# Legalism

[ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by N.H. [Pravo] on October 25, 1999 at 23:52:34 {DjTI9F5X/YMNeo5UWiLAX.sgIvMbfw}:

Society, “suggestions” and legalism.

There has been debated on H2O, whether the Watchtower Society have made rules and regulations about what a Jehovah's Witness might do or not. Even the Watchtower admits that overzealous elders have made what they now claim to be mere “suggestions” into law.
This question is also closely related to another of the more recent Watchtower “adjustments”, namely the embarrassing “Society says” problem.

An investigation into this matter will soon reveal the truth. For those of us who know the Watchtower Society, it’s extreme legalism and huge collection of written and unwritten rules is very familiar. Reading the Watchtower literature one has to be particularly blind not to notice this phenomenon.

Particularly in the case of the Societies blood ban, is this very evident. Here the Watchtower Society has made rules and laws of almost Talmudic proportions. It is quite amusing to notice the totally contradictory way the Society goes about the matter of “conscience”. Their bizarre views of the matter of conscience, clearly demonstrate that they have no idea what it really is.

Looking at the “Questions from readers” column in the Watchtower is overwhelming evidence of the Watchtower legalism and the extreme insecurity of the average Jehovah's Witness. Let us take a look at this:

> *** w64 2/15 127-8 Questions from Readers ***
> Questions from Readers

> Would it be a violation of the Scriptures for a Christian to permit a veterinarian to give blood transfusions to a pet? And what of animal food? May it be used if there is reason to believe there is blood in it? Also, is it permissible to use fertilizer that has blood in it?

The necessity of even asking such a question is in itself a manifestation of the legalist atmosphere within the Watchtower Society. The answer should clearly demonstrate, even to the dimmest how the Society wants the rank and file to view it. Notice the beginning of the answer:

> *** w64 2/15 127-8 Questions from Readers ***
> The psalmist declared at Psalm 119:97: "How I do love your law! All day long it is my concern." Such a love of God's law and a concern for it would surely cause a dedicated servant of God to avoid any violation of God's law whatsoever.

It would indeed be very difficult for the average Jehovah's Witness to regard anything said later in this question as anything less than a law. Anyway, if you really want to have a look at the Watchtower technique of utilizing it’s arsenal of manipulative words and more or less veiled threats read this out standing specimen of BS:

> *** w64 2/15 127-8 Questions from Readers ***
> God's law on blood is very clear. Blood is not to be used as food and, when withdrawn from a body, it is to be poured out on the ground. (Gen. 9:3, 4; Lev. 3:17; Deut. 12:16, 23, 24; Acts 15:20, 28, 29) Christians certainly would not wish to do anything in violation of Jehovah's law on blood. Love for God and for the righteous laws and principles of his Word calls forth that response from them in matters pertaining to blood.

> Since God's law on blood has not been altered over the centuries, Christians today realize that they are bound by it. Please note, however, that it is not fear of some reprisal that moves them to comply with Jehovah's law on blood. They do not obey God's law simply because violation of it might result in the imposing of sanctions by the Christian congregation of which they are a part. They love what is right.

If we analyze the above, we first of all notice that “Gods law on blood” is very, very far from clear to Brooklyn. Notice the typical Watchtower lingo: “Christians certainly would not wish to….” And: “Christians today realize” And look at this masterpiece of a threat: “Please note, however, that it is not fear of some reprisal that moves them to comply with Jehovah's law on blood. They do not obey God's law simply because violation of it might result in the imposing of sanctions by the Christian congregation of which they are a part. They love what is right.”

So the Watchtower Society DO threaten the Jehovah's Witness who violates the Watchtower law with reprisals after all? Then look at another very good one:

> *** w64 2/15 127-8 Questions from Readers ***
> “Furthermore, because of their love of God's law they will not rationalize or seek ways in which it appears possible to circumscribe it with seeming impunity.”

