Posted by Cygnus [Cygnus] on November 22, 1999 at 16:27:30 {k/.KBikg62wppWPOgFMsL4bdfUTIaI}:
In Reply to: **Blood Transfusion posted by Friend on November 22, 1999 at 15:55:49:
Hiya Friend,
: My point—which that 1958 article supports—is that there are persons who are JWs hold the view that blood transfusions are categorically wrong. [sic -- Friend means to say "are not categorically wrong"]
: Just what point do you think I was making?
I fully understood your point. I simply wanted to fully disclose the intentions (both present and future) of said WT article.
: My comment about "what was then known" has to do with what was then known/understood about blood by JWs.
That's not what comes across in your piece, however. Your language implied that medical science had a certain understanding regarding blood, and so the WTS teaching at the time reflected that understanding . I suggest you rephrase the sentence.
: Jesus words to his followers had to do with giving up temporary human life that another human may gain temporary life. Those manifesting such love, like Jesus, are promised life again.
Maybe, but does Jesus ever anywhere say anything about the temporal aspects of a person's "soul" or life-prospects being affected? I don't think so. Jesus said what he said because he (again, ostensibly) knew that he'd be giving up his life redemptively, but I'm saying that he never gave up his soul. The whole thing is kinda backwards and sort of makes my head hurt thinking about it.
: : : As Christians we respect that we are instructed biblically to abstain from blood. (See Acts 15:28,29)
: : Contemporary Christians are not. 1st century Gentile Christians were (Cp. Acts 21:25). Any other suggestion or application requires stretching of the text.
: The article says, "we" as in Jehovah’s Witnesses. The article is written with the view of addressing the JW position, not that of Christendom.
Then don't write "Christians." Write "Jehovah's Witnesses."
And of course you are addressing the JW position. Your article was meant to appear in a Watchtower, right? No one but JWs are interested in much that the Watchtower has to say, as least as far as their making life-or-death decisions. In any event, you obscured the meaning behind my comments. Say, for the argument's sake, that JWs are Christians. My statement is still valid, even if reworded: Jehovah's Witnesses, as contemporary Christians, are not instructed biblically to "abstain from blood."
You also weasel your way out of Acts 15, James, and Noah, Friend. So what if JWs assert that James was reaffirming Genesis 9? That doesn't make it the truth, and certainly doesn't lend credence to your arguments.
: : : Noah was told, "Only flesh with its soul—its blood—you must not eat." Besides prohibiting the eating of blood. . .
: : Those words did not directly prohibit the eating of blood (although that interpretation may follow). It merely said that flesh with the blood may not be eaten. What, in turn, that means is subject to further interpretation.
: That interpretation you offer is more straining that that presented. If we apply such hyperliteral interpretation then we can also allow that animal flesh so eaten need not come from an animal killed.
No, it is not more straining. The text can certainly be interpreted in the manner you present: that Genesis 9 was condemning the eating of animal flesh from animals not completely dead. But its language absolutely prevents it from being solely interpreted as suggesting that blood apart from the flesh may not be consumed.