Jehovah’s Witnesses: If I strip parts off your car to repair mine have I abstained from cannibalizing your car?

Verdie Wollen: Victory de Sharp writes:-- “I have answered the question. Not the way you wanted, but answered nonetheless.”My Response:-- Respectfully I express that what you offered is a response and not an answer; the two are not the same. But it is your prerogative to do as you please, and I appreciate your time. If you want to add more it would also be appreciated....Show more

Jarrod Darnall: You cultists are silly.Ahh....you're getting at the whole abstain from blood, no blood transfusions for JW cultists thing.Now I'm picking up what you're laying down!...Show more

Barton Morfee: BAR-ANERGES writes:-- “This is the same old question only with a different but also irrelevant illustration.”My Response:-- Then why not just answer what the question DOES ask and be done with it? In all your response you never answer the question. I do not understand this reaction....Show more

Nikki Sypult: Abernathy the Dull writes:-- “Another comparison is: Go! d says don't eat apple pies. But eating apples, sugar, eggs, and flour - in their constituent parts - wouldn't be breaking God's law about abstaining from apple pies.”My Response:-- Then answer this question: -- If I’m told by you to abstain from eating your pie because it is your special property that belongs only to you, and then I fractionate your pie, take and eat 50% of the dismantled parts of your pie and leave the leftovers for you, have I abstained from eating your pie?...Show more

Adan Stribble: You're not making a fair comparison, since stripping a car would be stealing and is wrong. A better comparison would be: God says don't drive cars. Yet, you ride a bicycle, despite some similarities - they are made up of similar materials and share a basic design function. But riding a bike isn't driving a car.Another comparison is: God says don't eat apple pies. But eating apples, sugar, eggs, and flour - in their constituent parts - wouldn't be breaking God's la! w about abstaining from apple pies....Show more

Blair Ab! di: I see where you are going. The comparison is moot.Imagine a zealous Jew facing such issues. He might have thought it safest to avoid meat sold in a meat market, much as another would shun meat if there was a chance that it was once offered to an idol. Other Jews might have eaten meat only after following rituals to extract the blood. (Matthew 23:23, 24) What do you think about such varied reactions? Furthermore, since God did not require such reactions, would it be best for Jews to send a multitude of questions to a council of rabbis to get a ruling on each one? Though that custom developed in Judaism, we can be happy that Jehovah did not direct true worshipers to pursue decisions about blood in that way. God offered basic guidance on slaughtering clean animals and draining their blood, but he did not go beyond that.â€"John 8:32.It would be my own personal stance that I have obeyed God's law in regards to blood use even if I have used a fraction of its components and n! ot the "whole enchilada". Remember conscience. Mine and no one else's. It should be respected, and should be the end of discussion."Let the reader use discernment" - Matt. 24:15Edit:I have answered the question. Not the way you wanted, but answered nonetheless. This is why I quoted Matthew 24:15 in part.I will have nothing else to say on this matter....Show more

Joaquin Dronko: Victory de Sharp:-- I appreciate your response, but I notice you failed to answer the question asked. Why not answer it? If I strip parts off your car to repair mine have I abstained from cannibalizing your car? Would it make a difference if I told you that taking parts from YOUR car does not bother MY conscience? What is your answer to the actual question asked?

Andre Winegar: Again, here is their logic. There are some items in a car which may be unique to it. For example, let’s suppose your car had a custom engraving or custom stereo system. Taking those items would be wrong be! cause they can only be obtained from your particular vehicle. However! , imagine some component of your car that is entirely common and easily available at auto parts stores. For example, let’s say I steal your tires. I may properly and righteously claim to have “abstained from your car” if I only steal your new tires? Why? Because your tires were a common brand. I could have bought them at a Sears Auto Center. Since the tires were not unique to your car (just a minor fraction), Jehovah allows me to benefit from them.@ Abernathy: The ingredients of an apple pie can be obtained from sources other than the original apple pie itself. The components of blood acceptable to your governing body can ONLY be obtained from whole human blood....Show more

Nedra Oltz: Greetings,This is the same old question only with a different but also irrelevant illustration.All your questions continue to commit the same logical fallacies and repeat the same distractive misrepresentations of the facts regarding blood and its fractions in connection w! ith Witnesses’ beliefs. All your questions and the issues surrounding them have been completely answered many times before and on many different forums.First, your question misrepresents the position of Jehovah’s Witnesses because it commits the fallacy of presenting selective information. Because of this your question and its comments are irrelevant to Witnesses and their beliefs.To be honest and provide a parallel to our beliefs you would have to provide additional information. First, the car owner would have had to say that the car could only be destroyed or put to a spiritual use. Next, you would have to point out that you did not destroy the car but someone else demolished it by dropping a tree down the middle of it, and what is left are only parts of the of the car. Therefore much of the car is completely destroyed and it will never be made whole again.You also would have to reveal that the owner of the car has himself taken some parts of the now “fractionatedâ€!  car and given it to you and others to use on their cars.It is easy to! see that when ALL of the facts are presented then it is easy to come up with a different answer. In this case, no one could technically or logically say that the original prohibition was not obeyed. First, it is only logical to conclude that the car had been destroyed and the initial mandate carried out. It was no longer a car! Second, you did not destroy the car in order to circumvent the owner’s will. Third, your concluding that you could use what was salvageable was a logical conclusion drawn from the owners own example. Without further specifics from the owner which contradicted these logical conclusions no one would have a valid reason to criticize another who made use of the parts.On the other hand, it would be hypocritical for someone to point to those using the parts from the wrecked car and claim that it excused his stealing the original car. And if his arguments included the idea that no one should even be using the parts then his argument is self-condemning.Th! at is the position you are in when it comes to Witnesses’ beliefs on blood. Your whole argument is comprised of presenting selective and slanted information and ignoring the facts. And it only ends up destroying your own position regarding blood.However, Jehovah's Witnesses’ doctrine prohibiting use of *blood* is completely Scriptural. Similarly, since the Scriptures are silent regarding fractions our position that this is a matter for personal choice is also completely Scriptural. However, those who criticize the JWs allowing others the freedom to use fractions while they advocate the use of blood in transfusions only prove that their argument is unreasonable and unscriptural.Now, as is the nature of illustrations, all these are limited in one way or the other. But, we can examine one that is directly related to the issue of blood and thus can demonstrate the correct thinking.The Apostolic Decree said to “abstain” from idols. It did not say abstain from “parts of! idols.” So, would a Christian be disobeying the prohibition to absta! in from idols if he were to “use from” an idol after it was dismantled? What if he took the base and used it for a step or in a wall? What if he used 50% of the whole original idol but not any part which was easily identified as having been an idol? Since God’s command only specified abstaining from “idols” and that idols should be destroyed, a Christian would have to make a decision according to his personal conscience and in accord with Scriptural principles. He would have consider things like: “Was the idol destroyed?” “Is what I’m using reasonably identified by others as an idol?” “What was God’s intent for the prohibition?” “Is there any indications as to how God views using parts of idols that had once been an idol?” and etc.I’m sure there would be those who’s conscience would absolutely forbid them from using even the smallest part of an idol. Some would only use it if it had been totally destroyed by rendering it gravel. Others woul! d have no problem using *any* part which was no longer identified as an idol. All these choices would be valid and each could come up with logical (and even scriptural) reasons for why they made their decision. However, no one could properly criticize or condemn another since the Scriptures did not specify anything beyond an “idol,” and Bible principles only apply to parts that could still be reasonably identified or used as an idol. It is quite reasonable to conclude that such a dismantled part was “no longer an idol” and therefore would not be disobeying God’s Law against idols.Anyone who tried to excuse their disobedience in using an idol by criticizing others for using the base of an idol would be self-condemning and hypocritical! Because if it was wrong or inconsistent to use even a part it obviously would be absolutely wrong to use the whole.This direct parallel fully demonstrates that all your arguments and your position are fatally flawed and irrelevant. I! t also ”makes it very clear to reasonable people that “abstaining f! rom” does not necessarily prohibit “using from.” The Christian can “abstain from” idols while at the same time “use from” what once was an idol but is not now an idol.This also is very similar to the blood issue because what if someone were to once again take the base of the idol and restore it to being an idol? God said to abstain from “idols” not from parts of idols that are no longer idols. Clearly, it is the *use* of the part that is most important, not whether it could ever again be used as an idol. While most fractions will never again be used as blood, some may be reconstituted and in the future science may be able to reconstitute even smaller fractions. While this fact is something which an individual can use to make their decision, it is only one. In the long run it still is a personal choice and has absolutely no effect on the Scriptural command to “abstain from blood” or “idols.”Jehovah’s Witnesses beliefs are completely scriptural. On! the other hand, those who criticize an individual’s personal decision of conscious to use fractions are “adding to Scripture.” And if such critics also condone using *blood* in transfusions then they are being hypocritical and self-condemning.An even further reason to reject Marvin’s reasoning is his repeated claim to be an active Jehovah’s Witnesses.It is well known that a *requirement* of being a Witness is that you reject blood transfusions. Now, logically when an individual claims to be a Witness and yet does not agree with the explicitly stated requirements it leaves us with only two conclusions: either they are lying or they are a hypocrite.When an individual cannot reconcile his doctrinal beliefs with the rest of an organization there was only one option; he would have to remove himself from association (2Cor.6:14-17; 1Cor.5:11; Isa.52:11; Matt.15:14; 2Jn.1:11). The majority of JW's have done exactly this.There was no option for a Christian to remain part ! of any organization which taught what they viewed false while secretly ! holding to correct doctrine. If he continued to claim to be part of that organization, then *even though he believed correctly*, he would have been condemned as a hypocrite and a liar and rejected by God (Rev.18:4; 3:16; Jas.4:4; 1Cor.10:18-21; Ps 119:113).Likewise, there was no option for an individual to secretly remain part of the Christian congregation and hold to different doctrine.Any individual who calls themself a JW and yet refuses to live up to the required doctrine or covertly promotes any other different doctrine is self-condemned as a hypocrite and a liar, irregardless of whether they are correct in their differing beliefs or not.Such an individual could not be trusted to be reasoning correctly or honest in their views!Yours,BAR-ANERGES...Show more