1. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    11 Sep '12 00:0311 edits
    Note: I'm using the Young's Literal Translation of Acts 15:28-29: http://wwwdev.bibleshark.com/bible/YLT/Acts/15/

    28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, no more burden to lay upon you, except these necessary things:
    29 to abstain from things offered to idols, and blood, and a strangled thing, and whoredom; from which keeping yourselves, ye shall do well; be strong

    ---------------------------------------------


    Sorry for yet another of these threads, albeit curiously I'm more interested in the views of non-JWs (my main question is in the last paragraph).

    The main line of attack coming from JWs trying to defend their stance towards blood transfusions (based off the verses above) is one of comparison - noting that "thou shalt not kill" makes no mention of the means via which the killing shall be performed, that "thou shalt not steal" makes no mention of the things one might steal, and so on... it seems the logic, unless I'm mistaken, goes like: for all X that facilitates Y, don't do X.

    Without being so formal they then try to argue that the same game can be played with "abstain from blood". I.e. for all things X that lead to the uptaking of blood Y, don't do X. There are numerous problems with this, firstly it can (and has many times) be argued (unlike the directives above) that the surrounding passages imply context to the X - i.e. attention ought to be restricted to some proper subset A of the collection B of all things leading to the uptaking of blood.
    Many who are more knowledgeable about the Bible than I have argued A should be the things X that have a ritualistic nature - like eating or sacrificially draining it from animalsReveal Hidden Content
    and with just my own cursory reading that is also what I take away from the verses above
    . But then as a medical procedure, blood transfusions don't fall into that subset. To get round this problem the Jehovas witness maintains that with their own interpretation, attention should not be so restricted. This itself gives rise to another problem; namely we have no conditions, or statements governing what from B can or cannot be admitted into A. indeed as blood transfusions are in some cases a necessary life saving procedure it follows, trivially, A should include some things which are necessary to continue living.

    Another thing that is necessary to continue living is one's own blood, and so I'm compelled why things that facilitate the production or retention of one's own blood should not also be a candidate for inclusion in A?Reveal Hidden Content
    and in a playful manner I\'m sure we could all offer speculations as to why JW \"G\"od would want JWs to die quickly - perhaps to see who is worthy of being in the 144,000\!
    . Or in simpler terms, I ask the JW why don't they abstain from their own blood?? Of course if I ask either of Robbie Carrobie or Galveston this question it gets either ignored or branded as stupid. So my question(s) to the rest of the forum is: In what way is it stupid!? i.e. how, given the material we have to work with in arriving at the JWs position, have I lost sight of the features which necessarily determine what should not lie in A?
  2. Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    77354
    11 Sep '12 01:00
    Originally posted by Agerg
    [i]Note: I'm using the Young's Literal Translation of Acts 15:28-29: http://wwwdev.bibleshark.com/bible/YLT/Acts/15/

    28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, no more burden to lay upon you, except these necessary things:
    29 to abstain from things offered to idols, and blood, and a strangled thing, and whoredom; from which keeping yourselves, ye ...[text shortened]... the features which necessarily determine what should [b]not
    lie in A?[/b]
    You seem to have a problem that we have our own blood within us and cannot abstain from it. If we did somehow abstain from it, we all die. If we all die because of us somehow abstaining from our own blood then all life as humans stops.
    So as silly as this thought seems I guess it's real to you.
    So God made us to live and in order to live we need our blood within our bodies. Right? God put that blood into us to do many things, right?
    So if you were to take this to mean we would have to drain our own blood out in order not to disobey God's command..well, you get the point I hope.
    But to clearify this even another step for you, God gave no such command. He was obviously speaking of the blood of another animal or human that we are to abstain from, not our own. But if for some reason like a cut, yes we would let it go to the ground or whatever means to dispose of it. Once blood has come into contact with anything outside the body it is contaminated as any medical book would tell you.
    Make any sence to you?
  3. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    11 Sep '12 01:1911 edits
    Originally posted by galveston75
    You seem to have a problem that we have our own blood within us and cannot abstain from it. If we did somehow abstain from it, we all die. If we all die because of us somehow abstaining from our own blood then all life as humans stops.
    So as silly as this thought seems I guess it's real to you.
    So God made us to live and in order to live we need our tside the body it is contaminated as any medical book would tell you.
    Make any sence to you?
    You seem to have a problem that we have our own blood within us and cannot abstain from it. If we did somehow abstain from it, we all die. If we all die because of us somehow abstaining from our own blood then all life as humans stops.
    Yes, the fact that it would lead to the death of the person who does such a thing did not completely escape my notice - actually it was quite deliberate on my part. Furthermore as for all of us dying this is necessarily true. Only those who practice your religion would die in this fashion - for arguments sake how can you know that is not what "G"od wants?

