1
   

Jehovah's Witness refuses blood, dies

 
 
Elihu
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jun, 2007 08:34 pm
neologist wrote:
I believe I answered it here:

http://able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2725228#2725228

But you appear to have read only the first sentence.


Well, I read the whole thing and I don't see an explanation as to why JW's can have blood injected into their veins and be considered to have abstained from blood.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jun, 2007 10:19 pm
hankarin wrote:
Thank you neologist. I am intrigued by the by-line. Any explanation?
I like playing with words. Sometimes I make 'em up. Like 'smorgasword'. That might describe the nature of some of the posts you will find in the S&R forum.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jun, 2007 10:25 pm
Elihu wrote:
neologist wrote:
I believe I answered it here:

http://able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2725228#2725228

But you appear to have read only the first sentence.


Well, I read the whole thing and I don't see an explanation as to why JW's can have blood injected into their veins and be considered to have abstained from blood.
Did I forget to use the words 'matter of conscience'? OK, for example: In my own case, I would not object to having my own blood collected during surgery and replaced into my body.

But if I were to bleed white and your blood were a match I would refuse it. Nothing personal; you understand.

I am not going to list any other procedures I would or would not allow.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jun, 2007 10:43 pm
neologist wrote:
hankarin wrote:
Thank you neologist. I am intrigued by the by-line. Any explanation?
I like playing with words. Sometimes I make 'em up. Like 'smorgasword'. That might describe the nature of some of the posts you will find in the S&R forum.
OH. DOH!http://web4.ehost-services.com/el2ton1/homer.gifI guess you meant sig line. I change 'em from time to time. This one brings to mind the tendency of folks to seek out preachers to 'tickle their ears'.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jun, 2007 07:26 am
Elihu wrote:
boomerang wrote:
It seems to be that the difference is clear, judging by your post on page 5. They are having their OWN blood injected into them, not somebody elses.


JW's believe the Bible forbids eating any kind of blood. Therefore they believe it is against God's law for them to eat their own blood.


Which is to say, that if Neo contradicts any portion of your argument, you're just going to make a statement from authority, and insist upon what you're saying, despite what you may be told by someone who actually is a JW.
0 Replies
 
Elihu
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jun, 2007 09:59 am
Well, why not wait and see how I respond if and when a JW says they believe it's not a violation of God's law for them to eat their own blood. It's not going to happen.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jun, 2007 10:20 am
Why do you insist that a JW who intentionally has blood drawn before a surgical procedure to be transfused afterward is "eating" their own blood?
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jun, 2007 10:24 am
I imagine someone removing the dandruff from my suit with an icepick.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jun, 2007 10:30 am
Standstill, damn it . . . i'm not done yet!
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jun, 2007 10:35 am
Interestingly, if the admonition was against "eating" blood, then the act of transfusion wouldnt even be an accurate analogy. One goes into the digestive system and the other, the circulatory. Or am I just forgetting that logic and religion are infrequent travelling companions?
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jun, 2007 10:50 am
dyslexia wrote:
Frankly Charlotte, as long as no child suffers from this religious malady, I don't give a damn.
this child has already lost its mother. Lying to children and frightening them with made up tales about the after life is a form of abuse.

from a review of Christopher Hitchens book God is not Great

Quote:
But Hitchens is supple enough to sense this flaw, and to counteract it a little. He stresses that the new Enlightenment he advocates as a remedy for superstition "is within the compass of the average person." He approvingly quotes the much more life-affirming atheism of Jospeh Conrad: "The world of the living contains enough marvels and mysteries as it is... I am too firm in my consciousness of the marvellous to be ever fascinated by the mere supernatural."

The book is full of pin-pricks of sanity and hope like this. Every child stuck in every "faith school" should be bought a copy. A campaign to put this glittering anti-theist tract on the national curriculum - alongside the Bible, Koran and the other insufferable staples of "religious education" - should begin here.
0 Replies
 
Talkactive
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jun, 2007 11:25 am
Hello to all of you!

