Alrighty, so the biggest thing that I disagreed with when I was a jw was the blood doctrine, so much so that it was the leading cause for my exodus from
Jehovah's loving organization. Now, I'm not a Christian (if you couldn't tell by looking at my sig), but I was when I came up with this, and I
figure this would be the best way to attack that doctrine, sort of fighting fire with fire I suppose. You guys and gals already think the blood doctrine is an
evil crock of shit, I'm pretty sure, but if this could help at least one person, I feel it's worth posting.
I'll even play fair and use the New World Translation for my arguments.
Now, there are numerous scriptures sprinkled throughout the first 5 books of the bible condemning the eating blood. Now, I'll concur for argument's sake that this is equivalent to taking it in the veins, as the JWs do (even though it's most certainly not). Some may argue that this is part of the Mosaic Law. And Jesus dying nullified the Mosaic Law, right? After all, we can't just cherry-pick which verses we want to follow and which ones we don't. If that were the case, JWs would still be stoning their disobedient children as Deut. 21:18-21 instructs.
But those aren't the scriptures that the JWs use in their blood arguments. No, the oft quoted scripture is Acts 15: 28, 29, but the key to my argument here is context. You see, at the time of these events, Gentiles were just beginning to be converted to Christianity and there were some things they were instructed not to do so as to not stumble the Jews around them. Those commands were merely cultural considerations. This is evident if you look just a few verses before it in Acts 15: 19-21:
"Hence my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God, but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. For from ancient times Moses has had in city after city those who preach him, because he is read aloud in the synagogues on every sabbath."
Ever notice how that is the last mention of abstaining from blood in the bible, even though everything else mentioned is? I would think that if it was important enough to mention in Acts alongside fornication that it would have been important enough to include in the other letters Paul wrote to the various congregations at the time.
Here's more food for thought. The big JC himself had this to say in Mark 7: 15:
"There is nothing from outside a man that passes into him that can defile him; but the things that issue forth out of a man are the things that defile a man."
They claim to be Christian, but they don't even listen to what he said.
I'll even play fair and use the New World Translation for my arguments.
Now, there are numerous scriptures sprinkled throughout the first 5 books of the bible condemning the eating blood. Now, I'll concur for argument's sake that this is equivalent to taking it in the veins, as the JWs do (even though it's most certainly not). Some may argue that this is part of the Mosaic Law. And Jesus dying nullified the Mosaic Law, right? After all, we can't just cherry-pick which verses we want to follow and which ones we don't. If that were the case, JWs would still be stoning their disobedient children as Deut. 21:18-21 instructs.
But those aren't the scriptures that the JWs use in their blood arguments. No, the oft quoted scripture is Acts 15: 28, 29, but the key to my argument here is context. You see, at the time of these events, Gentiles were just beginning to be converted to Christianity and there were some things they were instructed not to do so as to not stumble the Jews around them. Those commands were merely cultural considerations. This is evident if you look just a few verses before it in Acts 15: 19-21:
"Hence my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God, but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. For from ancient times Moses has had in city after city those who preach him, because he is read aloud in the synagogues on every sabbath."
Ever notice how that is the last mention of abstaining from blood in the bible, even though everything else mentioned is? I would think that if it was important enough to mention in Acts alongside fornication that it would have been important enough to include in the other letters Paul wrote to the various congregations at the time.
Here's more food for thought. The big JC himself had this to say in Mark 7: 15:
"There is nothing from outside a man that passes into him that can defile him; but the things that issue forth out of a man are the things that defile a man."
They claim to be Christian, but they don't even listen to what he said.
