29 Nov 11
Originally posted by 667joeFor the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
I believe I am correct that JWs will not accept blood transfusions. I would like to know if a JW would donate blood to save the life of some one else.
I don't see why not give blood, they should at least help their own family members.
29 Nov 11
Originally posted by 667joePaul told the gentile believers that they should no longer drink or eat
I believe I am correct that JWs will not accept blood transfusions. I would like to know if a JW would donate blood to save the life of some one else.
the blood of sacrificed animals as some of them did in their former
pagan religion. JWs misunderstand this to mean they should not
accept any foreign blood into their body. I do not know if they still
are prohibited from taking blood transfusions or not. I don't know
if there were any prohibition against donating blood, but I doubt if
they will.
29 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsif you were told that there was a prohibition that stated you could not drink vodka,
Paul told the gentile believers that they should no longer drink or eat
the blood of sacrificed animals as some of them did in their former
pagan religion. JWs misunderstand this to mean they should not
accept any foreign blood into their body. I do not know if they still
are prohibited from taking blood transfusions or not. I don't know
if there were any prohibition against donating blood, but I doubt if
they will.
would you attempt to justify your actions it by injecting it intravenously, would you,
your logic is thus fatally flawed.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
29 Nov 11
Originally posted by 667joeCuriously enough though, a JW can receive blood fractions, such as plasma, or other products derived from blood. Presumably too a JW can even donate their plasma, even though this involves the extraction of blood.
I believe I am correct that JWs will not accept blood transfusions. I would like to know if a JW would donate blood to save the life of some one else.
Personally I think that the JW organisation is morally disgusting.
29 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by 667joeAll of our life's belong to God. He gives us this gift and how we use it, honor it and worship and obey God with it and that will determine our future that the Bible speaks of many times.
I believe I am correct that JWs will not accept blood transfusions. I would like to know if a JW would donate blood to save the life of some one else.
He has made rules for us to follow in the Bible. He has shown many times in the Bible what can happen to humans who do not obey his laws especially once we've become aware of them.
He says to ABSTAIN from blood. Blood in God's eyes is very sacred and in fact his son had to pour his out as a ransome for our life's.
As precious as life is one needs to remember that there WILL be a resurrection for any who have died, but that resurrection WILL be for a judging.
If we have not remained faithful to God and have not obeyed his command to ABSTAIN from blood he will recognize that issue.
So as Robbie says no we do not donate blood. That would be disrespectful on our part. It is up to God to control ones life's and if he decides to step in and save that persons life now or to just wait on the resurrection to bring that person back to life is his right, not ours in the case of that person needing blood.
But if blood is not involved we would do all we can to help save ones life. He has no commands against CPR or other medical help.
29 Nov 11
Originally posted by Conrau KI agree that not allowing blood transfusions is morally disgusting. Their stance on war though, is quite morally sound,imo
Curiously enough though, a JW can receive blood fractions, such as plasma, or other products derived from blood. Presumably too a JW can even donate their plasma, even though this involves the extraction of blood.
Personally I think that the JW organisation is morally disgusting.
29 Nov 11
Originally posted by galveston75Sounds as if you guys have just ignored some (scientific) advances since biblical times and that is the reason for your stance on blood transfusions.
All of our life's belong to God. He gives us this gift and how we use it, honor it and worship and obey God with it and that will determine our future that the Bible speaks of many times.
He has made rules for us to follow in the Bible. He has shown many times in the Bible what can happen to humans who do not obey his laws especially once we've become ...[text shortened]... do all we can to help save ones life. He has no commands against CPR or other medical help.
BTW another guy just died only a week ago here because he refused a blood transfusion. His death was directly attributed to his refusal of the blood transfusion.
When ever I hear of something like this it just reminds me of how silly (and thats putting it as mildly as possible) your stance on blood transfusions is.
Has it not occurred to you guys that perhaps that the blood transfusion rule is one of the rules that should be updated, since it was authored ages ago.
After all, you seem to have "moved with the times" when it comes to other things.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
29 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by karoly aczelI disagree, and for pretty much the same reason as the stance on blood transfusions.
I agree that not allowing blood transfusions is morally disgusting. Their stance on war though, is quite morally sound,imo
War is generally to be avoided and when it happens it is always a tragedy.
However, The relevant example is WW2.
There is no argument that I will accept (although your more than welcome to try :-) ) for not
standing up to, and fighting Hitler and Nazi Germany.
The consequences of not defeating Hitler would have been vastly worse than the cost of
fighting the war.
Morally speaking while war in general with all its costs to life, property and the environment,
is to be avoided, it's not at all costs.
When the cost of NOT having the war is higher than the cost of having it then it is not only
justifiable, but mandatory [edit: to fight the war from a moral standpoint].
