Talk:Blood as food

message: i dont know which cultures but im sure there are african societies who drink blood let directly from the live cow - which i believe  was also practised in the past in Europe - anyone know more?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.113.18 (talk) 11:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "Some Christian cultures also avoid eating blood, and for this reason blood is not commonly consumed in the United States." First and foremost, this claim is unsourced.  I had posted a request for a source for this claim, and none were forthcoming.  After an editor removed my request, I decided to remove this sentence for the following secondary and tertiary reasons:  The United States is not monolithically Christian, and Christianity does not prohibit per se the consumption of blood.  Logically, if blood were taboo in Christian cultures, those of Europe would not have produced blood puddings.  Moreover, the Christian sects which do prohibit blood do not necessarily constitute a majority of the people of the United States.  All of this suggests a potential non-neutral point of view inherent in this sentence, which makes removing it a good idea for now. -- JeffBillman (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure I agree. I mean, the United States was, culturally speaking, founded by Puritans who believed the European churches were not enforcing Biblical rules strictly enough. But I haven't been able to find any sources that comment on the sparsity of blood-based foods in the U.S. I wish I had an adequate source for the claim, but without one I concede that the statement should probably go. – Quadell (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect it has more to do with early 20th century American regulations on food preparation, rather than anything religiously based.  As for the Puritans... well, they founded only one of the thirteen colonies.  I'd rather not concede to an a priori assumption of the United States as a Christian nation, particularly when there's no practical reason to do so for the purposes of this article. -- JeffBillman (talk) 02:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Sounds about right, but without a source it's all original research (including what I wrote above).  I just saw need to link blood sausage to neither an alleged US national distaste for it, nor a supposed Christian religious proscription of it, without a source to substantiate the claim.  Besides, in a number of parts of the US (Louisiana, Rust Belt communities with concentrations of German and Eastern European populations, Hispanic regions, etc.) sausages made from organ meats and blood are not uncommon.  But again, original research:  Best that we leave such statements out of the article until sources can be found to back them up. -- JeffBillman (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural considerations 

message: Cannibalsim can result in fatal diseases, but I've only heard that blood is difficult to digest, doesn't digest, or enduces nausia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.77.255 (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health risks? 

message: It seems like it would be a great source of easily absorbed iron. Adding the nutritional pros and cons would be good.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.140.71.43 (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nutrition 

message: I've just made an initial attempt to rearrange and organize this page a bit better.  The "types" and "dishes" sections were a bit confused and redundant, so I've renamed "types" to "methods of preparation" and moved most of the info on specific dishes down to the "dishes" section.  I've also organized the dishes a bit by region to try to give it a bit of structure.  It's by no means perfect, and could still use some work, though.  (I also didn't make any attempt to check the content for accuracy/citations/etc.  It looks to me like this page could use some work in that department, but I don't currently have the expertise or time..) -- Foogod (talk) 21:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization 

message: Additional information regarding nutritional value, digestion and potential health risk should be included in this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.180.5.79 (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional information 

message: The article should contain information on digestibility of blood in humans, yet it contains nothing of the sort. --Wykypydya (talk) 03:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic details missing 

message: Reference to Eucharist is irrelevant. Christians do not literally consume blood (but wine). 5.53.16.36 (talk) 09:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eucharist is Irrelevant 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Blood as food. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120203204747/http://www.apoloybaco.com:80/tapeosevillanosevillarutassangre.htm to http://www.apoloybaco.com/tapeosevillanosevillarutassangre.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Blood as food. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130325121024/http://www.chiangraitimes.com/news/2579.html to http://www.chiangraitimes.com/news/2579.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "However, nowhere in Christianity is the drink consumed at the Eucharist actual blood, even among denominations believing in transsubstantiation (the literal transformation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood). The consumption of actual blood is in fact forbidden according to the book of Leviticus, part of both Jewish and Christian holy scriptures. The "words of institution", which includes the words Jesus said to his Disciples at the Last Supper, would have been surprising and even unsettling to those present for this reason, especially as the Last Supper was a Passover seder. The ban on consumption of blood by Christians was affirmed after Jesus' death by the Apostolic Decree, chronicled in the Acts of the Apostles." 
Much of this section strikes me as a misunderstanding of at least a few Christian denominations. As I understand it, both members of the Catholic and Orthodox Church believe in the consumption of real blood, despite the sensory illusion of wine. So on the one hand, the "drink consumed" would be blood, while the "drink prepared" would be wine. On the other hand, much of what follows seems to be a defense of that first claim. Again, my understanding would be that the ban on blood was what made Jesus' words in John 6 so difficult for his followers to hear. And the practice, picked up in some parts of Christianity, of consuming/not consuming blood seems to me one of sectarian difference and not some universally accepted rule. For example, in this, I believe the Orthodox and Catholic churches are in disagreement. Anyone offering clarification is welcome to do so and to edit the section to reflect better sources for the claims. HumanBeing14 (talk) 20:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Protestants don't generally believe in transsubstantiation, believing it to be a false doctrine of the Vatican. Most of them see it as representative of Jesus' sacrifice, not as the literal imbibing of blood.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.79.129 (talk) 20:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Lutheran’s also believe in the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the host(bread) and wine. Lutheran’s believe in sacramental union meaning Christ’s real body and blood are in the elements while the elements themselves don’t change. 95.84.65.107 (talk) 12:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious consumption of blood 

message: Cant find any sources for this? is this real? Sirsnowy7 (talk) 04:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cured blood as food