Just because the phrase "blood transfusions" is not in a Bible translation, this does NOT mean that the IDEA is not there. I would rather avoid the war where it may be fought, and pursue peaceable alternatives. If one jurisdiction has not conformed to accurate knowledge, I would rather choose one that has. And it is each of us what we consider accurate knowledge, for free will is Jehovah's choice for all of us, is it not? Or is it only for those who are not Jehovah's witnesses? No, that can't be, for Jehovah's witnesses are like Jehovah, just as a well-mannered child imitates its parents. Surely.
Supreme Court Blood Case - WTS LOSES
by skeeter1 168 Replies latest watchtower medical
-
-
isaacaustin
Spike tassal said:
Just because the phrase "blood transfusions" is not in a Bible translation, this does NOT mean that the IDEA is not there.
My reply: The idea is not there- all references are eating (which a transfusion is not) of animal blood.
Spike tassal said:
I would rather avoid the war where it may be fought, and pursue peaceable alternatives. If one jurisdiction has not conformed to accurate knowledge, I would rather choose one that has. And it is each of us what we consider accurate knowledge, for free will is Jehovah's choice for all of us, is it not? Or is it only for those who are not Jehovah's witnesses? No, that can't be, for Jehovah's witnesses are like Jehovah, just as a well-mannered child imitates its parents. Surely.
My reply: Actually Spike tassal Jws are followers, captive nothing remotely close to Jehovah, but rather something like the religious leaders of Jesus day. Again, where is the idea of a blood transfusion in the bible? it isn't. I could clearly see the JW elders disfellowshipping Jesus (if he were walking the earth today as a JW) for speaking out against the GB for teaching their precepts as God's commands.
-
shamus100
Or is it only for those who are not Jehovah's witnesses?
In the world of child care - yes, it is up to those who are not Jehovahs Witnesses. I'm sure it's obvious to you, dogs, and persons with developmental disabilities.
-
JWoods
Well mannered children do not usually commit genocide of an entire world of people in a fit of jealous rage, nor do they normally kill their firstborn sons by extreme torture in a self-proclaimed religious ceremony.
-
shamus100
JWoods,
The problem is not just dubs in general - it's organized religion in general. It's the vast majority of it that looks to annihalate mankind.
-
sir82
Just because the phrase "blood transfusions" is not in a Bible translation, this does NOT mean that the IDEA is not there.
That's funny! Now just substitute the word "trinity" for "blood transfusions" and you've just shot down one of the WT's favorite defense's against the trinity doctrine.
Anyways, as has been stated a billion or so times, a blood transfusion is not the same as eating blood. To illustrate: If a man was dying of starvation and taken to the hospital, would they perform a kidney transplant? Would that save his life?
For the mentally challenged, I'll answer that - no, of course not. An organ transplant is different than "eating" or "drinking". A blood transfusion is an organ transplant. JWs allow all forms of organ transplant except one - blood transfusions.
Actually, I take that back - they do allow blood transfusions, so long as the blood is sufficiently fractionated first.
-
Mary
snowbird asked: Are Spike Tassel and Scholar one and the same? You know, similar posting style ...
LOL....I asked the exact same question on another thread: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/177798/3/Do-Not-Say-The-Society-Teaches
-
keyser soze
Just because the phrase "blood transfusions" is not in a Bible translation, this does NOT mean that the IDEA is not there.
The WTS reasons on blood transfusions the same way they used to reason on organ transplants. They equated it with cannibalism, under the misguided belief that eating human organs and transplanting them were the same thing. They eventually realized the fallacy in their thinking, but not before many lives were sacrificed.
The bible verses pertaining to blood are referring to the eating of it. Anyone with the slightest grasp of historical context can reason this on their own. It isn't the same as a blood transfusion, which is using blood for its natural purpose, not as source of nourishment.
-
Spike Tassel
I wouldn't want to drink water with even a little poison purposely in it. I see blood (that's not my own) the same way now.
By the way, I do look for useful style. When the threads are serious and I have wanted to keep track of things that I've taken perhaps an hour or two to think out, then I have found it useful to have posts like what you refer to, that start off "Spike Tassel (Post …)". Now that I see that others are bothered by it, I find that marking my posts in that fashion is detracting from getting my points across. I'm adaptable, within reason. At least, that's what I aim for.
-
TD
It would be intellectually inconsistent to treat the teaching on blood as explicit Divine law on one hand and defend it as an implicit matter of private interpretation on the other.
Yet that seems to be what you're doing, Spike
Here you treat it as a matter of explicit law:
Where Jehovah and the man-made governments differ, Jehovah must be obeyed.
Here you treat it as an implicit interpretation:
I am interested in the spirit of the Bible, holy as it is. It must not be argued about as if it were a common book.
Just because the phrase "blood transfusions" is not in a Bible translation, this does NOT mean that the IDEA is not there.
The former statement requires no defense, because the laws of God must certainly be obeyed. However the latter statement cannot simply be assumed, it requires a prior defense.
Without that defense, these statements for all intents and purposes become a claim of Divine inspiration inasmuch as you would be claiming to know God's greater intent in framing the law even though this intent is nowhere expressed in the words He inspired to be written
The interpretive elements upon which you arrive at this idea therefore need to be laid out in a manner that takes it out of the realm of assumption and clearly supports it as a logical conclusion.
A three-point syllogism would be ideal. Is this possible?