JW organization.

[Elijah John]

Jehovah's Witnesses are not allowed to:

-vote
-celebrate birthdays
-celebrate Christmas or Easter
-donate or receive blood transfusions.

And if any JW openly persists in doing these things[edit to add publicly], they will be shunned or disfellowshipped, [edit to add or otherwise admonished or disciplined.]

For debate,

1) what do any of these check-list prohibitions have to do with Christianity?

2) And are any of these prohibitions compatible with the idea of Christian freedom?

3) Are these prohibitions arbitrary or legalistic?

4) And could Jehvoah's Witness as an organization flourish without these particular prohibitions and still honor God?

Please address any or all of the above.

[onewithhim]

It's the individual's blood and no one else has the right to take it.

Then it is the individuals right to give their blood.

No, it is sacred to God, and it belongs in the individual's body that originally has produced it. How do you figure that it's OK for a person to give their blood when their blood is designed for them and must stay in them?


.

[onewithhim]

Jehovah's Witnesses are not allowed to:

-vote
-celebrate birthdays
-celebrate Christmas or Easter
-donate or receive blood transfusions.

And if any JW openly persists in doing these things[edit to add publicly], they will be shunned or disfellowshipped, [edit to add or otherwise admonished or disciplined.]

For debate,

1) what do any of these check-list prohibitions have to do with Christianity?

2) And are any of these prohibitions compatible with the idea of Christian freedom?

3) Are these prohibitions arbitrary or legalistic?

4) And could Jehvoah's Witness as an organization flourish without these particular prohibitions and still honor God?

Please address any or all of the above.

1) What do any of these prohibitions have to do with Christianity? Answer:

-Voting: Christians do not vote because Jesus Christ is our King/president/governor/chancellor/whatever and we place our hope only in his rule. Christians also know that this world is run by Satan (IJohn 5:19), so why would we join in with its politics? (See also James 4:4; John 17:14; Eccles.8:9; Psalm 146:3.)

-Celebrating birthdays: The early Christians and the Jews of early times did not celebrate birthdays. "The notion of a birthday festival was far from the ideas of the Christians of this period in general." (The History of the Christian Religion and Church, During the Three First Centuries, New York, 1838, Augustus Neander (translated by Henry John Rose, pg 190.) "The later Hebrews looked on the celebration of birthdays as a part of idolatrous worship, a view which would be abundantly confirmed by what they saw of the common observances associated with these days." (The Imperial Bible-Dictionary, London, 1874, edited by Patrick Fairbairn, Vol.I, pg 225.) "The various customs with which people today celebrate their birthdays have a long history. Their origins lie in the realm of magic and religion. The customs of offering congratulations, presenting gifts and celebrating---complete with lighted candles---in ancient times were meant to protect the birthday celebrant from the demons and to ensure his security for the coming year....Down to the fourth century Christianity rejected the birthday celebration as a pagan custom." (Schwabische Zeitung, April 3/4, 1981, pg 4) "The Greeks believed that everyone had a protective spirit or daemon who attended his birth and watched over him in life. This spirit had a mystic relation with the god on whose birthday the individual was born. The Romans also subscribed to this idea....This notion was carried down in human belief and is reflected in the guardian angel, the fairy godmother and the patron saint....The custom of lighted candles on the cakes started with the Greeks....Honey cakes round as the moon and lit with tapers were placed on the temple altars of [Artemis]....Birthday candles, in folk belief, are endowed with special magic for granting wishes." (The Lore of Birthdays, New York, 1952, Ralph and Adelin Linton, pp.8,18-20.)

Wouldn't true Christians feel the need to extricate themselves from such observances? If Christ is the truth (John 14:6), would we mix in UNtruths with our worship of God? (2Corinthians 6:14-17) The bottom line is this: Wholesome gatherings of family and friends AT OTHER TIMES to eat and drink and rejoice are not objectionable.


