by Giles Gray 35 Replies latest watchtower bible
I cannot fault your reasoning on the Scriptures. I did not appreciate that 13 years passed by when gentile Christians were free to eat unbled meat if they wished..
Others have reasoned that this was a restriction on diet only, and should not apply to the medical use of blood.
I like your way of reasoning. Sadly I doubt if a blinkered JW would follow it...... unless it came from the Governing Body of course, then they would drop the blood doctrine like a shot
GG,
Setting the risks and benefits of blood therapy aside right at the beginning of your debate was a good step. If one is refusing blood for religious reasons, then, the possible physical risks (or benefits) of medical blood use is a moot issue. JWs will often fall back on that because the WT often uses that in their argumentation. But it is a red herring.
One thing JWs don't appreciate is the fact that in the Bible (both the Noah Covenant and the Mosaic Law) blood is only a symbol for life when the source of the blood has been killed. God gave Noah and his descendants permission to eat animal meat on the proviso that they pour out the blood in recognition of the fact that the life belonged to God. So, the blood only symbolized the life when the life of the animal had been taken.
Similarly under the Law Code, an Israelite could not simply bring a blood sample from his best bull/goat/sheep to the Temple for splashing on the altar. The animal had to be killed first (after the Israelite laid his hand on the animal's head in symbol of the animal representing him). Only then did the blood represent that life and had atoning value at the altar.
On the other hand, if an Israelite found an animal already dead (naturally or from a predator), eating its unbled flesh only incurred ceremonial uncleanness (as opposed to the death penalty if he himself had killed it).
With that understanding, blood transfusions or blood therapy of some sort should, theoretically, incur no blood guilt or wrath by God since no human life was taken. And thus, the blood involved did not symbolize any life. (Like a wedding ring, it only represents a particular marriage when it has been given to someone. A wedding ring in a jewelry store does not represent anyone's marriage.)
Moreover, Jesus said that there is 'no greater love than for someone to lay down his life for a friend.' (Jn 15:13) It would not make sense for the giving of one's whole life to be praised, but the giving of some part (like a pint of blood) to be completely condemned.
Just extending this thought a little: What if the blood product was some derivative of animal blood? That should not be a problem either, especially if it was not whole animal blood (that is, it was a fraction of some sort). When draining an animal's blood it is understood that every last bit of blood would not be drained. Draining it was a symbolic act. And thus, a fraction from animal blood (supposing that the animal had been killed for it) would not represent a disrespect for God's Covenant with Noah. (And in fact, the WT usually has no qualms with such fractions.)
Having said all that, I also agree with some of the sentiments above that JWs are usually taught to be aloof in their thinking with 'pagans.' They probably can't be reasoned with unless something has happened in their lives to start the process of thinking outside the box.
Just as an aside, the WT's often treacherous reasoning can be seen in the Reasoning book under the topic of the Memorial. Under that topic they claim that Jesus' statement about 'eating his flesh' (in John chapter 6) cannot be equated with the bread at the Memorial since at the time of John chapter 6 the disciples knew nothing about the Last Supper. If one were to use that same WT logic, then, the order to "abstain from blood" could not be referring to transfusions since transfusions were unknown at that time. But let a JW try and use that logic. It would only result in a JC.
blood is only a symbol for life when the source of the blood has been killed
Good point Bobcat
In the transference of blood from one human to another in a medical blood transfusion procedure, the giver of the blood is not dead or had died so the symbolic sacredness of the blood is kept intact.
A perspective to the matter that the WTS heads never probably considered.
Realistically the No Blood doctrine was devised out of personal opinion that should have never have been constituted as a you must do this or you will be disfellowshiped as a JWS
once you stop and realise god doesnt exist--all the foregoing becomes meaningless twaddle.
why anyone would want to deliberately set out to debate it with an active jw is beyond me.
@ BluesBrother
“Others have reasoned that this was restrictions on diet only, and should not apply to medical use of blood.”
I agree that it couldn’t have been anything to do with medical use. As far as I’m aware, it is only human blood that is used for medical purposes. The scripture in Acts 15:29 refers only to animal blood.
Considered in context, it stands to reason that the reference to blood was only applicable to ceremonious/symbolic applications, similar to the sacrificial meat also mentioned in that verse.
Many thanks for your consideration of my research and your positive feedback.
@ Bobcat
“…medical blood use is a moot issue. JWs will often fall back on that because the WT often uses that in their argumentation. But it is a red herring.”
That is exactly what I said to this JW, verbatim. It threw him completely. I think they have totally forgotten that the only reason why they don’t accept blood transfusions is because of how they translate Acts 15:29, and not because of the health risks/benefits associated with medical blood procedures.
The only reason they like to debate blood transfusions is because they believe it is an argument they can win. I only mentioned blood once and had three of them wanting to give me a lesson on the benefits of bloodless alternatives.
“One thing JWs don’t appreciate is the fact that in the Bible (both the Noah Covenant and the Mosaic Law) blood is only a symbol for life when the source of blood has been killed. God gave Noah and his descendants permission to eat animal meat on the proviso that they pour out the blood in recognition of the fact that the life belonged to God.”
