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

[Thinking]

23 hours ago, Many Miles said:

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.

 

It doesn’t say anything about carcass already dead… because you will be eating them with blood..I don’t understand  how you don’t get  this ,…..but…I know they eventually did this…..but it wasn’t Jehovahs instructions to do so.

you are reading into it something that isn’t there….

Jehovah gave them all the trees and seed bearing vegetation to eat….I’m happy to be corrected on that……. good to look at and they could eat to their satisfaction..he also had rivers with water which no doubt gave them the minerals they needed..gold and onyx…was mention in the land when talking of the rivers in Eden ….

look if you want to eat carcass..go ahead but I dont see Jehovah condoning that anywhere in Eden……Jehovah gave good healthy living food…….a carcass  starts to rot and purify right at death…but I’m sure this was acceptable quickly after they left eden…as was every other detestable sin that Jehovah never spoke of specifically at the time.

But your argument( which is windy and windy for me )  on this doesn’t hold up for me…..and I cannot say more than I have.

But I enjoy many of your other posts….and I like you

[Thinking]

23 hours 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)

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.

Okay I get that bit now..thanks for the correction and over look any remarks concerning this….and I absolutely respect you and all the work you did within the org for Gods people …..as a side note we always call it a organization…I have never liked that  and I just call us Jehovahs people or family ….

[Srecko Sostar]

1 hour ago, George88 said:

As you rightly noted, the book serves as an invaluable guide for Elders to navigate various situations that may arise. It is crucial to acknowledge that Elders exercise discretion in matters concerning the congregation, as the Watchtower cannot possibly dictate every decision. After all, even imperfect human beings, like ourselves, make mistakes regularly. None of us can claim to be perfect in a flawless world. It is often those who are quick to criticize others that fail to recognize their own shortcomings. These individuals mistakenly assume their voice should hold authority, even though their understanding may lack wisdom and discernment.

Who should we trust and strive to emulate: the Pharisees or Christ?

Although I can agree with the assumption that some guidelines should exist for those who are required to implement such guidelines, we can hardly consider them "invaluable".
The reason, which you yourself confirm my opinion, is found in the continuation of your comment, when you talk again and again about "imperfections, mistakes" that are inherent in human organizations. So, if something is imperfect and with errors, then the "Shepherd" book is not "invaluable" in any sense. Especially, when these same elders, who have to implement the "guidelines of the Organization" (of lawyer's), cannot (should not) rely on their conscience, understanding and logic in some decisions.

[Pudgy]

Actually, I found the book “Shepherding The Flock Of God“ to be quite valuable.

I found absolutely nothing wrong with it, having read every word from cover to cover, although the part dealing about brazen conduct was creepy and a catchall for anything the Elders didn’t like, like when you confronted them with overreach.

”Brazen Conduct”. (?)

What I did not like is that it was top-secret. What I did not like is that sisters were not supposed to know of it’s existence, or touch it..

How would you feel if you were dragged into court for some traffic offense or some criminal offense and you wanted to know what you were charged with, and the court or the police said I’m sorry I’m not allowed to tell you what law you broke or to know in advance what they are, and you’re not allowed to know how the proceeding is going to go against you.

SURPRISE!!

And if you’re convicted it’s roughly the equivalent of being executed, Because you’ll be evicted from the Congregation from which is the source of life.

Secrecy ALWAYS begets tyranny! 

[Many Miles]

7 hours ago, Thinking said:

It doesn’t say anything about carcass already dead… because you will be eating them with blood..I don’t understand  how you don’t get  this ,…..but…I know they eventually did this…..but it wasn’t Jehovahs instructions to do so.

you are reading into it something that isn’t there….

There's that.

7 hours ago, Thinking said:

Okay I get that bit now..thanks for the correction and over look any remarks concerning this….

And, there's this.

Does this mean I have no need to respond to that?

Had I known you were Aussie, I'd have kept my work here to just a sentence or two at-a-time.

[Pudgy]

“Brazen Conduct” is one of those nebulous indefinite and non-defined terms that can in the hands of the inexperienced inflict TREMENDOUS damage to people with strong personalities.