It seems that the persons involved in the discussion here are not familiarly with the Watchtower Societys changing ban and directives to their members and even that their members can't explain the blood doctrine, even that they are willing to risk their own and childrens lives and therefore many, like Neo, take the stand in question of treatment with blood or derivates and make it to a no no.

That was the reason for I posted the information from Bangalore in another forum at page 3 post http://www.able2know.com/forums/a2k-post2723619.html#2723619 to start with the Watchtower Societys view at vaccinations and it doesn't differ from their view at organtransplantations and latest in question of medical treatment with blood and derivates, in opposition to what comes forth in the Scriptures and Christian principles.

Here is what the Watchtower has written about the blood in their magazines and Setanta should have been aware of this, because it makes no difference whether it was your own or from another person.

Quote:
Quote:
It is of no consequence that the blood is taken into the body through the veins instead of the mouth. Nor does the claim by some that it is not the same as intravenous feeding carry weight. The fact is that it nourishes the body. (The Watchtower, Sept. 15, 1961, p. 558)

Quote:
Each time the prohibition of blood is mentioned in the Scriptures it is in connection with taking it as food, and so it is as a nutrient that we are concerned with in its being forbidden. W58 9/15 575 Questions from Readers


The problem isn't that there is a free will to accept a blood transfusion or not, but a religious organization that Mind Control their members to believe that their leaders are speaking with the mouth of God and if a member of the Watchtower Society rise questions to their leaders doctrines and sanctions they will be disfellowshipped and shunned where all other family members and members of the Society aren't allowed to even grate such a person, with other word a totally social isolation and even teached that they will be destroyed in Armageddon if they didn't belong to God's chosen organization on earth, The Watchtower Society.

Nobody who haven't been involved in this cant imagine what this means for a person who really believe in this nonsense, to be totally isolated from family and friends and not to forget believe that they will displease God when they act against the Society's directives and every member of the organization is teach to be informers, which means that they will report everything that goes on in opposition to the Society's policy and doctrines to the elders, which forms a committee where they ask you intimate questions even into a couples double bed. To lie or be silent, under such an investigation, for a God fearing person will be the same as loosing the everlasting life the Scriptures and the Society have promised them belonging to God's organization on earth.

This is the real background for that members of the Watchtower Society take the stand to refuse medical treatment with blood and derivates, solely based at their religious leaders indoctrination, Mind Control and doctrines with threats and sanctions that didn't leave them with much of a personal choice, other than choose the death as the women.

Thousand and other thousands of members of the Watchtower Society and their children have died a premature death when there was no alternative to vaccinations, organs or medical treatment with blood and derivates, based at doctrines of men, who have maked the blood to an Idol, more important that the life itself, rather what the blood really is, a metaphor for life.

The Watchtower Society's hypocrisy can be seen at www.ajwrb.org

Christian love to all of you.

Talkactive

Ecclesiastes 1:18!

For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People can't hear and carry the truth, because the lies are tickling their ears!

Jeremiah 8:8!

How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jun, 2007 11:45 am
farmerman wrote:
Interestingly, if the admonition was against "eating" blood, then the act of transfusion wouldnt even be an accurate analogy. One goes into the digestive system and the other, the circulatory. Or am I just forgetting that logic and religion are infrequent travelling companions?
The OT admonition was against the eating of blood. Acts 15:20 says "abstain from blood". The simplest analogy which comes to mind is in the case of a cirrhosis patient told to abstain from alcohol. Would it make any difference how the alcohol was to enter the body?
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jun, 2007 11:49 am
neologist wrote:
The simplest analogy which comes to mind is in the case of a cirrhosis patient told to abstain from alcohol. Would it make any difference how the alcohol was to enter the body?


