Pudgy

Sometimes, when you read something, or somebody tells you something, it makes perfect sense. Other times you get the uneasy feeling it’s somewhere somehow you were being observed through binoculars by a duck.
…. there is an actual Latin word for this, but it escapes me at the moment.
You probably remember the scripture that says, paraphrased, “… you must not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk .…”.  The instant I read this scripture, many years ago, I understood why God would command such a thing, and I wholeheartedly agreed with it at the same level of seriousness that I instantly understood that it was intended.
Occasionally over the past 50 years, in discussing other subjects, I would mention that commandment, and was genuinely stunned that others did not also instantly “get it”. It made no sense to them. If you are going to KILL an animal for food … what’s the big deal how you cook it?
The younger animal is food. The mother’s milk is food. What’s the big deal? Neither one knows or is capable of comprehending WHAT is done with their being a resource.
Just as soldiers become soldiers for dozens of different reasons, even among soldiers, sometimes what is a moral necessity for one is incomprehensible for another.
The SYMBOLIC (  … if you will, the SPIRITUAL …) value of blood is unique, because by example and by edict from God, it is a common theme that runs throughout the whole Bible. It’s clear that we have permission to use as food anything that walks, crawls, swims or flies, including (if you can overcome the strong CULTURAL taboos, like when Jerusalem was under siege) people … presumably bled out from war wounds. Some people would rather starve to death …. and have.
The prohibition against blood is consistent in principle throughout the entire Bible, but what convinced me was the example of King David, a soldier who slaughtered men and animals by the thousands … himself … personally … in hand to hand and eyeball to eyeball combat. When he in laying siege to a city remarked he was thirsty, and the only close by water was in a well near the city walls, two of his men risked their lives in a hail of arrows, spears, and rocks to bring him back a bucket of water. 
David did NOT drink the water. He poured it out on the ground, not because it was blood, or even blood fractions, but because it REPRESENTED the lives of his two soldiers, the EXACT same way that blood represents all air-breathing (pneuma=air) souls. 
In 1960, when I first read that, I instantly “got it”, the same way I instantly understood about the “boiling a kid in it’s mothers milk”.
That’s why, for me, it is just as much respect for the IDEA, or SYMBOLISM of respecting that which Jehovah God has clearly stated is his jealously guarded personal property, as well as actual blood.
Some people “get it”.
Some people don’t.

I'm of the opinion,JWs (and WTJWorg) must decide with what argumentation they want to present their doctrine of refusing blood transfusions. Do they want to do it with exclusively religious proof that their position is correct? Or, Do they want to include in their theology the accompanying medical and material aspects that increase the effect of why it is good to refuse blood transfusion?
If theological reasons are the only important and decisive for the JWs position on blood transfusion, then all other "scientific and material" aspects should not be considered and used as a supplement to that only important "biblical" reason. Accordingly, the "philosophizing" that GB engages in explaining the acceptability or prohibition of certain parts of blood (components and fractions) becomes mundane and inappropriate while discussing "the most sacred substance" in the entire universe, blood.

