01 Dec 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDeaths have occurred because of lack of blood transfusions. That is a fact. JW doctrine says no to blood donations. That is a fact. Where am I wrong? In fact, if a JW parent refused a life giving blood donation for his or her child, the state would consider it a crime and rightly so. These are facts. Your religious beliefs are mere beliefs not shared by atheists or even a majority of other theists. That is also a fact!
more mere opinion, unsubstantiated and masquerading as some kind of truth and yet
another simple reflection of your prejudices of which we as theists and Jehovahs
witnesses have overcome, its all just bricks in the wall!
01 Dec 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KCleaned or screened you know what I meant and I have no idea what God will decide if that day comes when blood absolutly has no chance of harming us.
[b]True science has made improvement on cleaning blood of a few problems but they are not there yet on perfecting it and making sure it is completely free from contaminants.
You are clearly misguided. Blood is not 'cleaned'. Blood is nowadays screened. Doners who are identified as carrying some pathogen are excluded in the screening process.
mitted in the donation, what possible reason could God have to prohibit blood transfusions?[/b]
As I mentioned before God views blood in a very serious way. It is not just some physical thing we have in or on our bodies such as a leg or lung or kidney.
But as I said before many laws and commands that were established for the Isrealites were done away with the coming of Jesus to earth.
But one law that was still confirmed was the use of blood for anything even for putting it into our bodies such as food. Wether it's put into our mouths or thru a needle, ( it's being used to sustain our life. )
This command was stated at Acts 15:28-29
New Living Translation (NLT)
28 “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay no greater burden on you than these few requirements: 29 You must abstain from eating food offered to idols, from consuming blood or the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality. If you do this, you will do well. Farewell.”
So even the amount of blood that would be trapped in a strangled animal was not to be eaten. It had to be bleed properly.
A little info on this: Noah and his sons were allowed by God to add animal flesh to their diet after the Flood, but they were strictly commanded not to eat blood. (Ge 9:1, 3, 4) God here set out a regulation that applied, not merely to Noah and his immediate family, but to all mankind from that time on, because all those living since the Flood are descendants of Noah’s family.
Concerning the permanence of this prohibition, Joseph Benson noted: “It ought to be observed, that this prohibition of eating blood, given to Noah and all his posterity, and repeated to the Israelites, in a most solemn manner, under the Mosaic dispensation, has never been revoked, but, on the contrary, has been confirmed under the New Testament, Acts xv.; and thereby made of perpetual obligation.”—Benson’s Notes, 1839, Vol. I, p. 43.
So this command has not changed and has not been revoked by God, so it still applies today.
01 Dec 11
3 edits
Originally posted by 667joeIn Scotland alone in a single instance 3000 haemophiliacs were given contaminated
Deaths have occurred because of lack of blood transfusions. That is a fact. JW doctrine says no to blood donations. That is a fact. Where am I wrong? In fact, if a JW parent refused a life giving blood donation for his or her child, the state would consider it a crime and rightly so. These are facts. Your religious beliefs are mere beliefs not shared by atheists or even a majority of other theists. That is also a fact!
blood many of which died, FACT! i want you to state why that was morally
acceptable and what is more i want you to state why if they had followed biblical
principles in refusing a blood transfusion they would have been worse off, I want to
hear you say it, why was giving those people contaminated blood, morally
acceptable.
Whether our beliefs are shared by you or anyone ass a basis for legitimacy is just
pure nonsense and perhaps reflects the stupidity of your argument, there are eight
million Jehovahs witnesses worldwide who do share those same beliefs and
principles making you argument as thin and as ludicrous as the majority of the
second hand opinions you proffer to the forum, regurgitated and wholly unoriginal,
in fact joe, have you ever had an original thought in your life, no offence intended
but your simply another brick in the wall as far as i am concerned, no solutions,
empty and deviod of anything but negativity and self certified opinions the basis of
which lies in religious prejudice. Do we have the right of self determination, yes,
then there is no issue, you take blood, we desist, your happy, were happy, end of
story you can bitch about something else.
01 Dec 11
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWasn't that 30-40 years ago? The question is, what are the statictics for infection like today?
In Scotland alone in a single instance 3000 haemophiliacs were given contaminated blood many of which died, FACT! i want you to state why that was morally acceptable and what is more i want you to state why if they had followed biblical principles in refusing a blood transfusion they would have been worse off, I want to hear you say it, why was givin ...[text shortened]... ake blood, we desist, your happy, were happy, end of
story you can bitch about something else.
01 Dec 11
Originally posted by 667joeWell unless I'm wrong we usually eat food to keep us alive and the actual eating of blood does happen is a few societies to sustain life or to improve life in their view.
Receiving a blood transfusion is not the same as eating(drinking )blood.
If you were about to die of starvation and had no food at all except for a nice warm bowl of blood, what would you do to keep you alive? If your child was about to die, would you hand that bowl of blood to them?
01 Dec 11
Originally posted by Proper Knobit was in the nineteen eighties as you are very well aware, no the question is, why was
Wasn't that 30-40 years ago? The question si what are the statictics for infection like today?
it morally acceptable to give in one instance three thousand persons contaminated
blood and secondly if they had adhered to biblical principles why would they have been
worse off and lastly do we have the right of self determination, if so, they there is no
issue, if not then you will explain why not.
01 Dec 11
5 edits
Originally posted by 667joeI looked this blood thing up in the Holy Bible and it turns out that my
Receiving a blood transfusion is not the same as eating(drinking )blood.
memory of this was not exactly correct. It was James and not Paul
that suggested this compromise in receiving Gentiles into the Church.
