Originally posted by menace71which is more severe eating or injecting intravenously? No one cam deny that injecting substances intravenously is way more severe and yet God in his wisdom prohibits even eating blood. I think any reasonable individual shall be able to weigh up his position on intravenously injecting it. Its like saying ok i am forbidden to walk on ice so im gonna dance on it instead.
I think taking a blood transfusion is of one's conscience and I will accept that there is inherent risk in taking a blood transfusion but the benefit outweighs the risk in most cases. I could argue that God being all knowing could of stated in the future when blood transfusion becomes possible you are to abstain from it right ? I sincerly believe that what ...[text shortened]... ting) blood is different from putting it into your veins and noone can dispute that.
Manny
20 Sep 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieA God figure banning drinking/eating the blood of animals on one hand, and a life-saving blood transfusion for humans on the other, are completely different things.
which is more severe eating or injecting intravenously? No one cam deny that injecting substances intravenously is way more severe and yet God in his wisdom prohibits even eating blood. I think any reasonable individual shall be able to weigh up his position on intravenously injecting it.
20 Sep 14
1 edit
Apostacy
This term in Greek (apostasia) comes from the verb aphistemi, literally meaning “stand away from.” The noun has the sense of “desertion, abandonment or rebellion.” (Ac 21:21) In classical Greek the noun was used to refer to political defection, and the verb is evidently employed in this sense at Acts 5:37, concerning Judas the Galilean who “drew off” (apestese, form of aphistemi) followers. The Greek Septuagint uses the term at Genesis 14:4 with reference to such a rebellion. However, in the Christian Greek Scriptures it is used primarily with regard to religious defection; a withdrawal or abandonment of the true cause, worship, and service of God, and hence an abandonment of what one has previously professed and a total desertion of principles or faith.
jw.org
Bibles wise advice on dealing with apostates,
'Now I urge you, brothers, to keep your eye on those who create divisions and causes for stumbling contrary to the teaching that you have learned, and avoid them.' - Romans 16:17
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120150
20 Sep 14
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieA convenient cop-out to not facing up to the honest scrutiny of your beliefs.
Apostacy
This term in Greek (apostasia) comes from the verb aphistemi, literally meaning “stand away from.” The noun has the sense of “desertion, abandonment or rebellion.” (Ac 21:21) In classical Greek the noun was used to refer to political defection, and the verb is evidently employed in this sense at Acts 5:37, concerning Judas the Galilean wh ...[text shortened]... es for stumbling contrary to the teaching that you have learned, and avoid them.' - Romans 16:17
20 Sep 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis would be a worthy 'slogan' of sorts for the Clans Forum.
'Now I urge you, brothers, to keep your eye on those who create divisions and causes for stumbling contrary to the teaching that you have learned, and avoid them.' - Romans 16:17
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120150
20 Sep 14
It is interesting to note that robbie and Galveston's approach to defending this command from JW HQ is to appeal to the "common sense" health factors of why strangulation is a poor way to slaughter an animal and that eating (animal) blood less bad than injecting human blood.
But if you take a moment to read the origins of this doctrine you find a differing rational and explanation; one which our resident JW brothers have omitted to bring up:
From the wiki page linked below:
A 1961 Watchtower quoted Brazilian surgeon Dr Américo Valério as saying transfusions were often followed by --
"moral insanity, sexual perversions, repression, inferiority complexes, petty crimes" and Dr Alonzo Jay Shadman claiming that a person's blood "contains all the peculiarities of the individual ... [including] hereditary taints, disease susceptibilities, poisons due to personal living, eating and drinking habits ... The poisons that produce the impulse to commit suicide, murder, or steal are in the blood."
Robbie carrobie and Galveston75, do you subscribe to this teaching and point of view published by the Watch Tower?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions#History_of_doctrine
20 Sep 14
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe meeting of the Christians in Jerusalem in Acts 15 was to to determine what restriction that should be placed on the new Gentile Christians at that time. Circumcision and other restrictions of the Mosaic law were also eliminated when deciding to keep the blood prohibition.
