If the Watchtower believed the Trinity...

[Sparko]

I said that in the context of showing that to the Israelites the laws on blood were not merely dietary. They touched every aspect of their lives.

The prohibition for Christians is not dietary either. We are not under dietary laws but under the law of Christ and that of Christian principles.

To say that one interprets abstaining from blood in Acts is a dietary requirement is to place oneself under law again.

Additionally, the prohibition, while it exluded eating blood went much farther.

NRS Acts 15:29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols [idolatry] and from blood [using blood for any purpose] and from what is strangled [eating blood] and from fornication. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell."

For the Hebrews they were supposed to use blood in their sacrifices to God. But Christians are not to do even that because now it is Christ's blood that fulfills that purpose.

Therefore the prohibition includes even more than it did previously, abstaining from blood in every sense possible.

So then, how is it that JW's are now allowed to use fractional parts of blood then? Don't you have to handle and use the blood to fractionalize it? Isn't fractionalizing it "using blood?"

How about dialysis? JW's have no problem with using the blood by passing it through a machine to clean it. That's handling and using blood.

What about doctors taking blood to run tests on it? That's handling and using blood.


All these things are allowed by the Watchtower. Seems they are going against the bible, huh?

[Sparko]

Hmm, I can't think of one JW article that says if you sin you'll go to hell. What we do say is that if you practice sin, you will be destroyed.

"For if we practice sin WILLFULLY after having received the accurate knowledge...there is a certain fearful judgement."-Heb 10:26

A real bright observation there Sparko. About what I would expect of you. Ignore Jesus' words and keep saying "Well, I sin anyway so I can do what I want."

I can hear you now. "But Lord, Lord, did I not...in your name.?"

"I never knew you, get away from me you worker of lawlessness."

I'll let you debate with Jesus about how we all sin and he died for our sins and that you can do whatever you want.

First, I would argue that all sin is "willful" -- you always make the conscious decision to sin. eveyrone does. If you sin without knowing it, is it really a sin?

The bible talks about blithely disregarding sin and living in it as if it were not sin at all. For example: having an adulterous relationship and thinking it was fine. Or living a homosexual lifestyle and denying the bible says that it is a sin despite the clear teaching. In those cases I would say that person needs to seriously look at their life and see if they are truly Christian and merely in a state of denial (which can be rectified once they realize what they are doing) or not even really Christian at all.

As to eating blood, I think that if they KNOW the bible says that eating blood is wrong and they just disregard it, and say "who cares? I am going to do it anyway" then they are being disobedient and again, they need to look at their life and see if they are truly Christian or paying lip service.

But the underlying problem is not the sin, it is the relationship with God. Christians can be saved and still sin. But they realize that they are struggling with sin and ask God to help them stop and try to do better. If they don't and continue to glory in sin and call sin "good" then they probably need to search to see if they are even really Christians at all.

What if someone is an alcoholic and knows it is wrong and tries to stop, but slips up now and then and goes on a bender? Then he realizes he has done wrong and asks God to forgive him. But later, he messes up again? Can he not still be a Christian who is struggling with sin?

Compare that to a person who says they are Christian but sees nothing wrong with being an alcoholic and revels in staying drunk all the time. Not just taking a social drink once in a while, Staying blotto and thinking there is nothing wrong with it. They are probably fooling themselves as to their salvation.

See the diff?

[Sparko]

Really? Being "unclean" would mean you can't do something? Tell me, oh wise one, how did the Israelites have sex and make more children if that were so? Sex made an Israelite unclean. Are you saying that Cal is saying that sex was prohibited?

You guys read into words what is not there. No wonder you believe all the crazy stuff you do.

..says the guy who does that very thing right there for all to see...

[Cal_Minian]

So then, how is it that JW's are now allowed to use fractional parts of blood then? Don't you have to handle and use the blood to fractionalize it? Isn't fractionalizing it "using blood?"

How about dialysis? JW's have no problem with using the blood by passing it through a machine to clean it. That's handling and using blood.