It is too easy to take the JW blood transfusion stand as an arbitrary concoction of their ‘top brass,’ imposed on everyone else for—who knows what reason? In this crazy world of ‘anticult activism,’ it can be spun as a technique of ‘controlling people:’ Lay a few conditions on others and there is no question as to who is boss.
That is why I like this quote from Professor of Anatomy at the University of Copenhagen, Thomas Bartholin. (1616-1680) Yes, it was a long time ago. Does that make it irrelevant? If anything, it makes it key. 
“Those who drag in the use of human blood for internal remedies of diseases appear to misuse it and to sin gravely . . . Cannibals are condemned. Why do we not abhor those who stain their gullet with human blood? Similar is the receiving of alien blood from a cut vein, either through the mouth or by instruments of transfusion. The authors of this operation are held in terror by the divine law, by which the eating of blood is prohibited,” he writes.
It is key because it shows the stand educated people took, at least some of them, before the occasional price that has been paid caused ‘the faithful’ to go all weak in the knees. Did Jehovah’s Witnesses make this stuff up about blood transfusions just to be ornery? No. Their stance was once the stance that immediately occurred to God-fearing persons such as this professor. I’d take him over that smart-ass GC philosophy professor any day.
The smart-ass philosophy professor—no question about it—leans heavily toward atheism, if not embracing it entirely. He consistently insists that ‘rationality’ must define all. He consistently insists that belief in God is ‘irrational.’ You can do it if you want—he gives his permission—but just don’t imagine you’re being ‘rational.’ To be sure, there are philosophies that would prohibit you, but they are as logically inconsistent as the ones that allow you, so he doesn’t know what to do until he has rationally settled the problem, a project that isn’t going too well, though that doesn’t phase him.
It makes a difference if you are atheist or not. Leaning toward atheism means that any loss of life is permanent and therefore must be averted at all costs. Exceptions are made for loss of life due to war, due to scientific or other exploration, even for extreme sports. For the latter, the deceased is likely, not to be derided as the idiot everyone else thinks he is, but to be lauded for having ‘lived life to the full,’ ‘following his dreams’ and so forth.  But if that dream has to do with religion—then and only then is such loss of life deemed near-criminal.
To be sure, atheists are not glib about loss of life. They endorse efforts to make war safer, for instance, by sending in drones to do the bombing, rather than soldiers who might get hurt. They make us all wear seatbelts when we drive. No spouse has ever nagged so much as my car nags me if I ride unbuckled—the alarm starts pleasantly enough but soon escalates to nuclear war alarm level that is well-nigh unbearable. Protective equipment, even concussion protocol, is devised for football athletes—no, not that silly game where you kick the ball around but can’t touch it with your hands, but the one where you can manhandle it and anyone with it pretty much anywhichway you like—violence comparable to rugby, I am told. They’ve made it safer. They even stopped the game when the Bills players dropped on the field and the ambulance came out to administer CPR before taking him away. It took about an hour, during which teammates crowded around so fans could not see the fellow being worked on, an hour during which the sports broadcasters had to uncomfortably tread water, but they did afterward call off the game and all the fans went home. They didn’t do as in Ancient Rome: ‘Another one bit the dust! Bring out the next combatant!’
Jehovah’s Witnesses have also made their Bible-based transfusion stand ‘safer’—not directly they haven’t, but by spurring on the advent of bloodless medicine, they have made holding fast far ‘safer’ than it used to be. From Tom Irregardless and Me: 
“The Watchtower organization never meant to kill a god; Witnesses just wanted him to leave them alone. We initially assumed when doctors told us we were crazy for refusing blood transfusions that we were, at least insofar as the present life is concerned. But each passing year has revealed our position to be more sound medically, and the transfusion god’s less. We never imagined doctors would ultimately expose transfusion as a sham and kill the god. It wasn’t our intention for that to happen. We don’t gloat about it. 
“To be sure, it hasn’t happened. The god of blood transfusion is not dead. He’s alive. But he’s not well. He’s limping where he once walked tall. He is like the god of churches that Sam Harris boasts he has killed. He’s respected so long as he stays in his place. But his place used to be anywhere he wanted it to be. He’ll be around for a long time because too many incomes depend upon him. But he’s not the god he once was.”
So the Witness transfusion policy on transfusion, like the above policies on other secular matters, is much safer than it once was. It is certainly far ‘safer’ than it was in Bartholin’s day, back when a godly person would instantly recognize that to misuse blood was to “sin gravely” and be “held in terror by the divine law.”
To the extent that this is true (I’m pretty sure it is, but I just don’t want to rubber-stamp it), it has not become a situation in which the prevailing view of transfusion has changed. It has become a situation in which HQ says it is not for them to enforce one’s compliance or non-compliance. They are moving more into the arena of ‘each one must carry his own load’ as opposed to ‘You’d better carry it; we’re watching you.’ It would be in perfect harmony with the revised stand ‘over counting time.’ It might be okay for the enforcer to verify that you count time, but not the shepherd. 
To the extent it is true, if someone caves on the blood issue due to cowardice, like Peter caved in denying his Lord and then later in the matter of partiality, it is between them and Jehovah. If someone ‘caves’ on this issue due to conviction, it is also between them and Jehovah. The shepherding organization may well assist, healing in the instance of cowardice, educating in the case of possibly misplaced conviction, but will otherwise stand aside and not meddle in the affairs of the ‘house slave’ of another. It is a win-win. Being a win-win, to continue to rail over transfusion beliefs begins to smack of ‘fighting against God.’ There they are, plain as day, according to Bartholin. The support organization has fixed the issue. What more could you ask for, other than usurping the power to resurrect? You’ll just have to wait on that for a while.

