by jgnat 317 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Apostate posters 28 DJeggnog 0
Good score guys, I just love JW apologists who try to defend that which cannot be defended, and just prove their doctrine to be entirely false.
Any "honest-hearted " JW (to steal some loaded language from the wt) reading this thread can no longer, in all conscience, support the WT's blood doctine in any way.
Well done all ! just do not hold your breath waiting for answers from Djeggnog to your pertinent, and doctrine slaying, questions.
Regardless of the above contradiction (which is also a demonstration of how DJ does not know what he is talking about) I wonder how the GB are able to determine which fractions are nutrients/food or not. Just because a fraction may be used for another purpose, such as building up antibodies that in no way disqualifies the fraction from also being a nutrient.
Sorry DJEggnog, I have read your incoherent drivel...don't really have the patience to address it now. I have addressed all those points with other apologists here in the past so all your BS pointshave been answered. Go use the search function and find the answers...maybe your small mind will learn something.
If the JWs are sincere about abstaining from blood then why do they readily accept shop bought meat without continually investigating the methods used for removing blood? The Jews have developed a method of slaughtering and treating meat to remove as much blood as possible.
According to Wikileaks -
As much blood as possible must be removed ( Leviticus 17:10 ) through the kashering process; this is usually done through soaking and salting the meat, but organs rich in blood (the liver) are grilled over an open flame
@cofty:
Are you ignoring my point about an animal "already dead" because you are conceding you have no reasonable answer?
No, I believe I answered this concern of yours at least twice now.
Even the society acknowledged "a measure guilt was incurred by eating the flesh of an animal found already dead" in the old blood brochure. They must have realised the implications of this [because] they dropped all mention of it in the next booklet on the subject.
Even if what you say were something you recall reading "in the old blood booklet," guess what? We don't believe Pluto to be a planet today, even if some "old book" should say so, and likewise do not believe any measure of bloodguilt attaches to anyone that uses a blood fraction.
It really does seem to me that you want to impale Jehovah's Witnesses on the proverbial stake as heretics for abandoning doctrinal beliefs that they formerly understood to be true some 50 years ago, but why don't you impale those who formerly believed Pluto to be one of nine planets in our solar system before they decided to abandon this scientific dogma some six years ago as false? It seems to me that you are getting a lot of grief these days should you continue to assert Pluto to be a planet, aren't you, @cofty? The kids in your neighborhood no longer do so, and none of your adult friends do so. You are perhaps the only guy on your block that still asserts Pluto to be a planet, huh?
@djeggnog wrote:
Likewise, it is not impermissible for Jehovah's Witnesses to use such products if made from any of the four components of blood provided (1) the product of interest should be a "nutrient" derived from one of these blood components and (2) they should choose to do so, for such blood fractions are no longer blood, so [they] would not be reusing it in their own bodies, and they may conscientiously choose to accept or reject such nutrients (fractions) in connection with the medical treatment they receive.
Are we to consider the injection of serums such as diphtheria toxin antitoxin and blood fractions ... the same as the drinking of blood or the taking of blood or blood plasma by means of transfusion?
No, it does not seem necessary that we put the two in the same category, although we have done so in times past....
The injection of antibodies into the blood in a vehicle of blood serum or the use of blood fractions to create such antibodies is not the same as taking blood....
While God did not intend for man to contaminate his blood stream by vaccines, serums or blood fractions, doing so does not seem to be included in God’s expressed will forbidding blood as food....
@Listener wrote:
DJ is a blood fraction food/nutrient or not?
Is blood fraction a nutrient derived from a blood component from which gamma globulin, one of many blood fractions that are derived from a blood component is produced, yes, but is it a food derived from a blood component, no. Put another way, @Listener, is gamma globulin a food? No, it isn't, but is it a nutrient nonetheless? Yes, it is.
Have you ever spread a little gamma globulin on roast chicken? If no, then why not? I know why, but why don't you tell me why you've never done this? Have you ever taken a vitamin supplement, an iron tablet, maybe. Do you think of it as being a food or as a nutrient, a nutritional vitamin supplement?
