Srecko Sostar

As far as I have been able to understand from several videos, there is a problem in Japan regarding physical punishment of children and refusal of blood transfusions when it comes to children among JWs.
 
 
 

So … the task now becomes … what are the SPECIFICATIONS of the task that the men, full of spirit and wisdom, were to be put in charge of?
What is a legitimate job description?
The basic assumption is that the Congregation would be governed EXACTLY as specified in Matthew 18.
The reality at the present time is NOT EVEN CLOSE !

The "No True Scotsman" fallacy is a term coined by philosopher Antony Flew. It occurs when someone redefines a category to exclude counterexamples in order to defend a generalization or stereotype. The name comes from an example where a man claims, "No true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge," but when presented with a Scotsman who does, he responds, "Well, no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." It highlights the logical flaw of moving the goalposts to maintain a belief. 
Constantly moving the goalposts is the invisible trap.
Twenty years and more of “stay alive ‘till ‘75” becomes “overlapping generations”.

A profound statement, and well said. Concise. Thorough. Thoughtful. Big gift in a small package. It's Christian.
The only thing I dislike is the phrase "truly Christian". Smacks of "no true Scotsman". I'm confident you understand. I'll let other readers figure it out. Life's a learning experience, after all.
PS: All underlining is added by myself for emphasis.

@Juan Rivera I finally read through this whole topic, previously only noticing some side topics of interest to me at the time.  And I see that you have often addressed me here and hoped I would offer "on-topic" comments much earlier. As I read through it, I think @Many Miles is offering exactly the kinds of responses I would have offered had I been a little more thoughtful and focused on the original topic.
I agree that Galatians contains themes about doctrinal purity and, per Miles, the limit of obedience to human authority. We get valuable perspectives on these topics as Paul writes about many different things, including his own authority, the good news, being justified by faith and not works, and the difficulties Jewish Christians had fully appreciating that last concept (coming from a background of 1500 years of "salvation by works," i.e., law). 
But it seems that you also intend to find in Galatians some evidence for an ecclesiastical, God-appointed, human authority, such as a governing body that provides a basis for the proper type of Christian unity. I know you are aware from past comments that I believe Paul goes in a different direction on that question. I do think such an authority would be extremely valuable and convenient. But I see too many scriptures that fly in the face of expecting exactly that type of authority today. That doesn't mean that a type of human governing body doesn't serve a good purpose, of course. And this doesn't mean that the congregations are without human teachers and authorities. It just means that we, if we are truly Christian, must share the responsibility with them for what we accept and believe.
Of course, just saying all that is easier than providing the scriptures and details behind it, but many of those points have already been made in this current discussion.
And I like that you are looking for a more methodical approach. I appreciated this about "Rotherham" when I often went on for many pages in discussions with him (over a decade ago). He remained in a private "theology" email discussion group that I lightly participated in for years but I now only read comments from others now and then. Is he still around? Haven't heard from "Rotherham" for years now. Do you know about his health? 
And thanks for locating that blog from Apologetic Front on the web.archive. I found many pages there with some good ideas to review:
https://web.archive.org/web/20150201214409/http://apologeticfront.com/category/faithful-slave/
https://web.archive.org/web/20150201220435/http://apologeticfront.com/category/governing-body/
 

