The art of defending Watchtower's lies

by opusdei1972 18 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  Phizzy

  I know that those within the land were expected to preferably become proselytes, or, if just passing through, then observe the law of the land, that is to be expected. But I do not see that Jews at any time have thought their law to be applying to all men, just to all men who wish to serve their god.

  There does not seem to be historically the same desire by Jews to establish Mosaic law as there is by ISIS et al to establish Sharia law.

  I know this is a minor point, but it was just one, amongst many, that niggled from that article, the JW stance is since god gave a law on blood to Noah, god meant it to be a universal law, do Jews see it that way, have they ever ?
• 

  cofty

  if just passing through, then observe the law of the land

  Actually - apart from the universal laws like don't murder or steal - they were only expected to observe some sexual prohibitions, idolatry and blood. Thus Acts 15.

  The article is right up to a point but the author has missed a vital point.

  If a life hasn't been taken the blood has no symbolic value.

  This one simple line is the silver bullet.
• 

  opusdei1972

  Modern Jews have a simpler solution, they use common sense :

  Dorff, Conservative Judaism’s leading expert on medical ethics and chairman of the Rabbinical Assembly’s Committee on Jewish Law and Standards (CJLS), says that under halachah, or Jewish law, the case would be open-and-shut.

  First, halachah does not consider a blood transfusion to be at all akin to the forbidden act of eating blood. Secondly, even eating blood would be permitted under Jewish law to save a life.

  http://jstandard.com/content/item/how_judaism_differs_in_life-death_issues/22840
  
• 

  Vidiot

  "Art", huh?

  I suppose that's one way of putting it.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  "The following article, is one of the best efforts to defend one of the most absurd doctrines of the Watchtower Society..."

  I could not disagree more with that assessment.

  The article you cite is hopelessly littered with assumption and unevidenced assertion.
• 

  Phizzy

  I agree with your assessment of the Article, Marv, but it just could be the best effort around.

  I mean, if you are trying to defend the indefensible, what the hell can you really come up with ?
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  ... if you are trying to defend the indefensible, what the hell can you really come up with?

  First, a person can avoid slathering fallacies all over the place like peanut-butter on a sandwich.

  Second, a person can present their argument for what it is rather than what it is not.

  In this case Watchtower's blood doctrine rests solidly on one thing and one thing only: a preferential conclusion of biblical text. What the doctrine does not rest on is a soundly deduced conclusion of the same biblical text. Arguing the latter is futile. Arguing the former is doable, but not very persuasive for a rational thinker.
• 

  opusdei1972

  The fact is that the Watchtower leaders need always to impose a scandalous doctrine. And as Gruss said , the blood ban was intended to convince the membership they were being "persecuted" and "suffering for righteousness sake," a sure sign they were "in the truth."
  
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  The fact is that the Watchtower leaders need always to impose a scandalous doctrine. And as Gruss said , the blood ban was intended to convince the membership they were being "persecuted" and "suffering for righteousness sake," a sure sign they were "in the truth."

  This fits the model of "strictness" depicted by authors Stark and Iannaccone in their 1997 article Why the Jehovah's Witnesses Grow so Rapidly: a Theoretical Application, published in Journal of Contemporary Religion (1997). In their presentation Watchtower's blood taboo is pointed out as one instance of this phenomena.