This is interesting, especially for Christians who go to church: they will take the Holy Eucharistia, they will tell them that: this blood, therefore, this wine, is my blood. They do it, they consider it to be very important, and they also do it with their children, before the children understand that it is so important. And it is the same people who assume that, it doesn’t matter if they don’t do it afterall.
If you think about it, initially there was only one blood donor and He was named Christ. As simple as that.
So the question is: why wasn’t it occuring before, and why do we assume it to be self-evident, that this sacrifice and this offer, is what characterizes us as people and as Christians, but we never follow the example of the Master, to Whom of course we believe, but we believe to a certain extent.
It’s of interest to think about it in that manner, and to think, that this great revolution of blood donating – at least to us, in these areas – was born with Christ.
Even though we don’t interrelate it immediately, we assume , that it was born latter on, through science.
Consequently, we then say, when science was invented, then we were able to make blood donations, etc.
Let’s now consider the words and how we characterize them in groups. How do we characterize the blood group, where someone who has this blood group, can give to everyone? Pandotis. I think that, not only you know that Christ was a blood donor but that He was actually also Pandotis. Because, He, would not have this problem of compatibility. So what is the conclusion here? It’s that, if you understand one day that he who is actually omnipotent, is also a pandotis, then I think that, those who are in this category, they would understand further their obligational duty .