New here

by Delta20 145 Replies latest jw friends

  • Kenneson
    Kenneson

    Jaron,

    On blood transfusions.

    According to a Red Cross source, the first attempts of blood transfusions came around 1600 when blood of animals were transfused into humans with disastrous consequences. No attempt was made again until the early 1800s when James Blundell tried human blood for human beings. But successful transfusions did not occur until 1900 when Karl Landsteiner identified the four basic blood types and patients could be transfused with their same type.

    Now, look at Acts 15:28. Do you think the apostles and elders of the first century were dealing with this problem? How could they abstain from something that didn't even exist?

  • TD
    TD

    Delta,

    So, I went to dictionary.com to see if you were right.

    What I said most certainly does hold; the difference between transitive and intransitive verbs is a simple matter of language mechanics that I thought you either understood or would recall once it was pointed out.

    The definition you provided from Dictionary.com appears to be adapted from the American Heritage Dictionary. Had you checked the synonyms at "refrain," you would have seen the following note:

    Synonyms: refrain, 1 abstain, forbear
    1 These verbs mean to keep or prevent oneself from doing or saying something: refrained from commenting; abstained from smoking; can't forbear criticizing them. (Emphasis mine)

    As I have correctly stated, "abstain" negates action. The fundamental meaning is to keep or prevent oneself from doing or saying something. There is no such thing as negation of an object. It is an ungrammatical concept.

    I think perhaps you are stumbling over the fact that in an "abstain from" construction the verb does not have to be stated if it is implicitly understood.

    All of the following for example are accepted English uses of the word:

    "At the JW memorial, everyone abstained from the Emblems"

    "Although the argument was intense, the couple abstained from hateful words."

    "Due to his strict diet, he abstained from dessert."

    In each case, action is transferred from subject to object by a verbal construction implicit in the context. You would naturally understand that no one ate the bread nor drank the wine at the JW memorial, that the couple did not speak hateful words and that the man did not eat dessert.

    This is also the case in the example you have given, "...abstain from traditional political rhetoric." The verb, "speaking" or possibly "writing" is implicit in the context.

    If, as you contend, abstinence from an object is possible, you would have no trouble both in understanding the meaning of the following phrases or in restating them as simple finite negatives like I proposed that you attempt to do with blood (And you ignored)

    "Abstain from shrubs."

    "Abstain from pebbles."

    "Abstain from crankshafts"

    Because the missing verb is not readily apparent either from the context (Or more precisely, the lack thereof) or the words themselves, these phrases are pretty much nonsense.

    It's for precisely this reason that an "abstain from" construction can have entirely different meanings depending upon the context in which it was spoken. Take the phrase, "abstain from alcohol" for example:

    "Her obstetrician said, "Pregnant women should abstain from alcohol.""

    "His dermatologist said, "Persons with sensitive skin should abstain from alcohol.""

    The phrase ?abstain from alcohol? clearly does not negate the same action in both sentences. From the context of the former we would understand that the pregnant woman was being instructed not to drink beverages containing alcohol. We would not understand the statement to mean that she couldn?t use alcohol as a topical antiseptic or in a cosmetic. From the context of the latter, we would understand that the man with sensitive skin was being instructed not to apply alcohol directly to his skin. We would not understand the statement to mean that he couldn?t drink beverages containing it. When the ?abstain? phrase has not context it all, it becomes meaningless. What would the unadorned phrase, ?abstain from alcohol? mean without a context? It could mean not to drink beverages containing it or it could mean not to use it as a topical antiseptic, or it could mean both, or it could mean neither. Without a context it might not have any application in a medical setting at all, since the phrase ?abstain from alcohol? could just as easily mean ?Abstain from using it around an open flame.? There is no way to tell.

    The point to all this is that an "abstain from" phrase cannot be divorced from the context which completes it and invoked as an independent construction as you have done with the phrase, "abstain from blood."

