Posted by AF [AF] on October 26, 1999 at 09:05:50 {c/rgKhj4NcDjRmAxB/kMdaOt1gg/Zk}:
In Reply to: Legalism posted by N.H. on October 25, 1999 at 23:52:34:
A typically fine analysis from you, Norm!
The 1964 WT article is a great example of the idiotically detailed questions of conscience that JWs are so often concerned with. It's a replica of the lunatic thinking that resulted in the Talmud. Worse, they want "God's spokesmen" to make rules and determine what their "conscience" will tell them. Then they turn around and claim that Brooklyn's conscience is their own.
The article also illustrates how illogical some of the Society's reasonings are. Obviously, God at best only gave a law about blood to humans, not to animals. That, plus the fact that animals eat blood in the normal course of their activities, shows that God has permitted animals to eat blood. If the Society's reasoning about human consumption of blood were correct, namely, that the law against eating blood implies that transfusing blood is wrong, then it follows that allowing the eating of blood would allow the transfusing of blood. That would apply both to humans and animals, according to the reasoning presented in the 1964 WT article. But the article ignored most of these considerations and spoke as if all of the laws concerning humans also apply to animals. Thus, the Society simply glossed over points which, if considered, would have been fatal to its argument. So here we have yet another example of deliberate deception on the part of WTS leaders, since no one who could marshall the reasoning presented in the 1964 article could be so stupid as to miss such elementary points as I've pointed out.
AF