Posts by TD

25

Wedding Anniversary #62

by smiddy3 in

jw
friends

hi friends , i thought i would just let you know it`s my wife and i, 62nd wedding anniversary today.. not that we were able to celebrate much as my wife wasn`t up to it today .. however i did manage to give her a couple of champers at home ,while i had a couple o ales with friends down at the club and managed to put on lotto for tonite and a couple of keno`s from the club ,you never know the god`s might smile upon us for doing something right after all these years.?.

take care guys.. smiddy 3.

TD

Heartfelt congratulations!

43

Basic Blood Questions For Witnesses

by Vanderhoven7 in

basic blood questions for jehovah's witnesses.

where does the bible outlaw blood transfusions?

(acts 15:29 gen.9:4) .

TD

An analogy is a useful rhetorical device for visualizing a principle after it has been established, but does not an argument make

Or as Plato said:

“Arguments that make their point by means of similarities are impostors, and, unless you are on your guard against them, will quite readily deceive you.”

----------

I've explained the flaws in the "abstain from blood" argument at length.

When it comes to the first abstention, (things sacrificed to idols) the JW's readily acknowledge:

a. That "abstain" negates actions, not objects

b. That a finite act is required to complete the thought

c. That in this case, that act is idolatry.

d. That what the Decree actually forbade was therefore the eating of an idol sacrifice as part of a pagan ritual. (I am quoting from JW literature here.)

The honesty of JW writers on this matter is required to resolve what would otherwise be a serious contradiction in their teaching.

The second abstention (blood) is governed by the exact same rubric. The rules of definition and grammar don't change from one sentence to the next and they certainly don't change in mid-sentence.

43

Basic Blood Questions For Witnesses

by Vanderhoven7 in

basic blood questions for jehovah's witnesses.

where does the bible outlaw blood transfusions?

(acts 15:29 gen.9:4) .

TD

Everyone certainly has to make their own decision.

Whole blood transfusions still occur on the battlefield, but that is not a situation a JW is likely to encounter.

In a hospital setting, patients are usually administered only the component they actually need because, (A) It is safer for the patient and (B) It is much more cost effective.

I can easily envision the next major adjustment to the teaching (Assuming there is one) as a reduction in the scope of prohibited components to whole blood alone. Partial components of all types would be allowed. The JW's could very honestly and truthfully point out that biblical prohibitions against blood are all references to whole blood. The JW's leadership could save face and the human cost of the teaching would be greatly reduced.

But then what do I know?

43

Basic Blood Questions For Witnesses

by Vanderhoven7 in

basic blood questions for jehovah's witnesses.

where does the bible outlaw blood transfusions?

(acts 15:29 gen.9:4) .

TD

Hemoglobin is constructed as a ring molecule called a porphyrin, which is difficult to break down. Hemoglobin is instead converted in a series of steps into a toxic waste product known as bile, which gives feces their characteristic brown color. Bile does serve a useful purpose on its way out, but is not nutrition in and of itself

The one single blood component capable of providing anything resembling a nutritional benefit when transfused is albumin, which is an allowed component under JW policy.

(Under extreme conditions, the body will consume its own albumin, resulting in the distended stomach and swollen joints you've probably seen in pictures.)

Albumin transfusions were given to starving people in post-war Japan, but we have better preparations today and this is no longer done.

43

Basic Blood Questions For Witnesses

by Vanderhoven7 in

basic blood questions for jehovah's witnesses.

where does the bible outlaw blood transfusions?

(acts 15:29 gen.9:4) .

TD

Fisherman,

Fetal blood cells persist in the maternal blood because they are nucleated and able to reproduce.

Erythrocytes in adults are simply capsules of hemoglobin and when they become damaged, they are broken down and excreted. The technical term is enzymatic degradation. This happens with both your own blood and donated blood.

As the cells in an organ age, they die and are replaced. The dead cells are broken down and excreted. This happens with both your own organs and donated organs.

None of these processes constitutes ingestion.

