Inviting djeggnog to discuss the blood doctrine

by jgnat 317 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Retrovirus
    Retrovirus

    @DJeggnogg writes:

    I'm human and I tend to do human things, being absorbed in the emotionally gripping life-and-death accounts that are related to me that are a part of the human experience on this side of Armageddon, although maybe my subconscious mind was still "reeling" from your slight on Page 7 when, after quoting something you read in a dated Watchtower (1961, wasn't it -- as if the doctrinal beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses in 2011 must be frozen in time, cannot be updated and must remain the same as they might have been 50 years ago!), and accusing us of forcing others to commit suicide, you disparage the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses as being 'a bunch of senile old men,' or words to this effect, and after calling me "an asshole" in violation of the rules here on JWN I might add, I recall you going on to suggest that I come here to count the time I spend here on JWN when not one of Jehovah's Witnesses can in good conscience report the time spent on websites like this one, websites put up here in cyberspace for the entertainment pleasure of people like @cantleave, @wasblind and @OUTLAW (who obviously don't come here for the free beer, but because they are entertainers that come here not to enlighten anyone, but to entertain the JWN audience!) and then, without missing a beat, suggesting that I have "my sneak on" -- as the kids might say -- when I come to JWN, as if it were true that the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses must approve or disapprove my visits to websites like JWN where the message I might post can be read by apostates (if that should be what you are) and non-apostates (if that should be what you are) also visit and might post messages, despite my referring more than once in other threads to the 1974 Watchtower article, "Maintaining a Balanced Viewpoint Toward Disfellowshipped Ones," which gives a much better and reasoned perspective than I would give on the topic of dealing with those who are disfellowshipped; but none of this is a valid excuse for my untoward behavior toward you, @Mary, and for this I apologize to you for the perceived offense, and for seeming to ignore your posts on Pages 8 and 9 as well.

    and subsequently, I learn

    In pity for the rest of us, learn to use the full stop properly !

  • just n from bethel
  • wasblind
    wasblind

    DjEggNogg

    Wow!..What a Gas Bag!

  • mrsjones5
    mrsjones5

    Eggnog is our newly elected...

    Run On Sentence Guy!!

    Click to see the pic, it's really funny.

    Congratulations Eggnog!!!

  • garyneal
    garyneal

    Well, he did not touch my responses. I guess he has nothing useful for a rebuttal.

  • Mary
    Mary
    eggnog said: you disparage the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses as being 'a bunch of senile old men,' or words to this effect, and after calling me "an asshole" in violation of the rules here on JWN I might add

    Obviously you don't know my posting history egghead .....I'd say you got off pretty easy given the insane rambling of your last post.......

  • ProdigalSon
    ProdigalSon

    It's a complete mystery to me what the motivation would be for someone to come here defending the Watchtower, especially their blood (sacrifice) policies, when it's like trying to bail out of the Titanic with a shot glass.....

  • isaacaustin
    isaacaustin

    eggnog:

    eggnog said: you disparage the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses as being 'a bunch of senile old men,' or words to this effect, and after calling me "an asshole" in violation of the rules here on JWN I might add

    My reply: I agree with all the sentiments above, regarding the governing body and you.

  • Mary
    Mary
    eggnog said: Now just whose blood is it? To whom does the blood in an animal and the blood in human beings belong? Is it God's blood or man's? I don't know what you'll say in response to this, but if you believe it to be God's blood, then what right do we have to use blood in a way not approved by God?

    And here is your flawed reasoning: You are asserting that blood transfusions are some that is "not approved by God" which several posters have shown that this simply is not true. You and rant and rave all you want and do posts that go on forever but the bottom line is: blood transfusions are not "food" and even the WTS has acknowledged that they are a 'tissue transplant' (I can site the reference when I get home tonight). The law against not eating blood was just that---a law against eating the blood of a dead animal, end of story.

    Complying with god's laws regarding idolatry, fornication and blood are the three things that were required of any foreigner who was resident in Israel.
    eggnog said: Not true. God's laws applied only to the Israelites, and so did not apply to those dwelling in their midst as alien residents. Any non-Israelite family that settled in the land given to the Israelites, who lived among the Israelites, but who weren't worshippers of Jehovah weren't proselytes, and so they only needed to live by the basic laws of the land.

    Well since the WTS has always equated the Israelites of old with 'spiritual Israel' (aka, the 144,000), and the 'Great Crowd' with the 'alien residents', than this is just one more reason why their braindead ban on blood transfusions (even if their doctrine was correct) should not apply to anyone other than those professing to be of the heavenly class.

  • darthfader
    darthfader

    Earlier in this thread, DJE posted a comparison between blood and that of peanuts. "Abstain from blood" could be compared to "Abstain from peanuts". At the time I meant to call him on that, bucause the "peanut" is a divisable thing and it' can have it's allergen removed. Technically, people arn't allergic to peanuts, they are allergic to part of the chemical composition of the peanut. In the past, removing those parts have been difficult and expensive and also ruined the taste...

    (Quoting Wikipedia):

    Allergen-free peanuts

    On July 20, 2007, the North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University announced that one of its scientists, Dr. Mohamed Ahmedna, had developed a process to make allergen-free peanuts. Initial testing showed a 100 percent deactivation of peanut allergens in whole roasted kernels, and human serums from severely allergic individuals showed no reaction when exposed to the processed peanuts. Food companies have expressed an interest in licensing the process, which purportedly does not degrade the taste or quality of treated peanuts, and even results in easier processing to use as an ingredient in food products. [ 35 ]

    Comparing them further, we should be able to remove the "god allergen" from the blood and be able to use it.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit