- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120150
Originally posted by galveston75But it also says in the OT that we should stone people for certain misdemeanours; do you also subscribe to that law, or do you just pick and choose based on what your leadership tells you?
Yes it is. It is about blood period.
Read the scriptures again.....
Gen. 9:3, 4: “Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to you. Only flesh with its soul—its blood—you must not eat.”
Acts 15:28, 29: “The holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burde ...[text shortened]... tion. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!”
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120150
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYeah sure...and this is the guy who's self certified opinion is that the Tree of Life is in fact a dead tree, despite being protected by God, and is destroyed with the rest of the plants in the Garden of Eden in the Noah flood.
dude you are making too much sense, your logic unassailable, your reasoning sound, your argument fiirmly rooted in common sense...
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120150
Originally posted by galveston75It a "touchy subject when someone's life is in danger".
Nice Robbie. It's a touchy subject for sure when anyones life can be in danger. But God is clear on this law and is "the giver and taker of all life". He is also very clear that the resurrection in the future will happen to all that have died.
Do you know of anytime that someone has a blood transfusion when their life is NOT in danger? I guess your reluctance to condemn the JW parents in the link I posted is indicative of your view you post here, that God is taking the life not the parents. You disgust me.
But on the other hand, you are so deluded by your cult leadership; I sincerely feel sorry for you.
Blood and Jehovah’s Witnesses
"For Bible-based reasons, Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse blood transfusions. But they do accept—and vigorously pursue—medical alternatives to blood. “Jehovah’s Witnesses actively seek the best in medical treatment,” said Dr. Richard K. Spence, when director of surgery at a New York hospital. “As a group, they are the best educated consumers the surgeon will ever encounter.”
Doctors have perfected many bloodless surgery techniques on Jehovah’s Witnesses. Consider the experience of cardiovascular surgeon Denton Cooley. Over a period of 27 years, his team performed bloodless open-heart surgery on 663 of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The results clearly demonstrate that cardiac operations can be successfully performed without the use of blood.
True, many have criticized Jehovah’s Witnesses for their refusal of blood. But a guide published by the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland calls the Witnesses’ position “a sign of respect for life.” In truth, the Witnesses’ rigorous stand has been a major force behind safer medical treatment becoming available for all. “Jehovah’s Witnesses in need of surgery have shown the way and exerted pressure for improvements in an important sector of the Norwegian health service,” writes Professor Stein A. Evensen, of Norway’s National Hospital.
To assist doctors in providing treatment without the use of blood, Jehovah’s Witnesses have developed a helpful liaison service. Presently, more than 1,400 Hospital Liaison Committees worldwide are equipped to provide doctors and researchers with medical literature from a data base of over 3,000 articles related to bloodless medicine and surgery. “Not only Jehovah’s Witnesses, but patients in general, are today less likely to be given unnecessary blood transfusions because of the work of the Witnesses’ Hospital Liaison Committees,” notes Dr. Charles Baron, a professor at Boston College Law School.
The information on bloodless medicine and surgery that has been compiled by Jehovah’s Witnesses has been of benefit to many in the medical field. For example, in preparing material for a book entitled Autotransfusion: Therapeutic Principles and Trends, the authors asked Jehovah’s Witnesses to provide them with information about alternatives to blood transfusion. The Witnesses gladly granted their request. With gratitude the authors later stated: “In all our reading on this subject, we have never seen such a concise, complete list of strategies to avoid homologous blood transfusion.”
Progress in the medical field has caused many to consider bloodless medicine. Where will this lead us? Professor Luc Montagnier, discoverer of the AIDS virus, states: “The evolution of our understanding in this field shows that blood transfusions must one day die out.” In the meantime, alternatives to blood are already saving lives." 2000 Awake.
Some here clearly are blind to the facts about blood and the reasons JW's stand firm in not accepting blood transfusions and the impact this has made for the good "of us all", even the ones here who show more them the average amount of ignorance to the advances made by the medical field of blood substitutes because of the JW's.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120150
Originally posted by galveston75The problem is not primarily your corporation's rational (albeit misguided at best), it is the out-working in real life of that rational.
Blood and Jehovah’s Witnesses
"For Bible-based reasons, Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse blood transfusions. But they do accept—and vigorously pursue—medical alternatives to blood. “Jehovah’s Witnesses actively seek the best in medical treatment,” said Dr. Richard K. Spence, when director of surgery at a New York hospital. “As a group, they are the best ed ...[text shortened]... of ignorance to the advances made by the medical field of blood substitutes because of the JW's.
Thread 159598
http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/kwazulu-natal/jehovah-s-witness-girl-saved-by-court-1.1700022[/b]
Originally posted by galveston75Again just too much sense, bravo!
Blood and Jehovah’s Witnesses
"For Bible-based reasons, Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse blood transfusions. But they do accept—and vigorously pursue—medical alternatives to blood. “Jehovah’s Witnesses actively seek the best in medical treatment,” said Dr. Richard K. Spence, when director of surgery at a New York hospital. “As a group, they are the best ed ...[text shortened]... of ignorance to the advances made by the medical field of blood substitutes because of the JW's.
Originally posted by divegeesterAs I get it in the early Church the compromise position between the Jewish Christians who wanted to keep the whole law and the Hellenic Christians who wanted to sell the religion to Gentiles was that the gentiles had to obey the laws of Noah, which are not very restrictive.
But it also says in the OT that we should stone people for certain misdemeanours; do you also subscribe to that law, or do you just pick and choose based on what your leadership tells you?
