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

As a witness I would have just said the point remains the sacred nature of life, the blood being respected was just a symbol of that sacredness. It really wasn't about the blood, it was about the life. Blood was being used as a symbol of life.

Watchtower doctrine treats blood as a sacred substance because of its use in Genesis 9 as equivalent with life. A fatal flaw in that proposition is that the equivalence was said of the blood of living animals killed to eat and not of all blood. Specifically I have in mind the massive amounts of blood that would have been freely available all around Noah and his descendants in the form of animal carcasses dead of natural cause. That food was for the most part as edible as flesh of animals killed as food, and that food was loaded with blood, blood the text of Genesis 9 presented no prohibition against eating. This single piece of information obliterates an notion that the biblical God holds the substance of blood as some sacred stuff. He doesn't.

There's another thing often overlooked in the Genesis text about food where God grants permission to eat blood. It's the text of Genesis 6:21. Take a look at it. Think about all the stuff that is eaten as food by creatures and humans. (See: God gave Noah express permission to eat blood and Blood doctrine – thrown under the bus )

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 don't see a difference between Gen 9:4, 5 and Lev 17:14. I think I get what you are saying, you can never FULLY drain blood right? Watchtower has addressed that line of reasoning though. I don't remember where, but I remember reading it.

The text of Leviticus 17:14 is a prohibition stated of eating blood of any sort of flesh.

The text of Genesis 9:4 is a prohibition stated of eating blood obtained from one sort of flesh, that of living animals killed to use as food. Another sort of blood the text of Genesis 9 never mentions or addresses is that of animal carcasses dead of natural cause. Nothing in the text of Genesis 9 prohibited Noah from eating all the blood he wanted from that sort of flesh, which was then and always had been readily available and safer to obtain and use as food for the ancients.

There's another critical difference too between Leviticus 17 and the text of Genesis 9. Leviticus 17:13 stipulates that blood obtained from killing animals had to be disposed of by pouring it into the dirt (this speaks of animals killed other than those used for sacrifices). Nothing whatsoever in the text of Genesis 9 required Noah to waste perfectly good blood by throwing it away into the dirt. Noah was free to do whatever he wanted with blood he drained from animals he killed to eat, so long as he did not eat it.

By the way, nothing I've said or presented requires any special measures in relation to bleeding other than general bleeding of animals killed to eat. There will always be residual blood left in 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

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.