JW Question

Originally posted by Conrau K
I am going to ignore pretty much your whole post because it fails to address any of my points. Again, I ask you why you think 'to abstain' means more than simply refraining from eating blood. Since this in fact has been the common reading throughout history, I believe you who are changing meanings here.

I am not asking for personal anecdotes, nor I am q ...[text shortened]... sking is for a phililogical justification for your interpretation of the prohibition on blood.

Oh my...
Not me, not the JW's not the President of the United States wrote what God said in the Bible and this is in your Bible, any bible. No one but God gave this law to man.
If you don't understand what this scripture says I don't know how to help you.
You either take it for what it says in black and white or you don't.

The point your missing is not only does it say not to "eat" blood as in an animal that was not properly bled but it futher says to just abstain from blood period. No execptions. Two individual statements are said here in this scripture about blood. Don't eat it and don't use it for anything else. Again no exceptions for it's use at this time.
So now this is where one would have to connect the dots of what this is commanding to not only myself but to any human that is wanting to follow any commands from god. You can't pick and choose what fits for you.

Acts 15:20
New American Standard Bible (NASB)

20 but that we write to them that they abstain from [a]things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled "and" from blood.

Originally posted by galveston75
Oh my...
Not me, not the JW's not the President of the United States wrote what God said in the Bible and this is in your Bible, any bible. No one but God gave this law to man.
If you don't understand what this scripture says I don't know how to help you.
You either take it for what it says in black and white or you don't.

The point your miss taminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled "and" from blood.

I asked this of Robbie a while back and he declined to answer but if the abstinence from blood is so wide in scope so as to include no exceptions then why don't you abstain from your own blood!?
Clearly this is an exception, and presumably you'd justify it by saying you need your own blood to survive. but with this the case then in the same respect often people need other people's blood to survive also (through transfusion); and so how do you differentiate the gravity of one exclusion from another given they both apply to the same context: preservation of life?

Originally posted by galveston75
Oh my...
Not me, not the JW's not the President of the United States wrote what God said in the Bible and this is in your Bible, any bible. No one but God gave this law to man.
If you don't understand what this scripture says I don't know how to help you.
You either take it for what it says in black and white or you don't.

The point your miss ...[text shortened]... taminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled "and" from blood.

If you don't understand what this scripture says I don't know how to help you.
You either take it for what it says in black and white or you don't.

I do understand what the Scripture means. I expect I understand it a lot more than you do, having undertaken extensive study in classics and considered these issues over many years. Again, I am simply asking you to defend your interpretation of the word 'abtain'. I am quite certain I know what it means; I doubt you understand it at all or otherwise you would attempt a direct counterargument.

The point your missing is not only does it say not to "eat" blood as in an animal that was not properly bled but it futher says to just abstain from blood period. No execptions. Two individual statements are said here in this scripture about blood. Don't eat it and don't use it for anything else. Again no exceptions for it's use at this time.

Again, I do not see how 'abstain' means anything other than 'not eat'. Presumably the apostles were not referring to medical doctors or animal-slaughterers, who would both as part of their jobs come into contact with blood.

Also, if I understand you correctly, you believe that the Scripture instructs Christians both to not eat and to abstain. If you reread the Scripture, you will find that it only refers to abstaining from sacrifices, blood and strangled meat.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b] If you don't understand what this scripture says I don't know how to help you.
You either take it for what it says in black and white or you don't.

I do understand what the Scripture means. I expect I understand it a lot more than you do, having undertaken extensive study in classics and considered these issues over many years. Again, I ...[text shortened]... find that it only refers to abstaining from sacrifices, blood and strangled meat.[/b]

Sorry but I've expalined this in the clearest way possible.

What gets me though about you who used to be a Christian and for those who say they are, is you don't see that your siding with atheist but on a smaller scale. There goal is to completely discredit the Bible and all that God has said and given to us.
But nominal Christians tend to ignor some of the basic laws in the Bible such as ABSTAIN from blood on any level. God never said in YOUR bible that there would be any exceptions.
So in my eyes these nominal Christians are no better then an atheist when it comes to spiritual matters.

Originally posted by Agerg
I asked this of Robbie a while back and he declined to answer but if the abstinence from blood is so wide in scope so as to include no exceptions then why don't you abstain from your own blood!?
Clearly this is an exception, and presumably you'd justify it by saying you need your own blood to survive. but with this the case then in the same respect often peo ...[text shortened]... f one exclusion from another given they both apply to the same context: preservation of life?

Is this a serious question? Really?

Originally posted by galveston75
Is this a serious question? Really?

As I'm criticising the scope of "abstain" in your usage then yes it is a serious question. The justification you give for JW policy is incoherent, indeed your interpretation of "abstain" is simply ridiculous. I asked a question that seeks to highlight the insanity in your "reasoning". Let me remind you what you said:

"The point your missing is not only does it say not to "eat" blood as in an animal that was not properly bled but it futher says to just abstain from blood period. No execptions. Two individual statements are said here in this scripture about blood. Don't eat it and don't use it for anything else. Again no exceptions for it's use at this time."
From this I can rightfully infer also that we should all abstain from our own blood (that is unless I disagree with you - which of course is true).

Now assume, for argument sake, that this point of contention is the one and obstacle to me throwing away my atheism and joining your ranks - and then give me a proper answer.

