From: Ron Rhoades to Marvin Shilmer

Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 14:45 EST

Marvin,

>[You wrote]: In reading your voluminous reply (all 3 parts!) of March 29, 2003, I cannot help but remember the simple dilemma that sparked the entire thing.<

Do I detect a whine of complaint here? You have derided others when they refuse to respond in detail to your convoluted reasonings but you now want to complain when you receive an in-depth response to every possible argument you can devise (2Cor.10:4,5).

>[MS]: From your responses I see validity in the scenario above in that your replies evidence what I too have found, that no SCRIPTURAL distinction exists for why we should respect those who conscientiously accept medical transfusion of a hemoglobin agent yet simultaneously shun those that conscientiously accept medical transfusion of a [...similar or greater amount of a] platelet agent. If, on the other hand, you can find what you call "testimony of God's creative works" where hemoglobin from blood is naturally transferred between circulatory systems then please do provide the evidence.<

Suffice it to say that your initial argument was completely and satisfactorily answered in a scriptural and logical manner. And every example you gave in defense of your position was shown to be irrelevant or illogical. Failure to see the evidence of a marked difference between accepting major blood components and fractions is not a logical or reasonable position. It is a problem of will-a predisposition which ignores or circumvents obvious facts. Our position is based on and in total agreement with Scripture, while yours has no sound Scriptural or logical basis. Your method has been simply to distract from and misrepresent the scriptures, the facts, and my arguments. That deceptive argumentation is what I will primarily address in this response. In fact there is virtually no argument presented by you in this post which is not a misrepresentation, a straw-man or an outright false argument.

Your final "conclusion" here is simply another device to distract from the applicable evidence. When provided with evidence, you can retreat to evermore minute specifics till you find one which could never be explicitly proven. This type of deceitful reasoning allows you to continue to deny receiving an adequate answer. If science discovers an example of natural transference of hemoglobin you will simply then retreat to the same demand but with a different fraction and then on to atoms. The fact is, that evidence of the transference of a couple of fractions is enough to reasonably demonstrate that all fractions must be excluded from our doctrinal prohibition. Your argument again boils down to an unreasonable demand for an explicit "thou shall not" in Scripture. It would be the same as someone telling Joseph that "no Scriptural law exists" which condemns fornication. A good illustration to show the unreasonableness of your argument is if I rent property, but the contract prohibits the renter from using any "trees." IMO, most individuals would reasonably apply this prohibition to any use of the major components like bark or leaves. Baring any further information it would also reasonably bar any use of minor tree parts as well. However, in showing the property, I demonstrate how to use mulch from decomposed tree leaves on the garden. This is an explicit approval for the use of *leaf* mulch. On one hand, through implication, it is logical to conclude that I would also approve of using mulch derived from decomposed *bark*. On the other hand, there is absolutely no valid reason to conclude that using the whole leaves or bark would be OK. This would be contrary to the explicit command and would have no logical support in the expressed permission (explicit or implicit) to use mulch derived from trees.

I don't believe anyone could condemn the renter for his logical position of using both leaf and bark mulch and avoiding the use of bark and leaves. His conclusions would be solidly based on, and in agreement with, the written contract. It is also plain to see that the *amount* of mulch used has no relevancy to what is or is not prohibited or permitted. That is, just because the implicitly permitted *bark* mulch involves "a similar or greater amount" of the original tree than the prohibited leaves does not argue against applying the prohibition to the leaves.

Your argument is like condemning the renter for using mulch derived from bark because the landlord only demonstrated using mulch from leaves. Then your argument jumps to the conclusion that there's no evidence that using the actual leaves is wrong, since it cannot be shown that the landlord explicitly demonstrated using mulch from bark. Clearly your argument is completely irrelevant, illogical and distractive.

So to test the reasonableness and logic of your demand for a specific evidence let's use your words with this example where emotion and predisposition does not play a part:

"no [contractual] distinction exists for why we should respect those who conscientiously use [bark mulch] yet simultaneously shun those that conscientiously [use the whole leaves]. If, on the other hand, you can find [testimony in the Landlord's demonstration] where [mulch from bark] is [used] then please do provide the evidence."

It is easy to see that your argument fails on several levels. It first ignores the obvious and reasonable application of the explicit prohibition to the major parts. It secondly distracts from additional evidence, explicit and implicit, concerning the acceptability of derived fractions. If we consider all the facts it is easy to see an obvious and logical distinction between a major component (bark/platelets) and a derivative (mulch/fractions).