The same follower of Jesus that took time to put Jesus' prayer to paper also took time later on to comment about the unity of which you inquire.
At the very end of his first epistle, John wrote "But we know that the Son of God has come, and he has given us intellectual capacity that we may gain the knowledge of the true one. And we are in union with the true one, by means of his Son Jesus Christ."
God gave us His written word. Today we call it "the Bible". This is God's inspired written testimony. God created the natural world we see all around us. God's creative work is His inspired testimony in the form of object lessons. Both of these inspired testimonies are equally of God. His testimony is truth.
Jesus' prayer included this, "Sanctify them by means of the truth; your word is truth."
So, we have God's testimony, which is truth. We have that word in two forms. Inspired words are God's truth, and inspired creation is God's truth. And, getting back to the closing words of his first epistle, we have what John said of Jesus, that "he has given us intellectual capacity that we may gain the knowledge of the true one."
This is what I've said in more concise terms on several occasions. God gave us His testimony, and He gave us brains, and He expects us to use them both. What it looks like is this:
1) Things that are present in creation or presented in express terms in the Bible, we accept for what they are, for what they say. Each of these serve as propositions useful to use our brains to deduce sound conclusions of what those express propositions imply.
2) Deductions we form of those propositions must conform to conventions of logical construction. That is called using our brain. This is called forming logical (sound) conclusions.
3) We assert express terms for whatever each proposition says.
4) We assert what is deduced from those propositions to the extent we can prove those deductions. Deductions of logical conclusions can vary in veracity, based on the strength of premises (propositions) applied.
5) Things we cannot soundly reason we leave people to decide for themselves, which is as it should be.
6) Aside from express propositions found in either the Bible or creation, every deduction we form must be falsifiable. This is part of logical conclusions.
Then is when and that is how we have the unity Jesus spoke of that relies on the truth of God and the intellectual capacity given by Jesus. We then have a community where all of us as friends are encouraging one another to use our brains, and where we find we are wrong we embrace the moment and rejoice that we've learned and grown as Christian men and women. But we do not ostracize (or otherwise beat!) those who ask that we prove something true and then fail to prove that thing true on the bases of solid testimony from scripture (or creation) or sound conclusions thereof.
 
 

Doctors of medicine always treat transfusion of products rendered from blood as tissue transplants because that's what it is. Of course, different tissues can represent different complications. Tissue transplantation should always come with a very considered risk-to-benefit analysis. Even when it's autogenic.
Well, to be sure, red blood cells don't make oxygen, but they do transport oxygen, and carbon dioxide too.
The reason to offer source material allows what we say to be checked for veracity. Most, if not all, the sources I provided are probably available freely online.
JWs surely do not abstain from using from the donor blood supply, but they hardly ever contribute to the same blood supply they accept products from. As for whether I'm right or wrong about what I've presented, I'm happy to help where and when I can. Where I'm wrong I want to know, which is one reason I'm willing to share information. So others can break it apart and analysis it for anything that might be false. We all learn from one another.

Some in the medical field who are involved in organ transplant admit IV  blood transfusion should always be viewed as a organ transplant..I think we both view Red blood cells as vital for Oxygen maker and carrier. I’m not sure on the rest of your scientific knowledge but I will bow to it as I know nothing of what you say .
Either way you think on it clearly one is not abstaining from it…but I stand corrected on the rest of your post…

The book Proclaimers talks about it. But who reads it today? Quote:
In 1876, when Russell had first read a copy of Herald of the Morning, he had learned that there was another group who then believed that Christ’s return would be invisible and who associated that return with blessings for all families of the earth. From Mr. Barbour, editor of that publication, Russell also came to be persuaded that Christ’s invisible presence had begun in 1874. * Attention was later drawn to this by the  subtitle “Herald of Christ’s Presence,” which appeared on the cover of Zion’s Watch Tower.
So 40 years should have passed between the "invisible presence" and Armageddon, according to their calculation. (40 is a biblical number so they must have liked how it went together). But, I think the years kept moving in anticipation of the second coming of Jesus. I don't remember if it was Russell or someone before him who came up with the "invisible presence" idea. And I don't know if I can completely believe every statement and description of events from the book Proclaimers.
Planting testimony and moving events is a specialty of some at WTJWorg. We read in book also this.
Quote:
 At first, they thought that by that date the Kingdom of God would have obtained full, universal control. When that did not occur, their confidence in the Bible prophecies that marked the date did not waver. They concluded that, instead, the date had marked only a starting point as to Kingdom rule.
Similarly, they also first thought that global troubles culminating in anarchy (which they understood would be associated with the war of “the great day of God the Almighty”) would precede that date. (Rev. 16:14) But then, ten years before 1914, the Watch Tower suggested that worldwide turmoil that would result in the annihilating of human institutions would come right after the end of the Gentile Times.
If the book (Proclaiemrs) is to be believed, then this change in predictions is reminiscent of this year's Annual Meeting with "new knowledge" about events that began, according to the old explanation, but still did not begin, according to the new explanation.
Pure confusion or, in a word, Babylon.
This text in brackets is not part of the original, it was already added to WTJWorg in that 1993 brochure you quoted. So another manipulation. The JWs came about after one of the schisms within the Bible Students. 
I didn't notice this until today. The title of the chapter is disastrous for GB. Their (GB) resistance to the term "inspired" is belied by this subtitle, as they unwittingly admit that the "truths" (they state several in that chapter) about 1914 are "inspired". So, they completely denied themselves, claiming that they came to the "truth" through "guided by HS" and through "study" and through "guidance of angels". 
Chapter titled “Identifying God-Inspired Truth”

