Can Jehovah's Witnesses eat rare steak?

Question

Being that it contains some blood I would think that it would be forbidden. However, my girlfriend's family is Jehovah's Witnesses and I joined them for dinner. Of course my gf has vented to me about their no blood policy, especially when her sister had to get major surgery that might need blood. Anyway, that same sister ordered a medium rare steak with red and juices dripping out. I know there must be some blood in there. Why would they deny blood when it can save their lives when they go and eat meats that contain amounts of blood. Is it just me or is this a bit thick?

Answer 1

Yes.

**● When meat is cut in the course of preparation for cooking, or when it is sliced after it has been cooked, a reddish fluid may run out of it. Is such meat suitable for eating by a Christian?—U.S.A.

A Christian may eat meat only from animals that were drained of their blood at the time they were slaughtered. The Bible commands: “Keep abstaining . . . from blood and from things strangled.”—Acts 15:29.

Of course, even the meat from properly bled animals may appear to be very red or may have red fluid on the surface. This is because bleeding does not remove every trace of blood from the animal. But God’s law does not require that every single drop of blood be removed. It simply states that the animal should be bled.

Then, too, there is extravascular fluid in the meat. This fluid may mix with traces of blood and take on a red color. The extravascular fluid filling the spaces between the cells is known as interstitial fluid and resembles blood plasma. But it is not blood and therefore does not come under the prohibition respecting blood. Hence the presence of a reddish fluid does not in itself make meat unsuitable for food. As long as an animal has been properly bled, its meat may Scripturally be used for food.

There may be times, however, when a Christian has reason to believe that an animal may not have been bled properly. If there is no way for him to get the facts, he may choose not to eat the meat and thus avoid disturbing his conscience. This is in harmony with the principle stated at Romans 14:23: “If he has doubts, he is already condemned if he eats.”

Answer 2

Rare Steak

Answer 3

If you believe the raw red meat's red juice is blood, you're WRONG! In meat bought from a store, there'll be very little blood in the red liquid. It's actually a mixture of water and a protein called myoglobin. The myoglobin is a common protein, which has the ability to store oxygen in muscle cells.

Answer 4

Uhmmm..... coz this is nutrition? while God instant Noah on how meat replaced into to be taken care of, he did not tell him to get rid of each and every drop of blood. How long could that take? Pouring out the blood from the animal's throat replaced into an indication that one respected the cost of life. For the umpteenth time, rejecting blood transfusions does not immediately recommend dying. there are a number of many selections to blood transfusions. Do an internet seek on those, be taught something. Transfusion has a similar result as eating blood- blood that replaced into as quickly as exterior the physique is now interior the physique. God says "Abstain from .....blood" (Acts 15:28,29)

Answer 5

It is true that meat most likely has some blood left, but this is true of ALL meat. However, if the meat is properly bled, then Christians are allowed to eat it.

Answer 6

The prohibition required draining blood of animals but unless you can go to the molecular level, some traces of blood remains. Jehovah's law was to show the sanctity of blood. Draining does that.

Personally, I wash any steak to get off congealed blood and whatever may have attached itself to the meat.

Answer 7

We don't eat the blood for itself as such.
The animal is properly drained and butchered to government specifications.
There are places which specifically use blood as food.
These we do not use. (Blood sausage and others made from blood)
The bible also talks about eating marrow which is the inside of bones where blood is made.
However, the bible also tells us, if our eating habits cause distress, we shouldn't offend anyone.
Paul gave up eating meat because of some who were offended.
I suggest you discuss this issue with the family and get their view on it.
Additional: If you would like to persue this and other issues you can click on the picture beside this answer and follow the live links found there......

Answer 8

Absolutely, Why not?

There is a clear distinction in eating TOTALLY UN BLED meats & the ingesting of blood either by drinking directly as the Roman Gladiotors did or being fed introveinously(such proceedures were practiced by the ancient Egyptians) that is described by the Physician & Bible writer Luke:

(Acts 15:19-20) “. . .Hence my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God, 20 but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled(UNBLED MEETS IN ANIMALS) and from blood(ANY ingestion of blood human or animal in ANY GIVEN SITUATION (my caps & comments).”

