My Explanation of Why They Got it Wrong About Blood Using Only the NWT

by cofty 203 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  TD

  Nothing can me more simple and more removed from sophistry than if someone consumes 3 quarts of blood, pumping a load of blood into one’s organism he is not abstaining from blood. That is not equivocation.

  No?
  

  Like I said, there are only two ways that a JW can make their interpretation work:

  (1) By paraphrasing the verse using words that no translator has any business using.

  “To Jehovah’s Witnesses, there is a more important reason for avoiding taking in blood: God’s law forbids it." [W96 8/15 p. 32]

  
  

  (2) By dispensing with the context and grammar entirely:

  “Jehovah’s Witnesses decline blood transfusions for religious reasons. ‘Abstain from blood,’ the Bible commands [W80 10/15 p. 21]

  ----------

  Both methods are textbook examples of misdirection through ambiguity for reasons a man of your intelligence would be aware of.
  

  With the former, you know that the human body is not one system, but many

  You know that there are substantial differences between, for example, taking water into your stomach (Your digestive system) and taking water into you lungs (Your respiratory system)

  You know that although drinking a glass of water and drowning at the bottom of a lake could both be loosely described as "taking in water" or "a failure to abstain from water" it is obfuscatory and equivocal to deliberately use generic terms when more specific terms are called for.

  ----------
  

  With the latter, you know that the word, "abstain" is intransitive

  You know that it can't take a direct object and that a finite verb is therefore required to complete the thought.

  You know that phrases like "abstain from crankshaft" and "abstain from locomotive" and "abstain from shrubbery" are nonsensical for exactly this reason. (i.e. They are grammatically incomplete)

  You know that the clarification required to define the abstention from blood is found in the surrounding context of the Decree and it is therefore obfuscatory and equivocal to invoke the incomplete predicate as an independent construction.
• 

  Fisherman

  TD, your approach in interpreting the act of abstaining from blood in Acts is like Bi1l Clinton. I am trying to look at your view objectively and not as an advocate but your argument that abstaining from blood does not include ingesting a gallon of it because it is taking a different route inside the body instead of digestion is not kosher.

  God commanded Adam not to eat from the forbidden fruit and knowing this could he ingest the fruit some other way or consume it for a different purpose other than eating without violating God’s command?

  One explanation that wt gives is that the early christians did not consume blood for a medical purpose . WT also uses the illustration that if a doctor tells a patient to abstain from a substance such as alcohol or drugs or blood, should the patient ingest it some other way?

  I am not persuaded to believe that if a person consumes a volume of blood via a bt he is abstaining from eating blood because he is ingesting it into his body and consuming it which is what eating basically is although bt is not digested. Keep in mind that the verse actually says abstain without the act ( why, literary device?) from blood. The interpretation is inferred by context and implication. ( What is the decree implying by not specifically saying eating blood? If God told me to abstain from a crankshaft, I wouldn’t even look at one, I’d conclude God was implying to stay away.)

  I sincerely hold you and your commentary in high esteem.
• 

  cofty

  That's the most muddle-headed illogical word-salad I have attempted to read in a long time.

  And yet the Watchtower demands the death of children based on this sort of obfuscation.
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  Fisherman if for some reason you were ever to experience massive blood loss (such as from internal bleeding of some kind) and ended up in the hospital intensive care unit as a result, would you refuse to receive a blood transfusion if the doctors said it was the only way to save your life and to prevent massive organ damage? Is your faith (or your belief or conviction) strong enough in the JW's governing body, in Yahweh, and in the Bible for you to be confident that God will resurrect people (including you if you die) to life?
  
• 

  TD

  Fisherman,

  If I understand your allusion, you are referring to a fallacy of definition vis-à-vis what constitutes a sexual act. The gentleman in question promoted a definition of convenience when there were already accepted legal, medical, ethical and religious definitions in place
  

  I would respond by pointing out that you are the one promoting an esoteric definition here, not me. I am the one with the weight of legal, medical, ethical and religious definitions on my side, not you.

  Like I said, if you believe there is either a physical, moral or ontological equivalency at stake here, then it is up to you to provide a concrete demonstration, free from false analogies, grammatical misconstructions and your own personal gut feelings.
  
• 

  Fisherman

  unlike other Israelites - he hasn't eaten animals found already dead?

  Ezekiel was also an Israelite. Although priests were held to higher standard because of their office, the Mosaic law also forbade the Israelites from going around eating and selling dead animals to fellow Jews. You conclude too much beyond what is stated.
  
  
• 

  cofty

  the Mosaic law also forbade the Israelites from going around eating and selling dead animals to fellow Jews.

  The bible clearly states otherwise as you well know.

  The law against eating an animal found already dead ONLY applied to priests. Therefore non-priestly Jews had no such law as Lev 17 states.
• 

  Fisherman

  would you refuse to receive a blood transfusion if the doctors said it was the only way to save your life and to prevent massive organ damage?

  That is a religious practice of all JW so is not up to an individual’s conscience to accept a bt.
  
  
• 

  cofty

  not up to an individual’s conscience to accept a bt

  And the children keep on being sacrificed on the altar of blind obedience to the ignorant told men in NY who can't defend their edicts any more clearly than you can.
  
  
• 

  Fisherman

  The law against eating an animal found already dead ONLY applied to priests.

  It is not kosher now and it wasn’t kosher then.