>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
RESPOND 1
Marvin,
>[Shilmer]: The last few days I have looked over your comments on the Greek Theology (GT)
forum. Your correction of Roy's statement was correct because the Society's doctrinal position
does not assert that certain parts from blood are no longer blood. ...Better put, he should have
said, "It is this theology that asserts that certain blood components are [maybe] no longer blood
after they are extracted from blood�." Such a statement would have been precisely accurate.
Now on to your assertions.<
I debated whether to address this or not since, in practice, it is an irrelevant minutiae.
I think that it's important to keep in mind that whether blood fractions are or are not "still blood"
is not a decision or doctrinal position of the Society. Your adding "maybe" makes it more
accurate, but I don't think you maintain this throughout your comments. The Society's position is
that the matter of blood fractions is not directly resolved in Scripture and so this decision is
*outside* any definite doctrinal or theological decision by the Society.
Therefore the Witnesses' precise stand is that blood is sacred and not to be used for nourishment
(food). As "food," primary components definitely are "blood" according to Scripture. This
category as "food" is explicitly "Scriptural" and thus primary components are not to be taken into
our body. On the other hand, there is logical and scientific evidence that fractions ++do not fall
under the category of "food"++ or considered sacred by Jehovah. Since this modern knowledge
creates a "grey area" concerning the classification as food and whether they fall within the
principal of sacredness, *individuals* must determine this for themselves.
++[LATER NOTE: The argument concerning what constitutes "food" needs to be dropped.
Since fractions carry nutrients and can be metabolized in the GI track they can be considered
"food" by most definitions. At this point, it is impossible to find a commonly accepted definition
of what constitutes "food" which makes a demarcation between major blood components and
fractions. Therefore, I must concede and drop this secondary evidence. While viewing fractions as
food would further destroy the argument for permitting transfusions, it has no adverse effect on
our position since it was unneeded to begin with. We can only accept the scientific knowledge
that Jehovah allowed fractions to pass between blood systems and thus were not included in what
He considers "food" or sacred.]++
>[Shilmer]: One of those entries contains a comment I very much agree with when you say,
"�Christian theology should be primarily based on the Scriptures."... Your explanation were
likewise lacking for at least two reasons. 1) Because you failed to show scriptural support for
specifics of certain important assertions of yours and 2) one particular of your assertions
undermines your own conclusion.<
I always find it interesting when critics of the Christian stand on blood demand *specific*
"Scriptural" statements of doctrine or theological understandings. Witnesses do completely base
our doctrines and belief on clear Scriptural statements. However, a strict Scriptural stand would
not only undermine but would totally destroy your argument for allowing the use of primary
blood components. If we were to take a strict Scriptural position then we would not even allow
fractions or even molecules derived from blood to be taken into our body. The Scriptures clearly
state that we must abstain from blood! Scripture does not even imply any exception or use beyond
pouring on the ground. So, criticizing Witnesses for allowing personal decisions on the use of
blood fractions would have a more *Scriptural* basis than your criticizing them for not allowing
major components!
Yet, revealing the selfish, baseless reasoning of these critics, instead of criticizing the Society's
"relaxing" of the mandate, they instead want to blatantly ignore Scriptural law to one degree or
the other. And this without a single valid Scriptural reason for doing so. What a hypocritical stand!
My explanations were not "lacking" for the arguments presented by Roy. Obviously, they were
not designed to answer your present points.
>[Shilmer]: At Greek Theology you wrote [1]: >>[Ron] What has been determined is that it is
the decision of each individual to determine for themselves if blood fractions may be used. The
Scriptures simply state that "blood" belongs to Jehovah and must be considered sacred as
representing life. When the Scriptures were written this would be understood to include any part
of the blood recognizable at that time. They did not have the scientific means to recognize
fractions and microscopic particles known today...To Israelites and Christians, if it visibly came
from blood it was to be held sacred and avoided...The parts that they were able to separate by
cooking, drying, filtering and etc. would still be recognized as blood by first century Christians, IMHO.<<
>[Shilmer]: You asserted that "blood" belonging to Jehovah "would be understood to include
any part of the blood recognizable at that time." This assertion undermines the very thing you are
trying to defend, the Society's doctrinal position that there is some scriptural distinction between
some portions (or forms of parts of blood) of blood definitely being "blood" and other portions
(or forms of�) maybe not being "blood." How?<
Nothing here "undermines" the Witnesses' Scriptural position nor our Scriptural conclusions
regarding the application of the decree.
