FAITH OR LIFE

 Sometime ago, I think published an article on religious bondage and I felt fulfilled speaking out on such controversial topic because it really used to piss me off… but up until some days ago, where a woman was trendy due to the fact that she happens to be under the shackles of her belief and her fellow believers. (Story time)

Apparently, she had been sick a while ago, and rather than using a medical method to treat herself, she opted for a “traditional” means. This traditional means made her health get worse to the extent of having a very huge sore on her breast. She then decided to come online (on X, formerly twitter) to ask for assistance (medical and maybe financial). Being a person a lot of X users knew, due to the fact she was a real and legit hustler, about 30 million naira was raised for her health issues within 3 days… everyone really wanted her to get out of the sick bed and continue being AUNTY ESTHER. 

First of all, protocols had to be observed and a form of consent was needed to be able to proceed with the medical procedure of treatment after she was diagnosed with breast cancer and it was moving to the armpit area already. Aunty Esther consented to this via a video she posted online with her husband inclusive. Everyone was happy and hopeful for the best till aunty Esther decided to switch up. She blatantly refused blood transfusion that is needed to begin chemotherapy and her reason for this was because it was against her belief (she’s a member of the Jehovah’s Witness).

All efforts to persuade her and try to make her see things outside this belief that made her risk her life sometime ago was all in vain. This made everyone frustrated and angry till it was decided that she would be left on her own and those who were in charge of looking after her and ensuring things were run smoothly had to hands off and step down the case. (End of story)

 

This case sure made everyone mad but I don’t think anyone was as mad as I was… The thought of one being so adamant on a doctrine that claims to have backups from the Bible which are obviously misinterpreted makes me want to go crazy. I made my research all over again to discover the brain behind rejecting blood transfusion even at the expense of your own life, and when I dug deep into these so called backups/references from the Bible, I couldn’t help but mind my business and rather enlighten you and I on the interpretation of these references. 

The first reference I looked up was Genesis 9:4 which says: "But you shall not eat flesh with the life, that is, the blood, of it." (KJV)

How did I interpret this Bible verse? I implemented a method I was thought at a very young age and this method, 100 out of a 100 times, works perfectly. I simply read about 2 verses before and 2 verses after that particular verse and guess what was being discussed in that portion of the Bible? God was giving instructions to Noah on how to FEED whilst they were in the ark during the flood. In this context, God gave Noah DIETARY measures/restrictions on blood

Next reference I looked up was Leviticus 17:10-14 which reads:

 

- Anyone who eats blood will be cut off from their people.

- The life of a creature is in the blood, and it's been given for making atonement on the altar.

- No blood is to be eaten; it's to be poured out on the ground like water.

- If you eat blood, you'll be held accountable.

 

And once again, this was another DIETARY measures God was giving the Israelites and also emphasizing on the RESPECT by which blood should be handled, be it for animal sacrifice to him or for life. 

 

The last reference I had to look up to convince myself was Acts 15:28-29 which says:

"For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: that you abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of stricked animals, and from sexual immorality."

 

I’m sure I’m not wrong for interpreting this as another DIETARY measures/restrictions on blood. 

 

I also came across a video where a witness said that accepting blood transfusion doesn’t give a person life but rather condemns the person… and a bell rang in my head to the portion of the Bible where Jesus Christ discouraged Christian’s from calling any of God’s creation “unclean”. If an act “condemns” the receiver of the action, am I wrong to say that the doer of the action automatically becomes unclean??? There’s something I’d like to chip in before I wrap up this piece. It is my own experience and I hope it also helps in understanding how “belief” works: I’m a born catholic, my parents were born Catholics and so were their parents as well, and I have opened my understanding not just within but also outside catholic doctrines. There are one or two practices that don’t sit well with me and I don’t practice them and in my opinion, that doesn’t make me less of a catholic and I don’t care what any catholic practitioner would say to me about that. You know why? It is because my belief is based on me, my conscience as a human and God, and not between me and mere mortals like myself. 

PS: Usually, I’m not one to speak ill of one’s beliefs, be it religious or personal, but then, when I throw questions and not get justifiable or logical answers, I’d then be convinced enough to shed more light on that belief and ask for my readers’ opinion in the comment section. What do you think about this topic?