by cofty 556 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Cofty, I just read the OP now.
You made a great argument that definitely could be used with a JW who actually cared about what the Bible says on the subject.
Therefore, the only flaw in the approach is that most JWs are really more interested in what the WT tells them that the Bible says on the subject.
It is still an excellent, cogent argument that I will try to use some day.
that's comforting cofty, so, my dad last week, had two units of blood, that I know of.
so ,he was only 'unclean' till that evening, while in intensive care.
mom wont agree though... but yay, dad is not 'dedicated' so even though he 'studies' hes not under 'law', apparently, lol,
75 yr old man just recently studying with a org. he criticized his whole life... hmm.
no one's gonna tell me its not just for the attention and for something to do.
My thoughts on the subject are this, Lev.chapter 17 says that the blood is the symbol of life and to pour it out, out of respect for the animal you killed. By the end of the chapter is says you can eat an unbled animal you didn't kill and would be unclean for doing so only until evening. So this makes it clear that blood is to be poured out as a sign of respect for the life of the animal you killed, that's it period! Everything else on the matter is irrelevant.
People don't die giving blood for a transfusion so it's irrelevant. The JW religion now allows ones to take cows blood, this proves their evil Period!
There's nothing left to discuss!
If one wants to get all technical then consider this, the book of Leviticus was most likely written before the book of Genesis and the writers of the new testament we're just copying and rehashing thoughts from the old testament with out considering what exactly we're the ideas being put accross by the old testament writers. Last but not least the writings attributed by Paul contradict the writings attributed to Jesus and the four Gospels cant even get their stories strait concerning the life and travels of Christ, so burn the damn book written by ancient Talaban types and use some common sense!
And remember, the Gods loved the sweet smell of the savoury scrafice , animals being cooked as a sacrifice by Noah. Genesis. God loved the sweet smell of his sons sacrifice, Ephesians. And they call me Crazy.
If anybody would like to play Devils' Advocate on this I would be interested to see how it holds up.
A Jewish convert to JW's (Like my aged parents) or a JW in some other way influenced by Jewish thinking would probably object to the binary nature of your reasoning. There is a revulsion to the idea of eating blood that transcends the context of sacrifice.
Yes there is but it seems difficult to deny that OT farmers had legal option of eating unbled meat of an animal found already dead.
That's all we need to establish to show that transfusions are not forbidden.
I remember discussing this topic with a fellow elder. He was nagging me about blood cards and I told him I wasn't signing one. I used this line of reasoning and took about half an hour to lead him through it using the NWT. At the end there was absolutely nothing he could say to counter the logic but he just rejected the whole argument on the basis that the idea of having somebody else's blood transfused into his body was "just a horrible thought".
I reminded him that ethics were not based on his personal squeamishness and that the idea of allowing my children to die in a medical emergency was also repulsive.
He was later on my JC.
That's not how Jewish people (Or someone who learned that pattern of thinking as a child) gets there
That's OK. No argument will help 100% of people.
This particular topic is not interesting to me. Don't know why... just doesn't top the list of issues I have with the WT organization. That said, the ONLY reason JWs do not permit blood transfusions is because Acts 15:29 says to "abstain...from blood." That's it.
As someone on this thread astutely pointed out, (way back on page 3 or 4 or 5 or 6... can't remember), Acts 15:29 also says to abstain "from things sacrificed to idols," and this was downplayed by Paul at 1 Cor 8:7-13, making it a conscience matter, but to make sure it does not stumble your brother. Additionally, Hebrews 8:13 shows that the old covenant was obsolete and "is near to vanishing away." From this, we can conclude that the laws in the Mosaic Law Covenant were mostly in effect when Acts 15:29 was penned, but were on their way out, and by the time Hebrews was written, were mostly gone.
Also, Hebrews points out that because there is a new priest "of the order of Melchizedek," that is, Christ, there is a new law. "For since the priesthood is being changed, it becomes necessary to change the Law as well." (Heb 7:12)
Sadly, JWs want to be part of the old "order of Aaron" (Heb 7:11) and thus want to hang onto the old Law, even reading into it things that were never stated.
LQ - You could have at least taken a minute to read the OP
______________________________________
We need to find common ground with JW friends or relatives if we are going to help them to reason. For the sake of argument we can concede the following;
1. Blood was sacred under The Law.
2. Blood represents life.
3. It was a capital offense to use blood for any purpose other than to offer it as a sacrifice on the altar.
4. All of the restrictions about blood are just as binding on Christians as they were on OT Jews.
It doesn't matter if you agree with all four of these points or not. They believe them, and we can concede all of them and start from there.
