Maybe this has been posted before, I searched but didn't find anything. If the society claims "life" represents blood, could not John 12:12,13 be applied to a blood transfusion? Stay with me here. John 15:12,13 says, "My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.". So we could in a sense, "lay down our life" giving life to our friends by blood. I know this is goofy but it falls right in line with the WTS goofy logic.
Trapping a Wittness in blood doctrine...
by Burger Time 12 Replies latest watchtower medical
-
-
dvw
Thats pretty clever
-
sspo
Good point but every religion can use any scripture and reason upon it to prove a point.
Seventh day adventist are big on the Sabbath and don't drink coffee and they have scriptures to back it up.
The JW are not any different with their "unique teachings"
Any of us can have our own religion if you're good enough to convince others.
-
theMartian
You are correct: it IS goofy 'logic'!
If you don't WANT to believe or obey what God & the Spirit say about blood- why belittle us for STANDING by it?
-
Junction-Guy
It is not goofy logic, that is one of the scriptures I have mentioned before. I think it makes a good parallel with JW doctrine.
But then again the JW's,with their gifted lying tongue would still try to weasel their way out of that. -
Junction-Guy
By the way, it is no more stupid than the idiotic JW belief that a blood transfusion is the same as eating blood.
-
AK - Jeff
The entire doctrine is based on a single scripture. That scripture was clearly written to mend fences between Jewish Christians and Greek Christians. And the reference to blood is about 'eating of blood'. The order of the things forbidden are precisely the order found in Leviticus 16 and 17.
To mine more than that from this single verse in Acts that says to 'abstain' from blood is to take the matter completely out of scriptural and historical meaning as it would have been understood by those Christians. Further it elevates the symbol above the reality - life.
It would perhaps be far better to stick to an argument that can be grasped by the JW mindset - show them how many died accepting that God had told the FDS that taking organ transplants was against Christian Law also. That changed. God did not. The Brooklyn Empire was wrong then - and they are wrong now. That blood lays on their hands, and on the hands of any who encourage others to accept the word of men over the word of God. Of course that includes those Jw's who teach others their tainted version of this doctrine.
Jeff
-
Burger Time
If you look at my post about emails to my Mom arguing this, you would see I have a very good understanding of the issue. The thing is like most JW's my Mom tries to equate "life" with "blood" that we are giving "life" to people and have no right to do that. By that logic you could extend what Jesus said to that. Thats the only point I was trying to make.
Secondly to answer your question Martian, I don't care if you believe that not taking in blood is wrong. What is wrong is trying to judge others for not seeing your view of it. There is no scriptual proof that it would you would be adversly judge for it. Like anything else it's a personal choice. The heart condition trumps all law.
-
Leolaia
Maybe this has been posted before, I searched but didn't find anything. If the society claims "life" represents blood, could not John 12:12,13 be applied to a blood transfusion?
The "blood represents life" part is the very thing that reveals the error in the blood doctrine. The easiest way to trap someone in their blood doctrine is to go back to the original scripture in Leviticus and see what it is really talking about.
As for any man of the house of Israel who slaughters a bull or a young ram or a goat in the camp or who slaughters it outside the camp and does not actually bring it to the entrance of the tent of meeting to present it as an offering to Jehovah before the tabernacle of Jehovah, bloodguilt will be counted to that man. He has shed blood ... As for any man of the house of Israel or some alien resident who is residing as an alien in YOUR midst who eats any sort of blood, I shall certainly set my face against the soul that is eating the blood, and I shall indeed cut him off from among his people. For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon the altar for YOU to make atonement for YOUR souls, because it is the blood that makes atonement by the soul [in it]. That is why I have said to the sons of Israel: "No soul of YOU must eat blood and no alien resident who is residing as an alien in YOUR midst should eat blood. 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. For the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood by the soul in it. Consequently I said to the sons of Israel: 'YOU must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh, because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood' " (Leviticus 17:3-4, 10-14; NWT).
Notice the talk about atonement. Quite plainly this scripture is talking about atoning for taking the life of another creature. The logic goes like this: Anyone who slaughters another animal for food has shed blood and is thus bloodguilty before Jehovah. He must make atonement for taking away the life that Jehovah gave this creature. The life of the creature is in the blood and so the blood must be used to make atonement. That is why the blood cannot be otherwise used, because another creature has died. If you eat the blood, you fail to atone for the act of killing and you would be counted as guilty for shedding blood. That's it. That's the point. It's a matter of compensating a life for a life, atoning for your own soul for killing another creature's soul. How can blood transfusions be relevant to this logic? Are people slaughtered when they give blood? By accepting a blood transfusion, are you benefitting from the death of the person who gave you his or her blood? The Society quotes the bit about pouring out the blood and covering it with dust as the proper way to handle blood, but they never address the question of atonement. Whose life is one to make atonement for in blood transfusions? If no atonement is to be made, and if one is not bloodguilty for ending the blood donor's life, then the instructions on how to make atonement are irrelevant.
