Refuting Watchtarded Reasoning - 1. "If a doctor tells you to abstain from alcohol, you wouldn't inject it..."

by Island Man 32 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • baker

    Matthew 15:11 0Jesus called the crowd to Him and said, “Listen and understand. 11A man is not defiled by what enters his mouth, but” by what comes out of it. 12Then the disciples came to Him and said, “Are You aware that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?”… Ive seen this verse used to show that what defiles people are their words, not what they eat...

  • steve2
    • The analogies listed above are all compelling and expose the fallaciousness of the JW analogy (i.e., "eating" a substance and having it transfused are equivalent).
    • However, you will know that JWs typically unhook themselves from their own analogy (and yours) by stating something like, "Anyhow, the Scripture in Acts tells us to abstain from blood."
    • Back to square one. And the discussion skirts off down that path. In my view, the focus needs to be on that path - not on exposing their false analogy.
  • blondie

    Good point, Sir82. I will store that one away.

  • cofty

    I agree very much with Steve. If we are genuinely interested in making a JW stop and think we must look for arguments that we could not have easily dismissed when we were active.

    For example JWs are very aware of Jesus' words about washing hands but they will never agree that this overturns the prohibition on blood. They would assume that the Jerusalem Council were aware of this incident but they still wrote "abstain from blood".

    Similarly, trying to distinguish between eating blood and transfusing blood won't work. To a JW abstain means exactly that. They are convinced blood is intrinsically sacred. We have to meet them at that point and work from there.

  • Finkelstein

    I think a good standpoint to make with JWS is yes the bible says blood is sacred and should be taken and respected as such but transfusing blood from one person to another should not be withheld for the transfused blood did not come for another person who has died rather still living, its sacredness can still be upheld in place and respected as such.

    Another supportive aspect might be Jesus's own commandment to love one another and to help the sick and needy as he displayed as an example for all mankind to follow.

  • StephaneLaliberte

    Though your whole reasoning is fine and Great, it's a little to long. That's the beauty of the "Alcohol" illustration. Even if it brings you to a wrong conclusion, it is nonetheless short and obvious.

    How about answering:

    Well, would you eat a human liver? Why than would you accept it as a transplantation?

    Ohhhh because eating it isn't the same thing as a transplantation!!!!! RIGHT!!!!!!

  • cofty

    Here is why I think that doesn't work.

    It doesn't really help to distinguish between eating and transfusing.

    Acts 15 doesn't say don't eat blood, it says abstain from blood.

    To a JW a human liver isn't sacred - blood is.

  • TD

    Comparing blood to a simple compound like alcohol is definitely a false analogy, but that is not the only fallacy at work in the "abstain from alcohol" argument.

    Consider this simple example:

    Her obstetrician said, "Pregnant women should abstain from alcohol."

    His dermatologist said, "Persons with sensitive skin should abstain from alcohol."

    Even though both doctors have told their patients to, "...abstain from alcohol" they are clearly not talking about the same thing. The former would be a reference to the consumption of alcoholic beverages while the latter would be a reference to the topical application of alcohol and alcohol based preparations upon the skin.

    "Abstain" negates action without defining it. When that action is not specifically stated, it must be derived from the surrounding context. In the case of the Apostolic Decree, the context is clearly the consumption of blood as prohibited under the Law.

    Now if the JW's want to argue for a physical or a moral or even an ontological equivalency of some sort, that would be one thing, but instead, they've resorted to an underhanded trick to sidestep that obligation.

    --And that's pretty low.....

  • Finkelstein

    As its realized there is little rational logic complied and expressed by JWS and its leaders.

    A matter of fact these people intentionally twist rational logic with a self serving blinded bias.

  • cofty

    TD - That's true of course. However there is a principle behind their interpretation of the words "abstain from blood".

    They are convinced that blood is sacred and can only be used - under the Law - for its sacrificial value.

    They see blood as intrinsically sacred and taboo.

Share this