@djeggnog
@Mary, so why do you mention fornication in the context of two married people, Adam and Eve, when it isn't possible for a married person to be guilty of committing fornication when having sexual relations with one's own spouse?
Oh good lord.........are you really this dense? The point I was making is this: Fornication = sexual relations outside of marriage. Does this mean that people were not allowed to have sexual relations under any circumstances? The answer of course is: No, it does not mean that. Laws on sex was not a 'blanket law'---it applied only under certain circumstances, such as fornication, adultery or beastiality.
Another thing the early Christians were encouraged not partake of, concerned meat which had been sacrificed to idols. Does that mean that they could not eat any meat under any circumstances, even if they were starving to death? Of course not. The idea was that they should not be eating meat under certain circumstances---it was not a 'blanket document' forbidding meat under all circumstances.
Now, compare that to the law on abstaining from blood. They were not to eat animal blood, especially from an animal which had been "strangled". Does that mean that the use of blood was not allowed under any circumstance? If you apply the same reasoning with fornication and meat, then the obvious answer is that the restriction on eating blood was not a 'blanket document' forbidding the use of blood under any circumstance, but only with regards to diet.
Sure, I can, and perhaps you can explain how someone "having sex ... within a marriage" constitutes fornication.
egghead, are you truly this stupid? I specifically stated just the opposite---that sex within a marriage was perfectly fine and did not constitute 'fornication'. Is English your second language? Everyone else got what I was saying, so please don't bother trying to twist my words around claiming I said something when I didn't.
@Mary:
"Each time the prohibition of blood is mentioned in the Scriptures it is in connection with taking it as food, and so it is as a nutrient that we are concerned with in its being forbidden."------September 15, 1958 Watchtower, p. 575
The part in bold in the following is what you should have underscored if you wanted to be honest here (same quote): "Each time the prohibition of blood is mentioned in the Scriptures it is in connection with taking it as food, and so it is as a nutrient that we are concerned with in its being forbidden."------September 15, 1958 Watchtower, p. 575
Um, you just underscored the exact same part I did egghead........(this just keeps getting better and better) 
I noticed you had nothing to say about the Borg acknowleding that blood was a tissue transplant and an organ transplant and then arguing that it's okay to have an organ transplant because: "...It may be argued, too, that organ transplants are different from cannibalism since the "donor" is not killed to supply food..."----The Watchtower, March 15, 1980, p. 31
While the Bible is infallible, Jehovah's Witnesses are not infallible, and so when we are wrong about something, we will print a retraction in our literature so that all Jehovah's Witnesses are informed of a necessary change in our understanding of a matter to which we need to adjust, since there is absolutely no benefit to anyone today, for example, to be referring to Pluto a planet when on August 24, 2006, it lost that designation. Back on February 18, 1930, it was ok to refer to Pluto as a planet, but 76 years later, the IAU vote in the Prague stripped Pluto of its status as a planet, so that no one today refers to it as such
OMG.......are you truly comparing the reclassification of Pluto as a "planet" (which killed no one and affected no one), with the Slobbering Body's never-changing doctrines which have screwed over millions of people over the last hundred years?!! 
Egghead---your notions are as hilarious as they are muddle-headed...........
As I said to @TD, there reason I never lose a debate is because I'm never on the wrong side of one.
Ya....you're right egghead......everyone else on here is wrong and you're right.............Maybe you should switch to a different brand of glue....one that doesn't destroy quite so many braincells all at once...........One good thing about your posts eggnog: The sheer insanity and lack of reasoning of a Witness is there for all lurkers to see. You're probably helping several people out of this cult once they read your drivel. Congratulations!
djeggnog,
How about lowering a bucket in a well to retrieve water? That would "taking in water," too, wouldn't it, so what is the point of this, er, equivalency? I don't get it.
The point was that the human body is not one system but many. There's a huge difference between taking water into your digestive system (Your stomach) and taking water into your respiratory system. (Your lungs) Drinking and drowning are not equivalent acts because they both constitute "Taking [water] into one's system."
