Blood Transfusions 101 for JW's
-When an ACTION cannot be derived from the context, "Abstain from" phrases are gibberish.
Well, well, we just learned that the JW's are the king of gibberish. Thank you, TD, for refreshing my memory of Mrs's Crump's English class. I will commit your example to memory, but I fear that any JW I talk to will be unable get the point.
but I fear that any JW I talk to will be unable get the point.
You're right. Explaining the grammatical error would be like trying to teach a pig to sing. If the average JW knew what was wrong here, the Society wouldn't use this argument.
But there is a very easy way to put what I've said to the test that actually does have traction.
"I can easily state what it means to "Abstain from..fornication." It means, "Do not fornicate."
Can YOU explain what it means to "Abstain from..blood" WITHOUT inserting your own words into the text?
Go ahead and try.....Do not ______"
Of course this is impossible to do, because "Fornication" is the name of an act and therefore has a verb form, while "Blood" is the name of an object and does not. Therefore an abstention from blood cannot be stated as a finite negative without the insertion of a finite verb.
But you don't have to actually explain all that to the JW. As soon as they try to add to the Bible by inserting words not directly supported by the context, you can lambaste them for it. "Eating" or possibly "Drinking" are the only words directly supported by the context.
And of course the JW's ignore the context of this statement, in Acts, which is how the, at that time minority , Gentile converts should conduct themselves amongst the majority of christians who were practising Jews, still keeping the Law themselves.
How on earth does such an opinion expressed for their benefit impinge on what we do today?
Let alone bring about the unnecessary death of many.
I've always said tha JWs are Pharisees. Whited sepulchres!
"Abstain" negates ACTION even when that action is unstated. There is no such thing as negation of a noun.
If the JWs wanted to be safe, and "abstain" from any possible verb that could be related to blood, they'd all slit their wrists and remove all blood from their bodies.
Maybe the writer meant "abstain from circulating blood".
I posted this on another thread, but I think it fits here, too.
I guess the earthquake in Haiti could be a huge embarrassment for the WTBTS. Would they insist that donating blood is not a good thing to do under these circumstances? If a worldly person donated blood that resulted in saving another worldly person's life, would Jehovah frown on that? What if a Jehovah's witness survived the earthquake, but needed a transfusion? Would it be fair to say that Jehovah wanted him to survive so he could die for lack of a transfusion?
My purpose here is not so much to attack the witnesses, but to point out just how terribly wrong the "blood policies" are.
I do hope every Haitian receives as much help as possible. All Haitians, JW or not, should be considered equal humans, equals also in the sight of God.
Is there a thread on here that clarifies the Watchtower Society's confusing stand on blood fractions?
Any poster here who has been on a Hospital Liaison Committee? I think most active JWs don't realize how many blood transfusion options they actually have.
That would be a great reference for those of us who have loved ones still trapped in the cult.
What I would like to see are the following statistics:
Number of JWs who have lost their lives as a direct result of refusing transfusions
Number of non-JWs who have died as a direct result of accepting transfusions of "contaminated" blood.
Oh, BTW - if you'll recall, God STOPPED Abraham from killing Isaac.
My point being, God/Jehovah may ask you to do some wack-ass crap sometimes, but he's not going to ask you to literally sacrifice your kids.