nothing simple or appropriate about that analogy at all

~~~

however, there is a rather radical difference in the effect of injecting alcohol into the blood stream and drinking it - so yeah, very different if you want to go with that analogy
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jun, 2007 11:55 am
neologist wrote:
farmerman wrote:
Interestingly, if the admonition was against "eating" blood, then the act of transfusion wouldnt even be an accurate analogy. One goes into the digestive system and the other, the circulatory. Or am I just forgetting that logic and religion are infrequent travelling companions?
The OT admonition was against the eating of blood. Acts 15:20 says "abstain from blood". The simplest analogy which comes to mind is in the case of a cirrhosis patient told to abstain from alcohol. Would it make any difference how the alcohol was to enter the body?

...
Neo - I'm sorry, but that analogy doesn't fit. Alcohol to a person with cirrosis is not like blood to a person (under any condition). I know you were making a connection between the ingestion versus the injection of a substance, but take for instance food. We must eat it for it to correctly be broken down, digested, processed into nutrients, and released into our blood stream. We could never liquify food (any food) and inject it directly into our veins. The nature of blood versus other substances is also different.

More important to me is the understanding the difference between being a JW and accepting blood, and the other infinite list of things that a JW will do in his/her life that is concidered a sin? You can't argue that a perfect JW exists without sin, because it undrmines the entire doctrine that "we are all sinners. What makes this different? When a life is on the line, what makes this act a sin worth defending, and the other sins in your life owrth repenting post facto?

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jun, 2007 11:56 am
ehBeth wrote:
neologist wrote:
The simplest analogy which comes to mind is in the case of a cirrhosis patient told to abstain from alcohol. Would it make any difference how the alcohol was to enter the body?


nothing simple or appropriate about that analogy at all

~~~

however, there is a rather radical difference in the effect of injecting alcohol into the blood stream and drinking it - so yeah, very different if you want to go with that analogy
So to avoid one would be abstaining and to avoid the other would be . . . ?
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jun, 2007 11:57 am
These JWs really must be out of their tiny minds. I believe Hitler put them in concentration camps.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jun, 2007 12:00 pm
Diest TKO wrote:
. .. Neo - I'm sorry, but that analogy doesn't fit. Alcohol to a person with cirrosis is not like blood to a person (under any condition). I know you were making a connection between the ingestion versus the injection of a substance, but take for instance food. We must eat it for it to correctly be broken down, digested, processed into nutrients, and released into our blood stream. We could never liquify food (any food) and inject it directly into our veins. The nature of blood versus other substances is also different.

More important to me is the understanding the difference between being a JW and accepting blood, and the other infinite list of things that a JW will do in his/her life that is concidered a sin? You can't argue that a perfect JW exists without sin, because it undrmines the entire doctrine that "we are all sinners. What makes this different? When a life is on the line, what makes this act a sin worth defending, and the other sins in your life owrth repenting post facto? . . .
JWs are not perfect and never have claimed to be.

But we do have a pretty good understanding of the bible.

So are you saying that the command to abstain from blood is somewhat less restrictive than the command to not eat blood? Or the other way around?
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jun, 2007 12:08 pm
Steve 41oo wrote:
These JWs really must be out of their tiny minds. I believe Hitler put them in concentration camps.
Funny you should say that. Hitler had an insane hatred for the Bibleforsher and did his utmost to destroy them in a campaign exceeded in numbers, but not in intensity, only by the persecution of the Jews.

Although 10,000 were sent to the camps and over 3,000 were executed, although a systematic effort was made to suppress their literature, there were substantially more JWs active in Germany in 1945 than at the beginning of the war.
0 Replies
 
Elihu
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jun, 2007 12:12 pm
Setanta wrote:
Why do you insist that a JW who intentionally has blood drawn before a surgical procedure to be transfused afterward is "eating" their own blood?


The Bible forbids the eating of blood. The reason the Watchtower Society came out with their ban on blood transfusions in the first place was because they thought transfusing blood was the same as eating it. The July 1, 1951 issue of The Watchtower page 415 says:

Quote:
A patient in the hospital may be fed through the mouth, through the nose, or through the veins. When sugar solutions are given intravenously, it is called intravenous feeding. So the hospital's own terminology recognizes as feeding the process of putting nutrition into one's system via the veins. Hence the attendant administering the transfusion is feeding the patient blood through the veins, and the patient receiving it is eating it through his veins.


As far as I know this is still the Watchtower Society's view.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/08/2024 at 02:29:29