- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
20 Sep 10
Originally posted by bbarrAs I understand, they do however permit the use of blood fractions (such as plasma.) The whole thing is just absurd.
Right, and this is precisely the sort of insane view I was on about above. That people have had their ability to think clearly about such matters so profoundly compromised by unjustified literalism and sloppy inferences promulgated by dubious authority is a real tragedy. If this is what is taught to the children of Jehova's Witlesses, then they are guilty of child abuse.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
20 Sep 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI am not judging your conscience (at least, not at the moment.) I have simply asked you to clarify your moral beliefs about blood transfusions. It seems that you believe that moral judgments are exclusively private and that no one can interject their own moral beliefs. If this is so, presumably you must refrain from any moral commentary on other posters, on other JWs and on your own family members. It strikes me as perfectly bizarre. If a JW were to commit every possible infraction against the organisation, would you accept this as a legitimate expression of their conscience?
why must my conscious be judged by you?
20 Sep 10
Originally posted by bbarrIf this was child abuse then why does the Watchtower society grow by the thousands each month? Is it because ones that are honestly searching for the truth understand God's view on this matter and many thousands of those have children.
Right, and this is precisely the sort of insane view I was on about above. That people have had their ability to think clearly about such matters so profoundly compromised by unjustified literalism and sloppy inferences promulgated by dubious authority is a real tragedy. If this is what is taught to the children of Jehova's Witlesses, then they are guilty of child abuse.
I believe that it is you and others do not see what god wants with your hearts.
Just my thought.....
21 Sep 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneSome things people value above life, the blood transfusion isn't one I agree with,
[b]Again, it is not a value system I agree with; however, if they feel that the blood
some how soils them, why should they be forced to into it?
I understand that you don't agree with their value system. That wasn't the point. Why do you continue to ask this type of question when I've already addressed it?
Once again, the basis for the answer ...[text shortened]... their child.
Perhaps if you address the above statements directly we can get somewhere.[/b]
but then I also think killing the unborn is bad too.
Kelly
21 Sep 10
Originally posted by KellyJayI understand that you are against abortion, but that is a separate issue. You are unnecessarily trying to bundle the two together. This issue can and should be addressed on its own.
Some things people value above life, the blood transfusion isn't one I agree with,
but then I also think killing the unborn is bad too.
Kelly
Why don't you at least try to address the statements directly?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
21 Sep 10
Originally posted by KellyJaySince, however, this prohibition on blood transfusions can jeopardize the lives of children and their parents, causing unnecessary grief, we cannot be indifferent. Simply casting it as an issue of conscience does not exempt it from scrutiny. If it is child abuse, it should not be tolerated.
Some things people value above life, the blood transfusion isn't one I agree with,
but then I also think killing the unborn is bad too.
Kelly
21 Sep 10
Originally posted by Conrau KI'm in agreement denying blood transfusions isn't something I agree with, but we
Since, however, this prohibition on blood transfusions can jeopardize the lives of children and their parents, causing unnecessary grief, we cannot be indifferent. Simply casting it as an issue of conscience does not exempt it from scrutiny. If it is child abuse, it should not be tolerated.
do the very thing we are claiming we are against with killing the unborn, and with
that we are doing it with intent. So I fail to see again why everyone here is upset
with blood transfusions while we are killing the unborn. There are things that we
all hold near and dear to our hearts, those things we can place above life itself.
With the killing of the unborn there are choices being made, with rejecting
blood transfusions there are choices being made, somethings we value above
life and with some choices we declare are more important than life. If we are going
to allow one, why not the other?
Kelly
21 Sep 10
Originally posted by KellyJaySo, would you also "fail to see why everyone here is upset" with parents who torture their children, have sex with their children, murder their children, etc.?
I'm in agreement denying blood transfusions isn't something I agree with, but we
do the very thing we are claiming we are against with killing the unborn, and with
that we are doing it with intent. So I fail to see again why everyone here is upset
with blood transfusions while we are killing the unborn. There are things that we
all hold near and dear to ...[text shortened]... declare are more important than life. If we are going
to allow one, why not the other?
