

Dear Guest-Kev45.

I have you ignored, because history has shown itself to do this, in regards to you.
You make a claim, It gets answered. You pretend it wasn't answered, and don't acknowledge the claim, then you invent something and claim it as true.

You lack thinking ability, and I think for medical reasons, it would be rather cruel of me to continue talking to you on an intellectual level. Instead, you resort to insults with your hoarde of demons. Don't get me wrong, as I can give back too, but that's not what I'm supposed to be doing.

So you'll have to just troll silently, and attempt your stabs in the dark while you live in your life of denial.

Fare thee well.

 

[Dropship]

Incidentally, why exactly did God ban blood, did he explain why?

 

[A_Son_of_God]

Incidentally, why exactly did God ban blood, did he explain why?

That is a good question.

It is how God himself views blood. He views life as precious. Hence, why he allows at present the wicked to exist, as even their blood is precious. He really wants people to change before the timetable runs out for us.

Still, let's look at some of the things God states about blood, and the reasoning of God's people.

I posted in the first article, a name of a topic - literally "Blood", and mentioned you'd find it in the article in a volume of which you can find online called "Insight on the Scriptures", which is a Biblical encyclopedia, if you want to look at it from the source directly. It is an encyclopedia written by fellow Christians who view the Bible as God's sacred word. But here is a summary of some of the points that are important:

1) Blood is sacred
God states that it is precious to him. He views it as the source of life, and tells us that "the soul is in the blood" (Leviticus 17:14) You will note if you read it, it says not to eat blood. Then it gives the reason. It states clearly, "...because the life of every sort of flesh is its blood". Now, let me just say, that "soul" will be an important consideration too, but that's as big as a topic as this one. Again, if you're studious, you could look for instance in that same encyclopedia under the topic "Soul".

In the Garden of Eden, God gave Adam authority to eat all "seed-bearing" plants for food, with the exception of one tree, of which God stated was his, and that if he ate from it he would die. There was no "death" discussed for mankind prior to this, as we were to live forever on the earth, and care for it.
God has a number of things he states are his, such as revenge too.
The decision by Adam to eat of the fruit of the tree, which Eve gave him, caused Adam to be in a condition of imperfection, leading to his death. But worse than this, was that Adam had not fathered any children. So Adam had sold all humans into this state of inheriting the sickness Adam had from partaking of the tree, that he was told would kill him. So we all die. God gave a promise right then that there would be a "seed" or offspring, that would fix the situation, but no further details were given at that time.
Later on, this "seed" was promised to come through a faithful family line, in a sense. This is why family lines were recorded and written down by the Israelites, and it was necessary to confirm the arrival of the Messiah.

2) Blood has only been permitted by God to be used in sacrifice that he sets parameters on
In Leviticus 17:11 (we just looked at three verses after it), it also states this:"...and I myself have given it on the altar for you to make atonement for yourselves, because it is the blood that makes atonement by means of the life in it."
The value of blood - representing the life - is deemed high, and at least one reason is that we who TAKE blood off another being, whether human or animal, have no ability to give that life back. It is purely in God's hands to give life.
The Bible states this: "All the things that were written aforetime were written for OUR instruction" (emphasis, mine) (Romans 15:4), so what was written in the law code - even though it may not specifically apply to us directly, has a guiding principle, and is part of an explanation to what is now, and what is to come.

The Law Code was like a form of training. In fact, Paul describes it as a "tutor, leading to Christ" (Galatians 3:19-25), and explains that the law only showed the Israelites the fact that they were sinful, and that due to this sin, they had no hope of themselves being "righteous", as they'd perpetually fail in one way or another, and therefore, inherit the death that was the price of sin. but it was also to be revealed in time that this "seed" would eventually be the Messiah, and as the prophets came about, they explained more details about what was to come.

The sacrifice of Jesus was one of a sinless man - a "corresponding ransom" to what Adam took away. (1Timothy 2:5-6) What Jesus did, was come to earth after sacrificing his own beloved position before God as a spirit son in heaven (an angel) (Colossians 1:15, Revelation 3:14), and allowed to be born as a human . Although born of woman, was not born of man. Mary was a virgin, and both Mary's lineage and Joseph's lineage proved that Jesus was a Son of David, of who other prophets had spoken as the lineage of who the Messiah would come through.

It was through this sacrifice - the sacrifice of Jesus - that there would be a way bought out for humans to be washed of the sins of Adam. The gift is for all. All can partake of it. But not all will. In fact, it will be a minority who will benefit overall, due to what terms the gift is offered under.

Summary
So, the reason God has these points of view on blood is because it is sacred, and is viewed as the life force - our very souls, and every other animal's soul. Based on this, the taking of blood - whether eating it, killing humans and animals, using it for some other purpose - is determined by God as to how it is to be used, considering he is the giver of life, and the only one with the capability to bring it back. And on top of this, it reflects how we who DO appreciate the value of Christ's sacrifice for us demonstrate the sanctity of what was offered.