First, you are misapplying my words. I did not offer this as support or evidence for making a
distinction between "parts of blood" today. Quite the contrary, I was using it as an argument to
show that simply separating parts is not the basis for saying they are no longer "blood" which is
what Roy asserted. My words were specifically applied to identification of "blood" in *bible
times.* I then pointed out JW's do not take a *doctrinal stand* concerning use of "fractions" and
proceeded to give one evidence as a reason for this, which you cover below.
Also, you here arbitrarily attempted to make a technical specification out of my words while
ignoring that they are manifestly of a reasoning nature. The only "technical" specification we have
is the Scriptural "Abstain from blood."
I gave Roy logical reasoning which would be applied by Christians during all ages in avoiding
blood. If it were simply based on separation of parts, even today we would scripturally and
reasonably reject even the use of fractions. My point was a logical one: No individual who wished
to obey God would separate any part of blood and conclude that it was "no longer blood" simply
to sidestep the divine mandate. In the conversation with Roy I did not see the need to go into
detail on the Scriptural reasons that require us to reject use of major components since that was
not the thrust of his argument. (If you look at the discussions with Harold Holmyard you would
see more arguments addressing your points.)
The basis for our doctrine is explicit Scriptural statements. First, the primary and all encompassing
principle is that animal as well as human blood is sacred and, second, the specific application of
this principle to not use blood for food (bodily sustenance). Every possible use of any blood must
be in harmony with these two clear statements in scripture. The use of major blood components in
transfusions is obviously contrary to the specific command not to "eat" blood. Since eating animal
blood was specifically denounced as a violation of the sanctity of blood, eating human blood
would even be worse.
Primary components are obviously "blood," and are undeniably "food." Therefore, the doctrine
banning their use is soundly derived from Scripture. Conversely, since Jehovah allows fractions to
be passed between circulatory systems ++and the fact that non-cellular fractions do not seem to
be classed as a "food" both++ give evidence that perhaps they are not to be included in the ban.
++[LATER NOTE: The argument concerning what constitutes "food" needs to be dropped. See
above "NOTE:".++
>[Shilmer]: For your premise to work the Society's doctrinal position would have to look like
this:1) Whole plasma (the water) is definitely "blood" and 2) everything else together less the
plasma is "blood." 3) Anything less might not be "blood" therefore to abstain from it must be left
to each Christian. Since the Society's doctrinal position makes distinctions beyond this, then your
premise does not support it.<
No. Since you have misapplied my argument to a different facet of the issue your conclusion
regarding my "premise" here is useless.
The modern *doctrinal* position for all Christians looks like this: 1. "Abstain from the use of
blood." In modern times we are forced to recognize a further consideration: 2. When confronted
by modern scientific methods which identify ++non-food use of fractions and++ person to
person transference of these fractions in God's creation, we must admit there is reason to
conclude that these may not fall under the Scriptural ban to eat or against the principle of sanctity.
Since Scripture is silent on this, each individual must decide for himself concerning their use.
++[LATER NOTE: The mention of "non-food use" needs to be dropped. See above "NOTE:".++
While there is evidence logically excluding fractions derived from blood, similar evidence
excluding the primary components is completely lacking. Thus, there is absolutely no excuse for
the use of any major components in transfusions.
>[Shilmer]: "At the time" biblical characters had no way of recognizing parts of blood like red
cells, white cells and platelets any more than they could have recognized, for example,
hemoglobin from red cells. According to your premise, since these parts of blood could not have
been recognized then they must not have definitely been "blood" that Christians must have
abstained from. But let's keep looking over what you wrote to Roy, it gets more interesting.<
Again, you have misused my reasoning. I did not give this as an evidence for identifying what is
not blood, that is only a conclusion you have incorrectly insinuated into my argument. Your
conclusion is also illogical here since first century Christians' incapability in identifying
microscopic elements would not logically remove those elements from being "blood" for us. To
the contrary, what they did recognize included *everything* including fractions, so using your
reasoning we would also have to include fractions. However, I have provided you with the
Scriptural and scientific logic we have used to limit our doctrinal position to only major components.
>[Shilmer]: I read your other comments about transferals between a mother and her unborn via
the placenta, but, as you say and I agree, Christian theology should be primarily based on the
Scriptures. But let's look a bit at this situation anyway.<
Our doctrine is based completely on the Scriptures. Scripture also allows the use of reason to
reconcile "gray areas" and where there is no direct conflict with Scripture we can allow personal
choice. Scientific evidence concerning fractions places them in this doctrinal "grey area" where we
cannot prescribe a decision.
>[Shilmer]: In a nutshell your argument is that parts of blood that transfer naturally according to
Jehovah's creation are maybe not "blood" that we must abstain from since this process is naturally
occurring. Okay, even though this is not part of Jehovah's written word, the Bible, let's say we can
legitimately use this as testimony of the creative works, therefore by extension His word on the
matter. (Ps. 19:1-3) If we accept this testimony then we have to accept all of it. Have you ever
heard of diamniotic-monochorionic twins (DMT)? If not, I suggest you familiarize yourself with
the subject because it speaks to this issue just like the mother-to-unborn subject speaks to the
issue. In both cases we have a naturally occurring transfer in Jehovah's creation.<
"Legitimately use this as testimony of the creative works, therefore by extension His word on the
matter." This is very well put, I hope you don't mind if I plagiarize it sometime. :)
>[Shilmer]: DMT describes unborn twin babies that have their own placenta and their own
circulatory system but share some vessels between each other. Throughout the pregnancy whole
blood is transfused via these shared vessels back and forth between the two babies. So, though
each child has its own circulatory system (just as does a mother and her child) in the case of DMT
they actually transfuse whole blood back and forth throughout the pregnancy. Of course, when
whole blood is transfused between a mother and her unborn (as does sometime occur) this could
cause death because of rejection of foreign tissue. But the blood of these twins is identical
because they are identical twins; therefore the blood transfused back and forth does not usually
cause problems because it is perfectly matched just as creation would have it...Therefore with
DMT babies we have in creation a perfectly healthy and naturally occurring instance of whole
blood transfusion in the 85% of occurrences of DMT cases where there is no TTTS. If we follow
your premise that blood parts transferring naturally according to Jehovah's creation are maybe not
"blood" that we must abstain from since this process is naturally occurring, then we must
conclude that transfusion of whole blood is maybe not "blood" that we must abstain from because
we see it occurring naturally in cases of DMT babies.<
There are several valid reasons why this cannot be considered a parallel to anti-bodies/fractions
being passed from a mother to her baby. First, we are actually looking at essentially *one*
circulatory system not two as you assert. The blood is not removed from one and introduced into
a foreign blood stream, but "naturally" belongs to both twins. There is no interruption of the
corporeal circulation in utero. This being the case, we do not have a parallel to fractions being
passed between two disparate systems. This, then, can not be used to override or modify God's
command to abstain from blood, which when *removed* from its body can only be used for
sacrifice or poured on the ground. Therefore your example is not relevant.
As you note, even the DNA is identical in identical twins' blood as well as all inherited substances.
The fact that problems occur whenever major components of blood are passed from mother to
fetus only reinforces the decision to include major components in the Scriptural ban while
fractions may be reasonably excluded.
Since the above is true this second reason is largely unnecessary, but still reinforces the lack of
parallel in our examples. The question is whether DMT are a "normal part of God's creation, or
rather a defect. I think it can be argued that a "normal" twin pregnancy would be when the egg
separates early (by 3rd day) and both fetuses have separate amnions and chorions. In this view, a
shared chorion would be considered a departure from creative design and the result of
imperfection similar to the mingling of mother and baby's blood. Lending sound evidence for this
is the fact that progressively later (abnormal) separation of the egg leads to greater and greater
physical abnormalities and risks culminating in conjoined twins (after the twelfth day). If this
conclusion is correct, your example is definitely not parallel to the passing of fractions--an
undeniable part of creative design. There are no increased risks with fraction transference like
there is with shared vessels in DMT.
