Posted by Tom [Zachary] on April 10, 1999 at 09:23:46 {83dcrF/7KEp97koDwT8kPaEpA0ijdc}:
In Reply to: Attention AF This is a repl posted by ben1957 on April 09, 1999 at 22:24:24:
Ben,
You said:
new ben1957
Please note what I said.."if a person in full control and under no pressure "willingly" accepted a BT". I was talking about Blood Transfusions not organ transplants. I do respect the
"faithful and discreet slave", and I was not making conscience judgements for other JWs regarding transplants.
I wonder if you really know what a blood transfusion is Ben. I don't mean this badly, its just that most Witnesses do not.
If you do know then I'm sure you are aware that Plasma is essentially the colloid formed when the Albumin protein is suspended in water. Therefore, could you please tell us the difference between these two situations:
(1) A patient is connected by IV to an inverted 500ml bag of Plasma.(2) A patient is connected by IV to an inverted 500ml bag of 5% Albumin solution.
You said:
The ban on Blood is not stated using weasel words because it is clear cut command form God. If you can not see that, well that is your business,and I will not hold it against you.
I would very much like to hear you clearly explain this "clear cut command."
So that you know beforehand that this is not a trick question and I am not trying to trap you let me explain one of the many pitfalls most Witnesses fall into:
I have observed that most Witnesses fall into the trap of construing the phrase �abstain from blood� in a way that is ungrammatical. The basic problem lies in the fact that the word �abstain� is a verb intransitive (A �hybrid� having attributes of both noun and verb) and can be applied directly to an act, but not to an object without modification from other verbs.
To illustrate: Fornication in contrast to the first three items which are objects, is the name of an act. The phrase �Abstain from fornication� can easily be stated as a �Do not� using the verb form of the word. It would read �Do not fornicate�
However when the word �Abstain� is used in connection with an object instead of an act, the result is a phrase that does not adequately define the action. This can be seen from the fact that the phrase �abstain from blood� cannot be stated as a �Do not� because �blood� is not an act, and the word itself does not have a verb form that has anything to do with the noun form. What we have to do is insert a modifying verb or verb phrase that specifically defines which act or acts should be abstained from in connection with this object. Stated as a �Do not� the sentence would read something like this:
Do not [take in] blood.or
Do not [sustain life with] blood.
or
Do not [misuse] blood.
However, at the point where it inevitably becomes necessary for you do this, you will have violated the basic premise upon which the "Abstain" argument is based upon, which holds that the phrase �Abstain�..from blood� should be evaluated by a simple and direct reading and only a simple and direct reading.
There is no way around this problem. Creatures composed of flesh and blood cannot abstain from blood as an object since this object is an integral part of their bodies. They must instead abstain from a specific act done in connection with this object and at some point this act must be defined. Therefore the argument is contradictory because even its proponents must at some point violate the basic premise upon which this argument is built and define the act.
Tom