22 Sep 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHe had Multiple myeloma which is a blood cancer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_myeloma
what alternatives was your father offered?
anyway for some off reason if I remember correctly he was in the hospital for some other thing and his overall blood volume was very low and it was imperative at that time that he receive transfusions I do not recall any other treatments even being offered but I do remember he felt very tired before hand
Manny
22 Sep 14
Originally posted by divegeesterhaha .....wow crazy 😉
It is interesting to note that robbie and Galveston's approach to defending this command from JW HQ is to appeal to the "common sense" health factors of why strangulation is a poor way to slaughter an animal and that eating (animal) blood less bad than injecting human blood.
But if you take a moment to read the origins of this doctrine you find a dif ...[text shortened]...
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions#History_of_doctrine
Manny
22 Sep 14
Originally posted by galveston75"DO NOT MURDER" is the only law you mentioned there that was established by God. I am sure God would not object to using blood to save lives, because He did it with His only begotten Son.
The bible condemns murder, drunkeness, the use of blood.
"Do not murder" ( a law established by God )
"Do not get intoxicated" ( a law established by God )
"Abstain from blood" ( a law established by God )
The bible does not mention blood transfusions just as it does not mention driving drunk and hitting someone and killing them as a ...[text shortened]... ion this kind of murder is no big deal since the bible does not use those exact words.....Right?
Killing someone while driving drunk is not always considered murder, but is usually considered manslaughter because it is usually unintentional.
22 Sep 14
Originally posted by RJHinds[b]It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man.”
Then the disciples *came and *said to Him, “Do You know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this statement?” But He answered and said, “Every plant which My heavenly Father did not plant shall be uprooted. Le ...[text shortened]... man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man.”
(Matthew 15:11-20 NASB)[/b]Agreed .....I believe if one has faith they may eat anything and this is scriptural but for some they have a weak conscience and Paul did say to not beat up on the one who has the weak conscience ....It is what comes out of our hearts that defiles no doubt
Manny
22 Sep 14
Originally posted by menace71this is an Epic fail, the Israelites were commanded to drain the blood from an animal and were commanded not to eat or drink blood, they were not commanded to drain every last vestige of blood prior to eating meat were they? Context is everything, you bet.
To our JW friends if you have ever eaten any meat you have eaten blood technically it is impossible to drain or take away every trace of blood and yet God allowed for the eating of meat for people so what then is meant by the abstaining from blood ? Context is indeed everything.
Manny
22 Sep 14
1 edit
Originally posted by menace71So he was not offered any alternatives? Blood volume is only low in the case of massive blood loss and you father was not in an accident, therefore i find it hard to understand why his blood volume was low unless he was hemorrhaging inside. What you may be referring to is blood count, that is the concentration of white blood cells, red blood cells, and platelets present in the blood all of which can be treated with alternatives to whole blood. I am therefore extremely skeptical of the claim that a blood transfusion was imperative.
He had Multiple myeloma which is a blood cancer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_myeloma
anyway for some off reason if I remember correctly he was in the hospital for some other thing and his overall blood volume was very low and it was imperative at that time that he receive transfusions I do not recall any other treatments even being offered but I do remember he felt very tired before hand
Manny
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120150
22 Sep 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieFrom page 15:
this is an Epic fail, the Israelites were commanded to drain the blood from an animal and were commanded not to eat or drink blood, they were not commanded to drain every last vestige of blood prior to eating meat were they? Context is everything, you bet.
Originally posted by divegeester
It is interesting to note that robbie and Galveston's approach to defending this command from JW HQ is to appeal to the "common sense" health factors of why strangulation is a poor way to slaughter an animal and that eating (animal) blood less bad than injecting human blood.
But if you take a moment to read the origins of this doctrine you find a differing rational and explanation; one which our resident JW brothers have omitted to bring up:
From the wiki page linked below:
A 1961 Watchtower quoted Brazilian surgeon Dr Américo Valério as saying transfusions were often followed by --
"moral insanity, sexual perversions, repression, inferiority complexes, petty crimes" and Dr Alonzo Jay Shadman claiming that a person's blood "contains all the peculiarities of the individual ... [including] hereditary taints, disease susceptibilities, poisons due to personal living, eating and drinking habits ... The poisons that produce the impulse to commit suicide, murder, or steal are in the blood."
