For Neologist, and anyone else affiliated with watchtower.

QED

Real Life,
Ask 'im if he prays to himself or has any special ceremonies of worship.

Priceless stuff.

Hey, I know one...

Ask 'im if that autotheism stuff hurts his brain when he does it without lubricating...


Ask 'im that!

snood,
Delivering your usual offering of 'sideline lapdog' style posts I see. Is it that religious types are predictable, or predictable types tend to be religious?
One of lifes great mysteries I suppose.

Hey, what's up God!? Y'know, I always thought you'd be taller!

Y'know, for a self-actualized martial arts expert brilliant type like yourself, you ain't very observant. What makes you think I'm religious? I haven't said anything that would suggest that. Was it a godlike precognition?

Well, although it is true you spend a lot more (pretty much all) your time here one-line-sniping other peoples contributions, which makes it hard to fathom just what /your/ opinions are(maybe you have none?), I think I have been able to decipher that much about you, insomuch as you certainly come off as a believer.

Are you saying you do not believe in the abrahamic deity?

I've just been reading about Satanism, snood, and I see you've made a horrible misconception.

As the Satanist has a different definition of being a Satanist compared to the Christian, he/she also has a different defintion of being a god compared to the Christian.

Let me quote from the Satanic Bible concerning the concept of god in Satanism.



Therefore when the Satanist says, "I am my own god", he/she is not saying, "I am a deity to which I pray to".

However, I must admit that Satanism is kinda asking for these misconceptions. After all, the belief is named after Satan, it insists on using the concept of god in a completely different way than the way other people usually use it and I'm still all confused on the Satanic definition of worship.

Oh goody. I really enjoy discussing Satanism with those that are capable of at least a bit of their own research, and at least seem interested in rational conversation. Then we have real life who is sure I think I am jehovah
However, this isn't the thread for that. This thread has nothing to do with Satanism or what I believe, other than the fact certain religionist on this site like to harp on it every chance they get and don't care where.
Resurect one of those old threads on the topic, or, perhaps, post a new one, and I would be happy to field all of your questions.

This was supposed to be a forum for Neo to speak, and it has gone horribly wrong. I request it get's locked, actually

Why lock a thread when people are having fun? Doc, I could swear that a good exposition of your philosophy would include your having the free will necessary to exercise your godship.

But you say you don't believe in free will. Maybe we should revive an old thread to continue this line of thought

I have already gone over my philosophy in great detail throughout several older threads, but the indignant hostile banter it drew from certain posters lead me to decide not to rehash it. I am more than willing to discuss it with those that do not display an unwavering hostility, or those not unwilling/unable to conduct themselves in a civil manner.
However, it seems to be these particular members that want to 'discuss' it. As I am not a masochist, why should I waste my time with hostile banter that will ultimately lead nowhere?

btw there is no such thing as freewill in any sense but the imaginary.

Hi Neologist,

In a previous post you said:

To answer a question posed earlier, allow me to quote from a Watchtower publication:

"Is a transfusion really the same as eating blood?

In a hospital, when a patient cannot eat through his mouth, he is fed intravenously. Now, would a person who never put blood into his mouth but who accepted blood by transfusion really be obeying the command to "keep abstaining from . . . blood"? (Acts 15:29) To use a comparison, consider a man who is told by the doctor that he must abstain from alcohol. Would he be obedient if he quit drinking alcohol but had it put directly into his veins?"

This comparison is bogus. Here's why. Intravenous feeding involves transfusing simple sugars into the veins which the body utilizes as food. On the other hand, a person given nothing but blood transfusions would soon die of starvation because the body doesn't utilize blood as food.

Alcohol is treated by the body as food whether it is taken by mouth or injected into the veins. That's not true of blood. Blood is treated as food by the body when taken by mouth but not treated as food when transfused into the veins and we should be thankful that it isn't. If our body consumed its own blood we would soon be dead. The reason our body can maintain a constant blood volume is because it doesn't treat blood as food. When blood is transfused it is not consumed by the body as a meal. It remains in the circulatory system doing what blood was designed to do, namely, transporting oxygen and nutrients to every cell in the body.