That was a nice post…

Elon Musk recently opined that what makes things funny is that they have a “revealed truth” in order to be funny. Something that everybody “knows”, but never thought about. I agree with this.
The Babylon Bee is a religiously oriented web site that excoriates EVERYBODY, but one might suspect favors Jehovah’s Witnesses only because they seem to have the same clear vision of “Core Truths” that JWs have. 
They have produced a series of five short YouTube video clips about “Californians Move To Texas” that has MANY subtle screamingly funny “revealed truths”.
Well worth the time to watch at least three times each, if for no other reason than understanding  what makes something funny!

https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/vaccinated-people-more-likely-to-suffer-blood-disorders-ear-disease-studies-5535789?utm_source=brightnoe&src_src=brightnoe&utm_campaign=bright-2023-12-04&src_cmp=bright-2023-12-04&utm_medium=email&est=BsdRb9gjAdO%2BBeMMXjqlceQtelgPeLGQ%2Fg20e1SK3I6j9lIOEWaXidFLDDo%3D
A bit extra on Covid shots and blood diseases ….

It is like when a man just returned from his day's work invited me into his home, in which he had several Bibles. I had stopped by previously; his wife said to return when he got home, for he loved to discuss God's Word.
He was a humble man, hospitable, instantly likeable, of just what church I forget. I made some points. He made some points. He invited me to a certain passage of scripture. He meant to read it aloud but I got there first and made to read it myself. 
"No, not you, don't you read it," he said, chuckling in good-natured faux panic. "You'll mess it all up!"

I do have a lot of fun with it. I compare myself to a painter, a favorite safe hobby for a Witness. (painting, not writing, and the object painted is likely to be a boat) He or she paints for enjoyment. Thereafter, he doesn’t tuck paintings in the closet but puts them in some gallery. If he finds that some like them, so much the better. If they buy them, even more so much the better. But he would paint regardless of reception. He benefits from naysayers too, and may or may not incorporate their input into subsequent works.
I write to be creative, to research, to tell stories, to do memoirs. Steve Jobs confided to his biographer he wanted his story told so his kids would understand him better. I don’t primarily consider myself an apologist, though I can see why other people might. It is just that I am a Witness and everyone writes about what they know. Mostly, I am just a communicator who gots to communicate.
That said, to the extent I am an apologist, I go places I have never seen any Witness go. The Witness works that I have seen mostly confine themselves to ‘safe’ Witness topics like bashing holidays or blood transfusions. If they do go into matters of controversy, they mostly repackage what they’ve read in the Watchtower. For me, Chrysiddes remarks (under his pen name Ivor E. Tower) about ‘Tom Irregardless and Me’ is satisfying:  “Tom shows a remarkable breadth of knowledge and reading too – he has by no means exclusively studied Watch Tower publications.”
To the extent I have a goal, it is to show how a modern Witness copes with the times. Another goal is not to be dull. As an example of going somewhere I’ve never seen a Witness go, ‘In the Last of the Last Days: Faith in the Age of Dysfunction,’ includes a detailed description of my meeting with the elders, following up on prior counsel not to engage with ‘apostates’ and unsure as to whether I do or not, but if so, to readjust. I mean, I had a book (which I later removed) on my blog page entitled TrueTom vs the Apostates!’ A little difficult for me to say, ‘Don’t know nothin bout no apostates here.’ I don’t advertise, but word gets around.
Probably, every ‘apostate’ book contains a meeting with the elders, many of them framed as ‘shootout at the OK Corral.’ I don’t know for sure, having never read one. Everyone’s got a story to tell, and mine is as good as theirs. But I’ve never seen an account of a meeting with elders from a loyal congregation member. If Witnesses are known as ‘insular,’ I strive to be open. I frame this meeting in the good light I think it should be framed in, as an example of shepherding, even when a given ‘sheep’ might find it overbearing. Rather than take any shots at anyone, I present the elders much as Pudgy has, as honorable men doing their best to do the right thing. I’m on good terms with every one of them, as well as the congregation at large. 
I even deal with charges opponents make against them: 
“Are the brothers “brainwashed”—the ones who counseled me about a matter that they do not understand themselves from a fleshly point of view, which is the only point of view of concern to the greater world? It’s such a loaded word. Who isn’t brainwashed today in some respect?
“Follow the flag and get your head blown off in consequence; only some of your countrymen will think your death noble—everyone else in the world will consider your death in vain. It doesn’t take some brainwashing to buy into that? Follow unquestioningly the overall goals of this system to get a good education so that you may get a good job—not a tad of brainwashing there that such is the path to happiness? When my wife worked as a nurse with the geriatric community, she said a quite common thing was for bewildered elderly persons to look around them in their waning years, as though to say, “Is this all there is?” These were not “losers” in life, for the most part. These were people who had enjoyed careers and loving families. But there was an aching emptiness at the end for many of them, a certain vague but overpowering sense of betrayal by life. Is it not the result of being brainwashed by mainstream thinking?”
So, yes, I write for enjoyment. Yes, I am pleased that my works trickle off the shelf. But they should be New York Times bestsellers.
Unnecessary advice. You are one of the viewers, even as you do paintings yourself. I’m content if you don’t throw that many tomatoes.

