TD argues that....
Funny thing, Fisherman is that the elements in your summary have all been taught at one time or another and in one form or another by the JW's themselves. --Obviously not all at once of course.
How's that for ironic?
The Watchtower are Right About Blood...
by cofty 556 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
TD
-
Fisherman
Funny thing
That depends on whether or not wt is correct on abstinence from ingesting blood via blood transfusion is actually required by God.
-
TD
The original argument was that transfusion nourished the body as food and was therefore a direct violation of the Noachian Covenant. The Decree was more of a corroborating line of evidence back then and the NWT did not actually use the word, "abstain" in its rendering.
Blood fractions were in fact, first allowed on the basis that they did not nourish the body, which is an argument that if taken to its logical conclusion (As I have done) would have brought the whole teaching crashing down. Transfusion does not nourish the body, does not have as its purpose the nourishment of the body and is not given because the patient needs nourishment. Watchtower writers even went so far as to say, "..we need not become absurd and quibble like Pharisees, piling on burdens beyond Divine law." (I'm quoting from memory so that may not be perfect.)
With respect, I believe your use of the word, "ingest" above is equivocal inasmuch as it is specific to the alimentary canal in medical dictionaries. Similarly, other means of egress; aspiration, transplantation, injection, transfusion, etc. are also specific to the method.
-
problemaddict 2
Oye Vey! This was quite the conversation to catch up on! As the doctrine that helped me realize I was following the wrong path and not thinking for myself, I both love and hate the discussions on blood. It truly is the single most indefensible doctrine when considering scripture, practice, and the evolution within the organization of what is and is not allowed.
Leviticus 17 is clear. I mean really.........how do you "accidentally" eat an animal found dead on the road? You trip while singing? It could have been valuable livestock as someone presented, or perhaps the person who found it is in dire straights and it was a matter of feeding his family. Either way, the person just remained unclean for a day. Not exactly analogous to being disfellowshipped and cut off from your entire social structure. It seems so clear, its difficult to understand why there is even an argument (much less 13 pages of one).
Fish I once vehemently defended this doctrine on-line. In fact I made the argument that the second mention in Acts regarding keeping from blood, was written by Luke as a sort of prescription. "Good health to you" and all that. What a tool I was! its hard, but you are very close. People die over this. A lot of them. Its important to get right, if you are going to remove a tool by which modern medicine currently and historically has been able to save peoples lives in certain situations.
I don't know......if an Israelite can sell the drowned animal to their neighbor......can JW's donate blood in a blood drive?
-
cofty
Acts 15
The background to this text was a dispute that threatened the unity of the early church. The first christians did not initially abandon Judaism to form a new religion. The separation was gradual as they were thrown out of the synagogues for preaching Jesus as the Jewish Messiah.
As the good news spread to gentiles a disagreement arose about whether these new christians should be required to get circumcised and keep the Law. A council was arranged at Jerusalem to settle the matter. Their decision appealed to a provision of the Law that satisfied both parties. In ancient Israel it was not necessary for a foreigner to adopt Judaism by becoming a proselyte. They could live at peace with their Jewish hosts as long as they observed a few necessary laws.
Leviticus mentions the need for foreigners to adhere to a few basic requirements of the Law such as avoiding idolatry, fornication and the misuse of blood. This is the formula adopted by the Jerusalem council. They decide not to burden gentile christians beyond the need to observe these "necessary things".
This then was not a new set of laws invented for christians, it was an instruction to adhere to those minimum requirements of the Mosaic Law that were incumbent on alien residents in Israel, "For in every city, for generations past, Moses has had those who proclaim him, for he has been read aloud every sabbath in the synagogues.” - Acts.15:21
The instruction to abstain from blood is the same law that required a foreigner in Israel to bleed an animal killed for food but permitted him to eat an unbled animal found already dead.
-
Fisherman
TD, does the transfused blood nourish the body in any manner at all within any definition of the word nourishment ?
If I remmember one of your arguments, you also pointed out that "keep abstaining" -absent the verb - should only refer to how and the same as they were abstaining before the decree. Albeit I am still not convinced that a person pumping a gallon and a half of blood into his body is abstaining within any definition of the word "keep abstaining" from blood.
The transfused blood is inside a person's body and the body has no choice but to metabolize it, extract and benefit from its nutrients such as iron and other nutrients in the transfused blood.
It seems that eating something or injecting the same food substance into the body, like blood for example, is very similar. Eating a human kidney vs transplanting one is not the same; The blood is eaten by the body but a transplanted organ is not.
Just expressing what seems logical. What do you think?
-
Fisherman
TD, I understand that donated blood becomes part of the receiver's circulatory system for a while but the donated blood also contains nutrients absorbed by the body and in time the donor's blood is metabolized by the body.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160718132646.htm
-
problemaddict 2
Fish,
All blood is metabolized by the body in due time. Its a "cyclical" liquid organ. I don't want to interject too much here, and let TD speak on his own, but think of this logically. You cannot put a rib smoothie or meal replacement shake into an IV. If a person is catatonic, they receive a "feeding tube". Just like if you are low on blood, you can't guzzle a pint and be all good. Besides turning your poop black, you will end up dying because your organs are not getting the necessary nutrients. the circulatory and digestive systems are two different systems.
Abstain has no qualifier. So if you viewed it on a scale, you would maybe on one hand say anything goes, blood sausage, eating bowls of blood, being a member of the Masai......then on the other side you would have not thinking about blood, not brushing your teeth too hard, etc... Both of those seem like extremes wouldn't you agree? What do you think the middle might look or feel like?
-
stavro
That depends on whether or not wt is correct on abstinence from ingesting blood via blood transfusion is actually required by God.
Watchtower’s self-recorded history is one long testament to their inability to accurately interpret scripture, culminating in their now comical attempt to understand two little words “this generation”.
The lack of certainty as to whether they have correctly understood God’s command concerning blood, has been established way beyond the point of reasonable doubt!
It is only their arrogance combined with extreme cowardice which prevents them from admitting this. The problem is that, unlike their self-confessed inaccurate interpretation of other scriptures, where sometimes no one gets hurt, this one actually costs lives, thousands of lives!
Fisherman, just because they have blood on their hands, doesn’t mean you have to as well. Don’t be an accomplice to their crime!
-
cofty
Fishy...
Lev.17: 13 & 14 state very clearly that he who hunts an animal for food and does not bleed it will be "cut off".
Verse 15 says that he who eats an animal that dies of itself will be unclean until the evening. The only requirement is to have bath and change clothes.
Why is there a difference if the blood is sacred in the way JWs believe it to be?