by AlanF 26 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
I thought some people might like to see a strictly Bible-based dismemberment of the JW blood doctrine. For some introductory material, see the thread:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/7/67949/4.ashx
Here's a link to a full article on why the Bible doesn't ban blood transfusions:
http://mindshadows.morloc.com/articles/jwbloodreview/AbstainFromBlood.htm
AlanF
Thanks Alan
Alan, your essays helped me get over my borg-induced religious coma when I first started awakening.
Thank you.
Alan, thank you for tis synopsis. Thanks for all your articles. Carlton
Good points in the article. In summary, every prohibition in the Bible against blood involves a creature who lost its life at man's hands.
Sometimes I wonder if blood transfusions were just a new thing, would the current GB banned them. It strikes me that dogmatic rules which were made long ago seem slightly out of vogue with the current thinking on blood fractions.
eyeslice
Alan,
In about the year 2000 I found that material on another site. I'm glad Morlock is gracious enought to host it now. At the time I was an elder with big doubts about the lack of love in the organization and harshness of many policies. After reading the first few pages I printed it and studied it like a Watchtower Study article. It ended my faith in the Watchtower blood policy.
Too bad the author remains anonymous. I'll bet he is an interesting guy.
Jst2laws
This is the first time I have seen this article--truly great. I appreciate it Alan.
Keep up the good work Alan
Alan,
You will recall that in an earlier thread (If Your JW Relative Needed Blood, Would You Force It On Them?, 11-May-03 22:38 GMT) I had said that I would refuse blood for myself and you asked :
Do you refuse transfusions based purely on medical considerations? If so, do you consistently refuse organ transplants? Do you refuse transfusions based purely on scriptural considerations? If so, on what basis? Is it on exactly the same basis as the Watchtower teaching? Or do you have other ideas? Can you refute the arguments presented in the above sources? If so, are you willing to discuss it? If you're willing to discuss it, are you willing to discuss it in a thread of its own?
While I am willing to discuss it I have hesitated to raise it again for a number of reasons. One reason being that there are many on this forum who have lost family due to the WT blood policy and I fear any apparent defense of the doctrine would be a cause of unnecessary pain to them. Another reason is that I consider "respect for life" to be a very strong argument for overriding other considerations and while I am convinced myself that it is wrong to accept blood I dread the thought that someone might die because of something I write. I know that doesn't make sense but it is the way I feel. But then I also think that my reasons are simply my own scriptural exegesis and I have been wrong in so much else it might be instructive (and save my life) to have a public discussion. So if you won't consider this a hijacking of your thread perhaps I can lay out my reasons for your consideration in subsequent post(s) on this thread.
But for now I would like to comment on your statement (Visit From Elders, 09-Mar-04 21:32 GMT) that
the Bible specifically told the Jews that, while they themselves couldn't eat the blood of an animal that died of itself, they could give such a carcasse to gentiles. Therefore, if the God that the JWs believe wrote the Bible is self-consistent and doesn't give explicit permission for a group of people to violate his sacred laws, the statement in Genesis 9:4 cannot be a law against eating blood by all people for all time.God gives permission for gentiles to eat blood the blood of dead carcasses in Deuteronomy 14:21:
"You shall not eat anything which dies of itself. You may give it to the alien who is in your town, so that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner, for you are a holy people to the LORD your God."
The article you refer to, Jehovah's Witnesses and the Apostolic Decree to "Abstain From Blood", makes the same point referring to Deuteronomy 14:21 eleven times. It says :
4. At Deuteronomy 14:21 God allowed Israelites to sell unbled animals found already dead to be used as food by "alien residents" and "foreigners." The Noachian Law, but not the Mosaic Law, applied to these people since they were part of mankind as a whole but not of Israel. The distinction here is between animals that humans had killed for food, which were covered by the Noachian Law, and those which had been found already dead, which we will see were not covered by the Noachian Law. Had they been covered, using them for food would have been prohibited. (Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 1, page 345, par. 6.)