----------

I've heard the argument that, "the Bible does not sanction any medical use of blood or other use of blood except for ritual" before, but the idea that a prohibition on the "use of blood" can be derived from the Bible's silence is soundly contradicted by JW literature itself.

To illustrate, the March 1, 1989 issue of The Watchtower described intraoperative autotransfusion explicitly as an "autologous blood use."

"A final example of autologous blood use involves recovering and reusing blood during surgery. Equipment is used to aspirate blood from the wound, pump it out through a filter (to remove clots or debris) or a centrifuge (to eliminate fluids), and then direct it back into the patient. " (Emphasis mine)

The previous two examples of "autologous blood use" in the captioned article were isovolemic hemodilution and predonation. So here we had three autologous uses of blood, two of which were matters of conscience and one of which was not. Clearly some uses of blood are distinguishable from others.

The August 8, 1993 issue of Awake! explicitly acknowledges that allogenic blood is used in the production of the hepatitis B vaccine:

"These active immunizations include all the baby shots and the injections that are commonly considered as vaccinations. With one exception (discussed later), these do not involve the use of blood in any step of production?..One other active immunization deserves attention because it is the only active immunization made from blood. It is a hepatitis-B vaccine called Heptavax-B." (Emphasis mine)

The October 1, 1994 issue of The Watchtower amplifies on the subject of "baby shots" by acknowledging that blood products are indeed used in their production:

"Many find this noteworthy, since some vaccines that are not prepared from blood may contain a relatively small amount of plasma albumin that was used or added to stabilize the ingredients in the preparation."

Examples would include MMR II, MUMPSVAX, ATTENUVAX and MURAVAX II by Merck & Co. The growth mediums for these vaccines (e.g. Medium 199, MEM, etc) typically contain both human albumin and fetal bovine serum. Additionally the vaccines themselves contain human albumin as either an adjuvant or excipient. (or both) Other examples of this include VARIVAX and VAQTA, also by Merck & Co., EOLARIX, INFANRIX, and GLAXO by SmithKline Beecham, PENTACEL by Aventis Pasteur, and Connaught Laboratories IPV just to name a few. The acceptance of some of these vaccines is virtually unavoidable in modern society.

Invoking an unconditional argument in defense of what they themselves explicitly acknowledge to be a conditional prohibition yet again exposes the confusion of Watchtower writers.

43

Basic Blood Questions For Witnesses

by Vanderhoven7 in

basic blood questions for jehovah's witnesses.

where does the bible outlaw blood transfusions?

(acts 15:29 gen.9:4) .

TD

Interesting

I illustrate the fallacy of assuming moral equivalency from superficial similarity using biblical examples. (no less...)

And although on one hand, you agree with the examples, you proceed in the very next breath to frame an argument of similarity (?)

If you're using the word, "ingestion" in the medical sense, you're misusing it, as it is specific to the alimentary canal. If you're using the word in the more generic, everyday sense, you're equivocating, which is a logical fallacy.

43

Basic Blood Questions For Witnesses

by Vanderhoven7 in

basic blood questions for jehovah's witnesses.

where does the bible outlaw blood transfusions?

(acts 15:29 gen.9:4) .

TD

Fisherman,

With respect, I don't believe you have bridged the gap between the eating of blood (What the Bible forbids) and the transfusion of blood (What that prohibition is interpreted by JW's to mean in the context of modern medicine.)

You seem to be relying on your own gut feeling and that's not enough. Similarity is not moral equivalence.

There is a similarity between marital sex and adultery, but the two are not morally equivalent acts. Attempting to imply equivalency by lumping them both under the broader category of sex would be the fallacy of equivocation.

There is a similarity between burning a pinch of incense to a pagan god and burning a pinch of incense because you like the ambience, but the two are not morally equivalent acts.

There is a similarity between sipping wine during a JW memorial and sipping wine after you get home. (Even if it is poured from the exact same bottle) but the two are not morally equivalent acts.

