by cofty 556 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Thanks for the points above.
I remember reading the Q? from Readers that lied about Lev.11:38,39 being about "inadvertently" eating blood. I think that can be proven to be an error by comparing other references to eating an animal "found already dead".
Also thank you Sir 82 for your points.
I will post my responses later. They are also covered in my original article...
Fisherman - The Watchtower's position on blood has absolutely nothing to do with health risks. That is a red herring.
Even if it could be guaranteed that a person would die without blood and that the transfusion was 100% safe a JW would still be obliged to refuse the blood.
Never allow a JW to muddy the waters by talking about risks.
One thing to note about this blood doctrine by the JWS leaders which first appeared in 1945 , at the time this was first introduced by N Knorr, he stated that some the reason for this doctrine was that if a person were to receive blood from another person, that the evil personality characteristics of the giver would be transfused into the person who received the blood transfusion..
So there you go, this is the kind of intellectual integrity and honesty that was present during this decision to create this doctrine.
In realistic understanding or acceptance of blood being sacred in the relation between man and god, the transference of blood could still be held as being sacred when transfused from one to another.
The blood is not eaten and the blood did not come from a person or animal that is dead or was killed, according to Hebraic law.
Cofty, I appreciate what you are trying to do here.
The following points from articles on Ajwrb.org may help to support your argument (bold is mine for emphasis):
"Leviticus 17:15 illustrates that an Israelite could even eat a unbled animal if necessary, and if he had not taken the life. The result was nothing more than ceremonial uncleanness that required bathing."
http://ajwrb.org/bible/new-light-on-blood
..................
" Clearly blood was sacred. By pouring it out upon the ground and covering it, an Israelite hunter showed his respect for the life he had taken by divine permission...
A logical question at this point would be: “What is the significance of the blood?” Is there something special in it, some mystical property? This question can be answered by considering what the law has to say about animals that died of natural causes or perhaps were killed by a predator.
“As for any soul that eats a body [already] dead or something torn by a wild beast, whether a native or an alien resident, he must in that case wash his garments and bathe in water and be unclean until the evening ; and he must be clean.
16 But if he will not wash them and will not bathe his flesh, he must then answer for his error. Leviticus 17:15-16
" If we reason on all of this it becomes evident that the blood itself was not holy...
Blood running through the veins of a living creature represents life, and if someone took a life, he had to pour out the blood and give it back to God.
In the case of an animal that died of itself, no human had taken a life, and this requirement could be waived."
http://ajwrb.org/bible/blood-and-the-mosaic-law
( I strongly recommend that anyone viewing this thread take a look at these pages, especially if you are still a believing Jehovah's Witness. Your LIFE, or even the lives of your children, may depend on it one day. )
cofty: If anybody would like to play Devils' Advocate on this I would be interested
Your reasoning is interesting. The trouble is it assumes that you or I or anyone else could get a JW to carefully and critically examine their own beliefs for coherency, continuity, consistency, logic or any number of reasons.
If we could get them to do that, there would be no need for such subtle arguments such as the ones you put forth in your OP.
Since it is nearly impossible to get most JWs to see even the most glaring of problems with their beliefs, I do not believe you will be very likely to get them to examine this controversial doctrine with the thoughtful care that your argument requires.
When someone is ready to question, they will do so on their own. They will generally start with the loose threads which their own mind calls to their attention. Once they start tugging on those threads the whole thing quickly begins to unravel.
All that being said, I do appreciate the thoughtful approach you have given to this issue. I know it is something you have carefully considered for many years.
The other problem is that, as you well know Cofty, JWs are conditioned to unquestioningly obey whatever is current JW/WT doctrine/policy/practices.
The Bible really has nothing to do with it.
JW claims to the contrary, it does not matter what the Bible really teaches, let alone what you, I or anyone else thinks it says. It only matters what the WT leadership says it says.
I posit that the Bible has become little more than a prop for this religion.
I agree that most JWs are impervious to reason. However there are some who are sincere about "truth" and others who are beginning to have doubts for various reasons.
If you are correct then websites like JWFacts are a complete waste of time and effort.
I don't accept that.
The Bible really has nothing to do with it. I posit that the Bible has become little more than a prop for this religion.
This is a very good point, allow me to post an excerpt from a recent email with an elder:
The information that Jehovah provided to the bible writers is 100% perfect thought. Does it lose perfection when it is transferred from the inspired mind of the bible writer to the paper? We don't know for sure but maybe. Does it lose more perfection in the next step from the original paper to the scribe? Absolutely! If it didn't there wouldn't be a need for all the adjustments in thinking as time goes on. The point is we can't be 100% sure that we have everything that's written today exactly right. So where does that leave us? It leaves us in the exact same position that the first century Christians found themselves. Determining exactly who the agency is that Jehovah is working through to get the truth or proper direction from. It obviously wasn't the religious leaders of that day. Although they just knew in their own minds that they had it right. They were so confident in their thinking that they even argued with Jesus, and missed identifying the true agency.
This is the kind of people you're contending with. As you can see, this elder believes, and thus witnesses are supposed to believe, that the bible is SECOND in authority. Rather than trust it they trust the organizations interpretation of it - clearly what he said above. So the organization says blood transfusions are wrong, then they are wrong- regardless of what you can say about the bible, you aren't gods chosen organization.
Those sort of JWs are beyond help.
That should not make us feel as if all attempts to make some of them question their beliefs are in vain.
This forum is a testimony to the fact that thousands of JWs have already done so.
When I finally began to question things, there were all sorts of things that I had heard previously that began to make sense.