Did you come up with this particular "equivalency" on your own or did someone help you with it? Would you call taking penicillin orally consuming it,@TD? Would you consider penicillin being administered intravenously to be yet another way of consuming the drug?
Technically no, but I do understand your point. Small molecule compounds will pass directly through epethelial membranes into the blood stream. Therefore with alcohol and certain drugs, there is no practical difference between injection and consumption as far as the end result is concerned
If taking penicillin orally and intravenously are equivalent acts, then how can you say that transfusing blood is somehow different than consuming it, @TD?
Because blood transfusion is a form of tissue transplant. A number of Christian religious including Jehovah's Witnesses had a problem with organ and tissue transplantation years ago and some, including Jehovah's Witnesses labeled it "cannibalism."
As the years went by and they had time to think about it a little more, most of them, including Jehovah's Witnesses rescinded that objection and acknowledged that there are physical and moral differences between the eating of human tissue and the transplantation of human tissue.
These exact same differences exist with blood transfusion, which is why analogies with simple compounds like alcohol or penicillin fail. When blood is consumed, it is broken down and destroyed by the digestive system. When blood is transfused, it resumes its divinely designed set of functions in the body of the recipient. It is a use of blood in accordance with its purpose in the same way that a kidney transplant is a use of the kidney in accordance with its purpose.
I have a serious question for you:
Do Jehovah's Witnesses decide all matters of medicine using the same methodology they use with blood?
For example, it would be very easy, and in a weak, superficial sense, true for someone to say, "The only divinely sanctioned use of the human reproductive system in the Bible was through marital intercourse." On this basis, it could be inferred that all other uses of the human reproductive system were forbidden. Using that inference as a springboard for generalization, they could then carry this inference forward and apply it in the context of modern medicine.
The resultant restriction would forbid all uses of the human reproductive system outside of marital intercourse for no other reason then that they unknown to the ancient world and therefore not listed as exceptions in the Bible. In-vitro fertilization would be lumped together with things like adultery, which is very, very different.
It should be obvious that this line of reasoning is fallacious on many levels. In-vitro fertilization for a married couple is a preternatural use of the human reproductive system, but it is still a use in accordance with what Jehovah's Witnesses would consider the purpose of the human reproductive system to be. (i.e For married couples to produce children)
This is what I was driving at when I asked if Jehovah's Witnesses judge transfusion under the same rubric as the mundane uses of blood known to the ancient world. Medical procedures unknown to the ancient world can't be judged that way and I would be surprised if Jehovah's Witnesses use that methodology in other areas.
Drinking a glass of water and drowning at the bottom of a lake are not equivalent acts because
they both fall into the generic [category] of "Taking in water.".....TD
How about lowering a bucket in a well to retrieve water? That would "taking in water," too, wouldn't it,
so what is the point of this, er, equivalency? I don't get it......EggNogg
DjEggNogg
Your selectivly stupid..LOL!!
By Your Reasoning..Oops..I forgot you can`t think for yourself..
By WBT$ Reasoning..
I could not eat Blood Sausage..But..I could eat Blood Sausage that had Blood Fractions put in it..Because..
It`s not really Blood anymore..
A Jew wouldn`t eat either sausage..But..They will take a Blood Transfusion..
Who do you think knows more about Jewish Law..
Jews`s or the WBT$ GB Clowns?..
.......................
...OUTLAW
Outlaw,
I take it DJEggnog's explanations, oops I mean regurgitation of WT BS is not very convincing to you?? LOL
DJ - I believe you missed Cofty's point entirely.
It had nothing to do with old light/new light, or making doctrinal mistakes; not really.
It had to do with the fact that those Israelites who knowingly mishandled blood according to the law were unclean for only 1 day. They weren't taken outside the camp and stoned to death.
It was a minor offense with a minor punishment - at least for the everyday regular Israelite, and not at all for a non-Israelite. (I don't know about the priest class; I can't remember).
Tammy
(I think I got your point, Cofty, but I'm sorry if I missed it as well)