Not standing up to Hitler in WW2 was immoral.
29 Nov 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeWell yes, you have chosen the best example for your case.
I disagree, and for pretty much the same reason as the stance on blood transfusions.
War is generally to be avoided and when it happens it is always a tragedy.
However, The relevant example is WW2.
There is no argument that I will accept (although your more than welcome to try :-) ) for not
standing up to, and fighting Hitler and Nazi German ...[text shortened]... edit: to fight the war from a moral standpoint].
Not standing up to Hitler in WW2 was immoral.
I believe we live in a universe where we are warlike by nature. There may be other types of universes, but this one is like that-"warlike".
What has happened in the past has happened, I believe, so that we may learn from it.
It would've been very difficult indeed to sort out Hitler without resorting to fighting,
But the problem was not one man, it was the masses that supported his stupidity.
So (to keep this short), I will finish by saying that yes, we needed to fight off people like Hitler in the past but that we can break the cycle of violence in the future by becoming more peaceful in general. Imagine if everyone refused conscription? You wouldn't have an army and hence no war. Unfortunately there always seems to be a small group that stuff it up for the rest of us.
So what do you think? Do you think it is possible for our human race to overcome our warlike tendencies (and refuse conscription, en masse,like the JWs)?
Can you envisage a future where the planet is unified and all our differences can be sorted out diplomatically? (Because at the end of the day both you and I know that war is good business. What is the U.S's military budget again? )
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
29 Nov 11
Originally posted by karoly aczelDo I think a world without war is possible... Yes.
Well yes, you have chosen the best example for your case.
I believe we live in a universe where we are warlike by nature. There may be other types of universes, but this one is like that-"warlike".
What has happened in the past has happened, I believe, so that we may learn from it.
It would've been very difficult indeed to sort out Hitler without ...[text shortened]... y both you and I know that war is good business. What is the U.S's military budget again? )
Likely in the foreseeable future... No.
It's a goal worth pursuing, but you don't solve the problem by giving up your military and
then hoping everyone else does.
Because what happens if you do that is the people who don't give up their military use it
to take over everyone that did.
You have to make the world a place where war is unnecessary and unthinkable, and then
get rid of the military.
The problem isn't the military, its the reasons we need it, and it's those reasons that need
to be addressed.
29 Nov 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeAgain,I more or less agree with your points, except for one. i can see it happening in the near future.
Do I think a world without war is possible... Yes.
Likely in the foreseeable future... No.
It's a goal worth pursuing, but you don't solve the problem by giving up your military and
then hoping everyone else does.
Because what happens if you do that is the people who don't give up their military use it
to take over everyone that did.
You ...[text shortened]... e military, its the reasons we need it, and it's those reasons that need
to be addressed.
The thing is it's gotta happen from the bottom up and not the other way around.
i dont think the politicians will give up their "guns". It's the people that will have to vote for a more peaceful world.
There has been a "grass roots" movement happening along these lines for quite some time now, and I believe that the world will either be obliterated (well the people on it anyway) or this "movement" will succeed.
Dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was the most potent lesson humanity has ever faced. It showed us that if we continue along that path (the path of world wars) then there will be no winners at all.
(The illuminati were planning to escape to a secret base on Mars to avoid this destruction, but their base got wiped out (mysteriously, it would seem). So they are stuck in the same boat as us now and hopefully some common sense will prevail and we can feed and (properly) educate the world so that war (and murder) will be relegated to a thing of the past )
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
29 Nov 11
Originally posted by karoly aczelI'm sorry but.... what????
(The illuminati were planning to escape to a secret base on Mars to avoid this destruction, but their base got wiped out (mysteriously, it would seem). So they are stuck in the same boat as us now and hopefully some common sense will prevail and we can feed and (properly) educate the world so that war (and murder) will be relegated to a thing of the past )
serious backing up with facts and evidence needed for this.
Nobody has built anything on Mars, let alone a base that could house people.
29 Nov 11
2 edits
Originally posted by Conrau KPersonally I think that the JW organisation is morally disgusting
Curiously enough though, a JW can receive blood fractions, such as plasma, or other products derived from blood. Presumably too a JW can even donate their plasma, even though this involves the extraction of blood.
Personally I think that the JW organisation is morally disgusting.
yet you are prepared to kiss the ruby encrusted ring of the Pontifex Maximus, head of
an organisation that has shed more innocent blood and in the most barbarous fashion
than any other in the entire history of humanity. Your stance is not only morally
repugnant but reeks to the high heavens of hypocrisy.
seeing that you are so blissfully ignorant on the matter receiving blood fractions is
viewed a a matter of conscience, for not all witnesses are prepared to do so, while
allowing others the freedom to exercise their conscience in this regard.