>>>>>>>>>>

RESPONSE 4 (SUMMATION)

Marvin,

As a review of the primary arguments you have presented I have compiled this summation of our conversation. These are the pertinent points from my perspective, so if you feel that I have missed some primary argument feel free to let me know.

Your arguments have failed to counter the following Scriptural evidence proving that the use of blood in transfusions is prohibited:

Biblical texts provide adequate evidence showing that making use of *any* blood is prohibited because they teach: 1.) That blood is equated with life and thus incontestably sacred. Life is in the blood *while in living animals.* It doesn't become sacred due to the animal being killed. 2.) While God gave animals into man's hand as food, He retained blood of living creatures as His alone. Again, indisputably sacred. 3.) The very same texts show that human blood was viewed by God as even more sacred. 4.) Scripture explicitly prohibits eating blood and contains no limitation to only blood from killed animals. 5.) The law against eating animals which had died on their own demonstrates that it wasn't the killing which caused the prohibition. 6.) Scripture shows that due to life being in the blood it could only be poured out. 7.) The Apostolic decree continued the prohibition as stated in Moses' writings with the all-encompassing command to "abstain from blood" again with no limitation to only blood from dead animals. And, 8.) because the testimony of Scripture shows that humans understood that blood was sacred since they never used blood in any way which was not expressly approved by God.

>You argue against the Society's stand on fractions.<

In doing this you first ignore the fact that JW's do not take a *doctrinal stand* concerning use of fractions, but leave it to personal choice. Secondly, you ignore the fact that in criticizing the use of fractions you destroy your own argument for allowing the use of primary blood components in transfusions. Last, but not least, you offer absolutely no valid argument against the scriptural and logical evidence in creation which requires us to exclude fractions from our doctrinal prohibition.

>You claim that, like whole blood components, fractions equally serve as "food."<

This argument distracts from the fact that primary components are clearly "food" and thus transfusions are obviously contrary to the specific command not to "eat" blood. This argument ignores the fact that if fractions are food it would destroy any argument for transfusing blood and thus would only strengthen the doctrine against blood transfusions.

You give us a self-serving and inaccurate definition of "food" and then fail to respond to the scientific definitions of "food" which seem to exclude fractions from being classified as food.

++[LATER NOTE: My argument concerning what constitutes "food" needs to be dropped as inaccurate. 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.]++

>In an attempt to show the same use by Jehovah of whole blood you offer as evidence the occurrence of DMT.<

When it is shown that DMT is not parallel to the normal exchange of fractions between two separate circulatory systems, you offer no response outside of personal opinion.

>You claim that there is no "principle" presenting blood as sacred in the Noachian mandate but that "blood" is only used "illustratively," as a metaphor, for "life."<

This argument does not support your position since "blood" being used elsewhere as a metaphor for "life" in no way denies its sanctity, but only confirms it. Contrary to your assertion, "blood" is not used as a metaphor for "life" here in Genesis 9:4,5. "Blood" denotes the literal substance, while the word "soul" denotes "life." Since blood itself is equated with life and is withheld, "set apart" as God's, it is clearly sacred.

>You claim that the prohibition against blood does not apply to donor blood but only to animals which had been killed.<

This argument first misses, or distracts from, the basic principles governing *why* the ban on eating blood was given. That is, since blood in *living creatures* was equated with life and retained as God's alone it was sacred. Scripture contains no limitation to only blood from killed animals but specifically shows by its laws against eating already dead carcasses that it wasn't the killing which causes the prohibition. Then the Apostolic decree conclusively defined the prohibition from Moses' writings with the all-encompassing command to "abstain from blood," again with no limitation to only blood from dead animals. Thus sustaining life by eating blood from either living or dead animals is contrary to God's explicit statements concerning the sanctity of blood.

>You offer as evidence your opinion that Noah *could have* used blood for other purposes.<

This contradicts the plain Scriptural fact that blood was sacred and thus humans were not given the authority to use blood as they wished. Every Scriptural statement concerning blood presents it as something which humans have no right to put to personal use except with God's express approval. Since, there is absolutely no record that faithful descendants of Noah ever felt they could use blood in other ways your conclusion is unscriptural, based only on *your* speculation.

>You claim that the Mosaic Law demanded "higher" requirements for only the Israelites due to blood now being made sacred by its use in sacrifice.<

This argument ignores the scriptural fact that the Mosaic Law only perpetuated the previous ban based on the same sacred principle: "life is in the blood." It ignores that fact that blood was not made sacred by the command to use it in sacrifice, but rather, was used on the altar *because* of its sacred position representing "life" in God's eyes. It ignores the scriptural fact that the all inclusive prohibition against blood in the Apostolic Decree was specifically based on what was written in the Book of Moses concerning blood. Therefore, both the Mosaic and the Apostolic decrees unambiguously confirm the total prohibition inherent in the Noachian mandate and applies it to Christians.

Added requirements of the Law code changed nothing in regard to blood's sacredness, how it was disposed of or how it could be used. Blood being placed on the altar would not cause "higher requirements" than those already apparent in the controlling principles already enunciated to Noah. The *only* basis for the Law preventing people from using blood at all was due to its being life and only God's, i.e., sacred.

>You insist on an explicit command prohibiting any other uses of blood, including transfusions.<

The result of ignoring Scriptural principles is an unscriptural and illogical demand for an explicit "thou shall not" before admitting any prohibition. Demanding an explicit "thou shalt not" for every possible use of blood is ridiculous, infantile and manifests a spiritual blindness (1Cor.2:14-16). This idea is soundly refuted by the nature of principles and Scripture examples. It does not require a law specifying every possible infraction before one can be disobedient to God. Scriptural principles and statements revealing God's views are enough to create a prohibition without it being spelled out in written detail. God expects humans to use their God given intelligence to perceive what God approves of.

God did not keep from punishing those who should have ascertained laws from principles (Rom.1:20). Did Christ and the apostles feel there had to be a specifically stated code and consequences before there was a law binding upon God's people? (Mt.19:3-9; 1Tim.2:11-14; 1Jn.3:11, 12; 1Cor.2:14-16). What was the specific commands and stated consequences broken by the people destroyed at the flood? What was the specific law and its detailed consequences that Joseph was obeying so as not to "sin against God?" (Gen.2:24; 39:9).

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.

Ron