    So as silly as this thought seems I guess it's real to you.
    So God made us to live and in order to live we need our blood within our bodies. Right? God put that blood into us to do many things, right?
    So if you were to take this to mean we would have to drain our own blood out in order not to disobey God's command..well, you get the point I hope.

    But those who are dying on the operating table have to sacrifice their own lives as they adhere to your own interpretation of those verses (by not accepting a life-saving blood transfusion).
    In a structural sense, how does this differ from sacrificing their lives off the operating table? Again - as a test of your worthiness to be in the promised land perhaps "G"od wants those who decide to align with the "true faith" to also walk that faith as well - by draining their blood as Jesus's blood was allegedly drained on the cross. Further - perhaps by committing this sacrifice, you'll achieve the doing of many things indirectly - that is, those who lack your strength of faith will redouble their efforts to do "G"od's work in your stead

    But to clearify this even another step for you, God gave no such command. He was obviously speaking of the blood of another animal or human that we are to abstain from, not our own.
    How is this "obvious"? Please explain how by omitting the words "blood transfusion" we are to conclude we should avoid blood transfusions whilst by ommiting the words "of another animal or human" we are not to conclude you should avoid your own blood?



    ---------------------------------------------
    Also, to help you out here as you shake and scratch your head wondering how I can be so deluded into thinking your "G"od seriously wants you all to kill yourself, I'm essentially asking how the logic I'm using which gets me to this nonsensical conclusion (that you should abstain from your own blood) is not valid. If you cannot show this then we can invoke reductio ad absurdum. But then we can play the same game with your own conclusions about blood transfusions.
  4. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86336
    11 Sep '12 06:151 edit
    Originally posted by Agerg
    Note: I'm using the Young's Literal Translation of Acts 15:28-29: http://wwwdev.bibleshark.com/bible/YLT/Acts/15/

    28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, no more burden to lay upon you, except these necessary things:
    29 to abstain from things offered to idols, and blood, and a strangled thing, and whoredom; from which keeping yourselves, ye he features which necessarily determine what should [b]not
    lie in A?[/b]
    This JW crazy only started in 1944, no doubt catalysed by some medical mishap.

    What I find curious is why the JW's headline this doctrine (like Galveston this last week at least 3 new threads on it) when they know non JW's think its wacko.

    Is this the best way to propagate a cult? Perhaps it is when you think about it; what they are doing is entrenching their position, building up the diving walls of opinion, making themselves feel special cooped up in their "special" enclave waiting for their God to arrive and prove them right.

    It has "cult" written all over it and I feel desperately sad for those trapped inside who want to get out but can’t because of the fear of being ostracised by people they consider friends.
  5. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    12 Sep '12 09:48
    Originally posted by divegeester
    This JW crazy only started in 1944, no doubt catalysed by some medical mishap.

    What I find curious is why the JW's headline this doctrine (like Galveston this last week at least 3 new threads on it) when they know non JW's think its wacko.

    Is this the best way to propagate a cult? Perhaps it is when you think about it; what they are doing is e ...[text shortened]... get out but can’t because of the fear of being ostracised by people they consider friends.
    It was sunhouse who stated that all religions are based on fear of some sort. As you pointed out, even with Christian cults like the JWs, fear plays a major role in keeping the members in line. However, true Christianity was founded on the love of Christ, not fear. 😏

    HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!
  6. Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    77354
    12 Sep '12 20:14
    Originally posted by Agerg
    [b]You seem to have a problem that we have our own blood within us and cannot abstain from it. If we did somehow abstain from it, we all die. If we all die because of us somehow abstaining from our own blood then all life as humans stops.
    Yes, the fact that it would lead to the death of the person who does such a thing did not completely escape my notice ...[text shortened]... an play the same game with your own conclusions about blood transfusions.[/b]
    Maybe a good dose of comman sence is in order here. See if it helps....
  7. Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    77354
    12 Sep '12 20:16
    Originally posted by divegeester
    This JW crazy only started in 1944, no doubt catalysed by some medical mishap.

    What I find curious is why the JW's headline this doctrine (like Galveston this last week at least 3 new threads on it) when they know non JW's think its wacko.

