Posted by Friend [Friend] on November 23, 1999 at 14:59:47 {KNpNN6QGfwrRIg7iiOekOgnjR4Br/g}:
In Reply to: *****Blood Transfusion posted by Cygnus on November 23, 1999 at 14:22:10:
Cygnus
I do think it is weaseling, however, to continue to promote erroneous ideas within the framework of your article, even if they serve to reform the blood doctrine, "because that's what JWs believe."
I appreciate your views.
As for weaseling or not. It is not weaseling to attack an issue, which is what I have done. Regarding promoting erroneous ideas, I think you have in mind 1) whether the Apostolic Decree is a Christian requirement today and 2) exactly what Noah was prohibited from in regards to blood.
It is debatable whether the Apostolic Decree is applicable to modern day Christians. I have argued considering the view that it is applicable. I personally think there is applicability, but like you, that it is my opinion and is debatable.
As for what Noah was prohibited from, my understanding is simple, that Noah was prohibited from indiscriminately eating blood he had unilaterally taken. It doesn’t get much simpler that that. If you wish to read a more literal interpretation that Noah was prohibited only from indiscriminately eating blood he had unilaterally taken along with its indigenous flesh, fine. However, equally applying such a hyper-literal interpretation also requires absolute separation between blood and flesh, which is impossible. The spirit of the original article on this thread intended to apply a reasonable expectation based upon context of what was actually said and away from hyper-literalism. While it depends upon what is actually in the text it also allows for reasonable application.
Friend