Facing death is typically a new experience for each person. It’s a very personal experience. It’s difficult to judge why individuals face death however they do. 
Thomas Jefferson concluded there was a purpose for old age. It prepared a person for death. That was his view, once he achieved old age. 
My paternal grandmother faced death twice.
The first time she was terrified. I mean, just terrified. She looked at me and said, “[Name], I can tell you that no matter what anyone tells you, or how many people are around you, dying is something you have to do all by yourself, and I can tell you, it’s not fun.” She survived though physicians had said her death was sure. 
The second time she was serene. She said she just wanted to close her eyes and not wake up. She was ready to face death, and she did. She died, but not in fear. 
So maybe there was something to Jefferson’s conclusion. 
 

The protein of erythrocytes (red cells) that release oxygen to tissue is called hemoglobin. Essentially, the erythrocytic cell is a carrier of the hemoglobin protein. This protein is a combination of the heme molecule and globin proteins. The heme molecule in this protein has an affinity for oxygen, which is why it releases carbon dioxide and binds with oxygen in lung tissue. As this oxygen rich molecule circulates through the body, when it encounters tissue with more oxygen affinity than it has, it releases oxygen to that tissue and binds with that tissue's carbon dioxide, which it then circulates back to lung tissue to release the carbon dioxide and acquire oxygen for another trip to transport more oxygen to needy tissue.
But here's the important part. The body is not catabolizing the erythrocytic cell. It's not "eating" the cell. The cell remains intact and functioning as a tissue. Also, though the erythrocyte is rich in protein, its protein is not catabolized as food. Transfused red cells are transport vehicles for oxygen and carbon dioxide. The oxygen and carbon dioxide they exchange, retrieve and deliver is not eating, its inhalation and exhalation; it's catch and release.
Each person must conclude what they will about other persons. That's the way it is, it'll always be that way, and it should be that way.
In my case, I prefer to learn from those around me, whether I like what they say or not. This is because I want to learn, even if that means I find out I'm wrong about something. For me, I could care less about your personality. But I do look to learn from each interaction. Also, sometimes, someone puts information out in public view that the public deserves to know is incorrect. In this case, it's incorrect to assert:
That was said in terms of intravenous administration, and it is just plain false. And, the one who said this did so under auspice of someone who "worked in the medical field". This suggests the notion above is said authoritatively. Yet, the statement that "there is no difference as to eating the blood and being fed the blood via a tube" is patently false.
- If you eat blood the body sees nutritional elements and it metabolizes those elements as food. It's eating.
- If you transfuse blood the body see biological tissue that it uses as tissue. It's a tissue transplant.
Think of my person however you want. But if you're going to say things at least say things that are correct.

