email from a HLC member

by loosie 14 Replies latest jw experiences

• 

  loosie

  Just for shits and giggles (not because I want to be friends necessarily) I looked up an elder I used to know on facebook... what do you know he was there. I asked him if he was still a JW? He said yes.... I said funny i thought you'd be out because of all the changes in the blood doctrine. This was his reply:

  although man may change their position on Blood, our God Jehovah has remained consistent. For example, in Noah's day, Jehovah instructed him and his offspring to abstain from Blood. Over a thousand years later when providing the Mosaic Law to the nation of Israel, he reiterated his command to abstain from blood. Thereafter, about 1500 years later, when Jesus Christ established Christianity, Jehovah again repeated to christians his law to abstain from blood. Don't let any fool tell you differently

  So I replied:

  Ok so if you're supposed to abstain from blood how come NOW can accept blood fractions or derivatives and organ transplants when they weren't able to in the 80's? The governing body is supposed to be gods channel on earth are they not? Now the HLC is reminding witnesses that life is sacred just as blood is, because too many jws are saying no to all blood products. When you get an organ transplant some of the donors blood comes with the organ. How is that abstaining from blood? Remember R....... I was raised a JW .... I'm no dummy... I remember all the changes that governing body has made.

  So who is the Man he refers to when he says man may change their position. ANd who is the fool that would tell me differently... ( the governing body???)

  Arguing is not my strong suit. Should have replied differently?
• 

  simon17

  I agree with your points, but it kind of sounds like you looked him up just to pick a fight, honestly (especially from his persepective).
• 

  LostGeneration

  Yeah that is confusing. Is he saying "man" in reference to the GB and their easing of the blood policy? Maybe he doesn't agree with it and is hardcore no blood at all.

  Otherwise, he could be referring to "mankind" in general and their approach to blood. And the fools would be all modern doctors who use any kind of blood. Nothing like a little bronze-age advice for modern medicine!

  Anyway, let us know how he replies, then maybe we can understand where he is coming from.
• 

  Jim_TX

  Well, I would think from his 'don't let any fool tell you differently' remark that you could have responded by telling him that the 'fool' that told you differently was none other than the FDS or GB or whatever they're called nowadays in Brooklyn.

  Let him stick that in his pipe and smoke it.

  Regards,

  Jim TX
• 

  Billy the Ex-Bethelite

  "So who is the Man he refers to"?

  Perhaps he's trying to take a slap at the Jews. But he makes a substantial error in his argument that Jews easily refute.

  "For example, in Noah's day, Jehovah instructed him and his offspring to abstain from Blood."

  Wrongo Reindeer! In Noah's day the instruction was that they must not eat the blood of the animals they kill for food. Unless JWs have started cannibalism, killing and eating the blood donors, the Noachian command has nothing to do with medical usage of donated blood from live donors.

  "Over a thousand years later when providing the Mosaic Law to the nation of Israel, he reiterated his command to abstain from blood."

  Again, the instruction was to not eat the blood of dead animals. Even at that, it was more of a dietary restriction and ceremonial cleanness issue such as Lev. 17:15, and emphasized the importance of the use of blood at the temple... a practice no longer observed by Christians. It is quite a stretch to say that a Christian must not accept live-saving blood from a living donor because the Mosaic Law prohibited the eating of the blood of butchered animals. The same logic should prevent such a JW from allowing life-saving surgery to replace a defective heart valve with a pig valve because the Mosaic Law also prohibited the eating of pork. Perhaps such a JW in the hospital would require that his hospital gown not be made of a cotton/poly blend since the Mosaic Law prohibited the blending of fibers in cloth. It simply makes no sense for a JW to risk their survival on such an absurd interpretation of the Mosaic Law when the WT teaches that they are no longer under servitude to observe that Jewish Law code.

  "Thereafter, about 1500 years later, when Jesus Christ established Christianity, Jehovah again repeated to christians his law to abstain from blood."