I did a search of “The Babylon Bee” site for Jehovah’s Witnesses ….. there’s MORE!!
 



 
… one of my favorites …..
 

Over the years I have immensely enjoyed the continuous religious satire of “The Babylon Bee”, as they have excoriated and sometimes figuratively disemboweled Catholics, Baptists, Mormons, and Mega churches, the idea of a burning hell, and doctrines galore.
Today, it was Jehovah’s Witnesses turn, and it was painfully funny!
I had to ask ChatGBT what a “J-Dub” was, because I thought it was an insulting term. Then I had to think about that answer until it made sense
ChatGBT:  “The term "J-Dub" likely originated as a casual and abbreviated way for people to refer to Jehovah's Witnesses. It's a combination of the letter "J" from Jehovah and "Dub" from the "W" in Witnesses, creating a more informal and nickname-like expression. Informal language and slang often evolve naturally within communities, and this appears to be an example within the context of Jehovah's Witnesses.”  
As a small boy I had an uncle always referred to as “DubaGee” and many years later I figured out it meant W. G. for William Garrison something, the W. being pronounced “DubbaYuu”
With that insight, I find the ChatGBT EXPLANATION very reasonable.

I seriously doubt that with those vague, general, non-specific, word salads anyone cares except you, Georgie.

Over the years I have immensely enjoyed the continuous religious satire of “The Babylon Bee”, as they have excoriated and sometimes figuratively disemboweled Catholics, Baptists, Mormons, and Mega churches, the idea of a burning hell, and doctrines galore.
Today, it was Jehovah’s Witnesses turn, and it was painfully funny!
I had to ask ChatGBT what a “J-Dub” was, because I thought it was an insulting term. Then I had to think about that answer until it made sense
ChatGBT:  “The term "J-Dub" likely originated as a casual and abbreviated way for people to refer to Jehovah's Witnesses. It's a combination of the letter "J" from Jehovah and "Dub" from the "W" in Witnesses, creating a more informal and nickname-like expression. Informal language and slang often evolve naturally within communities, and this appears to be an example within the context of Jehovah's Witnesses.”  
As a small boy I had an uncle always referred to as “DubaGee” and many years later I figured out it meant W. G. for William Garrison something, the W. being pronounced “DubbaYuu”
With that insight, I find the ChatGBT EXPLANATION very reasonable.