Enter Paul's ministry ...
Between Jews converting to Christianity and Gentiles embracing Christianity, we find that each has persons whose worship God accepted.
But Jewish Christians had just learned something new. There were Gentiles who aside from all the Jewish tradition and ritual, had worship that God accepts, just as it was at the time.
Just reading the room a bit, when Cornelius and his household met Peter and his entourage it is a bit more than evident God was nudging the gentiles toward Christianity. Though He accepted their worship, there was something more He was looking for in them. Hence, though their worship was already acceptable, God was showing them something new too. But the new for them was not extensive ritualistic law codes. Rather, it was embracing Jesus and becoming followers of him. Peter immediately offered baptism in the name of Jesus, and these holy spirit bearing gentiles were thus baptized.
Leaping
Between the Jewish Christians and the gentile Christians, one could argue the Jewish Christians needed to make a bigger leap than the gentile Christians. The Jewish Christians learned their expectation of fellowship with gentiles would need them to do a seriously large downsizing. For fellowship with gentiles they basically needed to rip the entire Mosaic Law code out of their head. It obviously wasn't needed for acceptable worship, and insisting on its provisions would certainly hamper brotherly fellowship with gentile Christians, when they should all be siblings in faith.
Holy spirit entered the picture by pointing to standards of behavior held out for all men that existed prior to Mosaic Law and all its associated ritualism. It boiled down to a few items that were not Mosaic Law but were more than natural law. It boiled down to the letter issued as an apostolic decree and found in Acts 15. This decree filled the gap for sibling fellowship for al Christians, no matter their decent.
Enter Paul
Paul knew God had already accepted gentile worshipers as they were, which was made evident by holy spirit falling upon them. This is not to say that the worship of all gentiles was acceptable to God, but of some of them it was (such as Cornelius). Hence in his words to them he didn't argue to ignore the apostolic decree but, rather, it appears he was telling them not to go to extremes in relation to it. Hence, what was sold in a meat market, unless they knew it was something contrary to the apostolic decree then don't worry about it. As Paul said, 'Make no inquiry'. Regarding food used in idolatrous ceremony, it was not the food's fault how it had been used. But once the ceremony's over why waste food that's perfectly edible!? Paul wasn't advocating that idolatry was okay. He was only pointing out that nitpicking about where food had been is nonsense and should not interfere with eating something that's perfectly edible. Don't make a big deal out of it!
Then Paul says to Timothy, " For every creation of God is fine, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving." That statement would, by itself, stand in stark contrast to the apostolic decree that had been issued with help of holy spirit. But this statement does not stand alone. Paul prefaced this statement by saying he was speaking of "foods that God created to be partaken of with thanksgiving..." It just happens to be the case that of the foods "God created to be partaken of with thanksgiving..." there was a provision that God had expressed to all humankind that should be observed out of respect for life. That was to abstain from eating blood of animals killed to eat their flesh. This was the "blood" and "things strangled" cited in the apostolic decree.
Jesus speaks
He said, ". . . It is not what enters into a man’s mouth that defiles him, but it is what comes out of his mouth that defiles him.” Jesus also said, "For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks"
Aside from what natural law would tell a person, I ask the question: what would come out of the mouth of someone who understood God's sentiments on respect for life and what He expected in demonstration of that respect? That, out of respect for life and God's sentiments of it, it would be right and proper to abstain from eating blood of animals killed to eat their flesh. This is the "blood" and "things strangled" cited in the apostolic decree that should be abstained from. The worship Jesus spoke of was not based on technical things but, rather, what is in the heart. The heart of anyone who worships God wants to please Him out of fear (respect) of his dominion over them and their wanting to please Him in how they live their lives, which in the end is our worship. Our worship is how we live our life, and it's done authentically only from the heart.
 
 

Some treatments are associated with great risks. I agree that blood and blood products can have negative aspects. But that is a risk that the patient should weigh up.
If you want to point out that disobedience to God's commandment is the cause of death for those who are disobedient, then that's not really an argument. Because on the other hand, obedience to God is also the cause of death. There are biblical examples and examples of JWs who gave their lives for the "idea", for the "faith" because of obedience to doctrine.

Perhaps God should have told her (and all women after her) that she has the right to resist any violent intention of a man who uses prophetic words with unjust and immoral motives. That women will not allow themselves to be exploited. Since God has nowhere specifically said that a woman may/must not resist dominion and/or violence from men in marriage or outside of marriage, this means that women may/have right to resist any kind of enslavement by men. And that they can see patriarchy as an unjust order. This would even apply to Jesus and his somewhat milder attitude towards women when he was on earth.
The apostolic words, which even command the subordination of the wife to her husband "in everything", do not correspond to the nature of things that were in Eden and the partnership that was established by the act of creation. A big minus for "Christianity".
So we see a flaw in the Bible or in the perfection of God Himself. God prophesies that Eve will be under the dominion of Adam. Then men (and women too) accepted this as their fate, as something "normal", God-given. The absence of God's word on this subject, of a God who says of himself that he hates injustice, has contributed to wrong attitudes in society in general and also in WTJWorg. Free space for wrong interpretations.