  Clearly he is bringing up Acts 15:28-29, which is certainly no quote from Jesus. The Jerusalem decision in 49CE was to determine whether Christian men needed to be circumcised. They were not discussing whether it would be acceptable for a 21st century Christian, who perhaps had just been in a terrible car accident, to receive whole blood, blood components, or blood fractions. Not only is it a huge stretch to say that the Jerusalem decision was designed to require JWs to refuse a modern medical treatment, but Paul overturned a substantial part of their 'command' a very short time later. Acts 15:29 states, "...to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood..." About 6 years later, in 1 Cor 10:25-30, Paul instructs Christians that eating food sacrificed to idols was a conscience matter. He established a sort of "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Christians didn't have to ask any questions anymore about exactly where the food came from. This is a direct contrast to the earlier statement "to abstain", particularly if you try to interpret a different part of the same statement to mean "abstain even to the point of death." No Christian should have to starve to death because they're afraid that they might eat something sacrificed to idols. Neither should a Christian have to unnecessarily bleed to death because they are instructed to misinterpret an ancient command to not eat the blood of a butchered animal.
• 

  pontoon

  Billy the...........Good argument and reasoning. Also, those post Christ early Jewish Christains were for the most part still following the Law, otherwise there would have been no argument over circumcision. As late as Acts 11 Peter was revolted at the thought of eating something unclean, that was because he was STILL following the Law, it was all about diet.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  These days for a full grown adult to remain as an HLC member means one of three things, or perhaps a combination:

  1. He is a complete loon,

  2. He drank the whole cup of KoolAid,

  3. He’s a climber and cares not one iota how many dead bodies he has to step on to get higher.

  See: 50,000 dead! available at: http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2012/02/more-than-50000-dead.html

  Marvin Shilmer

  http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com
• 

  loosie

  @ Simon you are right I am probably trying to pick a fight with him... but that is because he was one of the elders on my judicial committee.

  LOL @ Jim - you're right that was my first thought - those are the fools I heard it from.

  Good Job @ Billy man you are a walking encylopedia.

  @ Marvin I think I will email him your link.
• 

  undercover

  Good points Billy...

  If I get in a blood doctrine argument, I turn to Jesus...you know, the head of the Christian congregation that anointed JWs think they belong to...

  Jesus never mentioned abstaining from blood. He did however, demonstrate that breaking the Law at times was acceptable in order to save a life... even that of an animal. As Jesus himself said, he came for mercy, not sacrifice.

  Now if Jesus were willing to break the law to heal a sick or disabled person and was okay with saving a sheep from a ditch on the Sabbath, then how would one expect Jesus to respond to the miracle prospect of saving a life by transfusing the blood of one living person to another? (no dead animals required)
• 

  TD

  although man may change their position on Blood, our God Jehovah has remained consistent. For example, in Noah's day, Jehovah instructed him and his offspring to abstain from Blood. Over a thousand years later when providing the Mosaic Law to the nation of Israel, he reiterated his command to abstain from blood. Thereafter, about 1500 years later, when Jesus Christ established Christianity, Jehovah again repeated to christians his law to abstain from blood. Don't let any fool tell you differently

  --Hpothetical reply: (Along the lines of Billy's comment above)

  What Bible are you reading? Noah was told not to eat flesh with the blood still in it. The Law specifically forbade the eating of blood. The word, 'Abstain' doesn't appear until Acts and it appears strictly in the context of whether Gentile converts to Christianity needed to get circumcised and follow the Law. Therefore the eating of blood as forbidden in the Law is clearly the context of the statement

  Injuctions against eating blood do not directly relate to transfusion unless it can be demonstrated that the two are either physically or morally equivalent to each other. Since transfusion is alien to the historical context of the Bible, that would be an entirely extra-Biblical argument, so please don't pretend that you have direct Biblical support for the teaching. You don't and you know it. The teaching is an interpretation and I can call Patterson and they will tell me as much. Now if you can explain the interpretation, I would be interested in hearing it.