Exactly. That is why you sit in the penalty box for a while till they let you back in the game.
Many Miles all but blew a gasket when I pulled this illustration on him, but it is exactly what I would do if I had caved on this issue, either out of conviction or out of cowardice.
Of course, if it were out of conviction I caved, so that it was not really caving but standing on principle, and my conviction was such that since headship is misguided on this position, it is misguided in everything else as well, then I would not head for the penalty box. I would head directly to the showers. But most people are not such black-and-white thinkers. Even the Great Courses philosophy professor cited some research somewhere—I will look it up in time—to the effect that most persons are content with what is mostly true, a finding that seems to distress him because he thinks through philosophy he can discover what is absolutely true. Good luck on that project. 
His course of 36 lectures (let us estimate 5 per lecture, deducting the introductory and concluding lecture, to arrive at our count) considers 170 philosophies, some in detail, some in passing, and for each one he cites logical inconsistencies. Even as I write this, I know it cannot be as high as 170, but it is a lot.
He says: “Philosophy can be frustrating because it's so difficult to find concrete answers. For example, we just studied a number of ethical theories but each one failed in one way or the other. We didn't definitively define what's morally right and wrong and we certainly didn't find the truth makers for moral statements we were looking for.
Now this might tempt us to draw the conclusion that, just like with free will and persons and the mind, that morality is just an illusion. The reason that we can't find the ground for moral facts is because there are none, and that might be true however.”
Or . . .it just may be that he is looking in the wrong place for everything. It just may be that Zilch is the price he pays for confining his search to that of the ‘physical man.’ If he was to expand to the ‘spiritual man,’ it might be different, but he has consistently made a great show that everything must conform to ‘reason.’ He is not put off by his entire lecture, which sums up the entire body of philosophy, not finding any ‘reason’ that is consistent. 
Believe me, if this guy has a problem, it is not that his intellect fails to shine through. It’s that he should put a basket over it. He has confined his search to what is rational, to what is intellectually satisfying, and he will not go beyond it. It is a great shame, because the body of knowledge Witnesses adhere to is not afraid to go beyond it. It has to conform to reason, and it does, but it doesn’t have to bow to it as Master, the way this professor representing philosophy does.
It is like my comment on the educated world’s division of Job into two parts: “Is the appeal here that by doing so you are in position to understand neither while in both cases flattering the intellect?” By separating chapters 1 and 2, you get to shine before your educated peers, reassuring them that you, too, are not so stupid as to believe in a literal devil. At the same time, you get to spin treatises on the windy speeches, unconcerned that they may be a test at the end. Whatever theories you propose will be no better or worse than the next guy’s.
It is not intellect that matters to God. It is heart. If you have intellect, by all means, bring your gift to the altar, but don’t expect anyone to bow and scrape to you on that account, much less to hand you the reins.
But coming back to Srecko, I would say that if I caved, whether it be out of cowardice or conviction, I would sit in the penalty box for a while. If it were conviction, I would bitch a little bit inwardly, to be sure, but I wouldn’t flame anyone. They’ll eventually let me back in, and in the meantime, I can read Pudgy’s cartoons. 
Not to make light of MM’s trials. Had I experienced the things he had experienced, I might feel differently. I too, might thereafter present myself as an investigator of faiths (through rationality, no less) rather than as an adherent of one. I, too, might seek to undermine whoever I thought was advancing the ideas I came into such jarring conflict with. 
It is the human experience. John Butler experiences child sexual abuse long before he becomes a Witness. Thereafter, he cannot participate in a discussion of it without lapsing into near hysteria. The Sandy Hook parent loses his child and crusades for gun violence. A mother’s son is run over and Mothers Against Drunk Driving is born. None of these things would have happened without a horrific experience to precede it.
I am sympathetic. Maybe I would go there, too, in similar circumstances. My only experience with childhood sexual abuse came when some pervert happened along as my 15-year-old self was walking before dealer row considering the car I might buy when of driving age. No one was around, and the creep, leaning into me a little bit more than one would think proper, urged me to go with him behind the dealership because that’s where they keep the really good cars.
I wasn’t stupid. I got away from him in no time flat. I saw right through him—though, not for the right reason. They’re not going to keep the really good cars in the back. They’re going to put them up front where people can see them!
But if some horrific thing had happened, maybe I, upon recovery, would be like Butler. Or with different tragedies, like the other three. Or like Many Miles. Maybe I would come here as Many Many Miles and say to him, ‘What’s wrong? Cat got your tongue?’
If I so far have not, it is out of recognition that, whereas humans excel in demolition, they are far less skilled in construction.
 
