E-watchman has decided to embrace the unholy Watchtower whore and uphold her disgusting burdens on blood transfusions. For the record, I now have e-watchman's email address and will be sending him copies of my commentary shortly after they are posted. I have edited the content where necessary for sheer space (his verbiage is excessive and tiresome). The full transcript of e-watchman's comments can be found here.
The Bible will be underlined. The questions will be boldfaced. E-watchman's responses will be italicized. My comments will be red.
For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication.
If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper.
Good health to you!"
Acts 15
My position on the matter of blood transfusions is this: While blood, for various reasons that have become clear to us through science, is not for general consumption - there are occasions when the rules can be bent. God allows such rule-bending, indeed, commands it! When life is in danger, use a blood transfusion! When you are starving, take what measures you can, but don't die trying to stay clean!
If consuming blood was a capital offense, why were Saul's men not executed when they fell to eating blood along with the meat? (1 Sam. 14:31-35)
The account does, however, acknowledge that the men were sinning against God by eating together with the blood. Still, because Jehovah issued no judicial decision on that particular case we cannot use this account as some sort of legal precedent for setting aside God's law on blood during an emergency.
However, all things are lawful under Christianity, especially in the case of blood transfusions, for, "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial..."
If it's in the Bible, e-watchman, it was recorded for our benefit, so that we may apply lessons from it in our everyday lives! The simple fact is this - in emergencies, where life is concerned, we do better to use blood in a medicinal way than to allow our children and ourselves to die. I bring to your attention the same example that Jesus used upon a similar occasion: When David and his men were starving, they ate the showbread upon the altar!
We might wonder, though, if the Law had been enforced, who was going to put the ravenous soldiers to death: Saul? He would have likely had an insurrection on his hands if he would have tried to punish them in accord with the Law. He was the one responsible for putting them in that situation in the first place.
Let God enforce his own laws. Couldn't He have tossed down a few hailstones, or fire and sulphur, or something? I suggest that God didn't really care.
Since an Israelite could eat an unbled animal that died of itself when necessary, (See Lev. 17:15) and the result of this would only be ceremonial uncleanness requiring bathing and washing of the garments, why does the Society argue we must disfellowship those who accept a blood transfusion to save life?
Jehovah made an exception to his own Law in the case of animals that died naturally or were killed by a beast. So, for example, say that a shepherd lost one of his sheep to a wolf, but the wolf only killed the sheep and did not devour it; Jehovah allowed that animal to serve as food for the shepherd even though it would have not been possible to properly bleed the animal and cover it's blood with dust. Provided that he bathe his garments and himself afterwards, the man was not held guilty. However, if the man did not bathe afterwards he would be held bloodguilty before God.
But the fact remains, e-watchman, that an exception was made - in the case of mere financial ruin, where even life was not involved! While God required some genuflection in the matter of his law, and demanded some acknowledgment as the Source of Life, He was not unreasonable, was He? He did not demand death as the price of his service, unlike the Watchtower does of children!
Jesus was willing to perform miracles on the Sabbath in order to save lives, or simply heal the sick, and he did not condemn the woman with the flow of blood for touching him and making him ceremonially unclean. Rather, he condemned the Pharisees for their legalistic view. Wouldn't Jesus make an exception to a dietary rule to save a human life?
First, Jesus did not set aside God's sabbath law. He simply ignored the Pharisaic traditions that were wrongly attached to the Sabbath. Secondly, God's prohibition on eating blood was no mere "dietary rule." That is evident from the fact that in the
11 th chapter of Leviticus where God set out numerous dietary regulations as to which animals could and could not be eaten, blood is not even mentioned in that context. Instead, God's law against eating blood is mentioned in the 17 th chapter of Leviticus in connection with animal sacrifices.But was it actually written from God that blood transfusions are wrong, when used for medical purposes to aid the sick one to serve all the myriad functions of blood (as opposed to as a mere source of food)? No, e-watchman. When the apostles made their judgement, they meant that we should avoid eating blood as a rule. However, in emergencies, the simple fact is that God understands! When used as medicine, blood is a lifesaver, and to view it as somehow divine or belonging to God exclusively is to "go beyond the things that are written." E-watchman is drawing a conclusion that seems logical to him, that corresponds with his conscience, but he demands that all his brothers do the same! Hence, he is wrong! He is not "master over our faith," is he? I think he would like to be, though.