>[MS]: You write: >>[RR]: "Further laws all speak of total abstinence from blood use for those who want to please God." "You just choose to ignore the clear Scriptural answer. God's Law for Christians is the unequivocal: "Abstain from blood!" And "Keep from blood!" To make sure that Christians understood the EXTENT required, the Apostolic Decree explicitly referred to the Mosaic code as explaining its application (Ac.15:20, 21)."<<

>[MS]: First, you assert that God requires unequivocally that Christians must abstain totally from blood, yet the entirety of your replies to me represent an apologia for the doctrinal position of the Watchtower Society for Jehovah's Witnesses, and that doctrinal position tells us to respect the fact that Jehovah's Witnesses use from the donated and stored blood supply every day of the week!<

As I said, you here misrepresent my arguments and rip them from their context in order to force some inconsistency into my position. You demanded a SCRIPTURAL statement. I gave you that and showed that it would completely destroy your position condoning use of blood while our DOCTRINE is based entirely on those scriptures. My position, and the WTS's, is that "evidence from God's creative works" demands an exclusion of blood fractions from the Scriptural prohibition. Because of this evident approval by Jehovah we must respect other's consciences in using fractions or not. There is no inconsistency in these two facets of our belief on blood since we are following God's revealed thinking.

>[MS]: This doctrinal position requires us to respect...the transfusion of the ENTIRE gallon as long as it is first dissected into doctrinally non-prohibited parts, first.<

Your, whole argument here is such an over simplification of the facts that it can only be termed a deceptive and an irrelevant misrepresentation of our doctrine. Major blood components are simply separated parts of blood. On the other hand, derivation of fractions is a complicated and extensive process and once separated they can not be simply recombined as blood again. At some point, between the original substance and constituent atoms, logic tells us we no longer have the original substance. You have nothing to support your view but your own opinions for where that happens while we have God's obviously expressed view in His allowance of fraction transference.

>[MS]: Secondly, you claim to be defending the teachings of the Watchtower Society yet above you assert something contrary to an explicit teaching of the Society when they say of the Apostolic Decree "So there was not an imposing on Gentile Christians of a responsibility to conform to the Mosaic Law or some portion of it but, rather, there was a confirming of standards recognized prior to Moses." (United in Worship, page 149, 1983) A statement that the Apostolic Decree explicitly referred to the Mosaic CODE as explaining its application is contrary to the Society's doctrinal position....If you would imply that the Mosaic Law is still in force regarding blood then you are teaching a repudiation of faith in Jesus Christ.<

Neither I, the Society, the Apostles, nor Paul teach that the Mosaic Law is still in force. You are either misreading what I wrote or continuing your purposeful straw-man argumentation. Either way, you are misrepresenting what I said and falsely accusing me of teaching contrary to the Scriptures (and the WTS). And you also misrepresent the Society's position as being contrary to the explicit statement of Scripture. Acts 15:20,21 clearly shows that the Apostles did in fact refer to Moses' writings, including the Mosaic Law, as explaining the prohibition on blood (Cf. 2Tim.3:16; Rom.3:20; 7:7; Gal.3:19). The Society continues to cite the Mosaic Law to explain the extent of the application of the prohibition on blood because that Law was explicitly based on the Noachian principles. The Bible writers constantly quoted from the Mosaic Law to show Christians what was required. What the apostles wrote and I said was that the Mosaic Law clearly explained the extent of the blood prohibition. The blood prohibition was in force before the Mosaic Law, continued under the Law and was continued for Christians. There is no conflict between what I presented and what the Society teaches as can be seen from a comparison of what I wrote in context and then a quote from the Watchtower:

"To make sure that Christians understood the EXTENT required, the Apostolic Decree explicitly referred to the Mosaic code as explaining its application (Ac.15:20,21). In turn, the Mosaic Law was based on the same exact principle found in the Noachian mandate." "Even though there are no explicitly stated pre-Mosaic laws against fornication and idolatry, is there really any doubt as to the extent of the commands against fornication and idolatry? No, because we can examine how the original principle was applied under the Mosaic Law. As Paul said, the Law made it clear what was a violation of God's standards. Likewise, the Mosaic Law makes it clear to all true worshipers that accepting a blood transfusion is a direct violation of not only the explicit law not to eat blood but also the underlying principles."

