Inviting djeggnog to discuss the blood doctrine

by jgnat 317 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  jgnat

  On JWN side, some small criticisms:

  "Let's poke it with a stick and watch it scream". What's the fun in that? (An exception for Outlaw; you are what you are; carry on)

  And, our final exit card, "The elders will get you if they knew you were here." What we are really saying is, "Get out of our sandbox."

  I don't know about you, but it is a pleasure to engage a believing Jehovah's Witness once in a while (as selective as they are in obeying the GB's commands). We get to test out our approaches and techniques. It is a re-confirmation that our reasoning is sound. After all, our JW relatives and friends have studiously avoided listening to us.

  On djeggnogg's side:

  Consider that the more words you use, and the greater carelessness with which you toss them, the less value they have. I'll give you a free tip. Carry on a dialogue in your mind - both sides of the argument - and when you find an argument that your own internal "devil's advocate" can't defeat, write that. This means you will be thinking about ten times more than writing, but I guarantee your carefully phrased counter-argument will have a lot more punch.

  
• 

  isaacaustin

  DJEggnog said:

  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.

  My reply:

  Idolatry...fornication- not speaking of premarital sex but marriage to close relatives, CONSIDERED fornication under jewish law...and the eating of animal blood. Go read Leviticus 17 & 18 and you may learn something. Paul is not plcing receving a blood transfusion on the same level as premarital sex, as the WT tries to claim.
• 

  whereami

  just n from bethel...I don't know wether to die crying or die laughing at that video.

  That was too funny!!!! LMAO
• 

  Mary

  One more comparison I'd like to address: fornication is also mentioned as something that both the Israelites and early Christians had to 'abstain from'. In it's basis meaning, fornication means having sexual relations to someone you're not legally married to. Does that mean that the Israelites and early Christians were not supposed to have sexual relations under any circumstances? Of course not. God commanded Adam and Eve to 'reproduce' and to 'fill the earth' so obviously, having sex under ALL circumstances was not condemned or forbidden, but it was supposed to take place within a marriage. It did not mean that you could not have sexual relations under any circumstances.

  The command to 'abstain from blood' is no different. It was eating the blood of a dead animal that was forbidden, but you cannot claim that this means you cannot use blood under any circumstances or in any other way. That would be like saying that committing fornication includes having sex even within a marriage.
• 

  garyneal

  Well, for what it is worth, I think DJ EggNog was valuable to this discussion. I'm just perplexed as to why he did not respond to my rebuttal while initially responding to a post I made that did not even address him. Oh well...
• 

  TD

  ...so obviously, having sex under ALL circumstances was not condemned or forbidden

  Yes. Similarity is not equality

  Marital sex and adultery are not equivalent acts because they both fall into the generic catagory of "Sex"

  Drinking a glass of water and drowning at the bottom of a lake are not equivalent acts because they both fall into the generic catagory of "Taking in water."

  The transfusion of blood and the consumption of blood are not equivalent acts because they both fall into the generic catagory of "Taking in blood"

  Implying equivalency through semantics is the fallacy of equivocation.

  If transfusion is wrong for the same reason(s) that eating blood was wrong, that equivalency would be based on a concrete set of conditions that could be tested and proven.
• 

  OUTLAW

  

  DjEggNogg

  Turn off the Computer Program..

  That allows you to Mindlessly Yap,without Having to Type..

  It`s not helping..You go on and on,about nothing..

  Think about intelligent responses to all the information presented..

  You don`t know much..

  Going to the library wasn`t any help,in your case..

  You didn`t know "HemoPure" Blood Slop made from Cow Blood was WBT$ approved..

  So WBT$ Literature isn`t much use to you either..

  Where you get the Idea your an Expert,is a Mystery to most of us..

  Maybe it`s time you Asked Questions so you can Learn..

  ....................... ...OUTLAW
• 

  just n from bethel

  Mary - another excellent point I've never thought of. Without even getting into the grammar of it all as TD presents so awesomely, the beauty is the simplicity.

  If this really was what God wanted to be the end-all communication of his view on blood, then it is as simple as you put, and not as complicated as JWs make it - and definitely not as convoluted as even DJ re-interprets the WTs very policy, making it worse than the Watchtower actually does.

  Bible allows for the equal interpretation of two things: 1) Blood is sacred to God; 2) Life is sacred to God.

  If blood is used for it's intended purpose, to preserve life which is sacred - then God would actually look upon this as loving, as Chirstian. Which is why even the early Watchtower writers (pre 1944) commended those who donated blood. It took a crazy wacko health freak to twist scriptures to condemn it - and a power hungry control freak to enforce it. The rest is history. Except now it's okay to take parts of donated human blood, even cow blood, to save life - but not other parts.

  WT says 'It's okay for a mother to give her white blood cells while breast feeding, but not if her child is sick and needs them to fight off a disease. The child should die instead, even though that same child fed on those same white blood cells'

  WT says 'It's God's design that identical twins transfuse blood to one another in the womb - so that's ok. But those same twins, once out of the womb, would not be able to transfuse blood to one another in the event of a life threatening illness. God hates that, even though he ok'd it previously in their lives. He says it is not a conscience matter. They will die at armageddon or go straight to gehenna for doing what I had them do earlier. But now, I wouldn't break my own laws on blood - so when certain fractions pass through the placenta - that is to tell you that fractions are a conscience matter.'

  Yep - the WT's god is perfectly logical. As outlaw says - the WT has been telling Jehovah what to do well into 3 centuries now - but he can never seem to get it right.

  The Watchtower would have disfellowshipped Jehovah long ago for his continued disobedience to their blood policy.
• 

  OUTLAW

  the WT has been telling Jehovah what to do well into 3 centuries now.....JNFB

  Well..Not that long..

  Over 130 years is more accurate..It just seems like 300 years..LOL!!..

  ....................... ...OUTLAW
• 

  dgp

  You guys know what is really, really sad about this thread: Mr. Eggnog was simply outdone here, but he won't stop to think why. He will go on thinking the Watchtower is great, right, wonderful, Jehovah's mouthpiece, et cetera.

  You apostates:

  Anything he loses at:

  Armageddon?