Originally posted by Agerg
As I'm criticising the scope of "abstain" in your usage then yes it is a serious question. The justification you give for JW policy is incoherent, indeed your interpretation of "abstain" is simply ridiculous. I asked a question that seeks to highlight the insanity in your "reasoning". Let me remind you what you said:

[i]"The point your missing is not only d ...[text shortened]... hrowing away my atheism and joining your ranks - and then give me a proper answer.

I just had my wife read your last question to me and she laughed as she left the room...
I'm still laughing to, sorry. But anyway if your doctor told you to abstain from penicillin, how would you understand the meaning of that order from him?

Originally posted by galveston75
Sorry but I've expalined this in the clearest way possible.

What gets me though about you who used to be a Christian and for those who say they are, is you don't see that your siding with atheist but on a smaller scale. There goal is to completely discredit the Bible and all that God has said and given to us.
But nominal Christians tend to ignor so ...[text shortened]... yes these nominal Christians are no better then an atheist when it comes to spiritual matters.

You certainly have explained a lot. You have explained how this is an emotional issue and you have explained that God's laws must be obeyed even when it imperils the adherer. Since however neither of these points are relevant to the question I posed to you, you obviously have no answer to my reasonable request to explain what the word 'abstain' means. But then again, you are a JW and any matter of the slightest intellectual character is likely to be beyond you.

Originally posted by galveston75
I just had my wife read your last question to me and she laughed as she left the room...
I'm still laughing to, sorry. But anyway if your doctor told you to abstain from penicillin, how would you understand the meaning of that order from him?

But a doctor wouldn't ask you to abstain from penicillin. That's exactly the point. 'Abstaining' is not the right term in a medical context. 'Abstinence' at least in English has a religious feel to it, usually referring to temperence from eating certain foods or engaging in sexual activity. That's why I don't think that Acts 15.29 could at all be referring to anything other than the consumption of blood.

Originally posted by galveston75
I just had my wife read your last question to me and she laughed as she left the room...
I'm still laughing to, sorry. But anyway if your doctor told you to abstain from penicillin, how would you understand the meaning of that order from him?

It appears I'm wasting my time with you - and I second ConrauK's answer to your question. Also you still haven't answered mine - indeed I doubt you even see the point I'm contending as is evident with your refusal to acknowledge ConrauK who approaches it from a different angle than mine.

Originally posted by Conrau K
You certainly have explained a lot. You have explained how this is an emotional issue and you have explained that God's laws must be obeyed even when it imperils the adherer. Since however neither of these points are relevant to the question I posed to you, you obviously have no answer to my reasonable request to explain what the word 'abstain' means. But t ...[text shortened]... u are a JW and any matter of the slightest intellectual character is likely to be beyond you.

Well I would suggest you inlighten me oh wise one. Or maybe you should go back thru these postings and see the answer that has been given by me. I've even shown the explinations from outside sources. So maybe you've just missed them?
But my view of you is you don't ever accept what the Bible says in everyday black and white, take it for what it says, but instead try to find these mysterious and vague meanings that are not there. Sounds like a cop out to me and someone who loves to brag about their higher education. I know what the bible says about that also as in God laughs at that man made egotistic mindset.
Sorry.... just my opinion.

Originally posted by Agerg
It appears I'm wasting my time with you - and I second ConrauK's answer to your question. You still haven't answered mine.

You got it......

Originally posted by Conrau K
But a doctor wouldn't ask you to abstain from penicillin. That's exactly the point. 'Abstaining' is not the right term in a medical context. 'Abstinence' at least in English has a religious feel to it, usually referring to temperence from eating certain foods or engaging in sexual activity. That's why I don't think that Acts 15.29 could at all be referring to anything other than the consumption of blood.

Well sorry "your" opinion of that command doesn't make sense to you. So if you were told to abstain from sex, what is your concept of that command?

Originally posted by galveston75
Well I would suggest you inlighten me oh wise one. Or maybe you should go back thru these postings and see the answer that has been given by me. I've even shown the explinations from outside sources. So maybe you've just missed them?
But my view of you is you don't ever accept what the Bible says in everyday black and white, take it for what it says, b ...[text shortened]... t that also as in God laughs at that man made egotistic mindset.
Sorry.... just my opinion.

Just because a meaning is clear to you, does not mean that it is the 'black and white' meaning. Your interpretation of this passage is mediated by JW indoctrination which prevents any objective reading. We do not abstain from cars, televisions, computers, parks or meadows. We do not abstain from prayer. We do not abstain from breathing. We do not abstain from talking. There are many instances in which 'abstinence' would be an inappropriate word. When we talk about abstinence, we generally only refer to food or, as I pointed out, sex. So why should abstaining from blood refer to anything more than the consumption of blood? It's an easy question. You dodge it only because a rational explanation escapes you.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Just because a meaning is clear to you, does not mean that it is the 'black and white' meaning. Your interpretation of this passage is mediated by JW indoctrination which prevents any objective reading. We do not abstain from cars, televisions, computers, parks or meadows. We do not abstain from prayer. We do not abstain from breathing. We do not abstain fr ...[text shortened]... blood? It's an easy question. You dodge it only because a rational explanation escapes you.

Read the scripture very, very slowly.... It mentions food does it not? Then it says blood by itself does it not?