Assume that a peeled orange slice is a package, a vehicle for conveying orange juice.
The red cell is a similar package, a vehicle for conveying hemoglobin, which is 97% of the erythrocyte (red cell) by dry weight. The Society says you can't take a packed red cell infusion, but you can "eat" or be "nourished" by the contents of the cell, the hemoglobin.
You can consume the orange juice but not eat the orange slice!
The Society now says you can consume HemoPure, hemoglobin fractionated from cow's blood--that wasn't poured out on the ground, of course! Do you see the inconsistency in this? Would there be any difference in taking hemoglobin from a human? And especially from a human who donated his/her blood in a compassionate act for the PRESERVATION of life? Could you donate fractions?
Priestley sees that life is indeed so sacred that God wants
:: to warn us not to deprive any animal of it, much less man, without necessity.
What would the compassionate Priestley think about letting a child bleed to death in a grand symbolic gesture of respect for the sacredness of life?
How can the symbol be more important than the reality?
On another note, this example of slanted quotations is just one of a long list of such distortions that have gone on for many, many years; canards that are repeated over and over even by sincere senior writers who simply have not checked the original material. And of course, since the "faithful slave" has printed it in past years, it is de facto infallible. Right?
Excellent job, hawkaw. Much appreciated.
And what I want to know is, Was Priestley one of those true Christians, or was he one of those Godless scientists the Society is always talking about.
Ever hear of the Procrustean bed? Procrustes lopped off the legs or feet of his guests to fit the bed ... That's the Society today, no matter what new names may attach.
Maximus
On what basis was the decision made to accept an individual fraction or component? Weight, volume, importance? Certainly not physiology.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
