The modern event and it's location at a fairground was based primarily on horse racing. Even the beer (And rotisserie chicken) for which it is known today, did not come until much later.
Posts by TD
-
8Oktoberfest and JWs
by NotFormer inis oktoberfest one of those holidays that jws can't celebrate?
is simply sitting in a beer tent as a tourist and imbibing a matter for the elders?.
-
-
TD
-
8
Oktoberfest and JWs
by NotFormer inis oktoberfest one of those holidays that jws can't celebrate?
is simply sitting in a beer tent as a tourist and imbibing a matter for the elders?.
-
-
TD
Outside of the context of alcoholism, Jehovah's Witnesses have spoken of it very neutrally in the past: (Perhaps not in English, but certainly in German)
(Wir beobachten die Welt g76 22. 1. S. 29-30)
◆ Das weltweit bekannte Münchner Oktoberfest war im Jahre 1975 ein Rekordfest. Dabei wurden nahezu 4,5 Millionen Maß Bier getrunken und annähernd 600 000 Hendl’n (Brathühner) verzehrt. Die Besucherzahl lag um rund 10 % höher als im Jahre 1974. Das Münchner Oktoberfest hat also trotz aller Sorgen um Park- und Sitzplatz seine Anziehungskraft weder im Inland noch im Ausland verloren. Im Gegenteil, der Werbeslogan „Leut — vergeßt die Kris’n, kommt’s auf die Wies’n“ wurde von etwa 6 Millionen befolgt, und die Sorgen wurden mit der nötigen Menge Bier „hinuntergespült“.
Similarly, it is not on the list of events they frown on today:
https://www.jw.org/de/jehovas-zeugen/oft-gefragt/jehovas-zeugen-feiertage-feste/
--Die Zeugen Jehovas, die ich kenne, machen sich darüber keine Sorgen
-
8
Oktoberfest and JWs
by NotFormer inis oktoberfest one of those holidays that jws can't celebrate?
is simply sitting in a beer tent as a tourist and imbibing a matter for the elders?.
-
-
TD
Oktoberfest is a 16/17 day long carnival/festival. It's not a holiday and not religious
JW's (AFAIK) don't have a problem with beer, folk music, or carnivals in general as long as there is no "reproach."
-
81
Acts 15:29 - "keep abstaining from blood"
by aqwsed12345 infor a christian, only the moral commandments of the old testament are binding (as they cannot change), but the various liturgical, social, and other so-called casuistic laws no longer apply to them.
this includes dietary habits, such as the prohibition of pork or fat, as well as the prohibition of blood.. take a look at the following verses: mt 15:11, mk 7:15-19, acts 11:7-9, 1 tim 4:3-5.. the jehovah's witnesses say that, yes, but in the acts of the apostles (15) the consumption of blood, idol meat, and strangled animals is also prohibited, meaning the new testament still forbids it.
for catholics, the council of florence settled this issue, stating that this apostolic regulation was only a temporary measure to facilitate agreement between jews and gentiles in the early church.
-
-
TD
EasyPrompt
(I ain't as concerned 'bout grammar as I am about substance.)
Even if we forget about the grammar of one of the most grammatically precise languages, the meaning is still driven by the context:
"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."
James 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
"abstain from eating food offered to idols and from unbled meat of strangled animals and of course from fornication."
The Living Bible
"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
I almost get the impression you believe the meaning is entirely subjective, in which case, there would be nothing to discuss.
-
81
Acts 15:29 - "keep abstaining from blood"
by aqwsed12345 infor a christian, only the moral commandments of the old testament are binding (as they cannot change), but the various liturgical, social, and other so-called casuistic laws no longer apply to them.
this includes dietary habits, such as the prohibition of pork or fat, as well as the prohibition of blood.. take a look at the following verses: mt 15:11, mk 7:15-19, acts 11:7-9, 1 tim 4:3-5.. the jehovah's witnesses say that, yes, but in the acts of the apostles (15) the consumption of blood, idol meat, and strangled animals is also prohibited, meaning the new testament still forbids it.
for catholics, the council of florence settled this issue, stating that this apostolic regulation was only a temporary measure to facilitate agreement between jews and gentiles in the early church.
-
-
TD
EasyPrompt
I have been quoting the same three words from Acts many times throughout this thread..."Abstain from blood."
--And I have pointed out over and over now that the statement was not made in an open context as you imply.
Worse, it's not even grammatically complete apart from the context in which it appears.
