Thank you wannabefree. I didnt have the 'Attn: Writing Committee' before so that could have been it...or they dont want to answer how is it they can be god's prophets but get dates wrong and not be false prophets l0l
The letter I promised earlier from the Society on Blood
by ldrnomo 27 Replies latest watchtower medical
-
-
skeeter1
Marvin,
I thank you for the insight on the paragraph. You wrote, "The letter speaks of an opposer who offers “specious reasoning”. I understand this is referring to a not-so-long-ago law school graduate. But, of course, it would not do for Watchtower to name the individual in its letter. Watchtower's accusation is a quaint nuance in a letter laced with specious reasoning."
Bethel must be referring to that Kerry Louderback-Wood essay in the Journal of Church & State and article from the Associated Press! I understand from her interviews that this journal and her article was "peer reviewed" by a few people, including noted attorney/law profeesors and medical gurus in the field.
Specious means misrepresentation. Is Bethel saying that the opposer Kerry Louderback-Wood offered an overall misrepresentation in her article? If so, surely Bethel's Service Department can and should "back up its claim" by many specific examples. Why couldn't Bethel do so?
Why not name the names? Perhaps Bethel also fears a libel lawsuit. :-)
Skeeter1
-
Marvin Shilmer
Skeeter,
Backing up its claims is not something Watchtower tends to engage in. They’d rather tell Witnesses they should believe what it says because they say it.
Marvin Shilmer
-
Murray Smith
Hi Folks, I'm not a regular contributor but I am an avid follower of this subject, mainly because it was what precipitated my exit from this dangerous cult about 7 years ago after 24 years.
It has been my conviction for that 7 years (and some), that the WT teaching(s) on blood are fundamentally floored at the outset. I hope my grasp of the written word is enough to articulate my point, as I would love to hear the thoughts of the learned and concerned who contribute more regularly than I.
This letter from the WT makes a statement on page 1 that zeroes in on that major floor and I quote:
The only approved use of blood from an animal was on the altar under the Mosaic Law. When blood was removed from a creature, it was to be disposed of appropriately. Of course, it was the volume of blood needed to sustain life that was spilled, not requiring that every drop of blood be removed from the flesh (italics mine)
It would seem to me that the blood had sacred value because it represented a life that had been lost . . . hence the WT's statement above. Although the purpose of the WT statement is for a different application, I believe the principal is valid across the board when it comes to the moral lesson . . . RESPECT FOR LIFE.
Consider this . . . would it be appropriate for an Israelite to "milk" blood from his animals, being careful not to kill them, for the purpose of pouring it on the altar as a sacrificial offering? . . . I think not. It would hardly be regarded a "sacrifice" because the "life" it represented would still be within the healthy animal.
So logically blood" milked" from a still living and healthy animal has no spiritual significance at all . . . it does not represent "life" in any way . . . it remains as any other "tissue" or fluid expelled by a living creature. ALL of the Biblical examples I can find where blood symbolises "life" . . . it is that life has been lost . . . returned to God. Even the sacrifice of our Lord.
I hope I'm making sense here . . . perhaps some will have already anticipated the implication . . . but donated human blood equating to less than the volume of blood needed to sustain life has no symbolic relevance to life at all . . . the life the WT believes it symbolises is still in the donor whom we generally accept is still a living healthy human walking among us . . . ALIVE
The principles and laws on blood to me, are there to promote RESPECT FOR LIFE . . . not simply for blood and blood alone. Blood is merely the symbol . . . the reminder . . . and only has significance when life is lost . . . and returned to it's owner . . . God. The Hebrew Scriptures cited by the WT underscore this every time . . . and the statement in Acts 15 is merely a concession to the Jews for the sake of peace when taken in context.
Sadly, and somewhat paradoxically, the WT interpretation achieves the exact opposite . . . the unnecessary loss of life.
I have to wonder what a loving God really thinks when humans are reduced to debating blood fractions, components, membranes etc etc etc . . . things that almost require (dare I say it) a college education to understand, while the innocent perish in their thousands.
Your thoughts would be most welcome
-
Nobleheart
Great point Murray Smith, about blood being the symbol of life once the animal was sacrificed (or in the case of the Lord).
Also in the second page I noticed they say that the Society has weighted matters and determined the components: plasma, rbc, wbc, platelets shouldn't be used because that is how blood settles out naturally. Actually blood settles into serum and cellular parts. So according to the WT definition, serum and clot should be not allowed.
The entire thing of full of flaws. Who is to say that the way blood separates outside the body is a valid indicator for it being still blood? On page 3 they say that "at some point blood that is broken down ceases to represent life and it looses its sacredness". Who can say when that actually happens and back it up with the Bible?
-
Listener
Thanks for your contribution Murray Smith. You have used excellant logic in your example
Consider this . . . would it be appropriate for an Israelite to "milk" blood from his animals, being careful not to kill them, for the purpose of pouring it on
the altar as a sacrificial offering? . . . I think not. It would hardly be regarded a "sacrifice" because the "life" it represented would still be within the
healthy animal.
One could also discuss the shedding of Jesus' blood similarly.
-
troubled mind
Murray Smith
The point you bring out is what my conscience has told me for a very longtime .
When I was a Witness it always bothered me that in these articles they would say " A Christian's conscience would or should allow or not allow this or that... "ect. All the time I would think hey I am a Christian and that is NOT what MY conscience is saying to me .
Finally when it came to the blood fractions ,what was allowed and what was not ....It just clicked with me how this was all so wrong .
Like you said above ....A transfusion is not taking the life from someone ,that person donated a small portion and is fine . The taking of a transfusion is for saving a life,and isn't that honoring the sacredness in life right there ?
The oppression ,by the Watchtower Society , of the individuals right to think for themselves, and act on their own accord is irreprehensible .
-
Murray Smith
Thanks a heap for the endorsement folks, although there will be many who will counter such a view no doubt.
To Listener and Nobleheart . . . thanks for the example of our Lords sacrifice. While only touched on, it is to me the most important and by far the most compelling evidence for this understanding.
He is described as having "shed his BLOOD" and "laid down his LIFE" for mankind interchangeably. Had he poured out his blood and remained alive as a human (he was a miracle worker after all), then the shed blood would have symbolised what exactly?
The response of troubled mind is heartening . . . perhaps a troubled mind is what makes us listen to our conscience . . . Ray Franz would agree I'm sure . . . never may it be underrated.
Might I encourage all who embrace a similar understanding to promote it in it's simplest form at every opportunity . . . if the basic flaw is exposed then all this ridiculous debating over the composition of blood becomes irrelevant.