And let's add one more point: They can't reason on blood or discuss the subject with any depth.
Why? Because the whole topic is a neglected minefield waiting to explode. What was James quoting from in Acts 15? ( Leviticus!)
Does all milk contain blood? ( yes, white blood cells) If blood is sacred as a symbol of life, isn't sustaining life the point? ( yes!)
Can twins share a blood supply? ( yes)
Their lazy scholarship has created a doctrinal nightmare in which they seem to be confined to repeating "abstain from blood"
over and over again, with no other support offered, for fear of raising too many questions - that and depending on a mental picture
of blood as a gruesome totem to keep away reasoning about it.
The blood issue could even explain, in part, why the publications are so dumbed down. They must strongly discourage
thinking and reasoning generally, without pointing to the blood issue specifically.
If the 'Church and State' magazine contention results in any sort of increased reasoning or debate about the blood issue, beyond
the "abstain from blood" mantra, they could be in big trouble, lawsuit or not.
All it took was the evidence that James was citing Leviticus to make my Witness brain nearly explode, several years ago.
"You mean he was quoting the Law of Moses!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" I can't be the only one to be liable to this same sort of
'sudden doctrinal decompression'!