My view is that it was not a case of God "giving permission" for gentiles to eat the blood of dead carcasses or that the Noachian Law applied to them, but that they were without law as far as God was concerned. Paul writes in Romans 2:12-14 "...all those who sinned without law will also perish without law; but all those who sinned under law will be judged by law...For whenever people of the nations that do not have law do by nature the things of the law, these people, although not having law, are a law to themselves." Although Paul is talking about Mosaic Law, I believe that is also true of the Noachian Law which is only binding on those that acknowledge it. There is no suggestion in Deuteronomy or elsewhere that those who are not worshipers of God are obliged to keep his laws. If worshippers of God had been told at any time that it was ok to eat the blood of animals found dead that would certainly change the picture but that is not the case. So while I agree that pouring the blood out is showing respect to the Creator of life, I do not think that the Noachian Law was relevant to Deuteronomy 14:21 and so the conclusion that Genesis 9 only applies to an animal killed for food (in contrast to one found dead) is unwarranted.
Earnest
Hi Earnest!
Good to hear from you again.
Sure, it'd be beneficial to continue this discussion of blood transfusions. However, in order not to hijack this thread, why not start up a new one? Then you can lay out your arguments, and see what happens as other posters add their two cents. I don't think you need be too concerned with influencing anyone on this board one way or another. If readers weren't already fairly independently minded, they wouldn't be here at all.
You quoted a point from the article I linked to and made some comments. Here's my response:
: My view is that it was not a case of God "giving permission" for gentiles to eat the blood of dead carcasses or that the Noachian Law applied to them, but that they were without law as far as God was concerned. Paul writes in Romans 2:12-14 "...all those who sinned without law will also perish without law; but all those who sinned under law will be judged by law...For whenever people of the nations that do not have law do by nature the things of the law, these people, although not having law, are a law to themselves."
Your comments are essentially the same that JWs make with regard to this argument about Deut. 14:21. And from a few other things I've seen on the Net, it appears that the Watchtower Society agrees with them. However, I have yet to see a clear response to the specific points raised in the article. For example, how can one claim that God is acting self-consistently if he gives explicit permission for Jews to enable gentiles to break such a supposedly major law? Can you imagine God giving permission for Jews to enable gentiles to, say, murder people whenever they please?
Of course, there are many other specifics that we can cover in your new thread, should you choose to start one.
: Although Paul is talking about Mosaic Law, I believe that is also true of the Noachian Law which is only binding on those that acknowledge it.
I had the impression that God's laws for humanity are binding on all humans, whether they acknowledge it or not. Can you provide scriptural proof of your claim?
: There is no suggestion in Deuteronomy or elsewhere that those who are not worshipers of God are obliged to keep his laws.
Certainly not the Mosiac Law, but certainly the supposedly everlasting laws given to Noah. I can't imagine God letting off murderers who say, "I don't acknowledge your law about murder."
: If worshippers of God had been told at any time that it was ok to eat the blood of animals found dead that would certainly change the picture but that is not the case.
No, it's not the case, but we have only two examples in the Bible: the Jews under the Mosaic Law and Christians under the strictures found in the New Testament. I already showed why the Jews were an exceptional case (and of course, the article I linked to discusses this at much greater length), and I argued that the point is undecideable in the case of Christians because of the obvious problem that gentile Christians were asked by the so-called "Jerusalem Council" to avoid offending their Jewish brothers by observing certain Jewish religiously based customs. The point is that just because you don't find explicit permission given in the Bible to do something doesn't mean that it's prohibited.
: So while I agree that pouring the blood out is showing respect to the Creator of life, I do not think that the Noachian Law was relevant to Deuteronomy 14:21 and so the conclusion that Genesis 9 only applies to an animal killed for food (in contrast to one found dead) is unwarranted.
You're going to have to deal with all of the specifics that I and, more importantly, the linked article, raise that show that your conclusion is unscriptural. Again I think that this would best be covered in a separate thread.
AlanF