    I'm not the best communicator in the world and perhaps I am still not explaining this clearly enough for you. What follows is an excerpt from the book, Jehovah's Witnesses Defended An Answer to Scholars and Critics which may make more sense:

    First Century culture and the context of the Decree. In reading the command to "abstain....from blood" it is clear that something is missing: a verb. The Decree does not come right out and say, "abstain from drinking or eating blood." Yet, a verb of some kind is needed to complete the thought. For example, if I were to day "abstain from paint" it might be understood from the context of my statement that I am referring to "inhaling" paint due to its noxious and possibly lethal effect. Or, I might be referring to "touching" paint as it could ruin your new suit! Of course, I would probably phrase my statement a bit differently, perhaps no using "abstain" at all. But I am using it here to illustrate how a verb is needed to complete the thought and how this verb could and would be understood from the context of the Decree." (p. 433)

    The JW's themselves in some of their more lucid moments have acknowledged the act implicit in the context several times over the years:

    ?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. Thus when mankind for the first time was permitted to eat the flesh of animals, at the time of the restatement of the procreation mandate to the Deluge survivors, blood was specifically forbidden. (Gen. 9:3, 4) In the law of Moses blood was forbidden as food, and therefore we repeatedly find it linked with fat as things not to be eaten. (Lev. 3:17; 7:22-27) And so also in the days of the apostles; it was in connection with eating meat sacrificed to idols that the eating of strangled animals and blood was forbidden.?Acts 15:20, 29.? The Watchtower September 15, 1958 p. 575 (Emphasis mine)

    More recently, the JW Bible dictionary, "Insight On The Scriptures" has stated:

    "The decision then made was that circumcision was not required for Gentile believers but that they should keep free from idolatry, from eating and drinking of blood, and from sexual immorality. Insight Volume II, "Paul" p. 587

    As I mentioned earlier, the missing verb appears as an interpolation in a number of dynamic equivalent and paraphrased translations:

    "abstain from food that has been offered to idols, from tasting blood, from the flesh of animals that have been strangled, and from sexual vice."
    Moffatt

    "eat no food that has been offered to idols; eat no blood; eat no animal that has been strangled; and keep yourselves from immorality."
    Today's English Version

    "avoid what has been sacrificed to idols, tasting blood, eating the meat of what has been strangled and sexual immorality."
    Phillip's Modern English

    "You must abstain from eating food offered to idols, from consuming blood or eating the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality."
    New Living Translation

    "Do only what is necessary by keeping away from food sacrificed to false gods, from eating bloody meat, from eating the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual sins."
    God's Word Bible

    ?But you should not eat anything offered to idols. You should not eat any meat that still has the blood in it or any meat of any animal that has been strangled. You must also not commit any terrible sexual sins."
    Contemporary English Version

    "That you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from [tasting] blood and from [eating the meat of animals] that have been strangled and from sexual impurity."
    The Amplified Bible

    "You are to keep away from everything that has been given to gods. Do not eat blood or meat from animals that have been killed in ways against the Law. Keep away from sex sins"
    New Life Version

    "You must not eat food that has been given to idols. You must not eat the meat of animals that are killed by choking. You must not taste blood. You must not commit adultery. If you keep away from these things, you will do well. Goodbye."
    The Bible in Worldwide English

    You have brought up a couple of non sequitors:

    If you read medical journals, then you will read that the body doesnt just 'continues to function'. It is going to try to fight the intruding 'strange' cells. So its not as easy as you make it sound.

    Surely you must realize that the technical viability of the procedure has nothing to do either with its scriptural propriety or the soundness of your analogy.

    In my wife's congregation there is a girl with one kidney. This kidney was donated by her father when she was 12 years old. She is now in her early 20's and recently married. Although she has taken and will continue to take anti-rejection drugs for the rest of her life, this kidney is still functioning as a kidney. If it were not, she would have died many years ago.

    It should be apparent therefore, that there is a basic and fundamental difference between eating another human's kidney and receiving it as a transplant. There is no basis for comparing the transplant of living tissue in a manner consistent with its design purpose with the taking of a substance (e.g. A medication) that is metabolized by the body no matter how it is administered.

    Remember our jewish friends? Remember the commandment Thou shall not cook the (young goat)'s meat into the mother goats milk. Our jewish friends made of that: Thou shall not mix milk with meat, and if thou ate meat thou shall wait 6 hours for it to digest before you drink milk, and if thou drinks milk thou shall wait 2 hours before thou shall eat meat. I find the step JW's make from taking blood to no bloodtransfusiin a lot smaller then the step from the commandment about the milk/meat as it is in the bible and as the jews act to it nowadays, and I have countless of examples of that kind of behavior. So its not uncommon.

