Originally posted by robbie carrobieYes, I already know that the issue is settled for you and that is just that. That is how fundamentalism works. You have some literalist view of doctrine that takes priority over anything else. For example, it wouldn't matter if, hypothetically, blood transfusions became perfectly safe through new technology or whatever; that would have no bearing on your position because for you the matter is already settled, period. Yes, I already know that your position is irresponsible and fundamentalist in just this way.
I have pretended nothing, its not my fault you are scandalously ignorant of our stance
and the reasons (plural) why we refuse whole blood transfusion, is it? You have made
for yourself a castle made of sand, stating that the only real reason we refuse blood
transfusion is religious, when its NOT the only reason, consider yourself now educated ...[text shortened]... the Apostle stated when he delivered the
principle to abstain from blood, good health to you!
And please stop pretending like you have substantive reasons for your view apart from your religion. At this point and in regards to this particular matter, you are just a liar. Yes, let's breakdown your so-called other reasons (you listed 3) for a blanket stance against blood transfusions. You say one reason is your self-determination. How exactly does that constitute a reason? A reason is some consideration in virtue of which you are swayed this way or that. The consideration of self determination only delivers the idea that you reserve the right to do or not do something. That cannot be much of a basis for your stance, and it just leaves open the question of what actual reasons you have for this or that. All it does is exclude what would otherwise be a reason against your doing this or that: it excludes your doing it or not doing it on the basis that you do not reserve the right to do otherwise in the absence of external imposition. At any rate, you would presumably have self determination with respect to any number of things (both mundane or weighty), yet that does not thereby give you a reason for them. The second one you mentioned is that you cannot guarantee that blood transfusions are 100% safe. Well, sorry, but you cannot guarantee that much of anything that you may engage in is 100% safe. This amounts to nothing more than irresponsible, selective skepticism. And what's really amusing is that this so-called reason of yours is actually a defeater for your other so-called reasons. Consider for example your last so-called reason, your mentioning that there are in some cases alternative medical procedures available that do not involve transfusion. Well, those will not be 100% safe, either. It does not really matter what medical procedure we are discussing, you will not be able to guarantee it is 100% safe. So, your set of so-called reasons are internally conflicting at best.
Face it: you have no reasons for your stance apart from your fundamentalist reading of religious doctrine. At least own up to this fact like a man.
Originally posted by LemonJellosorry once you degenerate to terming me a liar, it leads not only to resentment but has
Yes, I already know that the issue is settled for you and that is just that. That is how fundamentalism works. You have some literalist view of doctrine that takes priority over anything else. For example, it wouldn't matter if, hypothetically, blood transfusions became perfectly safe through new technology or whatever; that would have no bearing on yo ...[text shortened]... your fundamentalist reading of religious doctrine. At least own up to this fact like a man.
resulted in your entire post being nullified from my perspective, its a great pity, for I
am sure that while we would not have agreed, a mutual understanding would have
been possible, if it was not for your blatant lack of respect and disregard for my
person,
cya.
Watch it, Robbie. More knives like this and you may need a transfusion.
She cuts you out, she cuts you down
She carves up your life
But you won't do nothng
As she keeps on cutting
'Cause you know you love the knife
You've been bought, you've been sold
You've been locked outside the door
But you stand there pleadin'
With your insides bleedin'
'Cause you deep down want some more
Then she says she wants affection
While she searches for the vein
She's so good with her stiletto,
You don't really mind the pain
You don't mind the pain
Originally posted by Suziannepleasure spiked with pain is not my thing Suzianne, but there is no excuse for a lack of
Watch it, Robbie. More knives like this and you may need a transfusion.
She cuts you out, she cuts you down
She carves up your life
But you won't do nothng
As she keeps on cutting
'Cause you know you love the knife
You've been bought, you've been sold
You've been locked outside the door
But you stand there pleadin'
With your insides bleedin' s so good with her stiletto,
You don't really mind the pain
You don't mind the pain
civility, tis manners that maketh the man! I love poetry, but that is not a little macabre.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe point here Robbie in a nut shell is the Bible in very, very clear in plain english where it says "to abstain from blood." Period....... We all know what the word abstain means in all other context that it's used in, but for some reason here they lose the meaning of the word.
sorry once you degenerate to terming me a liar, it leads not only to resentment but has
resulted in your entire post being nullified from my perspective, its a great pity, for I
am sure that while we would not have agreed, a mutual understanding would have
been possible, if it was not for your blatant lack of respect and disregard for my
person,
cya.
So it's the rest of the world that has changed that meaning or simply does not understand a black and white written command from God.
Abstain from murder means what?
Abstain from fonication means what?
Abstain from penecillin means what?
Sooooooooooooooo abstain from blood should mean what?
It's not us who the spotlight is on here especially in God's eyes, it's these non undestanding of the english language experts that go blank in the brain when the word abstain and blood are in the same sentence.
Originally posted by galveston75tell it tell it bro! tell it like it is!
The point here Robbie in a nut shell is the Bible in very, very clear in plain english where it says "to abstain from blood." Period....... We all know what the word abstain means in all other context that it's used in, but for some reason here they lose the meaning of the word.
So it's the rest of the world that has changed that meaning or simply d ...[text shortened]... erts that go blank in the brain when the word abstain and blood are in the same sentence.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAnd they try to make us feel like we're in the wrong and that this scripture must, surely, gotta, maybe, has too mean something else. Uh..it says what it says in those 3 clear words. "ABSTAIN FROM BLOOD".
tell it tell it bro! tell it like it is!
And we have never told any of them to follow that scripture as it's completely up to them wether they follow it or not. That's their decision and theirs only just as it's ours to do exactly what the scripture says.