I doubt very much if you would allow scripture to be taken out of context on any other topic, so your repetition here is puzzling indeed.
-
81
Acts 15:29 - "keep abstaining from blood"
by aqwsed12345 infor a christian, only the moral commandments of the old testament are binding (as they cannot change), but the various liturgical, social, and other so-called casuistic laws no longer apply to them.
this includes dietary habits, such as the prohibition of pork or fat, as well as the prohibition of blood.. take a look at the following verses: mt 15:11, mk 7:15-19, acts 11:7-9, 1 tim 4:3-5.. the jehovah's witnesses say that, yes, but in the acts of the apostles (15) the consumption of blood, idol meat, and strangled animals is also prohibited, meaning the new testament still forbids it.
for catholics, the council of florence settled this issue, stating that this apostolic regulation was only a temporary measure to facilitate agreement between jews and gentiles in the early church.
-
-
TD
Fisherman,
JW, however, trust the gb and believe in their authority and Bible interpretation on blood.
This is going to be a long response and for that, I apologize in advance.
-----
In his 1898 novel, War Of The Worlds, H.G. Wells speculated that a highly evolved race would have developed past the need to eat food. These fictional beings, in fact, had no digestive organs of any sort:
"Entrails they had none. They did not eat, much less digest. Instead, they took the fresh, living blood of other creatures and injected it into their veins…..The physiological advantages of the practice of injection are undeniable, if one thinks of the tremendous waste of human time and energy occasioned by eating and the digestive process. Our bodies are half made up of glands and tubes and organs, occupied in turning heterogeneous food into blood."
Although an entertaining read, Wells had completely misunderstood the function of blood even by the science of his day. Injecting the "fresh living blood of other creatures" will not sustain any being of flesh and blood because blood is not the "food" upon which the body is sustained; it is only the transport mechanism.
Starting in 1944, (I can provide scans for anything and everything that follows) the JW parent organization began making negative comments about transfusion, but it was not until 1951 that they specifically stated the nature of their objection:
As everyone can see, JW leaders and policy makers were laboring under the exact same misconception as H.G. Wells. Blood, in their view was "nutrition" and transfusion was therefore an explicit violation of biblical prohibitions against eating it.
The 1953 edtion of the book Make Sure Of All Things (The brown one, not the green one) included this view as an official answer for believing Jehovah's Witnesses to give to outsiders.
You said that, "[JWs] trust the gb and believe in their authority and Bible interpretation on blood" to which I would point out that the entire doctrine was based upon a very outdated misconception.
-----
In 1958, serums, such as the diphtheria and tetanus antitoxins were allowed as conscience permits on the basis that they did not nourish the body.
"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."
However this rationale, if taken to its logical conclusion, would have brought the doctrine crashing down, as transfusion does not nourish the body in any form.
You said that, "[JWs] trust the gb and believe in their authority and Bible interpretation on blood" to which I would ask how can you trust an organization that has made errors this basic and fundamental to the discussion.
-----
In 1961, the JW's resorted to outright dishonesty in an effort to shore up the original argument. This occurred via a misrepresentation of an obscure medical text:
"It is of no consequence that the blood is taken into the body through the veins instead of the mouth. Nor does the claim by some that it is not the same as intravenous feeding carry weight. The fact is that it nourishes or sustains the life of the body. In harmony with this is a statement in the book Hemorrhage and Transfusion, by George W. Crile, A.M., M.D., who quotes a letter from Denys, French physician and early researcher in the field of transfusions. It says: "In performing transfusion it is nothing else than nourishing by a shorter road than ordinarythat is to say, placing in the veins blood all made in place of taking food which only turns to blood after several changes."
Hemorrhage and Transfusion, published in 1909, was an outdated and hard to find medical textbook even in 1961. (I found a copy at the library of the Cleveland Clinic, which Crile had founded.)
The quote in question appears in chapter VII, A Brief History Of Transfusion and reads, in context:
"In the same year [1667] Denys of Montpellier, wrote concerning experiments which he performed on animals. He followed Lower's method in a general way except that he did not withdraw enough blood from the donor to cause death. He also tried transfusion from three calves to three dogs with success in each case. In a letter to M. de Montmore he describes two transfusions which he made on patients. His idea was that "In practicing transfusion one can only imitate the example of nature which, in order to nourish the fetus in the uterus of the mother, makes a continuous transfusion of the blood of the mother into the body of the infant through the umbilical vein. In performing transfusion it is nothing else than nourishing by a shorter road than ordinary--that is to say, placing in the veins blood all made in place of taking food which only turns to blood after several changes"
As you can see, Crile was not agreeing with the humorous level of ignorance he had found in a 17th century paper, but was simply providing a narrative of the history of transfusion.