What about doctors taking blood to run tests on it? That's handling and using blood.


All these things are allowed by the Watchtower. Seems they are going against the bible, huh?

You are again missing the point. The handling of blood was raised to show that the Mosaic law on blood was not merely dietary. In principle we would follow guidelines from the Mosaic law regarding blood because that is where the majority of texts discuss the issue.

That being said, dialysis does not entail removing the blood, storing it and re-using it. It stays in circulation.

As far as fractionizing the blood, a JW would probably not do that themselves. But if someone else does it and in the process changes it into something that is not "blood" then we are free to use our conscience to decide if it comes under prohibition according to Acts 15 which only covers blood. It is then an idividual conscience issue. Many JWs would not use fractions.

If blood is taken for medical testing it must be disposed of. If the Israelites butchered an animal they had to handle blood in order to dispose of it. They could handle blood in that circumstance because they were using it properly. The same principle would apply today in medical situations.


The Greek word rendered "abstain" in BDAG is "5. to avoid contact w. or use of someth., keep away, abstain, refrain from."

Regards,
Cal Minian

[Cal_Minian]

..says the guy who does that very thing right there for all to see...

We are no longer under law. So that does not apply. Those laws were not repeated for Christians in Acts 15.

[Sparko]

You are again missing the point. The handling of blood was raised to show that the Mosaic law on blood was not merely dietary. In principle we would follow guidelines from the Mosaic law regarding blood because that is where the majority of texts discuss the issue.

That being said, dialysis does not entail removing the blood, storing it and re-using it. It stays in circulation.

The technicians must handle the tubes and needles and will touch the blood. There is as much handling of blood in dialysis as there would be in transfusion. So now you have reduced the regulation to merely "storing" blood is wrong. So would it be OK to use a machine to transfer blood directly from one patient to another without storing it, since it would stay in circulation?

As far as fractionizing the blood, a JW would probably not do that themselves. But if someone else does it and in the process changes it into something that is not "blood" then we are free to use our conscience to decide if it comes under prohibition according to Acts 15 which only covers blood. It is then an idividual conscience issue. Many JWs would not use fractions.

So now you are saying it is OK for JW's to condone sin in other people and actually benefit from their sin (the handling of the blood and using it to fractionalize it). That's like saying it's OK to hire someone to steal for you, or kill someone you don't like and you would not be sinning because you didn't do the actual act.

If blood is taken for medical testing it must be disposed of. If the Israelites butchered an animal they had to handle blood in order to dispose of it. They could handle blood in that circumstance because they were using it properly. The same principle would apply today in medical situations.

So abstain doesn't mean handling or using? Then why can't blood transfusions follow under handling and using it properly in medical situations?

The Greek word rendered "abstain" in BDAG is "5. to avoid contact w. or use of someth., keep away, abstain, refrain from."

So now it does mean handling or using? Hmmm.

[Cal_Minian]

The technicians must handle the tubes and needles and will touch the blood. There is as much handling of blood in dialysis as there would be in transfusion. So now you have reduced the regulation to merely "storing" blood is wrong. So would it be OK to use a machine to transfer blood directly from one patient to another without storing it, since it would stay in circulation?


So now you are saying it is OK for JW's to condone sin in other people and actually benefit from their sin (the handling of the blood and using it to fractionalize it). That's like saying it's OK to hire someone to steal for you, or kill someone you don't like and you would not be sinning because you didn't do the actual act.

It was not a sin for Israelites to sell pigs to gentiles who would use it for food. They would keep the profits.

In your second example there was no provision for an Israelite to ingest blood themselves although they could properly use in in their sacrifices. This handling was not wrong. However even you admit that Acts 15 covers ingesting blood, so a Christian would never do this anyway or help someone to do this.

An Israelite would not have cooked a pig and made pork chops for the gentile either. But selling the pig and keeping the profits was ok.

So abstain doesn't mean handling or using? Then why can't blood transfusions follow under handling and using it properly in medical situations?