    First, the Jews do not use this prohibition as an excuse to justify causing the death of innocents as the JW's have done with blood. They recognize that God's requirement to preserve life contravenes Kashrut. Therefore there is no danger of incurring what the JW's refer to as "bloodguilt" by the additions they have made to the Law

    Secondly, what is normative in other religions is neither here nor there when it comes to the legitimacy of the JW transfusion medicine taboo. The JW's like most other Christian religions never miss an oppurtunity to criticize both the Jews and the Oral Tradition. Therefore neither you nor they would really be justified in using it to excuse their own actions. If the JW's want to establish this doctrine using the Bible alone, (As I believe they do) then their options are really limited to only two:

    1. Prove that transfusion is prohibited in the Bible

    2. Prove that transfusion is equivalent to something that is prohibited in the Bible
  • RebelliousSpirit
    RebelliousSpirit
    Seriously though, As I said before, I am a critic and I ask questions. And if I get baptized and they dont like me asking questions then they have a big problem... because I don't stop asking question until I get an answer (and I dont know counts as answer). And if that will disfellowship me then so be it. The people Ive met seem never to be able to do that, but reading your stories and this last post of yours really made me doubt about that (and of course people can seem like A, but can be B). But because I dont have any proof of this being the case besides your post, I'd rather experience it for myself if you dont mind. But dont worry, I'll be careful and i'll keep asking questions ;) And especially those annoying ones like "If you really are the organization of God on this earth, then why <INSERT ANY OF THE POSTS ON THIS FORUM>?" =)

    Ahhh, so you're a glutton for punishment? Look, I've been studying for 6 months (finished the Knowledge book, part way through the Worship book now), I am married to a JW who was DA'd for 8 years, his entire family are JWs. I came into this wanting it to be the truth so that I could make my husband and his family happy, and so that I could better my relationship with God. But in 6 months I went from being VERY sure initially of things I was learning (the first 3 months, it sounded GREAT), to being VERY unsure and having a thousand more questions than ever before (the last 3 months, it does not sound so "great" the more I learn).

    Like you, I am a critic and I ask questions - lots of questions. I take nothing for granted. And I could probably "do this" if it weren't for the slightly (haha) problematic issue of potentially being DF'd for making decisions contrary to what the WTS teaches, for not agreeing with everything 110%, for doing something I feel is "innocent" but they feel is "wicked", and the list goes on. And I will NOT be a member of an organization such as this if I can't give of myself 110%. Not to mention the fact that I have 2 children to think of - this means THEIR future as well - if I raise them in "the truth" that will set the stage for the course of their entire life, for the potential for great heartache if they don't measure up to "JW standards" - and that's not a price I'm willing to pay.

    I told my husband the other night that right now I feel I cannot be a JW because of PRINCIPLE. That's the bottom line. For example: I spent a number of years as a volunteer for AIDS Community Resources. Recently I decided that I would like to start volunteering there again, and I was accepted in a wonderful position as a Youth Group Facilitator for the Gay/Les/Bi/TG/Q youth support group. I am so excited and honored to be a part of this. But do you think the brothers and sisters will be as happy for me as I am, considering the "topic" at hand? I think not. How unfortunate for them. Preaching the "good news of the kingdom" is not the only worthwhile work in today's world. They might be waiting for the "new system" to fix the issues plaguing our society - but in the meantime, for example, what happens to those ones who need a light at the end of their tunnel NOW?

    Like I said ... forget doctrinal discrepancies, forget the "is this the truth or not" game ... for me it all boils down to principles - and I am not willing to compromise mine.

  • frankiespeakin
    frankiespeakin

    Rebellious,

    You have just the right type of rebellious spirit!

  • GetBusyLiving
    GetBusyLiving

    I could never be a part of an organization that is so bloodguilty. Look at how they flip-flopped on organ transplants for example. Lots of people died then they change their minds. How do you think their family's felt..What the hell.

  • frankiespeakin
    frankiespeakin

    GBL,

    And you know what really make my blood boil,,is that they never said they were sorry for any loss of life over the transplant flip flop they just swept it under the rug and dogded all blame.

  • NewLight2
    NewLight2

    Thid page contains photo scans of Watchtower 11-15-67 p. 702 and the Awake 6-8-68 p. 21

    Watchtower receives "New Light" in the 60's:Organ Transplants are Cannibalism!