>[Shilmer]: Another argument you use has to do with the fact that the Mosaic Law did not allow
any use of blood by Israelites. While I agree with that statement, details of the Mosaic Law on
blood are not an automatic transfer to everyone else in God's eyes. (uw 148 par.6; 149 par. 8) Not
to be forgotten is the initial record of Jehovah issuing a prohibition on blood as found in the
Noachian Law. (Gen. 9) There is no biblical record that Noah or his descendants (other than Jews
later on) had to abstain from using blood other than abstaining from eating blood of animals killed
for food. (it1 344 par. 4; 345 par. 6).<
First, your limiting of the Noachian mandate to only animals which were killed is unscriptural and
illogical. Second, there doesn't have to be any further record. One statement was enough and was
clearly stated and understandable as it was written--both human and animal blood was sacred.
There is absolutely no record that Noah's descendants ever felt they could use blood in other
ways. So your conclusion is unscriptural, based only on *your* speculation.
Like a doctor looking only at the symptom and missing the cause, anyone trying to use the "only
from animals used for food" argument is missing, or distracting, from the real point. That is
*why* the ban on eating blood was given. Since blood was "life" it was sacred and thus only
God's. When a person keeps in mind the basic God given principle that blood is sacred, there is no
need for explicit statements banning each and every other use of blood. Recognition of the
sacredness of blood would deter any non-sacred use. The Mosaic code only continued this ban
and explicitly confirmed the extent of the ban.
Additionally, it is clear that while all animals were placed "in man's hand"--to be used as he
wished--blood was expressly removed from this prerogative. Humans were not given the
authority to use blood as they wished. All blood from living souls was to be considered sacred.
Since both animal and human blood was included as sacred in the Noachian covenantal ban, there
is no way a person could conclude that the sacredness of blood applied only to the blood of
animals which were killed for food. The blood was the soul in both man and animal. The soul-the
blood was only God's and the power to determine its use was His only. Therefore, any use of
blood by humans outside of God's expressed approval was unacceptable, whether it came from an
animal killed for food or removed from a living one. Human blood would be held as even more
sacred and not for general use! (The use of the plural pronoun, the generic Man and the explicit
statements that it included all future humans make it clear that it was given perpetually to all humanity.)
Because of the all encompassing sacredness of blood as "life" and its being removed from man's
control the burden is upon you to find some record of God's approval to use blood in any other
way. Without evidence of the express approval of God for other uses you are clearly acting on
your own opinion. On the other hand, the Mosaic Law given by God serves to Scripturally verify
this conclusion extending the Noachian mandate to mean total non-use of *all* blood.
While, your comment about details of the Mosaic Law not necessarily being transferred is
factually correct it is misapplied here. It ignores the fact that the Mosaic Law only perpetuated the
previous ban based on the same sacred principle "life is in the blood." (Cf. Deut.12:23 w/
Gen.9:4-5). The "pouring it on the ground" and its "use in sacrifices" is only stating a fact that
was already obvious to Noah's descendants. Then, the Apostolic Decree simply continued the
same ban, even explicitly referring to the Mosaic code as explaining its application (Ac.15:20,21)!
The connection of the Apostolic decree to the Noachian code is also soundly evidenced. In their
examination of what was required from the Mosaic Law, they came up with these "necessary
things." The only reason I can see for this determination is that they predated the Law, which,
involving blood was the covenant given Noah.
>[Shilmer]: Also not to be forgotten is that God himself set the standard of using animal parts
for practical uses, like clothing for the body. (Gen. 3:21) So for all we know from Adam onward
humans may have used blood for some practical uses just as they probably did with other portions
of an animal's dead body...<
An irrelevant argument, then an ignoring of Scriptural fact concerning the sacredness of blood,
then pure speculation unsupported by anything in Scripture! The first record of God's view on
blood showed blood was sacred. It said humans could use animals for food, clothes and etc. But,
he expressly excluded blood from being given "into man's hands" i.e., for his use. This is the
information God gave us and we are bound to it, not to speculation on whether Adam was given
explicit instructions on it.
>[Shilmer]: The problem with trying to tie the Mosaic Law to the Christian Apostolic Decree to
abstain from blood is this: 1) The Apostolic Decree only tells us to abstain from blood and things strangled.<
I see no Scriptural nor logical problem with viewing this as a *continuous* law given to God's
people from the time of Noah to present. The issue in Acts 15 was concerning the Mosaic Law
and the decree continued three of these laws on the explicit basis that they had been part of the
Mosaic Law (Ac.15:20-21). Not surprising, these also were all required prior to Moses which no
doubt helped determine what was universally required. To "abstain from blood" would accurately
convey the total prohibition inherent in the Noachian and Mosaic mandates.
