What we have instead then, I believe, is a beautiful Hebrew hyperbole, as in the tree sticking out of one's eye whilst one is removing a speck in another's eye! Indeed, Jewish Talmudic literature uses a similar aphorism about an elephant passing through the eye of a needle as a figure of speech implying the unlikely or impossible:
So whether it is supposed to be camel or rope, the point is still the same. Even if people want to think it is a small gate, the point is still the same even if the gate didn't exist at the time Mark wrote.
I'm not sure why Larni brought this up in this topic since it's obviously a figure of speech.
"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
What about things that are alive but don't have blood?
I mean, come on, this is ridiculous. Bacteria are alive, but don't have blood. Plants and fungi are alive, but don't have blood. Insects and crustaceans are alive, but don't have blood (they have haemolymph, it's a bit different).
What about human cell cultures that we can keep alive in a nutrient substrate, without blood?
What about the fact that you can't make something live just by adding blood?
Blood is a carrier for oxygen and nutrients, little more.
The Biblical view that blood contains some magical "life force" is nothing more than stone-age mythology. Christian apologetics that "see, the Bible was right, the life is in the blood" are being idiots as usual, ignoring everything that disagrees with their predetermined conclusion as well as the fact that the knowledge that blood is necessary for human life is rather obvious even for the most ignorant of civilizations.
Seriously, do Christians think that no other societies had figured out that blood loss causes death?
Im just saying that we can survive without some organs with the help of medical intervention...but we cant survive without our blood.
Human tissue can survive without blood. We grow human skin for grafts using a nutrient substrate. The necessity of blood is not due to any special property of blood - there is no "magic life force" as the Bible clearly implies. Blood is necessary only because we do not currently have an effective alternate method for carrying nutrients to all of teh cells of the body. Skin is rather easy because you don't need to penetrate far - it's almost 2-dimensional. Carrying nutrients to something like a heart or a kidney is more difficult. Organs do, however, survive for short periods of time without blood, as shown in organ transplants - no blood is circulated while the organ is in transit, and if it is re-implanted within a short enough amount of time, it will survive. Clearly, life cannot be "in the blood."
Still, scientists are working on artificial blood - that is, an alternative means of carrying nutrients to the body, so that blood donations will no longer be required.
What will you say when they are eventually successful, and a human being lives without actual blood?
How do you respond to the fact that most of the living things on this planet do not have blood, but are still alive?
The bodily functions do not require the brain when life support is turned on.
Ignoring of course any modern scientific medical treatment that may help sustain an organism for some time while their body has stopped working naturally, it cannot be ignored that every function in your body functions due to your brain actively instructing it to do so.
Your question was simple, "what keeps all the organs functioning?" - you did not add any other specifics to it.
It's an indisputable fact that your organs get their instruction to do what they do from your brain, shut your brain down - NOT adding any life support - and your organs will shut down as well.
Again, "what keeps all of the organs functioning?" - the brain
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky
people who are completely brain dead can be kept alive on life support for many years. The bodily functions do not require the brain when life support is turned on.
I'm really just being cheeky here... but i think they call it a 'vegetative state'
Being in a vegetative state does not equate to being brain dead. It equates to the higher functioning of the brain being lost or impeded in some way. The lower functions, the autonomic stuff, still functions. If the brain stops working completely, then body dies because there is nothing to tell the brain to beat, the lungs to contract, ect, etc.
'Life is not simply in the blood of Biological beings. What if you remove the brain?'
The Bible needs to be understood in the context of those for whom it was originally written. Long before Harvey described blood circulation, long before anyone knew that every living cell requires a blood supply for survival, blood was thought to be 'the life principle'. That presumably arose because, by common observation, if a person lost enough blood, death ensued. It does not matter to us what the biological truth is, it is the perception of the first readers of the Pentateuch that matters.
But in any case, the purpose here is not to do with biological life, but the life of the 'eternal' spirit, for which biological life, and blood, form an analogy. Literal blood was to form a visual parable, its use in obtaining notional atonement for sins arising from, and giving rise to the precept that 'without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness'. So when a later Bible author writes 'To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood,' it means that life, spiritual life, has become available to mankind because of the loss of spiritual life of the Christ, made manifest by the literal loss of blood of the crucifixion. That is why the blood of Jesus is spoken of as 'precious', and why superstitions about that blood subsequently arose. The significance of blood throughout the Bible is really that of the freeing of the conscience from guilt of sins committed, sins being offenses toward deity; and that end is the whole purpose of the Bible. This concept of forgiveness through blood has been called the 'red line' that starts in Genesis and continues unbroken to Revelation.