In the August issue of Awake! magazine, blood is described as an organ. A fluid organ. And a blood transfusion is referred to as an organ transplant. JW's are allowed to have organ transplants. JW's do not view transplanting an organ the same as eating human flesh and logically so. When a kidney is transplanted it is not consumed by the body as food. It remains in the body doing what a kidney was designed to do. This isn't at all equivalent to eating someone's kidney. Likewise, blood that is transfused is treated by the body like an organ transplant. It remains in the circulatory system doing what blood is suppose to do. It is a use of blood as BLOOD not as food and is therefore morally distinguishable from eating it.

There is a big difference between eating blood and using it explicitly for its originally designed purpose, namely, flowing in the veins performing functions that are essential to life.

Aha!

Great post.

That expressed what I was thinking but unable to articulate clearly.

Glad to see some on trying to keep this on track.

When the question of organ transplants came up, I was specifically thinking of liver transplants, which is the most blood filled organ in the body. I'm almost postive it's not drained before putting in the receipiant, otherwise it would die.

Neo...what are your words on this? As was said, one isn't ingesting blood during a transfusion, it's going directly into the veins. Eaten blood would pass through the digestive tract.

Also, what about receiving your own blood? This may have been asked already, but again, you're not eating blood, your taking your own blood out of your own veins, and then later putting it back in, if necessary.

Re-bookmarking. Back this pm.

Chai Tea: "Also, what about receiving your own blood? This may have been asked already, but again, you're not eating blood, your taking your own blood out of your own veins, and then later putting it back in, if necessary."

Good question. For the past 30 years JW's have been allowed to have blood they lose during an operation put back into them via a cell saver machine. And since the year 2000, JW's have been allowed to have blood extracted from them, taken to a lab to be treated with chemicals or radiation and then put back into them several hours later or even the next day. The only requirement is that it be part of an ongoing or current therapy.

Clearly JW's recognize that a transfusion of their own blood is morally distinguishable from eating it. So why do they continue making the bogus argument that transfusing blood into one's veins is the same as eating it?

I'd imagine it's the same for dialysis. It's your blood.




You know, this reminds me of another issue that I could see come up.

During, for instance, dialysis patients are given a drug called Heprin, which is obtained from either pork or beef by products. It's used to keep the blood from clotting. Most people are administered pork heparin unless they have an allergic reaction, since it's much cheaper than beef heparin.

Insurance companies, including medicare do not want to pay for beef heparin unless it's a medical necessity.

What about kosher jews, muslims, other religions that eschew pork? At times, the beef is just not available, as it's made in small supplies.

Huh.....just throwing that out there, into the mix.

Ignore if you wish.

Can anyone tell me why the consumption of blood is bad for humanity?

Acts 15:29 reads: "That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well."

To me, the word 'abstain' casts a wider net than 'do not eat'.

Leviticus 17: 13-16 Explains to some degree, God's view of blood.
"As for any man of the sons of Israel or some alien resident who is residing as an alien in YOUR midst who in hunting catches a wild beast or a fowl that may be eaten, he must in that case pour its blood out and cover it with dust. 14 For the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood by the soul in it. Consequently I said to the sons of Israel: "YOU must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh, because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off." (Emphasis mine)

Blood, therefore, is to be viewed as sacred. If you reason on the use of blood in the priestly sacrifices and the importance of Jesus' shedding of blood in our behalf, you would have to understand that blood is not a fluid to be taken lightly.

That being said, use of certain blood products, organ transplants, and similar medical procedures, because of their singularity, are left up to individual conscience. More to it, of course. but I hope this helps.

Most witnesses I know of have no problem with dialysis. I didn't know about heparin, so can't answer.

Neologist: To me, the word 'abstain' casts a wider net than 'do not eat'.

Teleologist: Well, that's something worth discussing but first I would like to know if you still think that taking a blood transfusion is the same as eating blood?