-Celebrating Christmas or Easter: Christians do not celebrate Christmas because, as M'Clintock and Strong's Cyclopoedia says: "The observance of Christmas is not of divine appointment, nor is it of New Testament origin. The day of Christ's birth cannot be ascertained from the N.T., or, indeed, from any other source." (New York, 1871, Vol.II, p.276.) The Encyclopedia Americana says: "The reason for establishing December 25 as Cjristmas is somewhat obscure, but it is usually held that the day was chosen to correspond to pagan festivals that took place around the time of the winter solstice, when the days begin to lengthen, to celebrate the 'rebirth of the sun.' [The Roman Saturnalia; dies natalis Solis Invicti]...Christmas originated at a time when the cult of the sun was particularly strong at Rome." (1967, Vol.III, p. 656.) What about the "Wise Men" following the star? Those guys were magi---ASTROLOGERS from the East, and the practice of astrology is strongly disapproved in the Bible. Would God have led to the newborn Jesus persons whose practices He condemned? There are other reasons as well that a Christian who appreciated truth and Godly principles would not participate in a celebration with pagan traditions, mixing the truth of Christ with falsehoods.

As for Easter: The Encyclopedia Britannica says: "There is no indication of the observance of the Easter festival in the New Testament, or in the writings of the apostolic Fathers. The sanctity of special times was an idea ABSENT from the minds of the first Christians." (1910, Vol.VIII, p.828.) The Catholic Encyclopedia tells us: "A great many pagan customs, celebrating the return of Spring, gravitated to Easter. The egg is the emblem of the germinating life of early Spring....The rabbit is a pagan symbol and has always been an emblem of fertility." (1913, Vol.V, p.227.) Need I say more about the pagan trappings of Easter, and why Christians would not get involved in it?


-Donating or receiving blood transfusions: Christians do not give blood or take blood into their bodies because of a Scriptural command (Genesis 9:4; Acts 15:20,29)---blood being sacred to God---and this position is proven correct even in scientific terms by modern medicine. Blood transfusions are old-school, passe, out-of-date, and are held on to by many doctors and hospitals because of the costliness of it and the money blood brings in to their own coffers. In reality it is a ruse to get people's money. Blood substitutes are much more efficient; they cost less, have no side effects, and the patient recovers more quickly. See the following for further information on Bloodless Medicine:


www.hopkinsmedicine.org/bloodless_medicine_surgery

www.upmc.com/Services/patient-blood-man ... ntact.aspx

https://www.pennmedicine.org/for-patien ... e-medicine


Why would conscientious Christians submit to taking someone else's blood into their bodies when (1) the Bible forbids it, and (2) there are many substitutes that are risk-free?

To Elijah John:

I moved this up so that there is no mistake about when or how I answered all of your questions from your OP.

I admit, I hoped for and expected a better response from you.

[onewithhim]

I think the others have addressed the issue of the blood quite well.

I disagree.

Nobody has addressed the issue that the prohibition is indeed in the Christiand Greek Scriptures (New Testament) so that even though the Hebrew prophibitions may not apply the fact that it was explicitly mentioned to Christians in the Christian bible stands.

Nobody has addressed the issue that the bible doesn't say "don't drink blood" but rather ABSTAIN from blood and that to abstain (by any dictionary definition) would cover all means of getting that substance into the body, whether by injesting it or by transfusing it through a tube.


JW

Sorry, that verse is referring to the eating (or drinking) of blood not to any medical procedure.

I suppose one could interpret transfusions as "ingesting" but that is a stretch, and an example of the linguistic gymnastics literalists often employ in order to support their interpretations.

In this case to the detriment of common sense and life-saving procedures.

I side with postroad, William and hoghead1 on this matter.

This is an excellent case of your group's over-reading and literalism, and the dangerous consequences such interpretations may lead to.

Did you actually view the short video the JW posted about blood? If your doctor said to you to abstain from blood, would you inject it into your veins? Where is the common sense here?

There was no medical procedure in ancient times comparable to our transfusion abilities today. How could God say anything about medical procedures to the ancients? To "not eat" or "abstain from" was in itself quite clear as a prohibition.

It has also been said that there are substitutes that work even better. You didn't click on my links, did you? Why bother to refute an argument if you haven't even heard all of that argument? The medical community itself is telling people that bloodless medicine is a good way to go!


.