I was going to make the following point in my earlier reply to galveston, but went for the black pudding argument to keep things simple. Here's the line from Acts he quoted:
Acts 15:29 (ASV) "that ye abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which if ye keep yourselves, it shall be well with you. Fare ye well."The requirement of not eating things that are strangled strikes me as odd, ever tried to strangle a cow? I suspect that the entire quotation is referring to Pagan sacrificial rituals, the first part explicitly. The part about blood probably refers to Mithraism, where initiates were covered in blood from sacrificed cattle. Strangling is impractical for killing animals and must be associated with a religious practice. We can indulge our imaginations for a few minutes picturing fornication as part of Pagan practice, although I think that that is more likely to simply represent a general rule against what they regarded as sexually immoral.
Aside from all that there's a bit in the Gospels where Jesus cures someone on the Sabbeth and the Pharisees get all sniffy. He says: "Was the Sabbeth made for man or man for the Sabbeth?". I think that this applies to blood transfusions. After all, one of the 10 commandments is "Thou shalt not kill." but it's generally accepted that one can use lethal force in self-defence in circumstances where it is necessary to save one's own life.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtThe reason which I think you should understand is that the blood was still in the animal after it was killed if it was strangled. The law says that blood has to be drained out to the ground which could not be done by being strangled.
As I get it in the early Church the compromise position between the Jewish Christians who wanted to keep the whole law and the Hellenic Christians who wanted to sell the religion to Gentiles was that the gentiles had to obey the laws of Noah, which are not very restrictive.
I was going to make the following point in my earlier reply to galveston, but ...[text shortened]... use lethal force in self-defence in circumstances where it is necessary to save one's own life.
Perhaps you could refer to the other threads in the past on this to see why God commaned this about blood, not the heart, kidneys, liver, etc, but only with blood.
Originally posted by galveston75No one slaughters animals by strangulation. It must be referencing a religious practise, sacrifices to Wodin would be by strangulation as he was the God of the Gallows amongst other things. They'd have a prohibition against hunting if that was the case, since animals killed by an arrow are also not desanguinated.
The reason which I think you should understand is that the blood was still in the animal after it was killed if it was strangled. The law says that blood has to be drained out to the ground which could not be done by being strangled.
Perhaps you could refer to the other threads in the past on this to see why God commaned this about blood, not the heart, kidneys, liver, etc, but only with blood.
I'm aware of the obsession with blood in these religions, the Egyptians had this thing where one could not drink red wine except during a specific ritual as it was believed to be (or represent) the blood of dead heros.
The problem with my first sentence is that the word slaughter technically means cutting the throat of the animal for the reason you describe - the problem is I'm stuck for a generic word which means killing a domestic animal for food.
Originally posted by DeepThoughthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sacrifice_in_Hinduism
No one slaughters animals by strangulation. It must be referencing a religious practise, sacrifices to Wodin would be by strangulation as he was the God of the Gallows amongst other things. They'd have a prohibition against hunting if that was the case, since animals killed by an arrow are also not desanguinated.
I'm aware of the obsession with bloo ...[text shortened]... be - the problem is I'm stuck for a generic word which means killing a domestic animal for food.
http://islam.about.com/od/dietarylaw/a/diet_law.htm
You should educate yourself more on this subject.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120150
Originally posted by wolfgang59Yes I thought so too when I posted; nevertheless, most cases of blood being transfused are done to preserve life.
To be pedantic ... Yes
Kaarlo Maaninka 1980 Olympics and many after him.
Also in the military to enhance soldiers stamina.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120150
Originally posted by galveston75A wonderfully ironic comment considering the topic.
You should educate yourself more on this subject.
It continues to fascinate me how you can defend this doctrine based on Old Testament law (which even you and robbie carrobie has protested in other threads had been superseded by the New Testament covenant) and a random scripture from the New Testament. Furthermore you provide no reason as to why blood transfusions are so bad for people other than this "god forbids it" stubbornness you persist with.
It is astonishing that the leadership of your religion have not continued to move their position on this doctrine considering the disrepute this doctrine brings the Jehovah witness corporation into and that there is no scripturally demonstrated physical or spiritual benefit to the adherents.
Originally posted by galveston75the reasons JW's stand firm in not accepting blood transfusions
Blood and Jehovah’s Witnesses
"For Bible-based reasons, Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse blood transfusions. But they do accept—and vigorously pursue—medical alternatives to blood. “Jehovah’s Witnesses actively seek the best in medical treatment,” said Dr. Richard K. Spence, when director of surgery at a New York hospital. “As a group, they are the best ed ...[text shortened]... of ignorance to the advances made by the medical field of blood substitutes because of the JW's.
zealotry
superstition
ignorance
fear
an almost fanatical devotion to the watchtower.
blood transfusions save lives. in many cases they are absolutely necessary to save one's life.
but i digress from the subject.
the issue here is not if you are right or wrong (you are wrong), but if we should label abuse this refusal to allow doctors to give blood transfusions to one's children. i am glad to see that many courts throughout the world do in fact think it is abuse and will move to either force the blood transfusion or remove the child from its parents custody, then give the transfusion.
you are quite free to believe whatever nonsense you want. 6000 year old earth? 900 year old men? an incestous proliferation of humans? sure, if it makes you feel happy.
you don't have the right to murder your children. and refusing a life saving transfusion is murder.
Originally posted by ZahlanziIf you say so.....
the reasons JW's stand firm in not accepting blood transfusions
zealotry
superstition
ignorance
fear
an almost fanatical devotion to the watchtower.
blood transfusions save lives. in many cases they are absolutely necessary to save one's life.
but i digress from the subject.
the issue here is not if you are right or wrong (you are wrong ...[text shortened]... don't have the right to murder your children. and refusing a life saving transfusion is murder.