 

Lot of truth in that comment. A lot!

It gets worse. When I release any such book, not only with MM dismiss it because it is apologetical in nature, but my own people will say, ‘Hmm—are we supposed to be doing this? Isn’t it someone else’s job to write about God?’
It’s like when I fill out a skills list for use in building projects. I say I know how to clean. If I say I also know how to write, follow up remarks will reveal that my experience comes through blogging—a dirty word to most Witnesses. It is not as though anyone has said a person can’t do that. It is that no one has said that you can, (a dilemma known as Pudgy’s Razor) and so the thinking of most will be, ‘If it were worth doing, the org would be advancing and recommending it.’ Instead, they have cautioned of how ‘it is not necessary’ and ‘some indiscreet brothers’ have done it, leading others to conclude that ‘Thou Shalt Not Blog’ is the eleventh commandment. 
So, for me it is somewhat like @Juan Rivera, who has said he pays a social cost for being a Witness. Juan, too, could write some books, and may someday. But he will face the same dilemma, and already does in ways that are parallel. He would, if he were a Baptist, write a book about God. Baptist Press would promote it, and even say: ‘Look at this guy! A real thinker, he is, a theologian and one of ours!’ Whereas, when he writes as a Witness, he becomes that brother who is likable but a little odd and possibly one who should be given a wide berth. You can ‘beat the rap’ simply by being a good person in the congregation and out, but the notion that one should feel there is a rap to beat will unfailingly stick in the craw of those overly swayed by today’s age of independence.
For me, I will acquiesce and say, ‘That’s the way it is. Suck it up.’ If it is a downer, it is many-fold more times compensated for by other benefits that I perceive stem from being a Witness. When people unite, all must chip in a little. If they don’t, then the unity doesn’t happen. Is there a social cost to being a Witness and making oneself subject to the Witness’ organization? There is also a social cost to not doing it: 
Recently, we had people from Texas come into town to work on a Kingdom Hall remodel nearby and they needed a place to stay. Sight unseen, we handed them the keys to our house while we were heading away for a few days. Many people would kill for such a brotherhood where you can place such trust in total strangers. 
That happened. The following two paragraphs I made up:
At the Independence Day church, Mr. and Mrs. O’Reilly heard of our adventure and decided to do the same. The first guests who stayed at their house broke their TV. The second set of guests tracked mud throughout the house. The third set found the Go Packs and raided the funds set aside.  The fourth set emptied the house completely and the O’Reilly’s returned to four bare walls.
Steamed, they contacted Independence Day Church headquarters. “Oh, yeah, that happened to us, too. No, they’re not congregation members – they’re imposters. But we have such a half-assed organization that any scoundrel can pull the wool over our eyes in a twinkling of the eye.’
Notice how it is not a matter of rationality to prefer the Witness organization to the Independence Day church. It is more a matter of what one values more. ‘Taste and see that Jehovah is good,’ the verse says. I had previously witnessed to the O’Reillys extensively but upon hearing Jehovah has an earthly organization, they decided that tasted bad. They preferred the Independence Day Church, where no one will lean upon them in any way. If they have to buy a houseful of furniture once in a while, it is in their eyes a small price to pay. 
 

For those who have a religious dilemma about taking blood transfusions and fear the consequences of such a "sin", I can say that God has forgiven much greater (intentional and unintentional) sins committed by people who have declared themselves to be his worshippers. Why torture your soul as if everything after "sin" is irreparable and futile.
The only problem a sinner will have is a problem with people, not with God. Then tell me, whose, which relationship is more important to you?
 

When I say a presentation looks like an apologetic work it's not a disparagement. There's nothing wrong with apologetic presentations. What I mean by "apologetic work" is a presentation that's written to protect a particular point of view.
What you wrote about problems related to donor blood and its availability and efficacy for transfusion medicine is not necessarily false, but it may lead to a false impression. Here's an example of what I mean:
You have two patients. Both patients are otherwise healthy young adults. But they have just suffered horrendous trauma and are hemorrhaging blood at an alarming rate. Each is bleeding out internally so fast that both will die before the underlying reason(s) for hemorrhage can be found, let alone remedied. Their Hb levels are lower than 2.0 g/dL. What to do? The doctors need more time. One thing can give them that time. Transfusion of volume expander and red cells. This will buy time to find and attempt to repair underlying cause(s) of hemorrhage, if that's possible.
All the problems you pointed out remain. But the simple fact is that if one of those patients accepts red cell transfusion and one declines, then there's a near 100% probability that one of those patients will die.
When it comes to subjects like this, any and all problems deserve attention and discussion, but if medical outcome is the critical factor then that factor can't be ignored as though it doesn't matter. So, for instance, the patient who accepted red cells and lived, maybe he contracts some disease or condition the result of that choice. But he's alive to deal with it.
If you want to write about difficulties of medical use of blood then do that. If you want to write about religious aspects of medical use of blood then do that. But those two things have nothing to do with one another. If religiously taking red cells is wrong then say so and show why religiously. If medically taking red cells is wrong then say so and show why medically. Sweeping statements about problems of using blood can easily mislead.
Apologetic works are written to protect (defend) a particular point of view. I prefer works that are written to share information and let people make of what they will. 
But, again, there is nothing inherently wrong with apologetic works.

And then … Pudgy is actually . . . . . .drum roll, please . . . . .pass the popcorn . . . .. .MARMADUKE!!

You said this treatment wasn’t known To most witness…in other words not discussed or talked about or widely known …..

The reason it is self-condemning is because it is no longer about the sacredness of blood … it’s about the sacredness of money.

And there you have it. In a nutshell.

Children (… and adults, giraffes and earthworms) die for literally tens of thousands of reasons.
Do you think that a child who dies for sake of rightousness … trying to respect and obey God and Christ … even if wrong … will not be resurrected to eternal life?
BOTH ABRAHAM AND ISAAC SET THE EXAMPLE.
 

I think many people here would agree with the proposition that the Church of Covid for two years became the world’s fastest growing religion.
Instead of a cross or a star of David it was the mask that identified its believers.
My wife and I did not join that Church, did not wear masks except where required to get in a building, and did not take shots or boosters.
The fanaticism was rampant, and my wife was fired from her teaching job as she refused to be part of a school Covid research project.
She was treated like an anti- health dangerous criminal and cried a lot about it. I barely noticed.
We did wear masks to the KH when it opened up again, not because it was reasonable or rational, because it wasn’t … but because it was almost no trouble, and we had gotten used to masks at the Golden Corral, as well as those silly blue plastic gloves on one hand.
Covid is airborne. Covid on your hands is digestable.
So … what if …. what if wearing masks actually INCREASED your risk of infection …. hmmmm?
Do you blame the Governments, the Church of Covid, the School Boards, or … who? for increased unnecessary sicknesses and cripplings, and deaths?
Ya gotta blame SOMEBODY!
Or … you improvise, adapt, and overcome the basic limitation … if you can … that all living things are subject to:
”STUFF HAPPENS”
Sometimes getting sucker punched kills you … sometimes you loose a few teeth … and sometimes it’s a swoosh and a miss.
”STUFF HAPPENS”
That’s the way the real world works. If you are stupid, it tries to kill you. 
This is known as … ”normal”
That’s why I like Indiana Jones Movies …. when the Nazis make their appearance, nobody has to explain the plot to me.
We all take turns standing up for rightous principles, and we all take turns being unbelievably stupid.
I cracked up when i learned the President’s wife, Jill Biden, a card carrying, mask wearing  member of the Church of Covid, with three covid shots snd two booster shots, got covid TWICE!
Like being crushed by a toppled cast iron statue in the lobby, I appreciate irony.
 

Oh, stuff it. You got your licks in. Let that be enough for you. Time to move on.  
It’s a little like @The Librarian, aptly named, whining on about the defilement of her card catalog that exists to keep order! Then someone like Pudgy comes along, and says, ‘Hey, forget order; let ‘er rip. You can be organized to such a degree that it starts to come out of your pores, like the brothers whose gestures are so similar that they begin to resemble synchronized swimming.