>[Shilmer]: 2) From the Bible record we can say that Noah had to "abstain from blood." But
Noah did not have to completely abstain from blood as if God had prohibited any other use of it
other than eating the blood of animals killed for food.<
Other than your personal opinion, do you have any *Scriptural* evidence for this conclusion? Is
there any indication anywhere in the Bible that pre-exodus humans made use of blood in any way?
The very absence of any record in God's word of other uses of blood is revealing! As outlined
above, *every* Scriptural statement connected with the mandate given to Noah indicates that all
blood was sacred and not given to man to use. Every time God makes any statement concerning
blood it is presented as something which humans have no right to put to personal use except with
God's express approval.
>[Shilmer]: 3) From the Bible record we can also say that Jews from Moses time onward had to
"abstain from blood," but in God's eyes to a greater degree than anyone else. Jews had to
completely abstain from blood because, as you correctly assert, they had to pour out blood that
they were not using in atonement sacrifices. For Jews God had required a special, sacred use for
blood and he therefore required that Jews treat blood as sacred by not using it for anything other
than the sacred sacrifices he required of them. (Lev. 17:11,12)<
Only speculation can lead you to think the Jews had to abstain from blood to a "greater degree,"
or that it was made more sacred to them. You see the statement that they must "pour it on the
ground" and their blood sacrifices to be new developments. Though now codified, I see them only
as an obvious and direct continuation of blood sacrifices and of obedience to the Noachian
mandate. The fact is, that the *reason* Jews had to "abstain from blood" was because "life was in
the blood" ( Lev.17:11,14 ), exactly the same reason Noah was to abstain from blood
(Deut.12:23; Gen.9:4-5). So, scripturally, there is no way to separate the Noachian and Mosaic
mandates, or to see a change in the sacredness or use of blood. From Abel's sacrifice to the
Apostolic Decree, every Scriptural mention of blood use places it in exactly the same sacred
position. Added features of the Law code changed nothing in regard to sacredness or how blood
was disposed of or used.
Even granting your speculation on this would not help your view, since, if anything, the Apostolic
Decree not only reflects, but seemingly "intensifies" both the previous mandates. From association
with "food," to stressing the sacredness by requiring a complete unqualified "abstaining" with no
stated verb. For the Christian then, it still would mean absolutely no personal use of blood which
goes contrary to God's view of it as sacred.
>[Shilmer]: Since the Apostolic Decree only says to abstain from blood (and things strangled)
then how are we to know for sure if this prohibition applies as it did to Noah who was not under
the Mosaic Law or to Jews who were under the Mosaic Law? Unless we can prove that the
Christian Apostolic Decree puts us under provisions of the Mosaic Law related to blood
abstention then we cannot successfully argue that the Apostolic Decree is anything more than a
reiteration of the Noachian Law as it relates to blood abstention. None of your arguments have
done this.<
I think there is a lot of nonsense in this paragraph perpetuated by an acceptance of your
speculation and avoidance of seeing the clear and perpetual Scriptural reasons for the ban on
blood use. I don't think the all encompassing words "abstain from blood" are hard to understand
when the unity of Scripture is respected. The connection between the Noachian, Mosaic and
Apostolic law is obvious. Each reiteration of God's view inherently contained the same clear
message placing us under the same provision as the Mosaic and Noachian laws: "Life is in the
blood." Thus it is sacred to God and not for humans to determine its use. For every period God's
people would be able to use God's sacred view of "blood/life" to accurately determine the law's
application to any prevalent use of blood.
In the following arguments, your reasoning is deteriorating to the point of ridiculousness.
>[Shilmer]: I too have read your comments to the effect that the Apostolic Decree does "not
include a limitation to "eating," but seems to be an all encompassing command to "avoid blood.""
Like so many others you consistently draw a comparison between the decree to abstain from
blood being as weighty as that to abstain from fornication, as though they are both as categorical.
