I've previously blogged about his intention to remove some of my comments as being "redundant", StandFirm as replied with the following;
His issue is now that my comments remain on topic. His 'comments' page has been updated to state that "4. Off-topic-Talking about something unrelated to the purpose of the post" may be rejected. I wonder if this is a catch-all to start removing dissenters' comments.
StandFirm said...
Most of your comments I have let remain. They are not all redundant. Any deleted comments of yours will be 'reposted' as I write a rebuttal post. I am not the only Witness blogger that does this.
Be assured that I am not 'silencing dissent', but merely maintaining normal control. In fact, after further consideration, it seems to me that the issue is more staying on-topic than redundancy. In reponse to your concerns, I am editing the 'comments' page.
For example, we have been discussing the subject of blood fractions and the statements made in the 2008 publication "Keep Yourself in God's Love". StandFirm's aim in this blog post was to school "opposers" like me on the need to do research before making claims. (Hopefully this lesson is one that StandFirm will learn going forward, rather than resorting to threatening to remove comments that show the intellectual and spiritual dishonesty of the Governing Body.) I had questioned whether the "God's Love" book contained text urging Jehovah's Witnesses to be able to explain to their doctor why, biblically, they may accept some blood fractions.
Now bearing in mind the Governing Body's ruling that blood transfusions are wholly unacceptable to Jehovah (based on an intellectual and historical failure to understand the discourse in Acts chapter 15), I was puzzled as to why this book would put it into a Jehovah's Witness's mind the need to biblically explain the use of some parts of blood but not other parts of blood. Either blood is not to be transfused, eaten or used in anyway, or blood is allowed. And how could a Jehovah's Witness biblically explain to their doctor - or even to themselves - how some parts of blood are ok but others aren't?
StandFirm addresses this (his quoting of me is in red);
He then writes:This is fascinating all on it's own; if the Bible does not mention them (blood fractions), why are they even an issue? And if that standard, ie. "the Bible does not mention them", why are blood transfusions even an issue? Everyone knows that eating/drinking blood is not the same, medically or biologically, as intravenous transfusion of blood.
Actually, I'm sure there's a picture of a women pondering with the text "can you explain scripturally why your conscience will allow you to take certain blood fractions", or similar.
Here he clearly admits his lack of research! The picture he is apparently referring to is on page 83. It shows a woman accompanied by a husband explaining something to a doctor, and the caption states, "How would I explain to a physician my decision regarding the use of blood fractions?" [1]
This does not say anything about Biblical mention of fractions. As already stated, it is an individual decision precisely because the Bible does notmention them.
I believe that if a Jehovah's Witness apologists wishes to be involved in honest and frank debate on this issues, they need to be ready to look at the bigger issues involved, namely what the Bible says about blood tranfusions versus what the Governing Body has to say about them. Now, this is not a comfortable discussion for any Jehovah's Witness. And, as I've already alluded, dissenters are usually silenced.
My rebuttal on StandFirm's blog included;
You're acting, however, off the presupposition that living the Christian way includes keeping extra-biblical rules or suggestions. I'd argue that it is. (note: this should read "I'd argue that it doesn't")
And I struggle to see, scripturally, where a law regarding blood transfusions is the Christian way, when all factors* are considered.
I'm happy to concede that each person has God-given free will and if they wish to be told by the Governing Body that to accept certain medical procedures would result in Jehovah's everlasting displeasure, then it's entirely up to them if they wish to sacrifice their life to such rulings.
* the fact the text in Acts 15 is addressing a specific Judean influence on Gentile Christians pertaining to dietary laws. Plus, the fact that Christians are not under Old Covenant law and God does not require sacrifice rather mercy. That blood is a biblical symbol of life and the symbol is never more precious than what it symbolises (think of your wedding ring verses the person you're actually married to).
StandFirm's responses;
What you bring up is another topic. Please stay on topic from now on.
Is the topic the issue of blood fractions and the Governing Body's teaching on said?
What have I brought up that doesn't focus on that topic?
What have I brought up that doesn't focus on that topic?
You bring up the larger issue of blood in general and the even larger issue of the Governing Body. Stick to the original topic of what the "God's Love" book said.
Let the reader decide if I've strayed off topic and whether my comments deserve being removed.
Has StandFirm bitten off more than he can chew on his blog? Is he willing, with scriptural and intellectual integrity, to face the facts about the men in New York who's "unique beliefs" on God, his will and word, shape the religion he's a part of? My prayer is that StandFirm will wake up to the truth about "the truth" and instead turn to the very one who is The Truth, Jesus Christ.
I have not bitten off more than I can chew. However, you have brought up almost a dozen different issues. Not only are these issues very detailed and nuanced, but each response I write, your comments mention a few more different issues.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to talk about blood transfusions and eating or the Governing Body, then do so on a post about that subject or make a request. I cannot write about everything at once.
You write:
"I wonder if this is a catch-all to start removing dissenters' comments."
No it is not. You can write dissenting comments, but PLEASE do not bring up other issues, such as you did with the Name in the New Testament translation of ours on another post of mine. Stick to what I specifically talk about in the post itself. Bring up those issues when I do. As said, I cannot address such things immediately; in fact, it will probably be a long time.
You write: "Is he willing, with scriptural and intellectual integrity, to face the facts about the men in New York who's "unique beliefs" on God, his will and word, shape the religion he's a part of?"
I have examined more facts then you think I have.
It's not that you stray off-topic, but you might talk 75% about the topic and 25% about, say, the Governing Body's authority-a completely different topic. Sure, there's always interrelation, but there is only so much I can address.
One more thing:
ReplyDeleteYou say about me:"I couldn't help but think there would be areas of debate where he would be immensely out of his comfort zone."
Alright then. Pick ONE THING where you think I will be 'immensely out of my comfort zone' and write me up something to refute. We'll see who's out of their comfort zone.
If I've brought up a dozen different issues it's because they are all inter-related.
ReplyDelete"Alright then. Pick ONE THING where you think I will be 'immensely out of my comfort zone' and write me up something to refute. We'll see who's out of their comfort zone."
Let's start with the 230+ extra-biblical insertions of the tetragrammaton into the Greek text of the New Testament. Are you willing to defend the Governing Body adding to God's inspired word?
When we're done with that topic, I'd like to move onto the Governing Body's claim that the Watch Tower Society was chosen by Jesus Christ in 1918/1919 (if I remember correctly, this date fluctuates); while they say in their publications that there is an 'abundance of evidence' of this appointment, I've yet to see any. I think this would be an interesting debate.
I'd also like to, at some point, debate the whole 1874/1914 issue and the intellectual dishonesty displayed by the Governing Body is retroactively amending what was taught by Russell and Rutherford about these dates. Why is this important? Because of the claim to be selected by Christ in 1918/1919.