Robbie carrobie and Galveston75, do you subscribe to this teaching and point of view published by the Watch Tower?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions#History_of_doctrine[/b]
22 Sep 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYes, the context is everything. Where in the context does it say not to have blood transfusions?
this is an Epic fail, the Israelites were commanded to drain the blood from an animal and were commanded not to eat or drink blood, they were not commanded to drain every last vestige of blood prior to eating meat were they? Context is everything, you bet.
23 Sep 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI'm not a doctor and I doubt that you are and that is the way I remember the events .....They said He was in trouble and needed to get a blood transfusion and I seem to remember volume being an issue ......anyway that type of cancer is terminal most people are given 4-5 years and my dad lived 18+ years with it....He was said by his doctor to be the longest living person as far as he knew at that time with that type of cancer in the US
So he was not offered any alternatives? Blood volume is only low in the case of massive blood loss and you father was not in an accident, therefore i find it hard to understand why his blood volume was low unless he was hemorrhaging inside. What you may be referring to is blood count, that is the concentration of white blood cells, red blood cells, ...[text shortened]... blood. I am therefore extremely skeptical of the claim that a blood transfusion was imperative.
Manny
23 Sep 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieExactly .....you make my point that yes your to drain the animal of it's blood but that it's impossible to drain every last vestige of blood .....I think the point is not to eat or drink blood deliberately....
this is an Epic fail, the Israelites were commanded to drain the blood from an animal and were commanded not to eat or drink blood, they were not commanded to drain every last vestige of blood prior to eating meat were they? Context is everything, you bet.
Manny
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120150
23 Sep 14
Originally posted by menace71Take a raw steak, cut it half and look inside, lots of blood right?
Exactly .....you make my point that yes your to drain the animal of it's blood but that it's impossible to drain every last vestige of blood .....I think the point is not to eat or drink blood deliberately....
Manny
Now cook it in a pan until it is well done. Put it on your plate and cut it again; is the blood still there? Yes of course but it's changed colour.
The whole concept propagated by the JW governing body is a ridiculous but highly dangerous nonsense.
23 Sep 14
Originally posted by menace71Geeeeee its just a bit hazy there Manfred me ol son, let us not argue over the details, volume is really only an issue when there is massive blood loss and even then it can be treated with volume expanders. My point is of course that now there are many alternatives to whole blood which people are blissfully unaware of.
I'm not a doctor and I doubt that you are and that is the way I remember the events .....They said He was in trouble and needed to get a blood transfusion and I seem to remember volume being an issue ......anyway that type of cancer is terminal most people are given 4-5 years and my dad lived 18+ years with it....He was said by his doctor to be the longest living person as far as he knew at that time with that type of cancer in the US
Manny
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120150
23 Sep 14
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieFrom the wiki page linked below:
Geeeeee its just a bit hazy there Manfred me ol son, let us not argue over the details, volume is really only an issue when there is massive blood loss and even then it can be treated with volume expanders. My point is of course that now there are many alternatives to whole blood which people are blissfully unaware of.
A 1961 Watchtower quoted Brazilian surgeon Dr Américo Valério as saying transfusions were often followed by --
"moral insanity, sexual perversions, repression, inferiority complexes, petty crimes" and Dr Alonzo Jay Shadman claiming that a person's blood "contains all the peculiarities of the individual ... [including] hereditary taints, disease susceptibilities, poisons due to personal living, eating and drinking habits ... The poisons that produce the impulse to commit suicide, murder, or steal are in the blood."
You refer to "whole blood" as being the issue - Which part or parts of the blood is it that carries the above mentioned and below linked attributes as claimed by the Watch Tower?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions#History_of_doctrine[/b][/b]
23 Sep 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieMy point is that there was never any law from God prohibiting blood transfusions. That idea and prohibition came from the Watchtower society in order to gain more control over their members.
Geeeeee its just a bit hazy there Manfred me ol son, let us not argue over the details, volume is really only an issue when there is massive blood loss and even then it can be treated with volume expanders. My point is of course that now there are many alternatives to whole blood which people are blissfully unaware of.