[onewithhim]

Definition of ABSTAIN:


"To keep from; to voluntarily do without."




(Webster's New World Dictionary With Student Handbook)

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 190 by onewithhim]

If their blood is designed just for them and so must stay in them, how come transfusions work and are medically necessary? How come the Society approves of organ transplants? By the same logic, weren't our organs designed for us and designed to stay in us? After all, blood is technically an organ. In short, your whole argument makes no real sense.

[JehovahsWitness]

Definition of ABSTAIN:


"To keep from; to voluntarily do without."




(Webster's New World Dictionary With Student Handbook)

I have referred to the dictionary definition of the words in the text several times onewithhim, it seems to me that this is being overlooked. The bible makes a clear prohibition on the use of blood. JWs simply obey.

[polonius]

Definition of ABSTAIN:


"To keep from; to voluntarily do without."




(Webster's New World Dictionary With Student Handbook)

I have referred to the dictionary definition of the words in the text several times onewithhim, it seems to me that this is being overlooked. The bible makes a clear prohibition on the use of blood. JWs simply obey.

AGAIN MT QUESTION:

Are JW's forbidden to eat a steak (contains blood)?

[William]

You do not have the right to claim that the bible is the word of god...

Do I have the right to claim I believe the bible is the word of God?

You can claim to believe anything. That in itself is besides the point.

In any case, Jehovah's Witnesses take the bible to be the final authority on matters of faith. We believe we have the right to do so and the right to say this in public. If saying so on this forum breaks any rules I will bow to the moderators indication.

Merely claiming that you follow the bible does not in itself win you any argument or make your position that much stronger than anyone else.

I'm sure you can agree to that, no?

I have already presented scriptural rationale for our position on blood; people are of course free to accept it or reject it as they wish, but that it is our position is a fact.

I am not arguing that your position is a fact or fiction. That is besides the point.
Merely claiming that you follow scriptural rationale does not in itself win you any argument or make your position that much stronger than anyone else.

I'm sure you can agree to that, no?

Why do Jehovah's Witnesses not accept blood transfusions?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 245#841245

As such, do you (and the organisation general) have any issue with the idea that Jesus would have no problem with anyone giving blood?


If 'Yes' then please explain why this is so.

If 'No', then please explain why JWs put more weight and emphasis on the rules of the organisation that they do on what Jesus would say about the matter.

Any questions you fail to answer or otherwise skirt around, can be treated as a loss of argument, at least until such time as you either provide an answer or concede.

[JehovahsWitness]

AGAIN MT QUESTION:

Are JW's forbidden to eat a steak (contains blood)?

I have never read any mention of steak in any of our literature. If you have feel free to share it with me.

For your information...




EXTRACT: The red juice that often collects in a package of red meat is not blood, as many assume. Most of the blood is removed during processing and any that remains is usually contained within the muscle tissue.

The red liquid, instead, is a mixture of water and a protein called myoglobin, whose purpose is to help ship oxygen to muscle cells. Myoglobin is deeply pigmented, which is why the more myoglobin a meat contains, the darker (or redder) the meat will be.

Further reading: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/artic ... -meat.aspx

[William]

It's the individual's blood and no one else has the right to take it.

Then it is the individuals right to give their blood.

No, it is sacred to God, and it belongs in the individual's body that originally has produced it.

So it is sacred to the individual.

How do you figure that it's OK for a person to give their blood when their blood is designed for them and must stay in them?

Because for any amount of reasons blood does not always stay in the persons body. Also because sometimes blood from one body has helped another body to continue on.

Now I can certainly understand the desire to remain clean and appreciate the fear involved with dirty blood - indeed, I can even connect the dots in that department to understand why people would have observed a connection and how this eventually morphed itself into a 'command from a god' (gods are great in that way - they can be used to inspire fear as a means of protecting the herd) and if there are less risky ways of getting around the need for blood in surgery, this would be great argument against giving or receiving blood. No need to do so because the bible apparently informs you that 'god regards blood as sacred' when it appears the argument is really about common sense in relation to health and healthy practice.

That being said, healthy practice does happen in relation to hospitals and blood. Surgery always comes with risks, regardless of whether blood is involved or not.