There had been a disagreement among the church members as to
whether or not to require the gentile men to be circumcised to become
members of the Church. So Paul and barnabas went to the church in
Jerusalem to consult with the apostles and elders on this issue.
The account of this meeting is recorded in Acts 15. It was after Peter
spoke in favor of not putting the burden of all these Jewish rules on
the Gentiles and said, "But we believe that we are saved through the
grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are." and all
had stopped speaking that James suggested the compromise solution.
James said, "Brethren, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first
concerned Himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for His
name. With this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written,
‘AFTER THESE THINGS I will return,
AND I WILL REBUILD THE TABERNACLE OF DAVID WHICH HAS FALLEN,
AND I WILL REBUILD ITS RUINS,
AND I WILL RESTORE IT,
SO THAT THE REST OF MANKIND MAY SEEK THE LORD,
AND ALL THE GENTILES WHO ARE CALLED BY MY NAME,’
SAYS THE LORD, WHO MAKES THESE THINGS KNOWN FROM LONG AGO.
Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to
God from among the Gentiles, but that we write to them that they abstain
from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is
strangled and from blood. For Moses from ancient generations has in every
city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every
Sabbath.”
Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to
choose men from among them to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas—
Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, and
they sent this letter by them,
“The apostles and the brethren who are elders, to the brethren in Antioch
and Syria and Cilicia who are from the Gentiles, greetings.
“Since we have heard that some of our number to whom we gave no
instruction have disturbed you with their words, unsettling your souls, it
seemed good to us, having become of one mind, to select men to send to
you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives
for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. “Therefore we have sent Judas and
Silas, who themselves will also report the same things by word of mouth.
“For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater
burden than these essentials: that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols
and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep
yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell.”
(Acts 15:14-29 NASB)
Now, it seems to me that the Jehovah's Witnesses are missing the point
of this meeting. That is, to allow Gentile believers to become members
without putting the burden of becoming Jewish through circumcision and
rules that the Jews were not able to keep. The requirement, seems to me,
is that they depart from their old pagan religious worship of idols, which
included blood sacrifices.
It is my opinion that the JWs are adding to the words of scripture when
they say that blood transfusions is somehow related to Pagan idol worship.
01 Dec 11
Originally posted by RJHindsAnd where do you get this thought from?
I looked this blood thing up in the Holy Bible and it turns out that my
memory of this was not exactly correct. It was James and not Paul
that suggested this compromise in receiving Gentiles into the Church.
There had been a disagreement among the church members as to
whether or not to require the gentile men to be circumcised to become
members of the ...[text shortened]... f scripture when
they say that blood transfusions is somehow related to Pagan idol worship.
01 Dec 11
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsI'm referring to the thought that you think we think blood trans have to do with pagan idol worship and that we're adding some kind of burden?
The thoughts come from my mind after reading what the actual text of
the Holy bible says. I have a very logical mind as many on this site can
attest to.
01 Dec 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt was in the 1970's and 1980's. I'm not 'very well aware', although i do recall having a conversation with you abut this before.
it was in the nineteen eighties as you are very well aware, no the question is, why was
it morally acceptable to give in one instance three thousand persons contaminated
blood and secondly if they had adhered to biblical principles why would they have been
worse off and lastly do we have the right of self determination, if so, they there is no
issue, if not then you will explain why not.
Let's turn this around. How many people are there who are alive today, but would be dead if they followed your Biblical principles? By that i mean, how many peoples lives have been saved because of blood transfusions in emergency rooms? Countless.
As for your self-determination, it's a watered down half-hearted version really. You can't claim self-determination if you don't support euthanasia. It's nonsensical. Personally if you're a grown adult and don't wish to have a blood transfusion, i really couldn't give a 'hoot'. That's one less religious zealot in the world in my eyes.
I was just pointing out that something which happened 30+ years ago doesn't have a bearing on the procedures which are in place today.
01 Dec 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobLet's turn this around, lets not! 😛 As for your assertion as was pointed out to Conrau
It was in the 1970's and 1980's. I'm not 'very well aware', although i do recall having a conversation with you abut this before.
Let's turn this around. How many people are there who are alive today, but would be dead if they followed your Biblical principles? By that i mean, how many peoples lives have been saved because of blood trans 0+ years ago doesn't have a bearing on the procedures which are in place today.
smonrau, you have no way of knowing if any number of those persons would not have
also recovered if alternatives had been offered to them, the argument therefore is
logically flawed! In the singular instance of blood transfusions do we have the right of
self determination or do we not? yes we do, end of issue!
BTW I am now leader of the knock on wood clan, we have a new logo, sultry Amii
Stewart and we shall be grooving our way to success next year, can ya dig it, ya'l!
01 Dec 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOf course you don't want to turn it around, that's because your argument would then fall flat on it's arse.
Let's turn this around, lets not! 😛 As for your assertion as was pointed out to Conrau
smonrau, you have no way of knowing if any number of those persons would not have
also recovered if alternatives had been offered to them, the argument therefore is
logically flawed! In the singular instance of blood transfusions do we have the right of ...[text shortened]... try Amii
Stewart and we shall be grooving our way to success next year, can ya dig it, ya'l!
Of course you have the right to (a watered down version of) self determination, i have never claimed you haven't. Your talking to someone who supports euthanasia. You don't.
The fact still remains, something which happened 30+ years ago is not indicative of standards and procedures we have here and now in the 21st Century.