by hawkaw 36 Replies latest jw friends
Hawkaw:
Thanks for the link. I'm working on the Priestley stuff now and should send it to you within the next couple of days. I do this stuff during my down time at work, so it doesn't always go as quickly as I'd like. And yes send me the Aretaeus stuff and I'll work on it as well.
CPiolo
i should say thanks for putting this together for us too, hawkaw. its well presented. apologies, i didnt realize the brochure was published on the WT website or i wouldve looked it up myself.
from the society's brochure, i see the point being this: early christian writers wouldve been familiar with the medical use of blood and so one cannot make the argument that when they were condemning the use of blood, they could not have had its noble use as a remedy in mind, since they were unfamiliar with it. presumably the implication is that since blood was in common use as medicine, the christian writers wouldve explicitly mentioned it if they condoned it. since they didnt, we can conclude its medical use fell under the divine prohibition.
using the original Aretaeus quote, i gather you are making 2 points about the mention of the blood treatment:
1) Aretaeus was refering to the practice as a fringe home remedy, not as a common, respected medical treatment.
2) Both Aretaeus and 1st century apologists were objecting to the method of extracting blood, rather than the practice in and of itself.
if i understand this correctly, i think i would say the 2nd point is stronger than the first. surely, these unusual home remedies, or "old wives' tales," were a much more prominent part of everyday life in roman times than today. Aretaues and others like him, were fighting an uphill battle in trying to document the relative merits of these different treatments and legitimacize them. Clearly the scientific method did not exist yet it any repsectable form. Aretaeus' own, more 'respected' treatments for epilepsy are pretty laughable too. (eg. abstain from sex since it LOOKS like an epileptic seizure - lol.) So, i dont see that the treatment's being a fringe practice greatly alters the society's argument, which is that the practice was KNOWN. for example, if you to meet the apostles and say, 'hey boys, this business with the abstain from blood and all, does this apply to blood used as medicine?' would they have said, 'blood as medicine? what the gehenna are you talking about?' no, they probably had heard of it. i see the point the society is making here to be more about the popularity of blood use, rather than its legitimacy.
the second point is better because it provides an obvious explanation for condemning the roman use of blood as medicine: it was barbaric and immoral. what aretaeus was refering to was obviously not a clinical use of blood by removing donor blood from a live individual and ingesting it. it was a greedy and desperate need to try anything to remove a terrible affliction. this is the impression i get from aretaues' quote, and especially tertullian's. we can imagine an individual rushing onto the scene of a spectator execution and hungrily squeezing what blood they could from the freshly killed victim, possibly in their final death-throes. now ANY peace-loving person would object to that, no matter what they think of the use of blood. the society's argument that the practice was well-known loses strength if the practice was ALSO inextricably connected to the love of violence.
well, those are just my thoughts. hope that makes some sense.
mox
Hi Moxy,
Yes your comments do make sense and I kindly thank you. I wish more would comment on this and other threads, too. It helps to have people look over the facts and determine if the arguments are sound.
In your first point regarding the old wise tales - I agree. And with Aretaeus treatments being suspect - I agree as well. I should have made a note that some of his treatments were laughable. Thanks.
However, when I read the blood pamphlet, it gave me the impression that the society was implying that Aretaeus, himself as a respected 2nd Century Doctor, was also “reporting” that blood drinking was being used as a legitimate “medical” “treatment”. When in actuality, Aretaeus was saying he knew and saw this blood drinking after a murder, but to him, blood drinking was NOT a legitimate medical treatment. It seemed to me, when I read the society’s blood pamphlet, the writers used the word “medical” and the word “treatment” with “Aretaeus” name to legitimize blood drinking as a “treatment”. This of course wasn’t true when it came to Aretaeus.
Hawk
Hey, Big Raptor!
Thanks for the e-mails. (Does this make me part of your clique?) The question becomes, Is there no blood-related quotation in any of its publications that the Watchtower writers have NOT taken out of context or completely misapplied or maliciously distored?
For the benefit of readers, there will be a major vehicle of communication that will serve as an expose of these issues. Patience. Rather than small arms fire, let's go for the tactical nuclear weapon we've discussed.
Maximus
Hey Redactor man,
My Clique? Gee, I thought I was part of your clique? Or was it Farkel's clique? Or was it Alan's clique? Hmmm...... Well, if I have to be part of a clique, I want to be part of a "waiting" clique. I hear she has a cool sister, a fun husband and lives near a beach - LOL!
Maybe some day people will realize we are "free" people who offer our thoughts. There is no special "clique" as I have heard suggested.
I am still working on other quotes and waiting for a special package from the USA to arrive regarding one very big one I have in the works. This research stuff takes a long time but it seems to be worth it to some. And the people on this board such as Moxy and waiting to name a few of the many have offered some excellent comments.
I still can't believe what the WTS did to Gorman, Priestley and Pirie. The Pirie one definitely took me back a step and made me think. I was hoping more would comment on the Pirie thread.
I am looking forward to getting these quotations out in a bigger forum for more people to see.
hawk (no "cliques" allowed and hoping Barbara will now take the plunge as well)
props to max & the gang.
o yes hawk, i definitely agree that the quote is misleading, creating the impression of a more legitimate medical practice. however, just confining the discussion to aretaeus, the reference is SO short, basically just in passing, that i couldnt be too critical of it. besides, its one thing to make a reference in a misleading way. and its another to make a reference support an argument that it doesnt. and thats what im focusing on.
mox
Went to the site lastnight, and I am still in shock and sadness and hopefully someday soon they will take your findings and reform their *Rules* Also downloaded the movie, watched it and cried.
How many active witnesses agree with the reform? Do they still feel the same and will refuse? Or will they think twice if they needed blood. and I also dont understand why they would refuse to use their *OWN* blood (confused look on Sarahs face)
Hi SarahT,
I went into that "Mom's" web site last night.
Question - Are you a witness or an ex witness or like me, never joined the club but worried about good friends who are involved?
hawk
Thanks so much ((hawk))))))))))
I really didn't understand how they gave their spin on Aretaeus before. Learning something new everyday here! So much dishonest scholarship! I'm printing it out and will get back to you with comments after I've given it more serious perusal. Thanks again for providing so much accurate info to us. You're the best!! luv,tina
Carl Sagan on balancing openness to new ideas with skeptical scrutiny..."if you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an ounce of skeptical sense-you cannot distinguish useful ideas from worthless ones."
Very Far from a witness, i'm not an x witness nor do I do anyone that close to me that is one, I have a distant cousin that is one, but dont know her at all, what got me interested and mainly concerned is being a mother myself, I worry about the children out there and the choices jw's make for them, also since the Tragedy that has our nation, I am worried for jw's and also mad at them at the same time, the jw's on the other site seemed to think it was ok that their children die because of their faithfullness to who ever said in the first place blood was bad. Also ticks me off that their support for our country is Null&Void, and the whole thread well both the jw threads over there got me fire ingine red mad!! No matter what I said or facts I presented, they continued to bash me.
I do go to church, I beleive in God, Jesus, and the whole thing. And I am glad I am not a jw, if I were I would have no choices or freeedoms.