Kelly
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
21 Sep 10
Originally posted by KellyJayI myself do not support abortion but I do appreciate that there is a significant difference between an abortion and, say, the death of an five-year old child whose parents refuse a blood transfusion. In the latter case, everyone agrees that the child is a human person and has the same rights as an adult. People's moral intuitions would be fairly consistent in this case.
I'm in agreement denying blood transfusions isn't something I agree with, but we
do the very thing we are claiming we are against with killing the unborn, and with
that we are doing it with intent. So I fail to see again why everyone here is upset
with blood transfusions while we are killing the unborn. There are things that we
all hold near and dear to ...[text shortened]... declare are more important than life. If we are going
to allow one, why not the other?
Kelly
21 Sep 10
1 edit
Well the point here is our stand in based on the Bible and God's view of blood.
Acts 15:28-29 (New International Version)
28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.
If one looks at this scripture it says to "abstain from blood." It doesn't say just don't eat it, or not to use it for medical reasons, or don't pour in your gardens for futilizer or whatever.
It says to "abstain" from it just as one would abstain from fornication. And it also says "blood"..it's does not single out just animal blood.
–verb (used without object)
1.to hold oneself back voluntarily, esp. from something regarded as improper or unhealthy (usually fol. by from): to abstain from eating meat.
If anyone here feels their wisdom is greater then God's then that's you decision. We choose God's wisdom over mans any day.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
21 Sep 10
Originally posted by galveston75If one looks at this scripture it says to "abstain from blood." It doesn't say just don't eat it, or not to use it for medical reasons, or don't pour in your gardens for futilizer or whatever.
Well the point here is our stand in based on the Bible and God's view of blood.
Acts 15:28-29 (New International Version)
28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual ...[text shortened]... ter then God's then that's you decision. We choose God's wisdom over mans any day.
I doubt, however, that Luke had blood transfusions in mind when he wrote this. Look, Scripture quotes are unlikely to convince anyone on this forum. Even RC is embarrassed to say outright that this mother of three had acted immorally. It is a disgusting policy of your organisation.
21 Sep 10
Originally posted by Conrau KWell your opinion of what Luke wrote really isn't the issue here. The issue is what Luke said. His statement was very clear with no exeptions stated for then or for the future. God's view was clear from Noah up to Luke's statement. God does not change so his ruling on the issue of blood has not changed unless you've been told different by him.......... Abstain means do not touch or use for any purpose.
[b] If one looks at this scripture it says to "abstain from blood." It doesn't say just don't eat it, or not to use it for medical reasons, or don't pour in your gardens for futilizer or whatever.
I doubt, however, that Luke had blood transfusions in mind when he wrote this. Look, Scripture quotes are unlikely to convince anyone on this forum. Even R ...[text shortened]... t this mother of three had acted immorally. It is a disgusting policy of your organisation.[/b]
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
21 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75The issue is what he meant. I can't see how he could have meant blood transfusions as this had not yet been discovered.
Well your opinion of what Luke wrote really isn't the issue here. The issue is what Luke said. His statement was very clear with no exeptions stated for then or for the future. God's view was clear from Noah up to Luke's statement. God does not change so his ruling on the issue of blood has not changed unless you've been told different by him.......... Abstain means do not touch or use for any purpose.
Do you also, however, abstain from the consumption of blood in animals? Do you eat Kosher meat in which the blood has been drained?
21 Sep 10
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayWith the killing of the unborn there are choices being made, with rejecting
I'm in agreement denying blood transfusions isn't something I agree with, but we
do the very thing we are claiming we are against with killing the unborn, and with
that we are doing it with intent. So I fail to see again why everyone here is upset
with blood transfusions while we are killing the unborn. There are things that we
all hold near and dear to ...[text shortened]... declare are more important than life. If we are going
to allow one, why not the other?
Kelly
blood transfusions there are choices being made, somethings we value above
life and with some choices we declare are more important than life. If we are going
to allow one, why not the other?
Sure, both cases involve human life. But in the case of abortion (say, early in gestational age), there is no mental life. For many, this will bear on the subjects of moral personhood and moral considerability, and this is one reason why they will see substantive difference between the two cases.