Something I'd like to understand ...

I'm back! The house arrest was a blast but I got booted in the first round...no surprises here.

Nope, none whatever, lol.

Fair enough. Your choice, your loss.

Start a thread of what you are interested in and we'll chime in

Does the Bible teach that some components of blood are acceptable while other components of blood are forbidden? Show us from the Bible where this is taught. You can't do this because this teaching comes not from the Bible but from 9 men in Brooklyn, New York that make up the Governing Body that rules over JW's. If you promote the Watchtower's teaching that taking certain blood components is a serious sin when you know there is no Biblical basis for it then you are a follower of men not God. Jesus tells us at Matt 15:9 that if we teach the commands of men as doctrine that our worship is in vain.

No it doesn't specify, however as I have already said, I would not take components anyway, so the question is moot.

Don't worry though I know exactly what you are doing, and to be frank, as far as I am concerned you are simpy showing your ignorance of the subject. Why do I say that? because you are criticising the JWs, not for what they are saying is against God's law, but because, Pharisee like, you are more than happy to criticise them for following the biblical example set by the Governing Body of the Christian Congregation in the Apostle's day.

However your last point is also invalid in this case because the JWs are not commanding people to take certain blood components, they are saying that they can if their conscience allows. Faced with an alternative that the 1st Century Governing Body didn't have, they have echoed the command not to use whole blood but let certain components pass.

You are, as the Pharisees did with the Christ over small details such as not washing all the way up to the elbow before meals looking at these things simply to find something to criticise them for, and no other reason, that much is obvious.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more your protestations echo those of the Pharisees. Read a little more fully the account that you cite at Matthew 15:9. If you read verses 3:8. Jesus here cites a tradition which takes the law absolutely literally, but violates the principle when you do. That is precisely what you are doing, so your own quotation, put back in context, condemns your actions.

No, my question is not moot. That you won't take any blood components is what is moot. You have the right to refuse to take blood components just as you have the right to refuse transfusions of whole blood. That's not the issue. The issue is the WTS forbidding JW's from taking certain blood components when there is no Biblical basis for doing so.



If they were following the biblical example set by the Governing Body of the Christian Congregation in the Apostle's day then they wouldn't forbid the taking of certain blood components because the Governing Body of the Christian Congregation in the Apostle's day didn't address the issue of blood components at all.



Once again, I never said JW's are commanded to take certain blood components. That's absurd. What I have repeatedly said is that JW's are forbidden from taking some components of blood while they are allowed to take other components of blood and there is no Biblical basis for this. We have only one scripture dealing with this issue which is Acts 15:29 that simply says to "abstain from...blood".

Now, this text could be understood as forbidding transfusions of whole blood and also forbidding any component derived from whole blood or it could forbid just transfusions of whole blood and leave the issue of blood components unaddressed. But what you can't logically do is take the command to "abstain from...blood" as a guide for determining which components of blood are acceptable and which components of blood are forbidden. The scripture simply does not provide enough information to make such a determination.

MCB will never acknowledge that there is anything wrong or in error concerning JWs. It is just not in his constitution.

Teleologist, I will say that you are correct in stating that there is no biblical foundation concerning that issue.
I am not a believer in biblical texts however, so I will say that most of the bible and any holy book is baseless and full of crap. I would not place any faith in any of it let alone my life.

Who exactly was the "governing body of the christian congregation in the Apostle's day?

Historically there wasn't a "unified" christian church until well after the death of the 12 Apostles. The canon of the bible wasn't codified until it was directed by the Emperor Constantine in 325 AD.

Prior to that time there really was no consensus.

Or you actually referring to the 12 Apostles and their ministry guide the Didiche?