That’s a really interesting point.
I must confess that up until now I didn’t appreciate that perspective either. It makes perfect sense though, especially considering the paradox of Deuteronomy 14:21.
If the instruction given to Noah was a mandate for all humans, as the JWs insist, the fact that the Law allowed the Israelites to sell food with blood in it to the Gentiles is a contradiction.
However, if those instructions were given for symbolic reasons, as you are suggesting, there would be no issue at all to sell meat with blood in it to the People of the Nations who were not under the Law. It now makes perfect sense.
Many thanks for all the great points you have highlighted.
@ stan livedeath
“once you stop and realise god doesn’t exist-all the forgoing becomes meaningless twaddle. Why anyone would want to deliberately set out to debate it with an active jw is beyond me.”
I would usually agree with your sentiment, but it is the circumstances that makes this exchange with a JW worthwhile.
The debate is taking place in front of other JWs, as well as other interested people. It should receive good exposure and you never know who is looking on and taking note.
Considering that the Watchtower’s blood prohibition policy actually kills people, I thought that putting the information out there that challenges such a harmful teaching might reach someone who could use the information to save their own life, or the life of someone else who is affected.
I don't disagree with your analysis, but I think the problem with the JW interpretation of the Decree is much more basic than that
What the Law forbade was the eating of blood. Transfusion would fall under the umbrella of this command only if it can be shown to be either physically, morally, ontologically or in some other way equivalent to the eating of blood.
It can't and the JW's know it.
They therefore attempt to get around that inconvenient fact by invoking the phrase, "Abstain from blood" as in independent construction in an attempt to convey the idea of a simple and direct command applicable to all uses of blood
That is semantic legerdemain.
You can't invoke a partial predicate apart from the context that completes it. It's ungrammatical.
Allowing the JW's to get away with such a cheap trick is a level of charity they really don't deserve.
"Abstain" is intransitive, which means it is unable to take a direct object or transfer action from subject to object.
What, for example would it mean to:
Abstain from shrubbery
Abstain from crankshaft
Abstain from train
These phrases are completely nonsensical because they're grammatically incomplete
The only way to make an "Abstain from" construction work is to either preface it with an appropriate context or modify the intransitive verb, "abstain," with a finite verb. Only then do you have a transfer of action between subject and object.
Like this:
Abstain from cutting the shrubbery
Abstain from scratching the crankshaft
Abstain from riding on the train
Another way to illustrate this problem is to attempt to express the abstention from blood as a, "Do not."
For example, "Fornication," in contrast to the other three items listed in the decree is the name of a finite act and therefore has a verb form.
I can easily state that abstention as a finite negative:
Do not fornicate
You can't do this with blood because it is not a finite act. It's an object and there is no verb form of the word that really works here. The only way to phrase the abstention as a "Do not" is as I've explained above.
This might seem like an esoteric point, but it's really not. It's actually very easy
In context, the phrase "Keep abstaining....from blood" is a reiteration of the prohibition on eating it as stated in the Law. That's why the word, "Keep" (Which the JW's like to omit) is there.
Out of context it is an incomplete thought that can mean anything a snake oil salesman wants it to mean.
---One more simple example and I'll shut up.
To illustrate how an "Abstain from" construction will morph depending upon the context in which it is spoken consider these two sentences:
His dermatologist said, "Persons with sensitive skin should abstain from alcohol."
Her obstetrician said, "Pregnant women should abstain from alcohol."
Even though both doctors have said, "Abstain from alcohol" they are clearly not talking about the same thing. While we would understand the former to be a reference to the topical application of alcohol, we would understand the latter to be a reference to its consumption.
The two abstentions are completely unrelated as they are meant to address two entirely different conditions.
There is a reason why the most strict Orthodox Jews bled animals with established Kosher blood letting procedures before meat from a animal is to be eaten, but they have no qualms or problem with receiving a medically approved blood transfusion.
TD,
I really appreciate that post!
Similarly under the Law Code, an Israelite could not simply bring a blood sample from his best bull/goat/sheep to the Temple for splashing on the altar. The animal had to be killed first (after the Israelite laid his hand on the animal's head in symbol of the animal representing him). Only then did the blood represent that life and had atoning value at the altar.
On the other hand, if an Israelite found an animal already dead (naturally or from a predator), eating its unbled flesh only incurred ceremonial uncleanness (as opposed to the death penalty if he himself had killed it).
With that understanding, blood transfusions or blood therapy of some sort should, theoretically, incur no blood guilt or wrath by God since no human life was taken. And thus, the blood involved did not symbolize any life. (Like a wedding ring, it only represents a particular marriage when it has been given to someone. A wedding ring in a jewelry store does not represent anyone's marriage.)
This is GOLD! I'm afraid this thread will be lost in the shuffle, this is groundbreaking stuff!
Didnt former member Cofty write the same thing a year or 2 back ?
