by Marvin Shilmer 37 Replies latest jw friends
Blood nourishes the body. Though blood tranfusions are not consumed orally, they still provide nourishment and in a technical sense can be equivocated to "eating" blood.
That is total argumentative pro-JW bullshit. You have not eaten blood unless you put it in your mouth and swallowed it.
I started your troll clock a moment ago on your original thread, Ethos.
James,
I suspect our new resident Ethos is a Topix poster known as Dream-weaver. (See: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-witness/T331TUN3GEA9CQJJP/post1
But, really, what does it matter?
Marvin Shilmer
Ethos,
So why would the Creater of the entire Universe be interested in the dietary restrictions of a small group of nomads? It just don't add up.
DNA, the molecules that determines our traits and what we eat, should be enough unless he made a boo boo and needs to do some patch work.
The Universe is so big and Jehovah the tribal God of Isreal so small and picky about things like clothing, food, washing,etc...
Could their be a possiblity that this Tribal Diety YHWH is just a projection in the minds of an ancient people of what they beleive to be thier diety's mind.
-
“The point is much information has changed and been further researched and assessed about blood in the past 30 years. Marvin is attempting to portray a contradictionary error when there isn't one. Although the WTS has not retracted its stance in this particular deduction of the blood doctrine, quoting from a 30 year old publication and using it as a corroboration of evidence to prove that something is erroneous in the PRESENT, 2012 understanding of blood is fallacious and marginally deceiving.”
1. “Contradictionary” is not in my vocabulary. I think you mean contradictory.
2. If, as you say, Watchtower “has not retracted its stance” published in 1989 then citing and quoting it as current is neither deceptive nor fallacious.
3. Either current Watchtower doctrine holds that transfusing blood is no different than eating blood, or it does not. Which is it?
“Blood nourishes the body. Though blood tranfusions are not consumed orally, they still provide nourishment and in a technical sense can be equivocated to "eating" blood. It seems you, the WTS, and medical personnel are all in accord on this. So im not really sure why there's a side to choose or why this article was necessary because there is nothing to rebuttal?”
Pendant point: Noah was not prohibited from using blood for nutritious medicinal uses such as transplantation to remedy disease or alleviate pain. Aside from eating blood, Noah was not prohibited from any other use of blood whatsoever. If you believe otherwise then please prove it.
Transfused blood is not eating blood.
Marvin Shilmer
Ethnos said: Tranfusion is obviously not the same thing as literally ingesting blood orally. That was never an equivocation made by the WTS (to my knowledge).
Are you kidding? That is exactly what they assert:
"Each time the prohibition of blood is mentioned in the Scriptures it is in connection with taking it as food, and so it is as a nutrient that we are concerned with in its being forbidden."-----September 15, 1958 WT p. 575
The equivocation is in the fact that tranfusing blood NOURISHES the body, just as EATING does.
No, it does not. There is no nutritional benefit from a blood transfusion. If there was, you could use blood transfusions to treat malnutrition. You can't. When you eat something, it is taken into the stomach where it is digested and broken down into nutrients, which are then passed through the intestines into the blood vessels, where the blood carries them to the body for nourishment. This is accomplished by the digestive system. During a transfusion, the blood that is transfused travels through the blood stream, then goes to the intestines where it picks up the digested food passed through the intestines
and carrying that food throughout the rest of the body. This is the circulatory system. The transfused blood is not food itself but the carrier of food. The food is broken down into its component parts whereas the blood remains whole. This is the medical definition proving that eating blood (such as blood pudding or blood sausage) through the mouth is a completely different procedure than a blood transfusion.
People who die because they needed but did not get a blood transfusion - DO NOT DIE OF STARVATION.
They die of blood loss. You can die of blood loss fully nourished and with a full stomach.
A transfusion is not "nourishment" - it is one form of organ transplant.
The bible never even remotely mentions organ transplants or transfusions.
Blood nourishes the body. Though blood tranfusions are not consumed orally,
they still provide nourishment and in a technical sense can be equivocated to "eating" blood.....Ethos
Thats WatchTarded Nonsense..
Without blood your body can`t absorb oxygen..
You suffocate..
Eating blood wouldn`t change that..
............................ 
...OUTLAW
-
“You can die of blood loss fully nourished and with a full stomach.”
Conversely,
You can die of malnutrition with a circulatory system full of blood.
Marvin Shilmer
Quoting from a WT. publication shouldn't be an issue. Of course, their "truth" constantly expreriences changes...lol
Martin said: I suspect our new resident Ethos is a Topix poster known as Dream-weaver. (See: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-witness/T331TUN3GEA9CQJJP/post1
Oh Christ........is that nutter still around?