Interestingly, a few chapters later there is a direct reference to the blood of another person:
"You must not go around among your people for the sake of slandering. You must not stand up against your fellow’s blood. I am Jehovah. You must not hate your brother in your heart. You should by all means reprove your associate, that you may not bear sin along with him. You must not take vengeance nor have a grudge against the sons of your people; and you must love your fellow as yourself" (Leviticus 19:16-18).
Here a creature's life is again viewed as through its blood. This passage condemns actions that could possibly bring about the demise of another person's life. The previous verse was talking about passing judgement in justice (v. 15), so slander could lead to false conviction and capital punishment of innocent people. Hating your brother could lead to crimes of passion and taking vengeance against another person would most definitely jeopardize another person's life. The overriding principle stated here is that a person would treat other people out of love in the same way he or she ought be treated. Most Bible translations thus render the part about not standing up against someone else's blood in a way that more clearly expresses the thought in English: "You must not jeopardize your neighbor's life" (JB), "Do not do anything that endangers your neighbor's life" (NIV), "You are not to act against the life of your neighbor" (CEV), "Do not stand idly by when your neighbor's life is threatened" (NLT), etc.
This of course raises a very important issue. While Leviticus 17 does not forbid transfusions as we have already seen, the general principle in Leviticus 19 (which of course is the same as the one in Leviticus 17 because that passage also concerned the endangering of another creature's life via bloodshed) would approve of transfusions because they are a means of saving another person's life. The Society, on the other hand, recommends inaction when life is at stake and when no other means exist to save another person's life. So in attempting to abide by a distorted interpretation of the instructions in ch. 17, the Society runs the risk of violating the overriding principle in ch. 19 because they refuse to allow a person to use another person's life to save his own life. Very often, the elders and others with the capacity to make decisions do stand idly by when their brother's life is threatened. This does not show the love and respect for life demanded by God.
Although the Society insists that the "law on blood" is binding on Christians, so is the "law on love" since Leviticus 19:18 was widely cited in the NT as the entire foundation of the Law and the one principle that Christians must follow (see Matthew 5:43, 22:34-40, Mark 12:34-40, Luke 10:25-28, Romans 13:9, Galatians 5:14, James 2:8). John 15:12-13 has the very same thought and captures nicely what Leviticus 19:16-18 was trying to say about preventing the endangerment of another person's life, so your point is right on target. Interestingly, Jesus in the gospel of Mark gives two examples of how one must try to prevent the endangerment of life, even if it involves apparent conflict with other precepts in the Law. In Mark 2:24-26, Jesus makes reference to "what David did in his time of need when Abiathar was high priest and ate the loaves of offering which only the priests are allowed to eat and how he gave some to the men with him". What was more important than abiding by the commandment in Leviticus 24:5-9 (which gave instructions on the loaves of offering) was saving oneself and others from dire starvation. That respects the principle in Leviticus 19 which according to Jesus (and other rabbis of his day) was the central principle of the Law. So it was with the commandment on keeping the sabbath. Jesus asked: "Is it against the Law on the sabbath day to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?" (Mark 3:4). The implied answer is that it is not against the Law to save other people's life on the sabbath, even though there is a seeming conflict with the commandment on sabbath keeping. The reason why it is not against the Law is that Jesus views the act as abiding to a higher principle in the Law which relaxes the demands of the other commandment. He makes this clear in a preceding verse: "The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath" (2:27). In other words, the needs of man exceed the needs of the commandment. If observing the commandment would actually endanger a person's life, then the needs of the person take precedence.
-
AK - Jeff
Well stated Leo.
My point was why 'trap' them? They trap themselves, as demonstrated far more eloquently by Leo than me, by misapplication of scripture. Demonstrating the sensible meaning of the scriptures is what makes best sense to me in facing a Jw. I was one for 48 years, and your 'trap' of only NT scripture would have had no impact on me but a smile of arrogance at the time. A deeper discussion that ties into the OT ideas about blood would have greater impact, as well shown above.
Jeff