Christians — Eating Blood Sausage

by Marvin Shilmer 26 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Slimboyfat writes:

  “You seriously think Gertrude Poetzinger believed Witnesses were "thirsting for martyrdom" in Ravensbrueck?”

  I know she did because I asked her. She knew there are extremists in all religions, and she knew there were extremists among the Witnesses in Ravensbrueck, just as Buber said. Buber did not tell half the story compared to what Poetzinger would share in private conversation with friends!

  You never did answer the question of whether readers should accept your word of what Poetzinger meant over what she actually said. Why?

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  Pams girl

  If a JW eats meat, they eat blood. Full stop.

  I had blood sausage for the first time in 6 years the other day....it was bloody lovely

  Looking forward to my little boys birthday soon too......happy days

  Sorry, I digress from the more intelligent posters here.

  Paula
• 

  slimboyfat

  You never did answer the question of whether readers should accept your word of what Poetzinger meant over what she actually said. Why?

  The Watchtower says that Poetzinger confirmed Buber's account. You are the one who says that means Poetzinger must have agreed with all of Buber's comments. Confirming someone's account does not require that you agree with every comment they make. Although Buber was quoted at length in the Watchtower, the passage about thirsting for martyrdom was not included. If you claim Poetzinger agreed with that particular comment that is for you to prove.

  Which all seems rather beside the point, because as I mentioned, apart from the judgement that some Witnesses were thirsting for martyrdom, the account about blood sausages does not seem surprising for Jehovah's Witnesses in that period as their stance on blood was in the early stage of development.

  I have no doubt that Gertrude Poetzinger would have shared many things privately about Ravensbruck that would not have made it into the Watchtower. Many of the survivor accounts that Witnesses wrote after the war present a much more complicated picture of the response among the Witness community than is presented in the Watchtower literature. But generally such suppressed stories relate to Witnesses who compromised in some way rather than Witnesses who welcomed martyrdom as Buber describes.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Slimboyfat writes:

  “The Watchtower says that Poetzinger confirmed Buber's account. You are the one who says that means Poetzinger must have agreed with all of Buber's comments. Confirming someone's account does not require that you agree with every comment they make. Although Buber was quoted at length in the Watchtower, the passage about thirsting for martyrdom was not included. If you claim Poetzinger agreed with that particular comment that is for you to prove.”

  Slimboyfat, you are full of crap. The June 15, 1981 Watchtower article features Buber’s firsthand historical presentation of Witnesses held in Ravensbrueck, and in the person of Gertrude Poetzinger it offers another firsthand eyewitness to vouch for the historical accuracy of Buber’s documentation of what transpired, and that is how I used what I quoted from Poetzinger. Get it? What is wrong with you?

  Slimboyfat writes:

  “Which all seems rather beside the point, because as I mentioned, apart from the judgement that some Witnesses were thirsting for martyrdom, the account about blood sausages does not seem surprising for Jehovah's Witnesses in that period as their stance on blood was in the early stage of development.”

  For nearly 20 years prior to the Ravensbrueck incident Watchtower was teaching Witnesses that it was wrong to eat blood. Do you call that “early” in relation to eating product rendered from blood? What I don’t get is why you keep harping in generalities rather than sharing something precise. What the hell is “early” supposed to mean? What had to be “developed” about teaching that Christians should not literally eat blood?

  I suggest you get away from your offering strawmen (“martyrdom”) and red herrings (“early” and “developed”) and contribute something tangible and productive to the subject.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  Mr. Falcon

  Just a quick, sorta off-topic question..... has any of you ever eaten blood sausage? what's it taste like? I imagine that it is all copper tasting...
• 

  slimboyfat

  Slimboyfat, you are full of crap. The June 15, 1981 Watchtower article features Buber’s firsthand historical presentation of Witnesses held in Ravensbrueck, and in the person of Gertrude Poetzinger it offers another firsthand eyewitness to vouch for the historical accuracy of Buber’s documentation of what transpired

  Yes the Watchtower quotes Buber at length and says that Poetzinger confirms the account. What the article does not do is quote the passage that calls Witnesses who refused blood sausage extremists who "thirsted for martyrdom". If you maintain Poetzinger would also have agreed with that view which the Watchtower did not choose to quote then that is for you to prove.