After reviewing resources at my disposal, I offer this:
The thing at issue is language in the apostolic decree. Specifically whether abstain "from blood" and "things strangled" belong in the decree, and if so what that means.
As an initial matter, the letter containing this decree says it is the result of the holy spirit. I don't take that lightly. When someone with miraculous supernatural power says something is of the holy spirit, I listen. And, the men posting this letter are testified to have had such power.
As a second matter, this decree came after Jewish Christians, namely Peter and others who went with him, witnessed holy spirit falling upon gentile worshipers of God, even before they were baptized. Hence Jewish Christians were schooled (let's just say, very pointedly reminded!) that God accepted worship of men and woman outside Jewish law and tradition so long as they met basic standards (though God didn't immediately spell out what that was). Hence, eventually Jewish Christians were going to have to come to grips with the fact that regardless of descent "the man that fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him." But what did this mean? What made their worship acceptable? At the moment, all Jewish Christians knew was they were not the only ones whose worship God accepted; hence Jewish Christians would have to adjust their view of essential elements of acceptable worship, that is in relation to their own Jewish tradition, and in the face of their new faith in Jesus.
That said, this, together with consideration of multiple accounts of this decree (from various early church traditions, i.e., Western, Alexandrian and Caesarean text), most likely both abstain from "blood" and "things strangled" belong in the decree.
So what do we gather from both these being in in the apostolic decree?
Jewish Christians would have to dig deeper than their ritualistic traditions constructed around Mosaic Law, the temple and all that these entail. And, they had a new faith in Jesus that moved them! Holy spirit helped them out. Acceptable worship included essential things aside from Mosaic Law and beyond what natural law would dictate. One item that would fall into this gap had to do with Noahide law. It addressed a prohibition in relation to killing and blood. According to Noahide law, to "abstain from blood" would include abstention from "things strangled" by human hand. So why was "things strangled" included in the decree? It would be repetition. So why include it?
I can't be dogmatic about answering the question. I would say, though, that invoking Noahide law as essential would basically require the notion of abstain "from blood". (I.e., blood of slaughter) So that aspect was a given within the decree. When it came to "things strangled" there could be something practical going on. As a practical matter, the fresher and cleaner the meat the more preferable. Keeping an animal alive until it was sold kept its meat fresher. At the time, meat sold for dietary purposes, if it was killed at the point of sale, would often be strangled then and there. Killing a critter made the carcass more manageable. Killing a critter by strangulation aided in protecting its flesh from external contamination, which is initially helpful. (Modern processing houses for wild game much prefer an animal to be intact as possible. Field dressing, for example, tends to introduce all manner of contaminants that would not otherwise be there to have to deal with.) Hence, the notion of abstain from "things strangled" could arguably be no more than addressing a practical matter that contemporary Christians would find themselves confronted with.
In short, including "abstain from blood" and "things strangled" may mean nothing more than one is statutory language and one addresses a practical matter.
PS: Nothing about this presentation is intended to construct a logical argument. It's no more than sharing potential.

The "big freaking deal" is the part of Genesis 9 that holds individuals responsible for deaths caused for teaching something that is false. That falls squarely in the realm of bloodguilt.
You've just put words into God's mouth. Under Mosaic Law Jews were to treat blood as a sacred substance that should not be used for anything, with the sole exception of using it for sacred sacrifice, and Jews were required to use blood in that way.
Aside from Mosaic Law God has never required anyone to treat blood as a sacred substance. Noah was not required to waste blood onto the ground. Of living animals he would kill to eat, Noah was not required to pour the animal's blood onto the ground. Noah could do with that blood anything he wanted to do, except for eating it. That was the sole abstention required of Noah in respect to the substance of blood.
Oh, and, before I forget to mention it, God didn't not say anything to Noah about "all blood". The only blood he talked to Noah about was blood of living animals and the blood of human's who were killed for unjustified reason. To Noah, at no time did God address 1) blood of animals dead of natural cause, or 2) donor blood.
One more thing. Christians are not under Mosaic Law. They never have been.