Even strictly within the scope of the Decree, there is a similarity between the eating of an idol sacrifice in a pagan temple and the eating of an idol sacrifice when it is sold to the public, but the two are not morally equivalent acts.

Moral equivalency is not established by similarity. It is established via a logical construct.

Try a simple thought experiment. Why does the prohibition against murder, expressed poetically as, "shedding man's blood" apply to poisoning, electrocution and other forms of murder where no blood is shed? How would you construct a watertight argument that would stand up to criticism?

282

How Will They End 1914 Teaching?

by EmptyInside in

i'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.

instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .

they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .

TD

What implication?

I've simply pointed out that we're all bound by the same rules and conventions regardless of whether we believe the bible is the inspired word of God or just an interesting piece of literature.

If any implication of impropriety has been made, it's in the notion that a translator begins with a belief and translates accordingly. That's precisely what they try to avoid.

It's been pointed out that Jeremiah 25:11 contains two grammatical units and it's perfectly true. In the Septuagint, they are separated by a full stop.

282

How Will They End 1914 Teaching?

by EmptyInside in

i'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.

instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .

they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .

TD

To paraphrase BeDuhn:

When the public turns to a Bible translation, it relies heavily on the principle of “truth in advertising” The public trusts that those who translate have been as fair, impartial and accurate has humanly possible. Accuracy in Bible translation means strictly excluding bias towards later developments in Christian thought. It means placing probable meaning above wished-for meaning.

----------

Back around the time the JW's released their interlinear, there was a Watchtower article speculating that much of the Bible comes to us in Greek because the rigid grammar makes for a very precise language, provided one follows it.

43

Basic Blood Questions For Witnesses

by Vanderhoven7 in

basic blood questions for jehovah's witnesses.

where does the bible outlaw blood transfusions?

(acts 15:29 gen.9:4) .

TD

Over the years, the JWs have offered four separate rationales for the allowance of various blood components

(1) In September of 1958 IgG preparations such as the diphtheria antitoxin were allowed on the basis that these "do not nourish the body." However since no component of blood actually nourishes the body, this rationale if taken to its logical conclusion would have brought the whole doctrine crashing down.

(2) In June of 1982, the 1958 rationale for the allowance of fractions was replaced. The JW's attempted to divide blood into "major" and "minor" components, with the major ones forbidden and the minor ones allowed. However the policy the JW's enforced did not consistently follow this rationale. The only basis the JW's ever offered for the major/minor division was raw percentage of blood volume for each respective component. Platelets which comprises roughly 2/10ths of 1 percent of your blood volume were forbidden while albumin which comprises slightly more than 10 times as much (2.2%) was allowed. Not one of the components of plasma was forbidden yet plasma as such (these components suspended in water) were forbidden.

(3) In June of 1990 the 1982 rationale was replaced. Blood components were now divided on the basis of transference across the placental barrier during pregnancy. The same divisions remained. This (IMHO) was one of their better and more honest attempts at interpretation as it put God back into the equation via an appeal to natural consequence. The idea was that God would not violate his own "laws" via creation. However this rationale was not technically viable either.

In 1992 a female lab tech who had donated a blood specimen for analysis was found to have "Y" DNA circulating in her blood stream. Researchers were puzzled until it was disclosed that she was 6 weeks pregnant. The source of the "Y" DNA was her unborn son. Cells in the blood of the fetus including fetal nucleated red blood cells, were crossing the placental barrier. Other studies detected fetal erythroblasts, trophoblasts, granulocytes and lymphocytes in the maternal blood. Since then it has been demonstrated that a woman can still have fetal blood cells in her blood stream more than 30 years after her last pregnancy.

(4) In June of 2000, the 1990 rationale for the allowance of some blood components was replaced. Blood components are now classified as either "primary" or "secondary." This enlarged the scope of permitted preparations procedures to any and all "fractions" or a "primary" component.

While I would agree that easing the restriction was a positive development, this is still a human interpretation subject to error, future revisions and lacking anything even remotely resembling a biblical basis.