  For nearly 20 years prior to the Ravensbrueck incident Watchtower was teaching Witnesses that it was wrong to eat blood.

  The Watchtower in English had only made scant references to how the biblical prohibitions on eating food with blood should be applied by the early 1940s. Do you know if they also appeared in the German Watchtower and at what time? Buber's account that there was disagreement among the Witnesses about whether they should eat blood sausage is itself evidence that the issue did not appear settled to them at that time. What evidence have you got to contradict it?
• 

  Pams girl

  Mr Falcon...it tastes of fat, good stuff, its filling, not coppery at all, juicy, hearty, ....just....good.x
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Slimboyfat writes:

  “Yes the Watchtower quotes Buber at length and says that Poetzinger confirms the account. What the article does not do is quote the passage that calls Witnesses who refused blood sausage extremists who "thirsted for martyrdom". If you maintain Poetzinger would also have agreed with that view which the Watchtower did not choose to quote then that is for you to prove.”

  What need do I have to prove something for which I have not used Poetzinger’s statement for?

  I used Watchtower’s statement from Poetzinger for what it says, not what it does not say. Please make a note of it.

  Up to and after 1943 Buber says Witnesses were eating blood sausage. Watchtower says Poetzinger confirmed Buber’s account. Watchtower also cites Witnesses held in concentration camps such as Ravensbrueck as examples of real Christians. Watchtower cited an ancient historical record of self-professing Christians who would not eat blood (including blood sausage according to Watchtower) as evidence to show how Christians would/should react to notions of eating blood. By comparison I offered a more contemporary historical record of self-professing Christians who would and did eat blood sausage and pointed out that Watchtower ignores this more contemporary historical record of what Christians think of eating blood. So what is your point, if you have one?

  Slimboyfat writes:

  “The Watchtower in English had only made scant references to how the biblical prohibitions on eating food with blood should be applied by the early 1940s. Do you know if they also appeared in the German Watchtower and at what time? Buber's account that there was disagreement among the Witnesses about whether they should eat blood sausage is itself evidence that the issue did not appear settled to them at that time. What evidence have you got to contradict it?”

  To contradict what, your generalities and suggestion?

  My presentation is not based on lack of information but, rather, information that is published. Make of it what you will.

  If you have refutation then please get on with it by offering something substantial, including details.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  slimboyfat

  By comparison I offered a more contemporary historical record of self-professing Christians who would and did eat blood sausage and pointed out that Watchtower ignores this more contemporary historical record of what Christians think of eating blood.

  If that is what you set out to prove then it is redundant because the Watchtower itself admits that Jehovah's Witnesses did not always refuse to eat blood sausage, in fact it dates its "new light" against eating blood to July 1945, two years after some Witnesses refused blood sausage in Ravensbrueck. (See WT May 15th 1995, page 23, paragraph 10)

  I don't know how or why you got yourself into the position of insisting Gertrude Poetzinger viewed her fellow Witnesses as extremists who thursted for martyrdom but that's you problem. The only proof for which you have offered being:

  I know she did because I asked her.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Slimboyfat writes:

  “If that is what you set out to prove then it is redundant because the Watchtower itself admits that Jehovah's Witnesses did not always refuse to eat blood sausage, in fact it dates its "new light" against eating blood to July 1945, two years after some Witnesses refused blood sausage in Ravensbrueck. (See WT May 15th 1995, page 23, paragraph 10)”

  The Watchtower you cite does not date its teaching against literally eating blood to July 1945. Rather, it cites July 1945 (the Watchtower issue of that date) in connection to “sanctity of blood” and “blood transfusions” in addition to literally eating blood. Get your facts straight.

  Slimboyfat writes:

  “I don't know how or why you got yourself into the position of insisting Gertrude Poetzinger viewed her fellow Witnesses as extremists who thursted for martyrdom but that's you problem.”

  Not my problem because I have not plied Poetzinger’s remark as you assert. Get your facts straight.

  Marvin Shilmer

  http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com