Maybe you worked in the medical field, but you don't seem to understand that blood products like packed red cells are of absolutely no value as parenteral nutrition. Though red cells are loaded with protein, if a patient were starving and given red cells by transfusion as their nutrition, the patient would starve to death because given intravenously the body will not catabolize its own red cells for sake of nutrition.
This has been known since the late 19th Century when Dr. William Hunter and his colleagues published very extensive methods and findings of blood physiology and transfusion medicine. Among other things, of transfusion of whole blood they found, "We have seen that transfused blood possesses no nutritive value." Of the transfused blood's physiology they found, "It behaves, not as a mass of nutritive material, but as a tissue." (British Med J, Hunter et al, 1889 Aug 10, p 308; British Med J, Hunter et al, 1889 July 20, p 117)
Transfusion of blood is, essentially, an organ transplant. We can eat a kidney and get nutrition. We can accept a kidney transplant and we get no nutrition. Transfusing blood works essentially the same way.
The findings of Dr. Hunter et. al. were later confirmed beyond any doubt by further experimentation and research conducted by Drs. J. Garrott Allen, Edward Stemmer and Louis R. Head in the 1950s. They proved conclusively that intravenous administration of red cells offered no nutritional benefit whatsoever. None. Nada. (Annals of Surgery, Allen et al, Sept 1956, pp 345-354; see also J of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, Drs. Erik Vinnars and Douglas Wilmore, Vol 27 Numb 23, 2003, p 226)
Oddly enough, though, the same trio of researchers also found that products like cryosupernatant were effective for parenteral nutrition, and this is one of the products rendered from blood the society lets JWs accept transfusion of. This finding was established in the 1930s and conclusive confirmed in the 1950s. (Ibid)
Yes, internal homogenic or xenogenic tissue transplantation should always be weighed carefully. You don't want them if they are not essential to protecting mortality or morbidity. A risk-to-benefit analysis is in order for sure!

From the Introduction, we find this statement:
"In our study, we will clearly point out that this variability in medical issues makes the Watchtower Society an incompetent organization in this field, and especially regarding its determination of refusing blood transfusions."
I have to agree with that statement. When asked about the fundamental underpinnings of its doctrinal position on blood, the society has said the following:
Item 1: When asked by an elder why we would disfellowship/disassociate a JW for conscientiously taking a transfusion of a blood product like white cells but not for taking a product like cryoprecipitate, the society’s response was to say ‘while both may affect the life of the individual, both whole blood and major components (meaning red cells, white cells, platelets and plasma) carry nutrition to the body, and it is this aspect of providing nourishment that links blood transfusion with the biblical prohibition.’
Item 2: To another elder who asked a similar question, the response was to say “In weighing matters scripturally, the “slave" has decided with good-basis that blood's four primary components-plasma,-red cells, white cells, and platelets-should not be used. That is how unfractionated blood components settle out naturally. In its still unbroken-down state, each separated primary component, regardless of its respective percentage of whole blood, can still represent basically what blood as a whole symbolizes: the life of the creature.”
The problem with these two items of response is that both contain utter falsehood.
Regarding Item 1 above, it leverages the biblical statement to Noah about eating blood of animals killed to use them as food. (See Gen 9) The problem is, it is well known that transfusion of red cells offers no nutritional support. None. To be clear, if a patient was transfused with forbidden red cells for nutritional support, they would die of starvation. On the other hand, and ironically, if a patient were transfused with permitted cryosupernatant plasma it would offer a decent measure of nutritional support. Hence, not only is utter falsehood found in this position, the position is also self-contradictory.
Regarding Item 2 above, it leverages what we find in the natural world. (See Ps 19) The problem is, it is patently false to say blood settles out naturally as plasma, red cells, white cells and platelets. First of all, there is no instance in nature where this is true. None. In nature, when blood settles out, it settles out as two components, not four. Those two components are serum and a clot. Second, were it true that blood settles out naturally as plasma, red cells, white cells and platelets, we’d all be dead. This is because our blood is designed to clot if it is not circulating. If it does not clot then even small abrasions could lead to death because we’d bleed out. So this idea is just flat out false. 
Because the two fundamental underpinnings the society asserts for its religious position are total nonsense, then either they are just flat out dishonest or, as the author above says, the society is "an incompetent organization in this field".
Honestly, folks inside the society should feel utterly embarrassed at this nonsense, and perhaps this explains why not a single insider with any authority is willing to publicly discuss this subject with a learned person on its merit. All they will do in public is argue that a religion has a right to hold doctrinal views, and that individuals have a right to hold doctrinal views. But publicly address the merit with a learned person? No. Never! Well, they are right that religions and individuals have a right to hold whatever religious view they want, but that doesn't mean a religious view they hold is rational or, in this case, scriptural.