"Christians are not under the Mosaic Law. But they realize that the command not to eat blood predated the Law;...In addition, the Mosaic Law helps us to see the reason for God's insistence on the sanctity of blood. After forbidding the Israelites to consume blood of any kind, God said: "The soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon the altar for you to make atonement for your souls, because it is the blood that makes atonement by the soul in it." (Leviticus 17:11)" --w95 1/15 p. 6

>[MS]: You write: >>[RR]: "The specific use addressed with Noah was the willful eating of blood to sustain life. I have seen no logical way to avoid the conclusion that transfusions are in fact "eating" and thus fall under every explicit scriptural statement prohibiting its use."<<

>[MS]: ...transfusing results in blood working as blood, not as food.<

I have already responded to this self-serving argument showing that it can only be maintained by a delusive choice of facts. Blood consists of nutrients, like iron, and carries nutrients, all of which serve to sustain and build the body. Certainly blood in transfusions are acting like blood, and it is an inescapable fact that blood, "acting as blood," serves an essential part in supplying the body nutrients and in building tissue. With just a cursory search of dictionaries, encyclopedias and other references your argument here proves to be factually deceptive. Here are some wide ranging results from a simple search:

What is "food"? All living things "can be said to have two major nutritional requirements: (1) compounds which are sources of energy; and (2) substances whose primary purpose is to fill a structural or functional need." "All higher animals require a number of preformed complex organic compounds in their diet for bare survival." Foods contribute in essential nutrients for tissue repair and growth, for heat and energy and the normal functioning of the body. Nutrients are chemical substances or compounds which make specific contributions to some phase of the body economy. Nutrients are such things as ascorbic acid, calcium, iron, and proteins. -See Ency. Britannica

"Proteins are vital to any living organism. They are the important constituent of tissues and cells of our body. They form an important component of muscles and other tissues and vital body fluids like blood. Proteins in the form of enzymes and hormones are concerned with a wide range of vital metabolic processes in the body. They supply body building material and make good the loss that occurs due to wear and tear. As antibodies, they help in defending the body against infection. Thus they are vital to living process and carry out a wide range of functions essential for sustenance of life. -From: JayDoc Histoweb, Blood Page, BIOL 238 Class Notes - The Blood

"Aged and damaged red cells are disposed of in the spleen and liver by macrophages. The globin is digested and the amino acids released into the blood for protein manufacture" -From: JayDoc Histoweb, Blood Page, BIOL 238 Class Notes - The Blood

"In protein deficiency, blood proteins are broken down by the body to supply the essential amino acid needs of tissues more crucial to life."

"Some iron is lost from the blood due to hemorrhage, menstruation, etc. and must be replaced from the diet...Apotransferrin is present in GI lining cells...It picks up iron from the GI tract...Once through the mucosal cell iron is carried in blood as transferrin to the liver and marrow. Iron leaves the transferrin molecule to bind to ferritin in these tissues."

"When red cells are destroyed into spleen, hemoglobin is subdivided into amino acids and heme, that is catabolized to bilirubin. Bilirubin is then bound to albumin (indirect bilirubin) and transported, through the portal vein, to the liver, where bilirubin is conjugated to glucuronides (direct bilirubin) and excreted in bile. Bilirubin reaches intestine where is partially reabsorbed." --Andrew Rinaldi MD, Description: Functions of the liver

>[MS]: Furthermore, a fact of nutrition you want to ignore is found in your favored example of transference from mother to unborn child. For a fact EVERY BIT of nutrition consumed by an unborn child comes from its mother's blood! How does this fact work under your supposed "testimony of God's creative works"? Given your contention of "testimony of God's creative works" it seems logic would indicate that gaining nutrition from blood is just fine.<

The only one ignoring facts here is you. This is another of your misrepresentations and irrelevant arguments. The very reason we limit our doctrine is because we know Jehovah allows fractioins/nutrients to pass from mother to fetus! Do you really think your comments through? This, then, has absolutely no effect on my position, but, it destroys yours. Are you now admitting that blood does serve as food, since it provides nutrients to the body? However, a fetus getting nutrition from its mother supplies no support for transfusion of blood or its major components. It only supports our position since 1) Jehovah approves of the transference of fractional material being passed between blood streams and 2) He allows blood from one entity to be processed, broken down and passed into another blood system. But, there is no transfer of blood between blood streams of the mother and fetus. The mother's blood carries nutrients which are processed through the placenta and then passed to the baby's own blood. But, then I really shouldn't have to point something as simple as that out to you. It seems your desperation to find some support is getting the best of any willingness to reason.

>[MS]: I suppose you have a mountain load of words for this one, too.<

Only enough to show the fallacy of your argument. More than would be necessary if you would read the information you already have a little more carefully. (As exemplified by your next argument.)