In chapter XIII, A General Review Of The More Modern Theories And Practices Of Transfusion, Crile demolishes the outdated idea that transfusion nourishes the body, so there can be no question that he emphatically disagreed with Denys.
You said that, "[JWs] trust the gb and believe in their authority and Bible interpretation on blood" to which I would ask how you can trust a leadership that has not been honest with you. (I can give other examples)
-----
What followed for the JW's was a period of confusion. Conflicting statements on the acceptability of post-exposure vaccines and serums can be found in 1961, 63, and 64. JW's faced with medical dilemmas had to write the parent organization on the acceptability of specific treatments as there was not a clear, consistent rationale in JW literature.
Finally, in June of 1982, a new explanation was offered. Blood components were classified as either "major" or "minor." However the policy that the JW's enforced did not consistently follow their own reasoning. 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.
You said that, "[JWs] trust the gb and believe in their authority and Bible interpretation on blood" to which I would again ask how can you trust an organization that has made errors this basic and fundamental to the discussion.
-----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.
However this rationale was not technically viable either. Just two years later, 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 40 years after her last pregnancy.
You said that, "[JWs] trust the gb and believe in their authority and Bible interpretation on blood" to which I would repeat the same question.
-----
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." Like the other three explanations, this one is flawed.
Under this rationale fractions of any primary component are allowed as conscience permits, but the problem here is that cooking fractionates the primary components. The blood cells are ruptured by the heat and cease to exist as formed elements (i.e. primary components.) This rationale would lead to the conclusion that it's okay to eat blood as long as you cook it thoroughly, which is not at all what JW's actually teach.
You said that, "[JWs] trust the gb and believe in their authority and Bible interpretation on blood" to which I would repeat the same question.
-----
On the rolling green hills of Pennsylvania, there is a tiny grave; a casualty to a view on gamma globulin which the JW's have not taught for more than 50 years. (IgG is the basis of a all post-exposure vaccines today) JW's today would opine that this was the parent's choice and that nobody twisted their arm, when in fact, the JW organization was teaching at the time that children who were given a blood product and died would not receive a resurrection.
Throughout all of this, the JW parent organization has never once admitted they were wrong, or shown anything remotely resembling contrition for the human cost of their mistakes
You said that, "[JWs] trust the gb and believe in their authority and Bible interpretation on blood" to which I would ask how you can trust an organization that takes zero responsibility and will happily throw grieving parents under the bus.
-
81
Acts 15:29 - "keep abstaining from blood"
by aqwsed12345 infor a christian, only the moral commandments of the old testament are binding (as they cannot change), but the various liturgical, social, and other so-called casuistic laws no longer apply to them.
this includes dietary habits, such as the prohibition of pork or fat, as well as the prohibition of blood.. take a look at the following verses: mt 15:11, mk 7:15-19, acts 11:7-9, 1 tim 4:3-5.. the jehovah's witnesses say that, yes, but in the acts of the apostles (15) the consumption of blood, idol meat, and strangled animals is also prohibited, meaning the new testament still forbids it.
for catholics, the council of florence settled this issue, stating that this apostolic regulation was only a temporary measure to facilitate agreement between jews and gentiles in the early church.
-
-
TD
HEAD KNIGHT: It is a good shrubbery. I like the laurels particularly,... but there is one small problem.
If it helps, I'm criticizing the quality of your argument. --Not you as a human being.
I don't hang with and discuss things with people I don't like. Not even online.
-
81
Acts 15:29 - "keep abstaining from blood"
by aqwsed12345 infor a christian, only the moral commandments of the old testament are binding (as they cannot change), but the various liturgical, social, and other so-called casuistic laws no longer apply to them.
this includes dietary habits, such as the prohibition of pork or fat, as well as the prohibition of blood.. take a look at the following verses: mt 15:11, mk 7:15-19, acts 11:7-9, 1 tim 4:3-5.. the jehovah's witnesses say that, yes, but in the acts of the apostles (15) the consumption of blood, idol meat, and strangled animals is also prohibited, meaning the new testament still forbids it.
for catholics, the council of florence settled this issue, stating that this apostolic regulation was only a temporary measure to facilitate agreement between jews and gentiles in the early church.
-
-
TD
Fisherman
These phrases do not relate to “abstain” because abstain deals with consumption. Or conduct involving pleasure.