From a macro-perspective, humans act like a virus consuming planet earth.
If something is not expressly forbidden it just means it's not expressly forbidden. It does not suggest permission or prohibition.
If something is not expressly permitted it just means it's not expressly permitted. it does not suggest it might be permitted or that is is prohibited.
Logically, it would be false to assert lack of permission means forbidden. This is because the premise asserts a false bifurcation that if something is not permitted that means it's forbidden when there could be reasons other than "it's forbidden" that a permission has not been expressed.
Lack of permission would only mean forbidden when there is present a demonstrable premise that everything is prohibited except that which is permitted. Without that latter demonstrable premise, lack of permission does not implicate forbidden.
When Eve was created she was presented as a compliment of Adam, suggesting a helping partnership. (Gen 2:18-22)
After the fall into sin, Eve was told Adam would dominate her. (Gen 3:16)

abstain
verb [ I ]
US  /æbˈsteɪn, əb-/
to not do something you could do, esp. something that is unhealthy or gives you pleasure:
Some families abstain from eating fried food.
If you abstain from voting, you do not vote although you are permitted to vote.
to choose to refrain: he abstained from alcohol
abstain (from something) to decide not to do or have something, especially something you like or enjoy, because it is bad for your health or considered morally wrong
to abstain from alcohol/sex/drugs
I have already noted that the term "abstain" is weaker than the term "prohibition/ban". Abstinence is left to personal choice, personal willpower, personal motivation. Furthermore, the word, at least for me, gives the impression of a decision that applies in the short term. Or as a decision not to do something temporarily. For the benefit (in favor) of yourself or others.
 

I just came across this title:
Are Jehovah’s Witnesses competent to resolve the issue of blood transfusion? - Włodzimierz Bednarski
https://www.academia.edu/41133507/Are_Jehovahs_Witnesses_competent_to_resolve_the_issue_of_blood_transfusion?email_work_card=view-paper

abstain
verb [ I ]
US  /æbˈsteɪn, əb-/
to not do something you could do, esp. something that is unhealthy or gives you pleasure:
Some families abstain from eating fried food.
If you abstain from voting, you do not vote although you are permitted to vote.
to choose to refrain: he abstained from alcohol
abstain (from something) to decide not to do or have something, especially something you like or enjoy, because it is bad for your health or considered morally wrong
to abstain from alcohol/sex/drugs
I have already noted that the term "abstain" is weaker than the term "prohibition/ban". Abstinence is left to personal choice, personal willpower, personal motivation. Furthermore, the word, at least for me, gives the impression of a decision that applies in the short term. Or as a decision not to do something temporarily. For the benefit (in favor) of yourself or others.
 

That's a perspective I've not really explored, as least not that I can recall at the moment. In English translation from different original languages, we have:
Gen 2:17: you must not
Gen 9:4: YOU must not
Acts 15:20: abstain from
Could be the difference between you can't versus you shouldn't.
It's subtle. But it's a curiosity. I'm gonna give this more thought.

abstain
verb [ I ]
US  /æbˈsteɪn, əb-/
to not do something you could do, esp. something that is unhealthy or gives you pleasure:
Some families abstain from eating fried food.
If you abstain from voting, you do not vote although you are permitted to vote.
to choose to refrain: he abstained from alcohol
abstain (from something) to decide not to do or have something, especially something you like or enjoy, because it is bad for your health or considered morally wrong
to abstain from alcohol/sex/drugs
I have already noted that the term "abstain" is weaker than the term "prohibition/ban". Abstinence is left to personal choice, personal willpower, personal motivation. Furthermore, the word, at least for me, gives the impression of a decision that applies in the short term. Or as a decision not to do something temporarily. For the benefit (in favor) of yourself or others.