This one is particularly interesting if you see it against the insane idea of splitting up blood in “legal” and “illegal” components. If you really want to see an outstanding example of “rationalize or seek ways in which it appears possible to circumscribe it” look at the Societies total lame ranting about the exchange of “legal” substances between the fetus and the mother.
A better example of, “rationalize or seek ways” to “circumscribe” would be hard to find.
But stand back and see the Watchtower magazine make “divine” law:

> *** w64 2/15 127-8 Questions from Readers ***
> How, then, must we answer the question, Would it be a violation of the Scriptures for a Christian to permit a veterinarian to give blood transfusions to a pet? By all means, to do so would be a violation of the Scriptures. To use blood for transfusion purposes, even in the case of an animal, would be improper. The Bible is very clear in showing that blood should not be eaten. It should not be infused, therefore, to build up the body's vital forces, either in the case of a human or in the case of a pet or any other animal under the jurisdiction of a Christian. In harmony with this, surely a Christian parent could not rationalize to the effect that a pet belongs to a minor child and thus this unbaptized child might, on its own, authorize a veterinarian to administer the blood. No. The baptized parent bears the responsibility, for that parent has authority over the child and over the pet and should control the entire matter. That is the parent's obligation before God.-Eccl. 12:13, 14; Jas. 4:17.

Nothing seem too odd, to far fetched and ridiculous when they write law in Brooklyn. But it gets worse:

> *** w64 2/15 127-8 Questions from Readers ***
> What, then, of animal food? May it be used if there is reason to believe there is blood in it? As far as a Christian is concerned, the answer is No, on the basis of principles already mentioned. Therefore, if a Christian discovers that blood components are listed on the label of a container of dog food or some other animal food, he could not conscientiously feed that product to any animal over which he has jurisdiction. He could not conclude that doing so would be excusable, for this would not be a case of an animal killing another animal and helping itself to the blood of that creature. No, this would be a direct act on the part of the Christian, making him responsible for feeding blood to a pet or other animal belonging to him.

Could it be even more ridiculous? Sure, Brooklyn can do it:

> *** w64 2/15 127-8 Questions from Readers ***
> Of course, if there is no indication on the label of a package of animal food that the product contains blood, a Christian might conclude that it could be used. Still, his conscience might trouble him. In that case he should put his conscience to rest by making reasonable inquiry and acting in accord with the information he receives, for a Christian surely desires to have a good conscience before God.-1 Pet. 3:21.

Could this madness be worse? Of course it could:

> *** w64 2/15 127-8 Questions from Readers ***
> But now, what about fertilizer that has blood in it? One who is going to show respect for God's law on blood would not use it. True, according to the Mosaic law, blood when taken from a body was to be poured out upon the ground and covered over with dust. (Lev. 17:13, 14) The objective was, however, that the blood should serve no useful purpose when thus disposed of. It was not placed on the ground with the thought in mind that it would serve as fertilizer. Hence, no Christian farmer today could properly spread blood on his fields to fertilize the soil, nor would he use commercial fertilizer containing blood. Such blood use would be a commercializing on something that God has reserved for himself. It would be a violation of God's Word.

But surely this must be it. This must be the limit of insanity, even for Brooklyn? Sorry folks it isn’t. Brooklyn still got even more far-fetched and ridiculous stuff up their sleeve:

> *** w64 11/15 681-2 Employment and Your Conscience ***
> So whether a Christian who works in a store will dispose of blood goods, such as blood sausage, by selling such goods to persons of the world who are willing to pay for them is a matter of conscience. It is also a personal matter as to whether another Christian will sell blood items to worldly persons in a drugstore or will spread blood fertilizer on the field of a worldly employer at his request. Naturally, a Christian could not properly encourage persons to obtain blood goods rather than those free from blood and he could not advocate any misuse of blood. However, we must leave it up to the conscience of the individual Christian as to what he will do when it comes to matters of this nature in handling such products. One Christian should not criticize another Christian for the decision he makes, just as one Israelite could not reasonably criticize another Israelite for selling to a foreigner an animal that died of itself and hence had not been properly drained of its blood.

