Posts by Marvin Shilmer

556

The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

by cofty in

... 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.

Marvin Shilmer

From a medical position JWS feel blood treatment is too risky and more of a risk than non blood even in the face of death.

I strongly disagree with that sentiment.

The moment Watchtower doctrine removes a prohibition against some blood product JWs who need that blood product line up to get it. Take for example the blood product known as cryo-poor plasma (also known as cryosupernatant and cryoprecipitate-reduced plasma). When JWs learn they can accept this product rendered from blood they line up willing to accept it to the tune of 96 percent. (See: Over 96% Accept 99%! )

As for risk, Watchtower makes JWs think they're protected from blood borne pathogens, but it's a horrible lie. (See: Death from TRALI? )

556

The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

by cofty in

... 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.

Marvin Shilmer

@Marvin, it was only the blood and not the flesh that was seen as having the life in it. I have no idea why that is so specific, but Cofty is right. It's in Leviticus 17:14. How they rationalized eating the flesh as not part of it I don't know, that's a good question.

My remarks are not said of requirements presented in Leviticus. My remarks are said of the Noachian decree of Genesis 9. The Noachian decree prohibited eating a living animal without killing it first because it prohibited eating flesh with its life still in it, its blood. How does a person eat flesh from a living animal without eating flesh yet with its life, with its blood without killing the animal first? Blood is flesh.

556

The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

by cofty in

... 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.

Marvin Shilmer

Not at all.
Noah was given permission to kill animals for food with the proviso that he does not also consume the blood. The death of the beast was presumed.
Blood only represents life once the animal is dead. That is why eating an unbled animal found "already dead" was not a crime.

How does a person eat flesh from a living animal without eating flesh yet with its life, with its blood without killing the animal first?

Blood is flesh.

556

The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

by cofty in

... 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.

Marvin Shilmer

How so?

A typical body is composed of all sorts of tissue. These tissues represent different kinds of flesh. Blood is a sort of tissue. It is a kind of flesh.

The idea of not eating flesh with its life, its blood, requires killing. If a living animal has its blood removed to eat the remaining flesh then that living animal is now dead. If, on the other hand, you eat blood from a living animal without killing it then you're eating flesh yet with its life, its blood, which is the very thing prohibited.

556

The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

by cofty in

... 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.

Marvin Shilmer

That thought led me to some weird conclusions like justifying, from the Bible's point of view, the Maasai cattle herders who occasionally drink the blood of their cattle without killing them.

I don't think that works from a purely biblical perspective.

The Noachian decree prohibited eating a living animal without killing it first. Eating blood extracted by assaulting an animal is eating a living animal without killing it first.

556

The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

by cofty in

... 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.

Marvin Shilmer

I have read lots of stuff by non-JWs and ex-JWs about blood. IMO most of it misses the point. None of it would have convinced me.

I think different things impact different individuals depending on circumstances, training, and a lot of other variables. Hence I think a range of information is helpful to help readers confronted with Watchtower's blood taboo, whether the individual is a JW or someone who's treating a JW, or someone else.

556

The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

by cofty in

... 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.

Marvin Shilmer

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.

I think that one thought is enough to make a thinking JW think again. I'd rephrase it as a question to present this way to a JW:

If a Jew had bled some blood from an animal without killing the animal, would the extracted blood have been acceptable as a sacred sacrifice by God?

274

Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon in

sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

you're fired!"..

Marvin Shilmer

I honestly didn't even bother reading it.

Why break the pattern now? You've been doing that very thing throughout this discussion at various times. You respond before you read. I made that very observation three days ago way back on page 3 of this discussion! You've been running in circles telling folks what they think and disregarding clear and unambiguous statements of the same folks declaring what they think. Your argument looks like this: I say so, so it must be true regardless of what you say you think.

274

Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon in

sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

you're fired!"..

Marvin Shilmer

They are called bona fide occupational qualifications.

In my experience JW's working in, for instance, retail outlets have no problem whatsoever installing all manner of seasonal religious decorations. I know one JW who did the seasonal Santa Clause gig! No problem.

On the other hand, when there's a potential payday to be had, I've seen JWs work the system to the hilt even when what they were saying was false in terms of a bona fide religious tenet. Two of these cases are documented on my blog where JWs refused to sign oaths of allegiance and/or lost employment or employment opportunity. The courts were duped into thinking the claim was true based on how Watchtower publications have presented information, but it turns out the claim is false and a careful reading would have born that out. Of course, later on it was discovered that Watchtower's very elite had been signing the oath of allegiance the whole time. (See: Jehovah’s Witnesses and National Oaths of Allegiance, look in the Employers and Employee Sub-Sections)

274

Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon in

sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

you're fired!"..

Marvin Shilmer

Marvin - If that's the case then will all JW's be forced to partakes in holidays, military things, gay events, etc? If the jw refuses then the company fires them, can they no longer claim religious discrimination? Or if they are not hired no longer claim religious discrimination? (A jw works at any restaurant, they must partake in happy birthday or they are discriminating and the business can get in trouble so they don't hire them or fire them, etc,etc.) Can't say they can use other employees, what if they are the only server at the time?

That's a good question, and one of the complications at issue.

In the USA it's a tedious thing to compel an employee to do something that is directly contrary to a bona fide religious tenet. But for business owners it's a different thing. The business owner will have to offer products and services for one person as they would to another person without regard to their own bona fide religious views. As one poster suggested earlier, the owner should have realized what they were signing up for before they signed up. As employers maybe business owners can take the same position by disclosing to applicants the full range of duties to make sure the individual knows what they're agreeing to do as employees. Then, if later on an employee says their religious belief disallows something that is a condition of employment they have three choices: 1) comply, 2) quit or 3) be fired. This is one more reason for issuing authorities to make rules clear and then allow business owners time to get their house in order.