Is this true? Historically Christians can watch, feel of or think about blood without any
recrimination. On the other hand, Christians should not watch, feel of or think about fornication.
So the two abstentions are not perfect parallels...Therefore your assertion that the Apostolic
Decree does "not include a limitation to "eating," but seems to be an all encompassing command
to "avoid blood" is not evidenced unless you would assert that Christian should abstain from
watching blood, feeling of blood, thinking about blood, et al. Would you assert such a thing?
Could you prove such an assertion?<
The comparison with fornication and idolatry is not from us, but is explicit in the Scripture. Yes,
in regard to the things *referenced* here, the *abstentions* are equally categorical and perfect
parallels. Let's be reasonable and stick to what is here referenced. The mandate to "avoid blood,
things strangled, idolatry and fornication" reveals that all references are equally displeasing to
God. The context obviously is dealing with what is *displeasing* to Jehovah. The decree to
abstain from improper use of blood is as weighty as that of fornication or idolatry! What makes
you think we can think about doing anything displeasing to God "without recrimination?"
Separated from its roots in the Noachian and Mosaic Law certainly would make this decree
nonsensical and beyond understanding. But, that is what those who wish to sidestep doctrine
always attempt to do: foist some vagueness into the Scriptures and then they can feel free to
interpret it as they wish.
Just because there are some sanctioned uses of blood as opposed to any practice of fornication is
irrelevant to the issue. It is only logical to exclude those uses or thoughts which are sanctioned by
God. It is not logical to reason that because there are some valid uses for blood we can presume
to lessen the prohibition and arbitrarily invent our own uses. We do not modify the prohibition on
blood without clear evidence indicating God's will on the matter.
We can also "think of fornication" in reasoning on its terrible consequences. But, we cannot use
the excuse that because we can thus qualify the "abstain from fornication" mandate it is less
binding. That would be unreasonable and so is your reasoning concerning the command to abstain
from blood.
Your argument here is an unreasonable and illogical attempt to support your desired
understanding. Your failure to see what is meant in the "abstain from blood" is a result of your
improperly parsing the Scriptures detailing God's view of blood and its accepted use. Since blood
is sacred, we must avoid any use which is not somehow expressly sanctioned by God.
>[Shilmer]: By now you must think I am trying to pick on you, but this is not the case. Like any
other serious subject, I research as thoroughly as possible. I have read so much on this subject,
which has resulted in concerns I have raised that you are familiar with. Lately I found and
recognized that you have ability to draw conclusions based on sound argumentation, so I spent
some time to see if you had applied yourself to the subject of the Society's doctrinal position on
blood and offered reasoning that was helpful. I found what is addressed in this letter.<
I do not feel "picked on" nor do I have any problem with this type of discussions. What I do feel
is that there is something blocking your ability, or desire, to use the sacredness of blood principle
in discerning God's will regarding blood. As a course of *will* you seem to be strenuously
jumping through hoops in order to find some reason to ignore the mandate against blood and its
modern application.
>[Shilmer]: You may not believe this, ...I also have deep brotherly affection for our brotherhood.<
I already have made it clear what I feel regarding your "love" for our brotherhood. One who has
real love for the brotherhood would not publicly air his personal views which are contrary to the
decisions made by the manifest authority God has placed in the position of keeping the
congregation doctrinally pure. One who had real love would not allow his words to be posted on
apostate sites to undermine confidence in that true congregation.
>[Shilmer]: I ask for help on the subject I have addressed here with considerable time.<
I respect your questioning and searching for personal answers. The problem is not in seeking
answers, but how we do it and whether we accept the evidence. I have no problem with
discussing this subject with anyone.
You would not have earned my denunciation if you had privately approached others qualified to
answer your personal doubts. You would not have earned my censure if you had even remained
unconvinced, while continuing to humbly serve and work in supporting God's congregation.
I apologize for the time it took to respond, however my time is limited and as I indicated initially I
had prior e-mail discussions, more important priorities in family, congregation and full-time
ministry. Don't take it too personal, I also have not had time to post on GreekTheology or
Touchstone. Today I've caught up with two other overdue e-mail discussions and hopefully will
get to a third. So, maybe things will slow down.
Yours,
Ron Rhoades
[1] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/greektheology/message/6324
[4] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/greektheology/message/6351