What is our scriptural basis for refusing transfusion of products rendered from blood?

[Srecko Sostar]

11 hours ago, George88 said:

Misinterpreting scripture and articles is not nonsensical, it is a factual error. Many individuals, including you, have proven this by consistently misrepresenting information. Thus, the fallacy resides in the failure to comprehend the true essence of "biblical context" as understood by the vast majority of intellectually engaged individuals.

This claim is completely unfounded. The book by Shepard that you are misinterpreting actually provides guidance that extends beyond legal implications, specifically addressing individuals who are compelled to accept blood transfusions. It focuses specifically on "whole blood" and its fundamental four components, rather than fragmented blood. 

Glossary

Misrepresentation

An untrue statement of fact or law made by Party A (or its agent) to Party B, which induces Party B to enter a contract with Party A thereby causing Party B loss. An action for misrepresentation can be brought in respect of a misrepresentation of fact or law.

There are three types of misrepresentation:

Fraudulent misrepresentation: where a false representation has been made knowingly, or without belief in its truth, or recklessly as to its truth.

Negligent misrepresentation: a representation made carelessly and in breach of duty owed by Party A to Party B to take reasonable care that the representation is accurate. If no "special relationship" exists, there may be a misrepresentation under section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 where a statement is made carelessly or without reasonable grounds for believing its truth.

Innocent misrepresentation: a representation that is neither fraudulent nor negligent.

The remedies for misrepresentation are rescission and/or damages. For fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, the claimant may claim rescission and damages. For innocent misrepresentation, the court has a discretion to award damages in lieu of rescission; the court cannot award both (see section 2(2) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967). For more information, see Practice note, Misrepresentation and Practice note, Damages for misrepresentation: an overview.

https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/9-107-6848?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true

 

Public materials that are readily available and visible to any JW or non-JW (WTJWorg's official digital content website) when viewed with prior knowledge of the Organization, exhibit all of these elements listed in the definition of "misrepresentation."

Once again briefly. JW brother Joshua clearly used the term "blood transfusion". He should know about all those blood finesse. So, in my opinion, he deliberately omitted to explain in detail what WTJWorg means by the term "blood transfusion", what is blood and what is not blood according to the GB interpretation.

He had all the time in the world to explain it to reporters and listeners. Since he did not do it in the clear and only correct way (the bare truth), it means that he DECEIVED (intentionally) the public when he spoke about the freedom of decision of JW members about "blood issue". 

JW lawyers and JW members do a similar thing in many courts when they give written or oral testimony in which they use "theoretical warfare" methods. 

About "Shepherd" book. If that book is so "public", conduct a member survey and ask how many have read the book (JW men, women and children).

 

[Srecko Sostar]

11 hours ago, George88 said:

Do you believe, If people in Jesus' time had read the ancient scrolls, they would have undoubtedly realized that the Pharisees were engaging in dishonest practices, regardless of their literacy levels.

GB says to people; read the Bible with the help of our publications and you will see  how Jesus trust us.

 

 

[Pudgy]

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

 …. JW lawyers and JW members do a similar thing in many courts when they give written or oral testimony in which they use "theoretical warfare" methods. 

About "Shepherd" book. If that book is so "public", conduct a member survey and ask how many have read the book (JW men, women and children).

[Pudgy]

…. um …. the phrase is “theocratic warfare”, where you are allowed to lie if you believe the “enemy” does not need to be told the truth.…. and apparently that includes the Brotherhood when it is deemed we are not entitled to the truth …. the “Shepherding the Flock of God” Elders Handbook being the classic example.

[Srecko Sostar]

9 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

…. um …. the phrase is “theocratic warfare”, where you are allowed to lie if you believe the “enemy” does not need to be told the truth.…. and apparently that includes the Brotherhood when it is deemed we are not entitled to the truth …. the “Shepherding the Flock of God” Elders Handbook being the classic example.

The use of the "theocratic war" method falls under the INSTRUCTION that comes from the GB. The decision as to whether to use it is not a suggestion left to so called individual "conscience". 

[Many Miles]

9 hours ago, Thinking said:

Jerusalem bible…Instructions given to Noah

Genesis 9:2-4 [2]Be the terror and the dread of all the animals on land and all the birds of heaven, of everything that moves on land and all the fish of the sea; they are placed in your hands. [3]Every living thing that moves will be yours to eat, no less than the foliage of the plants. I give you everything, [4]with this exception: you must not eat flesh with life, that is to say blood, in it.

Noah was NOT allowed to eat unbled meat..and to my knowledge you cannot bleed a dead animal….needless to say his descendants forgot their God and this law very quickly and I have no doubt drank blood and ate unbled meat.

Let's start simple, beginning with the text you quoted:

- Where in that text does it say anything whatsoever about carcasses of animals that had died of natural cause?

- For that matter, even prior to this, when had anything been said about carcasses of animals that had died of natural cause? (This could be a tricky one since prior to this the biblical record does say something about dead carcasses)

Then ask yourself these questions:

- Prior to the flood had God issued a prohibition against more than one edible?