People say sometimes that surely if it is used to save lives, it is a good thing. But the reasoning is flawed in a number of ways. Firstly, prior to blood transfusions, there was blood-letting. This was a common practice, and is the reason why barber's shops have a pole, with a red spiral on it. This is where bloodletting was commonly performed. But since world war 2, it became commonplace to have a blood transfusion. For a history on blood transfusions, there is a good site here.
Although blood transfusions were performed prior to WW2, they were standardised, and became the industry of what we know today, pretty much.

As Jehovah's Witnesses maintain what God requires on the use of blood, they have been under fire from people and organisations with cruel accusations of letting their children die instead of giving them medical help. It should be noted that blood is still noted as the most toxic thing used in medicine, and this is because of it's complex and biological nature. There is always something that can be passed on from one person to another, including undiagnosed illnesses, but at this time, it appears the most common reason for people to die from having blood transfusions is still human error. The alternatives that have been discovered are a much higher quality treatment - yes, more expensive, but of a higher quality, with NO repercussion of inheriting someone's illnesses from them.

Another factor to consider in this is a lot of those who are claimed to have died because they didn't take blood was on part of the teams who refused to perform surgery using bloodless procedures. There are many who die from taking blood transfusion, and many who die who don't. Taking blood does not guarantee a life at all. It simply doesn't. Admittedly, it works to a degree, but looking at that former article, so did the sheep's blood to that person back in 1667.

Also, just because a person has in the past misused blood - be it by partaking in a violent sport, being a former soldier or executioner, or a violent gangster, or even by simply having a blood transfusion or eating of black pudding, they are all able to recognise what God requires, fix it, and become acceptable to God, through the value of the 'blood of the Lamb" - Jesus, that atones for our sin (Revelation chapter 5).

 

[A_Son_of_God]

Son of god, I know they went on the arc two by two, my wife said she got a invite, sadly they couldn't find another animal as ugly as her, she looked like peter Beardsley are you familiar with him,

Sadly, I think..., no, I don't know Peter. LOL

 

[A_Son_of_God]

People say sometimes that surely if it is used to save lives, it is a good thing. But the reasoning is flawed in a number of ways. Firstly, prior to blood transfusions, there was blood-letting. This was a common practice, and is the reason why barber's shops have a pole, with a red spiral on it. This is where bloodletting was commonly performed. But since world war 2, it became commonplace to have a blood transfusion. For a history on blood transfusions, there is a good site here.
Although blood transfusions were performed prior to WW2, they were standardised, and became the industry of what we know today, pretty much.

As Jehovah's Witnesses maintain what God requires on the use of blood, they have been under fire from people and organisations with cruel accusations of letting their children die instead of giving them medical help. It should be noted that blood is still noted as the most toxic thing used in medicine, and this is because of it's complex and biological nature. There is always something that can be passed on from one person to another, including undiagnosed illnesses, but at this time, it appears the most common reason for people to die from having blood transfusions is still human error. The alternatives that have been discovered are a much higher quality treatment - yes, more expensive, but of a higher quality, with NO repercussion of inheriting someone's illnesses from them.

Another factor to consider in this is a lot of those who are claimed to have died because they didn't take blood was on part of the teams who refused to perform surgery using bloodless procedures. There are many who die from taking blood transfusion, and many who die who don't. Taking blood does not guarantee a life at all. It simply doesn't. Admittedly, it works to a degree, but looking at that former article, so did the sheep's blood to that person back in 1667.

Also, just because a person has in the past misused blood - be it by partaking in a violent sport, being a former soldier or executioner, or a violent gangster, or even by simply having a blood transfusion or eating of black pudding, they are all able to recognise what God requires, fix it, and become acceptable to God, through the value of the 'blood of the Lamb" - Jesus, that atones for our sin (Revelation chapter 5).

Here is another article showing some of the potential diseases some are associating with blood.

Could Blood Transfusions and Tissue Transplants Spread Certain Dementias?

Scattered evidence suggests that aberrant proteins act as “seeds” to transmit neurodegenerative disease, but the jury is still out

www.scientificamerican.com

 

[Confused_Fred]

Thank you for sharing your perspective on the significance of blood and its treatment according to religious beliefs. The topic of blood and its use in medical procedures, particularly in the context of religious beliefs and practices, is indeed complex and multifaceted.

Different religious traditions and denominations have varying interpretations and teachings regarding the sanctity of blood and the permissibility of certain medical interventions involving blood transfusions. These beliefs often stem from theological principles and understandings of scripture.

It's important to recognize and respect the diversity of beliefs and practices surrounding this issue, as well as the deeply held convictions of individuals and communities. Discussions about medical ethics, religious freedom, and personal autonomy are essential in navigating these complex and sensitive matters.

Ultimately, individuals and families must make informed decisions about medical treatments in accordance with their religious beliefs, values, and preferences, while also considering medical advice and best practices.

Thank you for contributing to the conversation and sharing your insights.