If you're asserting that eating (or possibly drinking) of blood should be understood from the context of the Decree, then I'm in complete agreement.
Abstain and its synonyms (refrain, forbear, etc.) negate action. The fundamental meaning is to keep or prevent oneself from doing or saying something. (I'm quoting the American Heritage Dictionary word for word)
"Although the argument was intense, the couple abstained from hateful words"
This is a perfectly legitimate use of the word. The action, though unstated, is derived from the context
"Her obstetrician said, 'Pregnant women should abstain from alcohol.'"
"His dermatologist said, 'Persons with sensitive skin should abstain from alcohol.'"
Even though both doctors have said, "abstain from alcohol" we would not automatically understand them to be talking about the same thing. While we would understand the former to be a reference to alcoholic beverages, we would understand the latter to be a reference to the topical application of alcohol.
English, of course, is not the language the bible was written it, which is why grammar and context are crucial.
-
81
Acts 15:29 - "keep abstaining from blood"
by aqwsed12345 infor a christian, only the moral commandments of the old testament are binding (as they cannot change), but the various liturgical, social, and other so-called casuistic laws no longer apply to them.
this includes dietary habits, such as the prohibition of pork or fat, as well as the prohibition of blood.. take a look at the following verses: mt 15:11, mk 7:15-19, acts 11:7-9, 1 tim 4:3-5.. the jehovah's witnesses say that, yes, but in the acts of the apostles (15) the consumption of blood, idol meat, and strangled animals is also prohibited, meaning the new testament still forbids it.
for catholics, the council of florence settled this issue, stating that this apostolic regulation was only a temporary measure to facilitate agreement between jews and gentiles in the early church.
-
-
TD
Faithful Israelites in ancient times didn't transfuse blood or use medical blood products.
Ancient Israel did not wrestle with the ethics of artificial and in-vitro fertilization. Or performing a root canal on the sabbath. Or autopsy. Or bone marrow transplant. Or post-exposure vaccines and serums.
The argument from silence (If that's your argument) is a logical fallacy.
-----
"Abstain from blood." (again)
Another way to look at the grammatical error in the JW interpretation is to rephrase the abstention as a finite negative.
As an example, I can easily state what it means to abstain from fornication.
It means, "Do not fornicate."
What does it mean to abstain from blood?
"Do not ______" ---What?
At some point the act of abstaining must be defined and the only interpolations a translator may legitimately make are those supported by the context.
I've explained this in every way I can think of and you continue to regurgitate the dishonesty of Jehovah's Witnesses.
-
81
Acts 15:29 - "keep abstaining from blood"
by aqwsed12345 infor a christian, only the moral commandments of the old testament are binding (as they cannot change), but the various liturgical, social, and other so-called casuistic laws no longer apply to them.
this includes dietary habits, such as the prohibition of pork or fat, as well as the prohibition of blood.. take a look at the following verses: mt 15:11, mk 7:15-19, acts 11:7-9, 1 tim 4:3-5.. the jehovah's witnesses say that, yes, but in the acts of the apostles (15) the consumption of blood, idol meat, and strangled animals is also prohibited, meaning the new testament still forbids it.
for catholics, the council of florence settled this issue, stating that this apostolic regulation was only a temporary measure to facilitate agreement between jews and gentiles in the early church.
-
-
TD
"Abstain from blood."
Again, a complete sentence requires a transfer of action between subject and object:
-----
"The dog bit the boy."
"The man caught a fish."
"The child threw the ball."
-----
Verbs that fulfill this function are called transitive or finite.
"Abstain" is not a transitive verb. It can't take an object and can't transfer action between subject and object:
-----
"Abstain from shrubbery"
"Abstain from locomotive"
"Abstain from sky"
"Abstain from crankshaft"
-----
The phrases above are incomplete and as such are nonsensical.
Like JW writers, you are invoking an incomplete predicate apart from the context that completes it and passing it off as an independent construction.
If you realize what you're doing it's dishonest. If you don't realize what you're doing, it's ignorant.
Like the thread title states, what the Decree actually said was, "To keep abstaining....from blood." --A clear reference to a prohibition that was already in existence at the time the words were written.
If you can bridge the gap between the eating of blood and the transfusion of blood without committing the fallacy of equivocation, or making reference to Bram Stoker or posting silly pictures, I'd like to hear it.
I honestly don't think you can though. JW writers have been trying for 60+ years and haven't been able to do it.