Intellectual Dishonesty - Maximus post revisited (page 2)

sir82

Here's another good example:

http://www.freeminds.org/doctrine/education_anderson.htm

Jehovah’s Witnesses, Higher Education and Misrepresentation

(Whole article is too big to post here)

undercover

The idea of taking fractions only is dishonest also. Most all use of blood is in fractions. The society does not have the right to pick and choose what fractions are allowed. Blood is blood.

This is the main issue that caused my exit from the cult.

While not the main issue prompting me to seek freedom, it was one of the inconsistent doctrines that showed me that they were pulling this out of their ass.

To abstain from blood means just that...abstain. Allowing fractions is not abstaining.

If the Society had held to the blood ban as it had in the 60s/70s, one could make an argument for their fundamentalist approach. "The Bible says "abstain", we're abstaining."

But when they started tinkering with the doctrine due to medical advancements and knowledge, they were their own undoing. How can one ban blood based on this one scripture yet allows followers to partake in certain fractions while banning others? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

And if they ever try to quote the Hebrew portions of the law, it would be good to remind them that blood was to be poured on the ground. How can one respect the life blood if one is taking it and breaking it down to fractions and minute particles? It goes against the principle of respecting the life and pouring the blood on the ground (they're so quick to point out principles, it's good to get one in on them) if they're allowing medical people to tamper with this fluid that is to be so respected.

sir82

How can one ban blood based on this one scripture yet allows followers to partake in certain fractions while banning others?

Questions to ask the next JW who knocks on your door:

What is the Biblical basis for determining that fractions of blood are acceptable, but whole blood is not?

What is the Biblical basis for determining that "fraction A" of blood is acceptable, but "fraction B" is not?

Goshawk

Undercover, good points.

Also tinkering with the blood doctrine was a way to get around being banned in eastern european countries as they were limiting their adherents human rights.

Will have to search for the thread in the archives.

WTWizard

This is another example of where they get around their own rules. In order to avoid getting banned (so they can spread the cancer in Europe), they tweak one of their rules. Of course, taking blood is still likely to be a houndable offense, since you have to decide in front of the hounders which, if any, fractions of blood you are willing to take when filling out that blood card. (Note that you can get AIDS just as easily from a fraction as you can from whole blood).

If they really wanted to be honest, they would simply do away with the whole issue altogether. All fractions, and all blood, is allowed. There might be guidelines that blood should not be taken for stupid reasons, since that might waste blood for when it is critically needed and expose the patient to risks that exceed the benefits. But, there is no need for committees to keep people from making that decision on a case by case basis, when the need comes up.

Alpaca

Great post.

Maximus was before my time on JWD/JWN.

So he was a DO? Wow, that's pretty heavy. The BORG must have done a major witch hunt on him and any friends who might have sympathized.

What happened to him? What's he doing now?

quietlyleaving

yup. The wts are experts at intellectual dishonesty. They also misquote Thayer's concordance on grace/underserved kindness. We have a copy of Thayers and I remember having a lively discussion with a jw about it

yesidid

What happened to him? What's he doing now?

still_in74

What happened to him? What's he doing now?

i wish i knew! Does anyone know of Maximus anymore? Not a single post of his is not read from start to finish!

Intellectual Dishonesty - Maximus post revisited

Share this