As I have shown, the Israelites did handle blood in order to dispose of it and also to use it in sacrifices.

So now it does mean handling or using? Hmmm.

As I have shown, the handling must be done for the proper purpose.

[NonTrinitarian]

First, I would argue that all sin is "willful" -- you always make the conscious decision to sin. eveyrone does. If you sin without knowing it, is it really a sin?

The bible talks about blithely disregarding sin and living in it as if it were not sin at all. For example: having an adulterous relationship and thinking it was fine. Or living a homosexual lifestyle and denying the bible says that it is a sin despite the clear teaching. In those cases I would say that person needs to seriously look at their life and see if they are truly Christian and merely in a state of denial (which can be rectified once they realize what they are doing) or not even really Christian at all.

As to eating blood, I think that if they KNOW the bible says that eating blood is wrong and they just disregard it, and say "who cares? I am going to do it anyway" then they are being disobedient and again, they need to look at their life and see if they are truly Christian or paying lip service.

But the underlying problem is not the sin, it is the relationship with God. Christians can be saved and still sin. But they realize that they are struggling with sin and ask God to help them stop and try to do better. If they don't and continue to glory in sin and call sin "good" then they probably need to search to see if they are even really Christians at all.

What if someone is an alcoholic and knows it is wrong and tries to stop, but slips up now and then and goes on a bender? Then he realizes he has done wrong and asks God to forgive him. But later, he messes up again? Can he not still be a Christian who is struggling with sin?

Compare that to a person who says they are Christian but sees nothing wrong with being an alcoholic and revels in staying drunk all the time. Not just taking a social drink once in a while, Staying blotto and thinking there is nothing wrong with it. They are probably fooling themselves as to their salvation.

See the diff?

Actually Sparko (sit down for this), I agree with what you said. I'm not sure where you thought I would disagree with you. Cal and I have always talked about this being willful sin. We know blood is wrong, just as an adulterous relationship is. The difference between JW's and most, if not all other religions, is we take sinning very seriously and don't just brush it off as "well, Jesus died for my sins so I will do what I want." We know we sin constantly (not always knowingly, BTW, there are scriptures that talk about that) but is it willfull? Are we using God's underserved kindness as an excuse for our conduct?

If someone put a gun to your child's head and said worship me or I will blow your kids head off, what would you do?

[Sparko]

Actually Sparko (sit down for this), I agree with what you said. I'm not sure where you thought I would disagree with you. Cal and I have always talked about this being willful sin. We know blood is wrong, just as an adulterous relationship is. The difference between JW's and most, if not all other religions, is we take sinning very seriously and don't just brush it off as "well, Jesus died for my sins so I will do what I want." We know we sin constantly (not always knowingly, BTW, there are scriptures that talk about that) but is it willfull? Are we using God's underserved kindness as an excuse for our conduct?

If someone put a gun to your child's head and said worship me or I will blow your kids head off, what would you do?

Take the gun away from him or die trying.

[Sparko]

It was not a sin for Israelites to sell pigs to gentiles who would use it for food. They would keep the profits.

In your second example there was no provision for an Israelite to ingest blood themselves although they could properly use in in their sacrifices. This handling was not wrong. However even you admit that Acts 15 covers ingesting blood, so a Christian would never do this anyway or help someone to do this.

An Israelite would not have cooked a pig and made pork chops for the gentile either. But selling the pig and keeping the profits was ok.

So you are saying that abstaining from blood is not a universal commandment given to all mankind but merely a law given to Jews and Gentiles, much like the pig laws. After all it was not a sin for Gentiles to eat pigs was it.

As far as I know the commandment against blood was a commandment for all mankind. It is universal, like murder or stealing. It was one of the Noahide laws if I recall.

If so, your argument fails. You are benefiting from the sin of another ON PURPOSE.

As I have shown, the Israelites did handle blood in order to dispose of it and also to use it in sacrifices.

Testing blood is not disposing of it. Disposing comes later. so testing would be using blood not abstaining from it.

