At Telic Thoughts, Joy pointed out the following.

1) The Dover vs Kitzmiller trial demonstrated, to the satisfaction of many opponents of Intelligent Design, that ID is religious, not scientific…….

This thread is now closed, thanks to all for the interesting back-and-forth.

And what do you call the religion that gave us the crusades and the inquisition? You know, the one that supported Hitler and Mussolini. The one whose members took part in the massacre in Rwanda. The one that forbids birth control in countries with millions of starving children. The one whose leader claims infallibility.

I find it interesting that no one here is complaining about the Christian scientists. They reject all medical treatment and rely on God to heal them.

Joy,

Yes, and we have Ethel and you to thank for getting it off track. It was you guys that brought the theology of JW's into this thread where it obviously doesn't belong.

Any religion can be described as a cult. It is a worthless term that is used to describe a religion someone doesn't agree with. Is the Catholic church a cult in your view? It was never my intention to get involved in defending JW's on this forum but I can smell a double standard a mile away. Why aren't you on your soap box railing against all the other religions you disagree with? The number of children that have died because their parents refused them blood transfusions is a drop in the bucket compared to all the children that have died in Wars sponsored by the "Christian" churches. In case you forgot, the two biggest wars the world has ever seen was fought mainly among nations claiming to be Christian. Also, if it escaped your notice the slaughter that took place in Rwanda mainly involved Christian killing Christian. Care to guess how many children died there? And of course let's not forget that war in the former Yugoslavia where the Christian Serbs engaged in ethic cleansing. How many children did they slaughter with the blessing of their clergy? And how about all the starving children in poor nations where the Catholic church forbids birth control? The hands of the "Christian" churches are so covered with blood I'm surprised that JW's would even register on your radar screen.

You previously made the blunder of claiming JW's believe in hell and now you make another blunder in claiming JW's believe only 144,000 will be saved. The rest of your rant about eating meat, swallowing blood from biting one's tongue or a nose bleed is so ridiculous I won't waste my time on it. I hope this thread gets closed so we can dispense with this nonsense.

I don't think or argue that JWs need to prove that their position in scientific. My point is that, over the years, JWs themselves have argued that their position is scientific as a way of bolstering their theological position. In essence if God commands it then it must be good for you.

For example, as I pointed out to Joy, the basis for their position is primarily Acts 15: 28-29 which reads according to the (JW) New World Translation of the Bible:

…keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things you will prosper. Good health to you.

Most non JW translations say something like "You will fare well" rather than "Good Health to you."

In any event, JWs believe that there are significant health benefits - as well as moral benefits - to abstaining from blood and use the "Good Health" admonition to make their point. That is they scour the medical literature for anything that puts blood transfusions in a bad light while ignoring anything that suggests that these procedures have medical merit. So, e.g., they stress the risks of transfusions while ignoring their benefits. And, since, as Jack agrees, they now accept all blood derivatives then, actually, no blood risks are avoided under the current JW policy. Yet they still stress the risks. This is dishonest and is one reason that AnOtherOpinion states

There was a very interesting legal theory proposed in the Autumn issue of Baylor Law's Journal of Church and State written by one Kerry Louderback-Wood entitled "Jehovah's Witnesses, Blood Transfusions and the Tort of Misrepresentation." [ http://www3.baylor.edu/Church_... proposes that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. and the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses have potentially made themselves civilly liable for narrow relief suits in cases where someone made a decision regarding blood usage based on misrepresentations of medical facts.

JWs claim that their leadership alone speaks for God "“ that it is the "sole channel of communication from God to humanity." This obviously makes it difficult for them to admit to past errors or to change their teachings especially when, in the past, JWs have died for refusing organ transplants, vaccinations, serum preparations and certain blood fractions all of which are now allowed. The Watchtower Society claims that no changes have been made. However this is belied by the fact that they now have a complex set of rules which are administered by semi-secret Hospital Liaison Committees which are partly there to ensure that JWs abide by the current set of rules and partly to explain to physicians what a JW can accept and what they cannot. Heaven help a JW who is in a life-or-death situation with no access to such a committee (e.g., an accident in a foreign country.)

No JW critics to my knowledge object to the JWs liberalizing their policy. The main objections are the arbitrary and ever changing nature of the dividing line between what is allowed and what is forbidden and the false suggestion that by following the Watchtower Society's policies certain risks are avoided when they are not. Further, since many JWs are poorly educated (the JWs strongly discourage higher education) many (or most) have no idea which blood parts are acceptable and which are prohibited. This is especially true of older JWs who are the most likely to need specialized blood therapies. Thus, JWs may die simply because they do not understand the rules. That is the JWs claim that they abstain from blood but, actually, they do not but few JWs understand this. The leaders continue to obfuscate and even say one thing to outsiders and another to their congregations. For example,

http://www.ajwrb.org/basics/ab...

There has been much discussion of what Acts 15 means "“ not just among JWs - and it is clear that the JW position is not correct theologically. It is too involved to go into here but there is an extensive discussion here:

http://www.jwtruth.com/article...

Further, the article in last Autumn's issue of the Journal of Church and State (referred to above) describes in great detail how JWs have not been honest about their position on blood and have actually misrepresented the facts. Note that this journal is a learned journal out of Baylor's Dawson Institute where Beckwith resides.

So, in summary, Jehovah's Witnesses reject blood transfusions because of their understanding of Acts 15. However, they have argued "“ and continue to argue "“ that this position has scientific and medical merit . They do not claim that the medical arguments are the basis of their position but they do argue that their position is scientifically and medically correct. As time has passed they have modified their position on blood and now they allow 100% of fractions to be transfused provided that those fractions are not intact red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets are whole plasma. However, preparations made from these components and which contain all constituents of these components but in non-intact form are acceptable. This distinction has no scriptural or scientific basis and so their argument is arbitrary and scientifically untenable. However, to justify this delineation they explicitly claim that that the distinctions they make are scientifically correct - they are not.