    Is this the best way to propagate a cult? Perhaps it is when you think about it; what they are doing is e ...[text shortened]... get out but can’t because of the fear of being ostracised by people they consider friends.
    Perhaps you KEEP missing the point of someone just passing along much needed info to all, that there are alternatives available to anyone who would like to view that as an option if they need this treatment.
    I was simple sharing this info with you and others. If you don't want to take advantage of a SAFER alternative, so be it.
  8. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    12 Sep '12 20:35
    Originally posted by galveston75
    Maybe a good dose of comman sence is in order here. See if it helps....
    My questions remain unresolved.
  9. Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    77354
    13 Sep '12 00:57
    Originally posted by Agerg
    My questions remain unresolved.
    Ok. What else can I do for you?
  10. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    13 Sep '12 01:127 edits
    Originally posted by galveston75
    Ok. What else can I do for you?
    Go back and answer the questions properly and fully - in particular, answer (with a slight rephrasing):

    Please explain how by omitting the words "blood transfusion" we are to conclude we should avoid blood transfusions whilst by ommiting the words "of another animal or human" we are to conclude you should avoid only blood of another animal or human?

    The question you think is silly:
    - does "G"od want us to abstain from our own blood?

    and to which you'd answer no, is just as silly (if not sillier!) as the question:
    - does "G"od wants us to abstain from blood transfusions?

    both result from the same one-dimensional analysis of "abstain from blood" (simply that there are no exceptions), and both apply the same level of what you term "common sense". As I have said, it is easy to come up with reasons why your "G"od would want you to drain all your blood - and so the "otherwise we'll die" response doesn't cut it (and the fact people die from not having blood transfusions renders it a moot point anyway).
  11. Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    77354
    13 Sep '12 01:34
    Originally posted by Agerg
    Go back and answer the questions properly and fully - in particular, answer (with a slight rephrasing):

    [i]Please explain how by omitting the words "blood transfusion" we are to conclude we should avoid blood transfusions whilst by ommiting the words "of another animal or human" we are to conclude you should avoid [b]only
    blood of another animal or huma ...[text shortened]... eople die from not having blood transfusions renders it a moot point anyway).[/b]
    The only thing the bible says is to "abstain" from blood. You understand that as you want. JW's understand that to mean in as exactly what it says.


    http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/abstain


    PRIMARY MEANINGS OF:
    abstain
    1 v choose not to consume
    2 v refrain from voting
    FULL DEFINITIONS OF: abstain
    1v choose not to consume
    “I abstain from alcohol”
    Synonyms:desist, refrain
    Antonyms:consume, have, ingest, take, take in
    serve oneself to, or consume regularly
    Types:show 6 types...


    This is an example of the clear and simple explinations of this word "abstain".

    Need more?
  12. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    13 Sep '12 01:433 edits
    Originally posted by galveston75
    The only thing the bible says is to "abstain" from blood. You understand that as you want. JW's understand that to mean in as exactly what it says.


    http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/abstain


    PRIMARY MEANINGS OF:
    abstain
    1 v choose not to consume
    2 v refrain from voting
    FULL DEFINITIONS OF: abstain
    1v choose not to consume
    “I abstai ...[text shortened]... s is an example of the clear and simple explinations of this word "abstain".

    Need more?
    and so (given you completely missed the point of my last post - or just didn't read it)

    you should abstain from your own blood!!! (since your blood is still blood afterall!)

    or (since you seem to think constantly reminding us what abstain means answers any challenge to your position) you should:

    desist from having your own blood, refrain from having your own blood, fail to have your own blood! 😵
  13. Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    77354
    13 Sep '12 01:56
    Originally posted by Agerg
    and so (given you completely missed the point of my last post - or just didn't read it)

    [b]you should abstain from your own blood!!!
    (since your blood is still blood afterall!)

    or (since you seem to think constantly reminding us what abstain means answers any challenge to your position) you should:

    desist from having your own blood, refrain from having your own blood, fail to have your own blood! 😵[/b]
    To abstain from ones own blood? Are you really serious?
  14. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    13 Sep '12 02:083 edits
    Originally posted by galveston75
    To abstain from ones own blood? Are you really serious?
    Yes...for the purpose of trying to get my head around the "logic" of your ideas about blood transfusions I'm very serious (and understanding your logic does not mean I require a definition of the word "abstain" ). I'll ask (yet again):

    Please explain how by omitting the words "blood transfusion" we are to conclude we should avoid blood transfusions whilst by omitting the words "of another animal or human" we are to conclude we should avoid only blood of another animal or human?
  15. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    13 Sep '12 02:121 edit
    Originally posted by galveston75
    To abstain from ones own blood? Are you really serious?
    To abstain from blood transfusions? Are you really serious?
Back to Top