As I have shown, the handling must be done for the proper purpose.

why is not saving a life a proper purpose? Even the Jews allow blood transfusions because saving a life trumps complete abstaining from blood. ApologiaNick started a thread in the Judaism area and that was their reply.

[Cal_Minian]

So you are saying that abstaining from blood is not a universal commandment given to all mankind but merely a law given to Jews and Gentiles, much like the pig laws. After all it was not a sin for Gentiles to eat pigs was it.

As far as I know the commandment against blood was a commandment for all mankind. It is universal, like murder or stealing. It was one of the Noahide laws if I recall.

If so, your argument fails. You are benefiting from the sin of another ON PURPOSE.


Testing blood is not disposing of it. Disposing comes later. so testing would be using blood not abstaining from it.

why is not saving a life a proper purpose? Even the Jews allow blood transfusions because saving a life trumps complete abstaining from blood. ApologiaNick started a thread in the Judaism area and that was their reply.

It has to do with the underlying principle behind why blood was sacred. The Hebrew says that life was in the blood and blood was life. The proper use of blood to an Israelite was not to sustain their life by injesting it.

The proper use of blood was to use it in a sacrifice which also saved their lives and also pre-figured the Messiah.

Now that the Messiah has come it is not needed anymore. Now it would be wrong for an Israelite to sacrifice using blood for their sins because that would be repudiating Christ's blood.

For both Isrealites and Christians ingesting blood to extend ones life would cheapen blood.... God still says to abstain from it and the only blood a Christian can use to extend their life is now Christ's blood.

Testing blood does not extend one's life. A treatment that might be given based upon that information might, but the testing itself does not extend one's life.

When the use of something is restricted, it becomes more valuable. It is Christ's blood alone to which Christians look for life.

Additionally since God is the life-giver, it is his right to restrict the use of blood which signifies life.

[NonTrinitarian]

Take the gun away from him or die trying.

Way to avoid the issue, Sparko. Let's suppose I'm in that situation and I refuse to worship this man and he kills my son. What would you say.

[Sparko]

It has to do with the underlying principle behind why blood was sacred. The Hebrew says that life was in the blood and blood was life. The proper use of blood to an Israelite was not to sustain their life by injesting it.

The proper use of blood was to use it in a sacrifice which also saved their lives and also pre-figured the Messiah.

Now that the Messiah has come it is not needed anymore. Now it would be wrong for an Israelite to sacrifice using blood for their sins because that would be repudiating Christ's blood.

For both Isrealites and Christians ingesting blood to extend ones life would cheapen blood.... God still says to abstain from it and the only blood a Christian can use to extend their life is now Christ's blood.

Testing blood does not extend one's life. A treatment that might be given based upon that information might, but the testing itself does not extend one's life.

When the use of something is restricted, it becomes more valuable. It is Christ's blood alone to which Christians look for life.

Additionally since God is the life-giver, it is his right to restrict the use of blood which signifies life.

That is the silliest series of rationalizations I have ever read. Testing blood does extends one's life. I have diabetes. If I dont' test my blood I will die. Testing blood exposes diseases that doctors can treat. Testing blood does more to extend life than any other use of blood.

Using blood to extend someone's life cheapen's blood? Puh-leeze. It is using blood for the purpose God made it, to give life.

*shakes head in disbelief at Cal's logic*

[Sparko]

Way to avoid the issue, Sparko. Let's suppose I'm in that situation and I refuse to worship this man and he kills my son. What would you say.

"Your son is dead, I am sorry for your loss. Is there anything I can do for you?"

[NonTrinitarian]

"Your son is dead, I am sorry for your loss. Is there anything I can do for you?"

OK, you're avoiding the issue and now have peaked my curiosity as to why. Let me create another scenario.

A man in a bullet proof room has a gun to your child's head and says he will kill your child in 10 seconds unless you bow down and worship him. You cannot grab the gun out of his hands, yada yada yada.

What will you do? Only two options
1.) Worship the man and save your child
2.) Not worship him and lose your child