JWs argue that blood is holy and they cite passages from Leviticus which specify that blood must be poured on on the ground. Obviously, blood fractions come from processing considerable quantities of whole, donated, blood which, clearly, has not been poured out on the ground. Thus, by allowing certain blood fractions JW contradict their own scriptural arguments. This is done to present a more acceptable face to the outside world - see the Bulgaria example above - while continuing to mislead their members into thinking that JWs really do "abstain from blood." They call such behavior "Theocratic Warfare." Most people would call it lying.

Further, it is hypocritical for JWs to accept blood fractions prepared from the blood supply while refusing to donate blood, which JWs are required to refuse to do. A blanket rejection of all blood parts is at least consistent albeit theologically incorrect. The current JW blood policy is indefensible on scriptural, scientific, moral and humanitarian grounds. However, they obfuscate to maintain the pretence that they speak for God who does not change.

That's what can happen when religious beliefs lead one to conclude that nature and science must conform to one's interpretation of scripture.

Ethel

ps: Joy, they believe 144,000 will go to Heaven to rule as kings. The rest will survive Armageddon during which 99.99% of humanity will slaughtered by God (eyes will rot out, flesh will peel away..). JWs in good standing who die before that will be resurrected to that post Armageddon Earthly Paradise. Those who violated the rules won't get resurrected and will be dead forever. They believe Hell is simply the grave - Eccl. says that the dead are conscious of nothing and that's what they believe.

You're right, they are a deadly cult although most individual JWs are decent people. Not many vegans among them though.

Besides, there's no way a human being who lives awhile can abstain from blood. Get a scratch or a paper cut, it goes right into the mouth (almost like instinct). Get to the age of six and your baby teeth start falling out - and they bleed. If you get braces as a teenager, I can promise you'll taste some blood. Ever have a nosebleed that goes right down the back of your throat? Ever get punched in the face? Bite your tongue?

…and don't tell me it's okay because it's your own blood (when they're killing children for ridiculous nit-picks). If that were true JWs could bank their own blood for when they ever need it. They don't.

Worse, they're meat-eaters. Not Kosher either, though even Kosher still contains blood. Ever cut up a whole fryer? EEEWWW!!! They eat blood at dinner every night, so what's the point of killing children?

Contextually, the Pagan cultures into which Paul and his evangelists took Christianity were fond of drinking the blood of their sacrificial victims in chalices as a rite. Sort of like Christians do, only Christians use wine instead. It's such an ancient practice that when God determined to set the Jews apart ~4000 years ago (according to them), he demanded they build a killing floor in the Temple with elaborate channels to drain the blood. Had to trim the fat too, and they sure didn't eat bacon. This was to set apart from the Pagan practice, and it had nothing to do with killing children (other than that much of the ritual blood Pagans did drink came from slaughtered children).

So JWs do consume blood. Most of them on a daily basis. Medical risks and benefits are just that - medical risks and benefits. Has nothing to do with what's real, because what's real is that JWs consume blood just like the rest of us. It's a cult, nothing more.

There. Said my piece and I'm done with it.

I haven't done any research to determine how accurate JW's have been in assessing the risks of blood transfusions over the past 40 years but if I did I would compare it with how accurate the medical community and in particular the Red Cross has been in assessing the safety of blood transfusions. As I recall, they really blew it on Aids.

I don't know all the details regarding the JW position on blood fractions but I do know enough to make a few comments. Acts 15:28-29 tells Christians to "abstain from blood". So logically a Christian that wants to obey this commmand needs to determine what exactly constitutes blood. It's not as simple as saying it's whatever comes out of one's veins. It's a fact that blood is 80% water. If someone were to take a pint of blood and put it in a device that separated out the water and then drank the water would they have drank blood? Of course not. Since the water in a pint of donated blood isn't blood then maybe there are other things in a pint of donated blood that isn't actually blood. And perhaps these non-blood items are okay for a Christian to take. That is the JW position in a nutshell.

This can get very technical and perhaps the JW's don't have it right but at least they are trying to determine what constitutes blood so they can obey the Biblical admonition to abstain from it. If the JW's are wrong about what constitutes blood then what is the correct view? What exactly are Christians to abstain from?

Back in the 1960's JW's couldn't take donated blood or anything derived from donated blood into their system. JW's are now allowed to take many items found in a donated pint of blood. You would think the JW critics would consider this a change for the better but here they are on this thread complaining that JW's don't really abstain from blood. But if the JW's aren't really abstaining from blood then the rest of the Christian community certainly isn't. So what exactly is the point the JW critics are trying to make here? That JW's are in the same boat with all the other Christians in ignoring the Biblical admonition to "abstain from blood" or that the JW's had it right back in the 1960's when they wouldn't accept donated blood or anything derived from donated blood?

That sounds good, but the distinction between offensive and defensive isn't actually that simple. You can whump somebody on the head with a shield, if you choose to. If ID is religious (and therefore can't be considered science) then it is religious (and therefore can't be a basis for discrimination). I'm not saying that PZ should be dragged out and shot because he is in danger of violating the constitution (sword). I am saying that the constitution should protect people from the attitude that PZ expresses (shield).

"Flavours of ID." You may distinguish between ID at Dover and ID at DI/Telic Thoughts. I would agree. However, that distinction isn't being observed by many opponents of ID, including people who have commented on my own blog, who argue that Dover basically wrapped up the "ID is religion" argument in all cases. Perhaps you ought to spread the word. My argument was extending the logic of opponents of ID, not my own belief (which is that inferring design isn't religious at all).