The Watchtower are Right About Blood... (page 7)

wizzstick

Oh and also:

The thing that many people just cannot see is the historical references from the bible such as the circle of the earth.

The Hebrew word Chug does not mean sphere. It's meaning is more like the circle of a compass:

jhine

the Op is spot on .Even Orthodox Jews who debate this kind of thing a lot are happy to have blood transfusions.

Saving life , not just eternal life which is part of the WT argument ie a transfusion might save your earthly life but you will lose your eternal life , is seen as paramount . Hence you can pull an animal out of a pit on the Sabbath , so even the life of an animal is worth breaking the Sabbath law for . Does the WT relegate human life to be less important than animal life ?

Jan

BluesBrother

Excellent reasoning Cofty ...some have missed the point that we need to argue within the WT's standpoint, not attack from outside. (whatever our heart tells us)

I would only take issue with the eating of a carcase already dead and blood filled . Lev.11. 40 says "He will be unclean" . Deut 14.21 tells them to only sell it to foreigners, lawfully.

Wt 05 7/1 QFR says that it is wrong to eat it but perhaps not a capital offense. If we are talking to dubs we have to be aware .....At least that is how they explain it !

But I like the line of reasoning.

cofty

Thanks for all the feedback so far. I will respond to any potential rebuttals later this evening.

NewYork _ Please read the OP before assuming I am siding with the cult about anything. It is depressing when people can't be bothered to take 5 minutes to read something before responding.

Please don't get sidetracked with a debate about the bible. This is a thread about trying to help a JW who is convinced the bible is true reason about blood.

Ucantnome

a little while before I left the 'truth' a brother knocked at my door to discuss a Watchtower article that he feel they were scripturally wrong about something.

my view was that it didn't matter as they were the 'anointed' and was evidenced by their preaching work of the establishment of God's Kingdom. However interesting the matter was I would wait on Jehovah to sort it out if they were wrong if it wasn't sorted he didn't mind. I would view this in the same manner.

I think some would reason may differently from me

besty

great thought process Cofty - thank you.

Daniel1555

Hi Cofty

More than a year ago before I started my fade, I told the elders that I don't agree with the WT view on blood.

I explained them in writing in great detail why I would allow for myself and my son a blood transfusion when alternatives won't work.

I spent a few hours discussing with 2 elders exactly about your reasoning.

The only thing they could do is to scratch their heads and direct me to a "Questions from readers" article in WT 15.04.83 dealing about that. There it is said that the situation described in Lev. 17:15 is only if an israelite erred "inadvertently", and ate a dead animal unbled.

When reading the context how can it possibly be, that you eat "inadvertently" an already dead animal or one torn by wild beasts? The elders had to admit, that this is not the case in Lev. 17:15.

But of course they can't agree with a view that goes contrary to what the org is saying.

I showed this reasoning to some close jw friends and also my parents.

The reaction is, that they really start to think and also to question the blood doctrine.

They understand the reasons why I would allow blood. They said, maybe you are right and the org. is maybe wrong with it. But we have to obey and trust the FDS.

Some say, "I can't say how I am going to react in a life and death situation."

But I agree with you cofty, that these reasonings you mention are the best possible way to make a jw reconsider the blood doctrine. These are great biblical arguments that JW don't know.

And by the way. I am sure that the bible is not god's word. It was a long and sometimes painful journey for me to come to that conclusion.

When talking to a JW about any topic though, you have to reason in a way, as if the bible is god's word.

Heaven

Excellent points, cofty.

The members in this thread claiming Bible veracity have clearly not researched it's origins. While there is a smattering of historical 'accuracy' in the Bible (for example, there is evidence to show cities called Megiddo, Hazor and Gezer did actually exist), the stories surrounding these have been greatly exaggerated, as Finkelstein says, to entrench the god Yahweh as the one true god over all others. There was definitely an idea, possibly agenda, to convert the ancient peoples from polytheism to monotheism. This actually carried on well past the time of the Bible (ala Crusades, Spanish Inquistion, Witch Burnings). By the way, they weren't 100% successful in this endeavour.

I had an interesting conversation with my Father about the whole blood issue. He and I have the same blood type so I asked him if he would accept a blood transfusion from me. After all, half my blood is his blood, correct? He had to think about that for a while. He was struggling with whether or not my blood contained any 'contaminants' since I wasn't a JW. I said my blood could be tested and if found uncontaminated would he take it.

He eventually answered a tentative 'no'. I told him that if he was ever in a situation where he needed a blood transfusion to save his life such as he was bleeding out, there would be no way I would watch him die in that manner. He just shrugged his shoulders.

Perhaps if I had had cofty's points to argue back then, I may have been able to exact a different result.

Marvin Shilmer

When reading the context how can it possibly be, that you eat "inadvertently" an already dead animal or one torn by wild beasts? The elders had to admit, that this is not the case in Lev. 17:15.
But of course they can't agree with a view that goes contrary to what the org is saying.
I showed this reasoning to some close jw friends and also my parents.
The reaction is, that they really start to think and also to question the blood doctrine.

This is why Watchtower so heavily indoctrinates JWs to avoid independent thought and studied opposition.

If you listen you start thinking. When you start thinking you start seeing holes. When you see holes you wonder why you let holed-thinking place you and your children's lives at stake when transfusion of donor blood could help prevent premature death.

What am I saying? I'm saying any fact, factual question or rational concept shared that helps a person think (in this case JWs) helps improve that person's life.

What I like about this presentation by Crofty is that it offers a non-threatening piece of information that is something the average JW has never thought of and it might just cause them to think.

sir82

To me, the reasoning is excellent.

However, WT's stance has always been "blood is sacred" - full stop.

A JW defending the point will always stop there, and not be bothered to extend the point, that it is sacred only insofar as it represents a life that has been taken.

I can picture a JW quoting Acts 15:29 - "It says 'abstain from blood' - and nothing else. There is no proviso in there that says 'abstain from blood that comes from a dead animal'. Blood is blood, regardless of how it is obtained. True Christians must obey the text and 'abstain from blood', regardless of its source."

They would likely argue that the Levitical texts about an animal "already found dead" are part of the "Mosaic Law that was nailed to a tree" and no longer applies. The principle of "abstain from blood" is found in the Law, but the more general "abstain from blood" (full stop) in Acts supersedes the Levitical texts, much in the same way that Jesus' words about "not divorcing on every sort of grounds" supersedes the Mosaic laws on divorce. The principle of "divorce is a less desirable outcome" as found in the Mosaic law still applies, but Jesus' more general counsel (only one reason is valid for a divorce) is what applies to Christians now.

That's my "devil's advocate" defense.

The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

Share this