Originally posted by galveston75Perhaps you could include the whole section that includes your quote instead of quoting it out of context. Then what you think is "very, very clear" could be made a whole lot more clear, maybe even to you.
The point here Robbie in a nut shell is the Bible in very, very clear in plain english where it says "to abstain from blood." Period....... We all know what the word abstain means in all other context that it's used in, but for some reason here they lose the meaning of the word.
So it's the rest of the world that has changed that meaning or simply d ...[text shortened]... erts that go blank in the brain when the word abstain and blood are in the same sentence.
Here's a hint. It's not the word "abstain" we're all stuck on here.
Go ahead, go back to Genesis to find the whole section. And please use a traditional translation, instead of one that inserts the JW bias into it.
Originally posted by Suziannewhats a traditional translation, one translated in 1500's? here a piece of advice for you
Perhaps you could include the whole section that includes your quote instead of quoting it out of context. Then what you think is "very, very clear" could be made a whole lot more clear, maybe even to you.
Here's a hint. It's not the word "abstain" we're all stuck on here.
Go ahead, go back to Genesis to find the whole section. And please use a traditional translation, instead of one that inserts the JW bias into it.
Suzianne, make sure when you make a translation you have more than a handful of
extant Greek manuscripts, Associate professor Jason Be Douhn , (not a Jehovahs
witnbess) has publicly stated that after examining 9 of the best known English modern
translations of the Bible, that the New world translation is the most accurate, what
makes you think you are more qualified than him to state otherwise, i want to hear you
say it, because i m sick of you dissing it on no basis other than your prejudice.
Originally posted by SuzianneWhat are you all stuck on then?
Perhaps you could include the whole section that includes your quote instead of quoting it out of context. Then what you think is "very, very clear" could be made a whole lot more clear, maybe even to you.
Here's a hint. It's not the word "abstain" we're all stuck on here.
Go ahead, go back to Genesis to find the whole section. And please use a traditional translation, instead of one that inserts the JW bias into it.
Here is an interesting note in the old testament the high priest would sprinkle blood on to the mercy seat. Blood was and is how sin is paid for. Context is the issue here. When it was written it says to abstain from idols and blood and things strangled. What blood was this? I'd say animal blood duhhhh. Maybe it was part of there ritual to drink this blood? (speculation on my part) It never says anything about blood transfusion as this was not even a concept then. I would agree drinking blood gross probably not the best idea. However to make the leap from drinking/eating of blood from sacrificed animals to blood transfusions is well a huge leap. Also the hypocrisy of the JW's on this is ridiculous because they can take parts of the blood but not the whole blood? So they get to pick and choose which part of the blood they can take the fractions of whole blood but not the whole blood? This is splitting hairs no doubt. I can understand fear of getting a disease but nothing is 100% as someone else stated a few post back. Lastly I would agree in one sense with the JW's on the fact blood is sacred because it's life giving but this is where our agreement ends.
Manny
Do Jehovah's Witnesses Really Abstain From Blood?
This document is available as a brochure that can be downloaded and printed for distribution to others.
Many Jehovah's Witnesses sincerely believe that it is a gross sin to accept a blood transfusion, since the Bible states that we must "abstain from blood." (Acts 15:29) It is quite understandable that many are confused by the position taken by the Watchtower Society (WTS) with respect to the various blood components or blood products like albumin, (Erythropoietins), vaccines, immunoglobulins, and hemophiliac treatments. It does not seem possible to explain why it is a violation of God's law to accept plasma, platelets, red and white cells when all of the fractions of these are permitted by the WTS. These contradictions have caused a number of elders and Hospital Liaison Committee Members to quietly resign.
Additionally, the trend in recent years has been to allow more and more blood products. The June 15, 2000 Watchtower, Questions From Readers article opened the door to the use of hemoglobin since it is fractionated from red blood cells. This coupled with the WTS statement to the European Commission on Human Rights that their are no "controls or sanctions" for a Witness who accepts blood and that minors may not carry "Advance Medical Directives" prohibiting blood transfusions are significant indications that the WTS may significantly modify their blood policy or abandon it altogether at some point in the future. Additionally, in April of 2000 the WTS admitted that it was no longer disfellowshipping members who accepted blood or prohibited blood components.
http://www.ajwrb.org/currentwtpolicy/abstain.html
Manny
Also logic follows blood does not belong in our mouths but it does belong in our veins 🙂 We can't abstain from blood because it flows through us as God intended. I read this idea and think about it if you were in a surgery and were losing some of your blood were does that blood belong? duhhhh back in our body !! This is so basic that a 3yr old could comprehend it. The abstain meant don't eat it.
http://thejehovahswitnesses.org/abstain-from-blood.php
while simplistic this link makes sense just basic reasoning
Manny
I am finishing up a clinical semester in college. In one of my classes, we learned about passive suicide. Denying a blood transfusion when you know it will save your life is a textbook example of this. The bible is against suicide (I can't quote the book or the verse), but I believe you know this to be correct. I am curious how comitting suicide to satisfy an obscure passage of the book you hold sacred does not put you off. I don't want this to seem like an attack on your religion (its not), I just want a little insight into your thoughts.
Originally posted by usmc7257what about Samson, was that passive suicide?
I am finishing up a clinical semester in college. In one of my classes, we learned about passive suicide. Denying a blood transfusion when you know it will save your life is a textbook example of this. The bible is against suicide (I can't quote the book or the verse), but I believe you know this to be correct. I am curious how comitting suicide to satisfy em like an attack on your religion (its not), I just want a little insight into your thoughts.