- Was permission given in Eden to eat vegetation a prohibition against eating minerals of the earth, like salt?

- What is a body made of but minerals of the earth?

- If you have a lifeless body (non-soulical) what is that if not just formed elements of earth?

Then ask yourself what you can learn from the natural created world (Ps 19; Rom 1:20):

- In  the natural order of things we see around us in creation, what is the the process by which dead carcasses are made one with the earth again? Who or what does this?

Finally, from a logical perspective:

- Is the absence of permission evidence of a prohibition when there is no presence of a need for permission?

Get back with me after you think through these as base underpinnings for discussion. If you can think of additional base underpinnings please include those too.

 

[Pudgy]

…

 

[Many Miles]

9 hours ago, Thinking said:

1) why do you include Cornelius along with ones like Job…he was a new Christian thus come under the abstain and not eating the 

Cornelius was new to Christianity. But Cornelius was not a new worshiper of God.

There is an untenable misconception that once Judaism came to exist there were no worshipers of God otherwise, until Christianity came along. That was never the case. This was a revelation for Peter too. "At this Peter began to speak, and he said: 'Now I truly understand that God is not partial, but in every nation the man who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.'". (Ref Acts 10)

A person that was not a Jew did not have to convert to Judaism in order to worship God, unless they opted to do so.

Cornelius was not an adherent to Judaism (he was a true Gentile) yet he was a worshiper of God, and God recognized his worship aside from Judaism. God also recognized Cornelius' worship aside from Christianity. God acknowledged the acceptability of his worship even prior to baptism. (Acts 19)

All worshipers of God since the flood (which would include men like Cornelius) would have been obligated to keep the decree issued to Noah regarding blood. Yet, other than Jews, God did not require anyone to abstain from eating the unbled dead carcass of an animal found dead, such as is depicted at Deut 14:21. Non-Jewish worshipers could have literally purchased such meat from Jews, and specifically to eat it. Cornelius likely used such flesh as food at one point or another during his life. Whether he did or didn't does not even matter. What matters is that he could have if he wanted to because he was never prohibited from it. Such flesh is as edible as any other flesh or vegetation, so long as it's not become too contaminated with dangerous pathogens.

[Many Miles]

double post deleted

[Many Miles]

9 hours ago, Thinking said:

aaaah Miles..I really like you..but your dangerously wrong on this one..

Thinking, I didn't want you to think I overlooked this conclusion you shared. It's obvious we disagree. Just to be clear, I'm not offended by that, not that that should matter to you. If I'm wrong, as you suggest, I want to know it. But I want to know it for sure. This is why I pursued the discussion as I did in my post above. Insofar as I can read, there are some underpinnings of this subject I'm not convinced you've thought through. But, should you opt to pursue the discussion, we'll find out. Either way, thanks for the discussion.

[Srecko Sostar]

1 hour ago, Many Miles said:

Cornelius was new to Christianity. But Cornelius was not a new worshiper of God.

There is an untenable misconception that once Judaism came to exist there were no worshipers of God otherwise, until Christianity came along. That was never the case. This was a revelation for Peter too. "At this Peter began to speak, and he said: 'Now I truly understand that God is not partial, but in every nation the man who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.'". (Ref Acts 10)

Today, for the first time, I saw the true meaning of this passage from Acts. All the time I was a JW I thought that line, probably due to the influence of WTJWorg, meant that God is impartial in the context of accepting people to Christianity regardless of background. However, there was something hidden here that you have brilliantly revealed. Cornelius or any other individual outside of Judaism could have been accepted by God outside of the religio-legal system given through Moses.

However, we have one problem regarding Cornelius. WTJWorg refers to him as a "Jewish Proselyte" in its publications. Some other sources say that he was not a proselyte. That detail would be important to more easily determine its/his position with regard to the diet we are talking about.

[Many Miles]

33 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Today, for the first time, I saw the true meaning of this passage from Acts. All the time I was a JW I thought that line, probably due to the influence of WTJWorg, meant that God is impartial in the context of accepting people to Christianity regardless of background. However, there was something hidden here that you have brilliantly revealed. Cornelius or any other individual outside of Judaism could have been accepted by God outside of the religio-legal system given through Moses.

Job was outside the Judaic system, and potentially his life overlapped with Moses.

Elihu is another potential example.

But the most clear-cut example of this is Cornelius.

But biblical text, though following the Abrahamic line, does show God recognize conduct of all peoples, individuals or nations, as to whether these 'feared him and worked righteousness'. For example, God saw what was happening in Nineveh. He always knew who were the men like Noah, Job, Elihu or Cornelius. It didn't matter to him what nation they belonged to. What God looked for were men and woman who feared him and worked righteousness. Of course, he made a special case out of the sons of Israel for something greater to come, which was Jesus.

33 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

However, we have one problem regarding Cornelius. WTJWorg refers to him as a "Jewish Proselyte" in its publications. Some other sources say that he was not a proselyte. That detail would be important to more easily determine its/his position with regard to the diet we are talking about.

Can you point me to the most recent incident of the society referring to Cornelius as a proselyte? I'm not finding that.