Many Miles

Take two of whatever makes you feel better, and call me in the morning.

I was thinking mushrooms.

?

Cough... spit!!!

I prefer enchiladas.

Think in terms of "the Bible does not definitely rule out medical transplants of human organs." Just think it through.

If that were true then God was definitely acting contrary to His own sacred standard for specifically providing unbled flesh of carcasses found dead of natural cause to be eaten by descendants of Noah. Right?

Not sure how that follows. There is NO mention in Gen 9 of flesh dead of natural cause. If x then y Not x then not y because of x "Every moving animal that is alive" is the antecedent.

I wouldn't presume they did or didn't. According to the biblical presentation everyone after the flood was a descendant of one family, all of whom knew the story. It's fairly safe to say everything around that event was passed along one way or another. (Think: Melchizedek "priest of the Most High God") Also, we have the testimony of God inside Mosaic Law. He had no reason to specifically stipulate the selling of carcasses dead of natural cause to descendants of Noah, but He did. This would suggest God had no particular aversion to the notion aside from what He demanded of Jews under Mosaic law. But people of the nations, though descendants of Noah, were not Jews under Mosaic Law. Did I read something earlier about God not departing from His character? How does that fit here?

I'm sure you know a belief is not a fact. Speaking of facts, for a fact there is no mention in Gen 9 of flesh dead of natural cause. If x then y Not x then not y because of x

Of the notion that God would need to change His very character in relation to the substance of blood presumes God has always held blood as a sacred substance, what is the evidence of that? In Eden, there was one thing and one thing only that God held sacred to Himself. The tree of knowledge. Mess with that tree and you die. Are we to presume Adam would have also died had he ate blood, and that God would have held that a secret without telling him until it was too late? God gave Adam dominion over animals just like He gave him dominion over vegetation and all the earth, and only of ONE of these did he carve out an exception. Humans were given dominion of all animals, vegetation and the earth. The one thing not mentioned in the giving of dominion to humans was dominion over humankind. And, there was the one carve out regarding vegetation, which was the tree of knowledge. After Eden we have Cain murdering Abel. So whoever said a human could exercise dominion over another human life? Of the record we have, no one. Though there was no existing prohibition on murder God took the moment to express His disapproval of what Cain had done. But this had nothing to do with the substance of blood. It had to do with taking innocent life of a human by a human. God didn't care if humans killed animal or botanical life. But humans had not been given dominion over humankind. Later, to Noah, God made it clear that humans could take human life but it had to be justified based on murder. Though God had removed human dominion over animal life temporarily through the flood, afterward he again gave humans dominion over animals (and vegetation) which meant humans could kill either for their needs. But as God did in Eden He did again after the flood. He carved out a single thing by telling humans they could not eat blood of animals alive under their dominion when they killed them as food, and they could not eat animal flesh without killing it first. But none of this required Noah to treat blood as a sacred substance. Of blood from animals Noah killed to eat their flesh, God left him totally free to use that blood for anything else. It was only when Mosaic Law came along that the substance of blood was required to be treated as a sacred substance. The whole notion that God has somehow always held blood as a sacred substance is nonsense. There is no evidence for such a broad claim.

My buttered popcorn is good!

Thanks. That's helpful, and it anecdotally confirms a thought I've suspected for quite awhile.

The objection at issue is my correction of a statement where, in relation to Mosaic Law and Noah, you said, "By that LOWER standard after Noah, a non-Jewish person could eat an animal that was not bled." My correction you objected to was: By that LOWER standard after Noah, a non-Jewish person could eat an animal found dead of natural cause that was not bled. You didn't like that correction saying it was "a distinction without a necessary distinction." (Underlining added) Then we got into "soul". So let me restate my initial response to your objection to get "soul" out of the way and focus on the distinction between a LOWER and HIGHER standard between the Noahide and Mosaic laws. My restated response to what you say is a distinction without a necessary distinction: 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 "alive". Based on the narrative of creation, a carcass Noah found dead of whatever happened in the natural world was neither "animal" nor "man" that was alive. (Gen 1:24 and 2:7) Neither was alive. Noah was not to take life of an animal to eat its flesh as food and eat the blood from taking that life, and he also couldn't use a living animal's flesh as food unless he killed it. On the other hand, an animal found dead of natural cause was not alive. 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. As a logical expression it looks like this: If x then y Not x then not y because of x In the text of Gen 9 the antecedent (x) to the consequent (y) of not eating the blood was said of something alive in human domination, not something that was not-alive in human domination. Living things that are dead of natural cause are just another part of the earth, which was also placed under human dominion. (Gen 1:26 "and all the earth") Under Mosaic law none of that worked because God introduced a higher standard regarding the substance of blood. Now, in ADDITION to what Gen 9 required, Jews had to pour blood out onto the ground and not use it at all for their own purposes. ALSO, Jews could NOT eat even flesh dead of natural cause (which could not be bled out). ALSO, Jews HAD to use blood in sacred sacrifice to God. That was a MUCH HIGHER standard regarding blood than what we find in Gen 9. Under Mosaic law Jews had to treat blood as a sacred substance. Under Gen 9 no one had to treat blood as a sacred substance.

I'm no Hebrew reader, so I'm at the mercy of translators. In this case, specifically, NWT translators. "Only flesh with its soul—its blood—YOU must not eat." Even more specifically to this discussion, I'm talking about the society's take on Genesis 9 because the teaching under discussion uniquely belongs to the society. Hence my usage of the NWT here.

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.

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

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.

I believe that. Thanks.

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.

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.

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?

I was really looking for a view from a casual observer. It means something to me. I think they're trapped. The question of fractions harvested knowingly and purposely from blood to take what we want is like asking God if it would have been okay for Adam to knowingly and purposely harvest what he wanted to eat from the tree of knowledge and throw the rest away without eating it. And what response do you think that would have evoked from God? Who knows, maybe Adam didn't like peelings.

Yeah. That's why I said earlier that I believe in evolution! lol

I want to understand what you're saying. When it comes to what is expected of Christians: 1) When it comes to abstaining from blood, are we expected to abide by provisions found in Mosaic law? 2) When it comes to abstaining from blood, are we expected to abide by requirements predating Mosaic law? 3) Or, When it comes to abstaining from blood, are we expected to abide by something else that's different than either of those two things?