How can the Society view the admonition to "abstain from EATING meat sacrificed to Idols" as symbolizing the greater issue of "Idolatry" and not dietary regulation? While at the same time view "abstain from EATING blood" as literal dietary regulation and not symbolizing the greater issue of "Sanctity of Life"? How can they have this dramatic difference of view when the two dietary remarks occur in the same sentence and verse of the Bible? (Acts 15:29)
You are mistaken. The apostles did not say that Christians should 'abstain from eating blood.' They simply said: "abstain from blood." Again, the apostles were not imposing any dietary regulations on Christians.
Yes, they were, e-watchman. There was no other way to take blood in at that time. It was dietary in nature.
Would withholding medical treatment from your child when death is the alternative make you responsible for the death?
The characterization that Jehovah's Witness parents withhold "medical treatment" from their children is wrong. There are a broad range of effective non-blood medical treatments that are acceptable in most cases.
A straw man argument that actually answers no question related to the blood issue at all. The real question, which I am not surprised that e-watchman chose to try to sidestep, is, "Does withholding a blood transfusion from a child who without it will die make you responsible for their death?"
Biblically, morally, ethically, the answer is yes. You had the means to help the child, you chose not to do it, ergo, you caused their death. The Bible says that if you dig a pit for a blind man, and he falls into it, you are responsible. If your bull, which was in the habit of goring people, gores somebody, you are responsible. The kind of passive aggressive maliciousness inherent in withholding a needed medical treatment on grounds of "cleanliness" was laid bare and exposed in Jesus' illustration of the good Samaritan. When two priestly, sanctimonious Jews walked right by their brother and refused to have anything to do with him - they were condemned! But the Samaritan broke the rules and helped his neighbor. And the beaten Jew broke the rules and accepted the help that he needed! End of fucking story, e-watchman! When life and need is in the balance, the rules can be bent!
Why does the Society use analogies like the one about alcohol and blood being injected into the veins, the error of which can be discerned by considering this analogy: "Consider a man who is told by his doctor that he must abstain from meat. Would he be obedient if he quit eating meat, but accepted a kidney transplant?" Why does the society resort to false analogies to support its position?
Yours is not a very good illustration. I suspect that if you were ever in the Theocratic Ministry School you must have gotten a few W's on the proper use of illustrations. Kidding aside, for one thing there is a considerable difference between a steak dinner and a human kidney transplant, at least in terms of the way the two are perceived, which can be discerned by the fact that most people would not knowingly dine on a human kidney. Yet alcohol is alcohol. So if a doctor forbade his patient to consume alcohol it is reasonable to assume that that would also preclude the patient from mainlining booze as well. The illustration, as it applies to blood should be apparent.
I have to give you a "W" Brother e-watchman, because I must point out that your illustration simply does not hold up. While most illustrations fall apart after a while, yours drops to pieces right on the starting line. How so? Alcohol is alcohol, because when it enters the blood stream it does the same thing, no matter how it got there. Blood, when eaten, is digested and turned into its basic components of proteins and water, etc. When transfused, it fulfills its original purpose of an oxygen carrying, protein transporting, healing marvel. Eating blood and transfusing blood have two different effect, and are done for two different purposes. Hence, your illustration comparing alcohol to blood can't hold up for even a moment. The fact is that one action (eating) turns blood into a source of energy. The other (transfusion) turns blood into an artificial extension of the body - like a prosthetic limb or a transplanted kidney. Sorry, sir, try again.
If the American Medical Association issued a recommendation that heart patients abstain from meat, would they mean that those patients should abstain from organ transplants, and in particular, heart transplants? Why?
Hackneyed illustrations based upon the hypothetical utterances of the American Medical Association should not have any bearing on the beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses, should they?
And yet you rely upon a hypothetical extrapolation of what the apostles wrote 2000 years ago when laying down your rules for how all the myriad peoples of the earth should behave, huh?
E-watchman closes with this gem:
So, it is that Watchtower-followers are susceptible to being misled by individuals like Ray Franz, for example. For a fact, the sect of Ray Franz is the driving force behind the so-called blood reform movement within the Watchtower Society today; and if you are honest with yourself, you will admit that the questions you have posed did not originate with you.
Huh? What? The sect of Ray Franz? Ray has a sect? I suspect that the questions actually originated with e-watchman, however, let the issue lie. E-watchman actually says during this response that if the Watchtower changed its position on blood - the average Jehovah's Witness should still obey the old dogma. In effect, e-watchman is saying, "Listen to the Society, as long as they are saying the same thing I am. If they ever moderate their position, then just listen to me!"
Another long time spent dissecting the BS of e-watchman. If it weren't for the fact that he was a spiritual bully, I'd ignore him. However, he insists on "shepherding" the weak with whips and chains. Stand tall, weak ones, and resist his smooth words! Freedom in God is possible!