(Acts 15:28-29) “28 For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU, except these necessary things, 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!””

SINCE YOUR dietery experts on this page, want to mention the Israelites dietary laws(of which were not set up for dietary purposes, but for religious & safety reasons) from the scriptures & WHICH DID NOT DEMAND BEING "KOSHERED" , note:

(Leviticus 17:13) “. . .“‘As for any man of the sons of Israel or some alien resident who is residing as an alien in YOUR midst who in hunting catches a wild beast or a fowl that may be eaten, he must in that case pour its blood out and cover it with dust.”

CROSS REF.

Rbi8 Leviticus 17:13
(Deuteronomy 12:16) “Only the blood YOU must not eat. On the earth you should pour it out as water.”

(Deuteronomy 15:23) “Only its blood you must not eat. Upon the earth you should pour it out as water.”
>>Did you notice it said "ONLY ITS BLOOD"--that clearly indicates a separating of the blood from the meat FOR INGESTING, exactly what people who make blood saugeses do or what is done in transfusing persons, a direct violation by any practicing this folly!

If you noted , the simple proceedure of bleeding the animal as hunters usually do today AND THEN there was no worry of any religious wrong!
--THERE WAS NO command or instruction on HOW TO COOK THE MEAT! & how much to cook the meat for dietary reasons!

>>YES IT IS YOU and the rest of the biased comments made , what DO YOU STILL live in the dark ages and follow what is popular and condemn people for actions you judge odd, AND ARE INDEED correct both Biblically and CORRECT for health concepts!

>>INGESTING OTHER PEOPLES blood does indeed TAKE LIVES ,
>>With no proof it saves lives, UNLESS ONES COUNT MIGHT be down to an almost nothing count, AND once ingested , then the Aids virus or the scores of other dangerous hidden diseases AND EVEN WORSE the chemical reaction to a substance so foreign(which chemical compatability cannot be matched , SIMPLY because the chemical makeup of our blood is much more different than even fingerprints are) that it causes SEVERE reactions that can be worse THAN THE DISEASE one has just been transfused with it ! WAKE-UP!


*** w90 7/15 p. 30 Insight on the News ***

“Most Dangerous Substance”

>>Lawsuits filed by patients who have contracted a deadly disease via blood transfusions have introduced a new level of concern to many blood banks. By mid 1989 upwards of 300 lawsuits had reportedly been filed against blood banks in the United States. Gilbert Clark, executive director of the American Association of Blood Banks, acknowledged that “the public wants perfectly safe blood,” but he admitted that it cannot be guaranteed.
>>Similarly, The Boston Globe Magazine reports that blood specialist Dr. Charles Huggins admits that blood “must be considered unavoidably non-safe.” He describes blood as “the most dangerous substance we use in medicine.” Since early 1989 the number of infectious diseases blood banks typically test for has increased to five (HTLV-I, associated with adult T-cell leukemia, syphilis, hepatitis B, AIDS, and hepatitis C). However, according to AMERICAN RED CROSS authority S. Gerald Sandler, “it seems that it’s only a matter of time until we find another rare disease spread by blood transfusion.” Despite such lethal potential, about four million North Americans are expected to receive blood transfusions during 1990. According to newspaper columnist W. Gifford-Jones, the problem is that “except for Jehovah’s Witnesses, most patients never discuss the possibility of blood transfusion.”
>>For decades Jehovah’s Witnesses have faithfully ‘abstained from blood’ in any form as God’s Word commands at Acts 15:28, 29; 21:25. The protection this has afforded them from dreadful diseases transmitted through blood transfusions only exemplifies the correctness of their obedience to Jehovah God’s laws.

Answer 9

why would a "group" that claims to follow the Bible so "religiously" forget the dietary laws??


in today's food industry...why would they eat a steak??!!

e coli, chemicals, pesticides, hormones, mad cow...

but no blood...

DUH!

Answer 10

it's about control of another person...that's it