>[MS]: You write: >>[RR]: "The facts show that no one outside of Gods' covenant people held to the same standards as Noah did."<<

>[MS]: One word is enough to refute your statement above: Job...The Bible depicts Noah as faultless. The Bible depicts Job as blameless. There were other men too, as depicted in the Bible, which were not part of any special covenanted people yet were apparently faithful to Jehovah.<

As usual for you, we have here another misleading, straw-man, irrelevant and misrepresenting argument. No wonder you can't get the truth out of the Scriptures since you can't seem to keep the context of what you read in mind from one sentence to the other. As can be seen even from your partial quote the context of my words was dealing with the time of God's covenant people under the Mosaic Code, not with faithful individuals like Job in the pre-covenant times. Indeed, immediately before your quote I had said:

"Certainly. Noah, all other patriarchs and their offspring who truly "feared God" and "worked righteousness" by obeying Jehovah's commands and living in accord with His righteous principles were acceptable worshipers. However, in this account, "for the first time" SINCE THE INCEPTION OF ISRAEL, Jehovah "took notice" of these descendants of Noah..."

Then in response to your claim that ones in N. Amer. could not have "known MOSES OR ISRAEL" I said next:

"This Scripture does not say that DURING THE TIME OF THE MOSAIC ARRANGEMENT, descendants of Noah could be acceptable as true worshipers without association with Israel...DURING THE MOSAIC ARRANGEMENT Gentiles were left in "darkness," "ignorance" and "alienated" from true worship (Isa.42:7; 49:6; Lk.2:32; Ac.26:18; Rom.2:19; 11:30; Eph.2:11-12,19; 4:17-18; 1Pet.2:9,10)."

You are following the pattern of all who ignore Scriptural Truth when their arguments are revealed as fallacious and they cannot respond to the point. You resort to irrelevant accusations, and ripping the other person's words as well as Scriptures out of context. Respond to the scriptural facts I presented and stop trying to distract from them.

>[MS]: By the time of Israel whether there were other men and women who were living in parts of the earth way beyond possible knowledge of God's laws through Moses yet were still living according to God's decree to Noah is no more than idle speculation on your part. Indeed! There are no such "facts" to show as you assert. The statement of yours is not only error, it is self-serving presumptuous speculation.<

Of course, this was YOUR speculation originally, not mine! While you have offered not even a smidgen of evidence in the vast historical record to support your speculation, I do not have to speculate since I have explicit and clear testimony from the Scriptures for my view.

In keeping with the aim of this response I will point out that you have again resorted to a blatant distractive argument here. You have completely avoided responding to what I presented. You present your own personal assertions as if they were facts to distract from the insurmountable scriptural facts I presented. To prove my view concerning God's view of Gentiles living outside the Mosaic and Christian arrangement I cited more than 50 different Scriptures! You failed to respond to any of them. And you really expect others to believe your claim that "there are no such facts" to support my statement?? Amazing! If my view is "idle speculation" what does that make your's?!!

What is fallacious presumption is to say this clear Scriptural teaching is "error and speculation."

>[MS]: Finally, there's the subject of the principle you say exists in the Noachian decree that blood is sacred and therefore totally prohibited from our use. You can believe this principle exists as you say it does, if you want...However, no amount of words makes it true if it's not there...But were I to assert such an unwritten principle it would be me reading my own conclusions into the text<

Again, you just distract from the fact that the principle I refer to is WRITTEN. It is also explicitly confirmed as a principle which prohibits blood from our use in both Deuteronomy and Leviticus. When you previously tried to misconstrue Lev.17:11 I stated:

"Notice in Hebrew the conjunction KIY which is translated "for" and "because" in the NWT (Lev.17:11,14 [4x's]; Deut.12:23 [1x]). KIY is used to introduce the causal sentence or to explicate the basis for a statement (See BDB Lexicon, TWOT Strong's and Keil/Delitzsch). Therefore, these are explicit statements showing the *reason,* the *basis* for *why* blood was used on the altar and poured out....These verses four times state that they are not to eat or use blood BECAUSE life is in the blood-and God has placed blood on the alter to atone for their souls BECAUSE life is in the blood (Cf. De.12:23). We have one and only one basis for not using blood...It is exactly the same basis given to Noah for the prohibition against eating blood!!"

To deny that this Scriptural principle exists is beyond all reason.

>[MS]: Bible without a doubt underscores the value and sanctity of life just as it does blood, even to the point of us giving our own blood in behalf of another that he might live. (John 15:13)<

I will leave this last perversion of Scripture without comment since anyone can see what a mis-quote, misinterpretation, and misapplication it is. It just stands as a good example of what you have to resort to in order to support your rejection of Truth.

There is no need to reply to the remainder of your distractive arguments, deceptive use of and misinterpretations of Scripture. Enough is said that educated readers caring to analyze the discussion can determine what is false and what is true, what is solid and what is not, and whether specific life and death doctrinal positions are biblically valid.

>[MS]: Your brother,

Pro. 6:16-19; Gal. 2:4-5.

Yours,

Ron Rhoades