Often with BRAZEN disregard for reality, or consequences.

 

[George88]

7 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

when you talk again and again about "imperfections, mistakes" that are inherent in human organizations. So, if something is imperfect and with errors, then the "Shepherd" book is not "invaluable" in any sense. Especially, when these same elders, who have to implement the "guidelines of the Organization" (of lawyer's), cannot (should not) rely on their conscience, understanding and logic in some decisions.

You constantly highlight all the negative aspects of the Org, yet fail to acknowledge the significance. Secular laws are subject to change, and this necessitates that Elders receive guidance to support their decision-making.

 

[George88]

I would have to say Daneil Webster was referring to the type of leaders the pharisees were and the conduct the Pharisees thought was negative for them about Jesus. It proves how scripture should be compared when dealing with leaders, and that it doesn't lead to pharisee ideology by its church members.

3 “Therefore, brethren, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this task. 4 “But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” 5 The statement found approval with the whole congregation; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch. 6 And these they brought before the apostles; and after praying, they laid their hands on them.

 

I will be surprised if that will ever be agreeable here.

[Pudgy]

That’s why the disingenuous create “upvote clones” to feed their egos. Transparent and silly , but it makes them feel valuable. 

[Srecko Sostar]

5 hours ago, George88 said:

You constantly highlight all the negative aspects of the Org, yet fail to acknowledge the significance. Secular laws are subject to change, and this necessitates that Elders receive guidance to support their decision-making.

 

Illustration. When WTJWorg builds KH and residential buildings, under what laws does it do so? Does it have a building internal manual just for JW workers? I guess it adheres to "secular" building regulations.

Biblical Law says that lawbreakers, even JW members, are subject to punishment by a "secular court", not a JW court. Why, then, did the WTJWorg Australia branch keep a record of law breakers and not report a single one to the authorities? Similar is in all other countries. Because the manual (Shepherd book) told them to call Bethel, and they told them, "keep it to yourself."

The "secular law" was not changed, and neither was the biblical law. Both laws say that "Caesar" should decide about crimes.

[Thinking]

8 hours ago, Many Miles said:

There's that.

And, there's this.

Does this mean I have no need to respond to that?

Had I known you were Aussie, I'd have kept my work here to just a sentence or two at-a-time.

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit….but that’s okay..I know it must be hard to know I licked ya!!

[George88]

4 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Illustration. When WTJWorg builds KH and residential buildings, under what laws does it do so? Does it have a building internal manual just for JW workers? I guess it adheres to "secular" building regulations.

Would it be more appropriate to construct synagogues or worship in tents to address your question? In my opinion, in a society governed by regulations, secular authorities would likely enforce codes and ordinances for the occupants to follow, but this is only my way of reasoning things out.

4 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Biblical Law says that lawbreakers, even JW members, are subject to punishment by a "secular court", not a JW court. Why, then, did the WTJWorg Australia branch keep a record of law breakers and not report a single one to the authorities? Similar is in all other countries. Because the manual (Shepherd book) told them to call Bethel, and they told them, "keep it to yourself."

The Elders actually have a list that covers a span of 65 years, documenting the actions of certain individuals, but not everyone. This is done while respecting the privacy laws of the respective governments. However, it is not accurate to claim that the Watchtower instructed anyone to keep this information to themselves. In fact, there was a situation in the Australian Royal Commission where at least one person, who was being investigated, insisted that secular authorities should not be contacted.

Address that situation.

4 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

The "secular law" was not changed, and neither was the biblical law. Both laws say that "Caesar" should decide about crimes.

This is incorrect as well. Secular laws were modified to accommodate the Australian Royal Commission (ARC). However, some territories in Australia still maintain clergy privileges that apply to "all" religions, not just a few. In matters of government, it's a matter of all or nothing, and the decision to protect the Vatican, just as the government did with "Pall", was made by Caesar, not the Watchtower.

Why haven't you challenged the ARC's decision to overlook Australia's detention centers and the government's readiness to apprehend and imprison doctors, nurses, or any whistleblowers who expose concerns regarding these institutions? Back then, a law was specifically passed for that very purpose.