    Jaron, please read the following 2 books before you start to study with the JW's:
    1) "Combatting Cult Mind Control" and 2) "Releasing The Bonds" both are written by Steven Hassan

    They will help you see the tactics that are used to 'program' you into thinking that the Watchtower Society AKA "Jehovah's Orgization" is the 'one and only TRUE RELIGION.'

  • Delta20
    Delta20

    TD,

    I understand exactly what you are saying, but you are placing the word *eating* there as the necessary verb, without that word being necessary at all. But lets suppose you are right. Let's just say that the bible indeed says that you shouldn't eat blood. I agree with you that if one shows that bloodtransfusion is prohibited in the bible then we are done with this discussion. Now, we already agreed on the fact that the bible states it is prohibited to eat blood. Now, what is the definition of eating? I read your post just before i want to class, and I didn't have time to reply then, but I came across a medstudent at my Uni and I started a discussion with her about this. Basically, when you eat something, the body will absorp some of the components of what you eat into the bloodsystem. This happens in the small intestines. If you want more information about that, you should visit: http://arbl.cvmbs.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/digestion/smallgut/absorb.html. It features a lot of information about the digestion system. So, if you eat blood it would go into your body and components of the blood would go into your own blood. But the same goes for bloodtransfusions, a bloodtransfusion will also put those components into your blood, so the effect is the same. Now obviously bloodtransfusion looks different then eating although it has the same effect, but what is eating then? Can you only eat through your mouth? No, people who can't eat through their mouth can eat through a med. drip. I honestly think that you can call the "getting needed components into the blood" eating. So in this case, bloodtransfusion is equivalent to eating.

    Think about it, if God forbids to eat blood, does that mean you are allowed to use it through a drip? I don't think it does. Same goes for bloodtransfusion. Of course this takes a believe, you have to believe that with eating God isn't only talking about the act that we call eating these days, but also implies that you are prohibited from taking in blood at all. And because I cant think of any way, at the time these acts were written, of other ways that someone could take in blood besides the mouth, it is very well possible that God means not to take any blood at all. And thats the point I have been trying to make all the time, in this sense, bloodtransfusion is identical to eating, and in this sense it is prohibited by the bible. So if you say that the JW dont have a rightful claim on this "doctrine" then you are simply wrong.

    RebelliousSpirit,

    Not to mention the fact that I have 2 children to think of - this means THEIR future as well - if I raise them in "the truth" that will set the stage for the course of their entire life, for the potential for great heartache if they don't measure up to "JW standards" - and that's not a price I'm willing to pay.

    OK, I dont have any kids myself but I understand your concern. But this means you are choosing not to "pay up the price". I can understand that too. There are many examples in the bible of people who have suffered great loss in the name of God. I would suggest reading the book of Job again. That man lost all of his children ones! Of course at the end he had new children, but that doesn't take away the hurt and feelings for the children that were lost, its not like "Ow I can stop feeling sad about my lost children because I have new ones", at least at the present time it isn't. But what it teaches you is that, if you keep the faith, not only will God save you, but your children can be saved too (I imagine that Job's first children will get a ressurection). Its something only you can decide, either believe, with the chance that if its all true that you, your husband and your children will get a new life in a paradise, or disbelieve, and lose this chance. I agree that the JW-standards are high, but that is parallel to what has been said in the bible, that the path of the truth is small and narrow.

    The things about the paradise might seem stupid to believe, same with believing in angels and Satan and all the other things. But think about it really carefully... in the end it makes sense, and it gives use, a goal, it adds more purpose to your life. All arrows point in the direction that there is a God, and that we are here because of his will. So it might be smart to not dismiss this believe so easily. Just my few cents ;)

  • PinTail
    PinTail

    Hey Jaron ask the Elders if after you are dedicated if you can question the teaching or at lest some of and see what they say I am sure it will be negative even if just over a little thing. Jaron you can question it now but you just have to fully join and you will slam ducked it you can't or won't swallow some aspect all of them.

    Shane

  • SixofNine
    SixofNine

    What's so funny, Delta20, is that in your attempts to justify the opinion of a few skanky old nutcases living rather cloistered lives in Brooklyn NY, you think nothing of accusing god of caring more for a symbol of life than life itself. You really think god wants people to believe that? Are you really that intent on accusing god of being petty? Think boy, Think! You're not thinking, you're justifying.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit