defender of truth

Joined

• started 101 topics
• posted 1,338 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by defender of truth

• 
  77

  Blood Transfusion: Letter of Understanding

  by defender of truth in

  1. watchtower
  2. medical

  http://ajwrb.org/science/blood-transfusion-letter-of-understanding.

  "every parent among jehovahs witnesses worried about how local watchtower appointed elders will respond to letting their child have blood transfusion without opposing it should download this letter of understanding and be ready to hand a copy to them.

  then ask those elders to leave them (the parents) and doctors alone to concentrate on the childs best interests.".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  defender of truth

  
  www.ajwrb.org/science/blood-transfusion-letter-of-understanding
• 
  77

  Blood Transfusion: Letter of Understanding

  by defender of truth in

  1. watchtower
  2. medical

  http://ajwrb.org/science/blood-transfusion-letter-of-understanding.

  "every parent among jehovahs witnesses worried about how local watchtower appointed elders will respond to letting their child have blood transfusion without opposing it should download this letter of understanding and be ready to hand a copy to them.

  then ask those elders to leave them (the parents) and doctors alone to concentrate on the childs best interests.".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  defender of truth

  
  http://ajwrb.org/science/blood-transfusion-letter-of-understanding

  "Every parent among Jehovah’s Witnesses worried about how local Watchtower appointed elders will respond to letting their child have blood transfusion without opposing it should download this Letter of Understanding and be ready to hand a copy to them. Then ask those elders to leave them (the parents) and doctors alone to concentrate on the child’s best interests."

  This has been around since 2007. Full credit to Marvin Shilmer.

  I had not heard about this letter before, has anyone else heard of it?
• 
  7

  Mother and Unborn Baby Die from blood transfusion refusal

  by Coded Logic in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  it's a very sad story.

  their deaths were completely avoidable if she hadn't refused the blood transfusion:.

  http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/04/07/why-doctors-let-a-jehovahs-witness-and-her-unborn-baby-die/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  defender of truth

  smiddyan hour ago

  "Did I not read on this board somewhere , that the governing Body had a letter/policy of some sort absolving any" Witness" from responsibility , leaving the decision to be made by the medical staff treating the patient ?

  A letter/policy that has not been made available to the rank and file even though it was drafted some months even years ago ?"

  Is this what you were looking for?

  http://ajwrb.org/science/blood-transfusion-letter-of-understanding
  
• 
  556

  The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  ... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.

  it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.

  they take pride in obedience.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  defender of truth

  Straight from the revised New World translation, if you are a Jehovah's Witness reading this thread.. 1 Samuel 14:32

  "So the people began rushing greedily at the spoil, and they took sheep and cattle and calves and slaughtered them on the ground, and they ate the meat along with the blood."
  

  http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/1-samuel/14/
  
• 
  556

  The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  ... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.

  it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.

  they take pride in obedience.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  defender of truth

  Fisherman said earlier:
  "... Regarding blood, show me one verse where God allowed Israel to eat blood. Unbled meat sometimes, but never blood."
  
  Ok. 1 Samuel 14:32.

  They ate blood.

  Nobody was punished or cut off from their people.
  Neither God or his anointed one ordered anyone to be killed or punished.
  Yet the men knew exactly what they were doing.
  Don't try and tell me it was 'not intentional'.
  
  This was clearly an example of animal blood being eaten deliberately, instead of being poured out.
  See all of the translations and cross-references for this verse here:
  http://biblehub.com/1_samuel/14-32.htm
• 
  556

  The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  ... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.

  it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.

  they take pride in obedience.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  defender of truth

  William Draper-
  No, I'm afraid he did not plan on killing his son for that at all.
  It was for an unrelated matter to do with his son eating honey, not due to the soldiers eating blood.
  (1 Samuel 14:43
  Then Saul said to Jonathan, “Tell me what you have done.”
  So Jonathan told him, “I tasted a little honey with the end of my staff. And now I must die!”)
  
  Here is the account in question:

  
  1 Samuel 14:31
  That day, after the Israelites had struck down the Philistines from Mikmash to Aijalon, they were exhausted.

  
  32 They pounced on the plunder and, taking sheep, cattle and calves, they butchered them on the ground and ate them, together with the blood.
  
  

  33 Then someone said to Saul, “Look, the men are sinning against the Lord by eating meat that has blood in it.”
  “You have broken faith,” he said. “Roll a large stone over here at once.”
  
  

  34 Then he said, “Go out among the men and tell them, ‘Each of you bring me your cattle and sheep, and slaughter them here and eat them. Do not sin against the Lord by eating meat with blood still in it.’”
  So everyone brought his ox that night and slaughtered it there.
  
  ....
  
  Interesting point regarding these verses here:
  [talking about the comments from the Watchtower's blood brochure]

  "Is it reasonable to refer to a group of hungry soldiers as an emergency? This seems like simply an attempt to associate the account with modern medical emergencies requiring blood transfusions. Who of us would equate a life or death medical crisis to a band of hungry soldiers?"

  
  "On the other hand, what this Bible story does teach us is quite interesting. Note what happens to these hungry soldiers who in an “emergency” chose to “sustain their lives” by “eating along with the blood?”...

  
  "That is the entire consequence of their actions. They received a verbal reprimand."
  

  http://ajwrb.org/bible/blood-and-the-mosaic-law
• 
  556

  The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  ... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.

  it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.

  they take pride in obedience.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  defender of truth

  Fisherman said :"I do not understand Cofty's point that you are referring to. Explain"

  This is from the very first post of this thread. I knew you hadn't read the whole thread..

  Food
  When an Israelite killed an animal for food he was required to acknowledge that it's life belonged to god. By pouring out it's blood on the ground the life of the animal was symbolically returned to the life-giver.
  Sacrifice
  The principle behind all of the sacrifices under the Law was vicarious punishment. The penitent was acknowledging that they deserved to die for their sins, but god was willing to accept the life of an animal in his place. The blood that was poured out on the altar represented the life of the sacrificial animal being offered to god.
  In both cases blood was only sacred once a life had been taken.
  If an Israelite farmer found an animal "already dead" he was free to eat it with impunity. - Lev.11:38,39. Once an animal has been dead for more than a few minutes it is physically impossible to bleed it, so under these circumstances the Law is giving permission to eat unbled meat.
  If an Israelite was to bleed an animal without killing it - as the Maasai do - and take the blood to the altar, the blood would have no sacrificial value for the simple reason that no life had been taken.

  
  This is the important detail that the Watchtower have overlooked.
  Blood is not intrinsically sacred; it is only sacred insofar as it represents a life that has been taken.
• 
  556

  The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  ... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.

  it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.

  they take pride in obedience.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  defender of truth

  Fisherman said: "But the person who does something deliberately, whether he is native-born or a foreign resident, is blaspheming Jehovah and must be cut off from among his people..."

  "That goes for an Israelite intentionally eating a dead or torn animal"

  You must be asserting that Leviticus 17:15 involved a hunter unintentionally eating a dead or torn animal, then? Otherwise you are not making any sense.
• 
  556

  The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  ... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.

  it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.

  they take pride in obedience.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  defender of truth

  Here it is again:

  "Going back to the point Cofty was making in the first place, can you show me one verse where God required blood to be poured out (on the ground or on an altar), except for a situation where a life had been taken by someone?"

  To be clear..

  A life was always taken, whether on the altar or elsewhere, before the blood was poured out. It had no value except that it represented the life of the animal being taken.
• 
  556

  The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  ... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.

  it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.

  they take pride in obedience.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  defender of truth

  Sorry Fisherman, you failed the challenge.

  The animal was killed on the altar, then the blood was poured on the altar.

  The situation was that of a sacrifice, and someone had to kill it before any of it's blood was to be poured out.

  Life taken - Blood poured out.

  Would you like to try again?