> The use of blood in adhesives for manufacturing plywood and other commonly used materials has now come to the attention of Christians, and we use plywood as an example. Much plywood is made using blood glue, but some plywood is blood-free. A Christian purchaser or contractor may seek to obtain blood-free plywood if he can do so; however, if he decides to use all types of plywood, it must be left to his conscience. It is not always possible to determine just how the plywood has been made. Because blood may be used in some plywood, this does not mean that a Christian could not buy, sell or rent a home or purchase a trailer in which plywood is found. The extent to which he would check on such matters is for him to decide.

> *** w64 11/15 682-3 Employment and Your Conscience ***
> Also, if a Christian is working for a company that uses blood glue in some of its plywood or other products, he would not necessarily have to quit his job. He may work in the woods, cutting down the trees. Part of the lumber is used one way and part another. The employee is not responsible for what happens to the wood after he has done his job. Of course, if a Christian worked in a plywood plant and it was required that he prepare the blood glue or apply it to the plywood, he might feel he could not conscientiously do this. He might request that his employer give him some other kind of work not handling blood. But even this is a personal matter. By doing other work for the same company, such as working as a truck driver, salesman, and so forth, the individual may feel he is free from responsibility for any misuse of blood. Since blood is used in the manufacture of so many common products, it becomes almost impossible for the Christian to avoid all contact with them-leather goods, furniture, bottle tops, cotton cloth, and so forth. So just what the Christian will do is a matter of conscience, and others should not criticize him. Certainly it would not be fitting to disrupt the unity of a Christian congregation in a certain locality by becoming involved in detailed discussions and contentions over the personal decision in this respect on the part of some Christian associated with that congregation.-Ps. 133:1; Prov. 26:21; Jas. 3:16-18.

Wow, all you “faithful” out there, stop whatever you are doing right now and start tearing your house apart, there might be blood contaminated plywood in your house!!! And all of you, who live in Florida, make sure you have supply of “clean” plywood for the next hurricane. I am sure “Jehovah” will never protect your house or a KH, bedecked with this sinful plywood. Oh, what infinite wisdom they display in Brooklyn.

But surely this must be the limit, you might think? Nope, there is more. Feast your eyes on this example of more profound “wisdom” from Brooklyn:

> *** w82 6/15 31 Questions from Readers ***
> Questions from Readers

> Would it be wrong for a Christian, under medical treatment, to allow leeches to be applied to him to draw off some blood?

> It would not be contrary to God's Word to permit the medical withdrawal and disposal of some blood. But to do this through the use of leeches would conflict with what the Bible says. Admittedly, leeches are not commonly used today. Yet questions about using them do arise, particularly in Europe. Noting what the Bible says about blood can help us to evaluate such treatments.

Any “suggestions” anyone? Is it the Bible or the Society who have “said” the above examples?

Norm.

Follow Ups:

- *Legalism AF 09:05:50 10/26/99 (0)
- *Legalism Tired 07:05:31 10/26/99 (0)
- *Legalism Kent 02:19:22 10/26/99 (0)
- *Legalism JanG 01:20:03 10/26/99 (0)
- *Legalism Janey 00:41:50 10/26/99 (3)
  - **Legalism Kent 03:20:29 10/26/99 (2)
    - ***Legalism Farkel 09:56:19 10/26/99 (1)
      - ****Legalism Kent 13:00:48 10/26/99 (0)
- *Legalism Janey 00:41:12 10/26/99 (0)
- *Legalism COMF 00:20:05 10/26/99 (2)
  - **Legalism Kent 04:13:48 10/26/99 (0)
  - **Legalism J.H. 01:07:02 10/26/99 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject: *Legalism

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ FAQ ]