Apostacy
This term in Greek (apostasia) comes from the verb aphistemi, literally meaning “stand away from.” The noun has the sense of “desertion, abandonment or rebellion.” (Ac 21:21) In classical Greek the noun was used to refer to political defection, and the verb is evidently employed in this sense at Acts 5:37, concerning Judas the Galilean wh ...[text shortened]... es for stumbling contrary to the teaching that you have learned, and avoid them.' - Romans 16:17
I really believe you are not using common sense on this blood prohibition by the apostles. If this prohibition meant that any trace of blood must be avoided, then no meat could have been eaten by the Gentile Christians. Excessive consumption of blood was prohibited to the new Gentile Christians because it was offensive to the Jewish Christians. Also there were no knowledge of how to administer blood transfusions at that time, even if it did include it. However, things change with increased knowledge and many things prohibited by those in ancient societies are no longer valid today. For example, in the beginning man was only given vegetables and fruit to eat as food, but after the flood man was allowed to eat certain animals declared clean by God. Then in the New Testament times we read that the apostle Peter was given a vision in which God declared that formerly unclean animals could be eaten:
The next day, as they went on their journey and drew near the city, Peter went up on the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour. Then he became very hungry and wanted to eat; but while they made ready, he fell into a trance and saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners, descending to him and let down to the earth. In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. And a voice came to him, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.”
But Peter said, “Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.”
And a voice spoke to him again the second time, “What God has cleansed you must not call common.” This was done three times. And the object was taken up into heaven again.
(Acts 10:9-16 NKJV)
Let's also not forget what Jesus said about blood:
For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.
(John 6:55 NKJV)
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120150
20 Sep 14
Originally posted by RJHindsDo you think Jesus would be pleased if a Christian allowed their child to die rather than permit them to have a blood transfusion?
The meeting of the Christians in Jerusalem in Acts 15 was to to determine what restriction that should be placed on the new Gentile Christians at that time. Circumcision and other restrictions of the Mosaic law were also eliminated when deciding to keep the blood prohibition.
I really believe you are not using common sense on this blood prohibition by th ...[text shortened]...
For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.
(John 6:55 NKJV)
20 Sep 14
Originally posted by FMFNot substantiate? Really? If you say so.....
I certainly believe that JW's can believe what they want. The things I find fascinating are that [a] they ~ by whom I mean those who advocate the prohibition here ~ do not have the ability to substantiate their view with passages in the Bible that refer to blood transfusions, [2] they then refer to their own idiosyncratic interpretation as "the Word of God", and ...[text shortened]... ur interesting and I like the fact that this forum allows these revealing interactions to occur.
20 Sep 14
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHinds(Acts 10:9-16 NKJV)
The meeting of the Christians in Jerusalem in Acts 15 was to to determine what restriction that should be placed on the new Gentile Christians at that time. Circumcision and other restrictions of the Mosaic law were also eliminated when deciding to keep the blood prohibition.
I really believe you are not using common sense on this blood prohibition by th ...[text shortened]...
For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.
(John 6:55 NKJV)
Let's also not forget what Jesus said about blood:
For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.
So are you saying because Jesus said this we can now eat blood and that God's commands on blood are no loger valid? I hope not as that is not what Jesus was saying at all.
Now can you answer my question on saving your childs life with letting them eat blood by mouth if it meant their life was to be saved?
20 Sep 14
Originally posted by RJHinds"However, things change with increased knowledge and many things prohibited by those in ancient societies are no longer valid today".
The meeting of the Christians in Jerusalem in Acts 15 was to to determine what restriction that should be placed on the new Gentile Christians at that time. Circumcision and other restrictions of the Mosaic law were also eliminated when deciding to keep the blood prohibition.
I really believe you are not using common sense on this blood prohibition by th ...[text shortened]...
For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.
(John 6:55 NKJV)
So when and where do you think God changed, cancelled or said his law on blood is no longer in effect? When and how did he tell you that?
20 Sep 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI acknowledge the right of the JWs to believe as they wish. I also comprehend the difference between injesting blood and taking it intravenously and I even acknowledge there is a small but inherent risk in intravenously accepting blood but in many cases it has saved lives when people have lost lots of blood. My dad at one point needed several transfusions or he very well could have died. Now eating blood or drinking it is different in that it passes through the digestive system and honestly I don't know the ramifications of it except it doesn't sound pleasant 🙂
which is more severe eating or injecting intravenously? No one cam deny that injecting substances intravenously is way more severe and yet God in his wisdom prohibits even eating blood. I think any reasonable individual shall be able to weigh up his position on intravenously injecting it. Its like saying ok i am forbidden to walk on ice so im gonna dance on it instead.
Manny
20 Sep 14
Originally posted by menace71what alternatives was your father offered?
I acknowledge the right of the JWs to believe as they wish. I also comprehend the difference between injesting blood and taking it intravenously and I even acknowledge there is a small but inherent risk in intravenously accepting blood but in many cases it has saved lives when people have lost lots of blood. My dad at one point needed several transfusions o ...[text shortened]... and honestly I don't know the ramifications of it except it doesn't sound pleasant 🙂
Manny