Welcome Hot Chocolate! Your comments were spot on.
TD said: The phrase "Abstain from blood" is not grammatically complete. You cannot invoke a partial predicate apart from the context that completes it as an independent construction.
For example, what would it mean if someone were to come up to you and out of the blue, say, "Abstain from car" ? You can abstain from driving a car or riding in a car, or washing a car, but the idea of an abstinance from the car itself is meaningless. This is because technically we don't actually abstain from physical objects, we abstain from finite acts done in connection with these objects. Therefore a finite verb is needed to complete the thought. When the verb is not present, the reader picks it up from the context. --If someone were to say, "Abstain from liquor" you would automatically know that they were talking about drinking it.
Another great point that I'm going to add to my collection. The ironic thing about the WT's unreasonable view of blood is that on one hand, they've got a brochure called "Blood---Why So Valuable?" or something like that, yet at the same time, one of their core teachings is that a Witness must chose death over a blood transfusion, to 'show the sanctity of life'. By encouraging and enforcing the denial of medical treatment, even if it means certain death, the WTS (in my opinion), should be charged with something like Involuntary Manslaughter when a Witness dies from refusing a blood transfusion.
I spoke to my Dub sister about the blood transfusion doctrine after our dad nearly died last Fall. She actually said something to the effect of 'isn't the actual life more important than the blood that is represented by it?" I said "Bingo! What's more important to you: your marriage, or the ring you wear that symbolizes your marriage?"
One of my bosses is an Orthodox Jew and his brother in law is a Rabbi, so I'm in an excellent position to get the Jewish perspective on these scriptures, the meanings of the original words and how it's viewed today. In a nutshell, even the most Ultra-Orthodox Jew does not view these scriptures as having anything to do with blood transfusions in order to save human life. In fact, unlike the Witnesses, the Jews believe that when faced with a life-threatening situation, it is their duty to do whatever is necessary to preserve life. My boss' mother is a survivior of the Holocaust and the Jews were told at that time to eat pork, shellfish or anything else they could, in order to preserve their life----that's how much they value life.
The WTS's view makes no sense whatsoever. How is it 'showing respect' for life if you let someone die needlessly? How is that any different than the scripture of the pagans sacrificing their children to Molech? There is no difference, except the deaths are now being played out for everyone to see.
Hot Chocolate, one of our other posters (Lady Liberty) started a really good thread a while ago about the blood issue that I think you'll find useful. Here is the link:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/136144/1.ashx
