Truth .. JW Style

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
how safe is blood screening?

According to the hospital’s medical director, soon after Eniola’s birth, she was found to be jaundiced. An exchange blood transfusion was prescribed, and the father donated some units of blood. But the father’s blood was found to be incompatible, so blood from the hospital’s blood bank was administered. Before long, th ...[text shortened]... duals are often most infectious during this time (shortly after they have been exposed to HIV).”

Duh, of course there is no guarantee that transfused blood will be "safe". How exactly should this temper our understanding? You're seriously confused if you think considerations of this type demonstrate that all blood transfusions should be refused. You need to quit cherry picking and approach this subject more objectively.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
That's right, it's all about you.

The proof is in the facts.

Originally posted by galveston75
The proof is in the facts.

To you maybe yes, but to everybody else you just come across as a lunatic. Which then feeds your paranoia over again.

It looks like your stuck in a perpetual cycle.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
First of all i resent the term cult, we have never been nor ever will be a cult. Secondly suicide cult is a gross misrepresentation of the facts, for he did not wish to die, did he? he wanted to live, did he not? It simply comes down to the fact that he would not compromise his faith, even at the risk of losing his own life. Had an alternative be ...[text shortened]... lease try this, any comments of course are welcome.

http://watchtower.org/e/hb/article_01.htm

Apologies for the 'cult' reference, I didn't realise that you resent the term – I have my own religious views which attract their own thoughtless epithets. Because those epithets offend me, I avoid them when describing the views of others... but being raised Catholic, the word cult doesn't have the same negative connotations for me as it may for others... so sorry for being rude.

As for suicide, I think it is a bit more complicated than just having the intention of ending a life. If we take the Peoples Temple story at face value, then yes, they committed suicide. But Heaven's Gate..? Were they attempting to die or be transported to their spaceship?

I think in Adrian's case he certainly didn't intend to die, but he did avoid actions that may have saved his life (though I suspect from his Doctors testimony they this was an outside chance too) because he was part of a group and belief system that taught taking that action would displease God.

Thank you for the link, I had already seen it earlier today when I read all the stuff on the Watchtower site (hence my earlier comment on the apologetic emphasis being on the health impact rather than the moral significance).

I did look at it again (and the bit towards the end Contrary to how some today reason, God's law on blood was not to be ignored just because an emergency arose. did make me think of the siege of Lennigrad)...

Clearly a moral principle was involved. Human blood has great significance and should not be misused. … The Creator later added details from which we can easily see the moral issues that he links to lifeblood...

Those details turn out to be simply more biblical quotations in different contexts – which is fine but it doesn't explain what particular ethical issues are involved.

Scientists now know that the Jewish Law code promoted good health. It required, for example, that excrement be deposited outside the camp and covered and that people not eat meat that carried a high risk of disease. (Leviticus 11:4-8, 13; 17:15; Deuteronomy 23:12, 13)

This bit seems to be going in the same direction you've been highlighting, but then it says:

While the law about blood had health aspects, much more was involved. Blood had a symbolic meaning. It stood for life provided by the Creator. By treating blood as special, the people showed dependence on him for life. Yes, the chief reason why they were not to take in blood was, not that it was unhealthy, but that it had special meaning to God.

So the health benefits of avoiding blood transfusions aren't the main reason at all. In fact, I think you're repeated assertions that transfusions cause physical harm is a red herring to avoid getting to the central issue. After all, if someone could demonstrate that a blood transfusion would definitely cause no physical harm, you still wouldn't change your view. Why do you do this? And why does the Watchtower website do it? It seems to me it just misrepresents your position, making others think you believe something you don't.

Of course, I'm still not sure why blood has special significance to God. I appreciate that blood is repeatedly used in oaths and is significant ritual purity etc. as cited in the Hebrew Bible and other religious traditions, but I'm still not getting what it is about blood that makes it significant, and why God gets offended if its used to save a life...

Originally posted by Proper Knob
To you maybe yes, but to everybody else you just come across as a lunatic. Which then feeds your paranoia over again.

It looks like your stuck in a perpetual cycle.

I'm doing just fine. No paranoia or doing circles here. And yes I can understand how it may seem were as you say lunatics but if you see how a scripture applies and the truth in it, it all makes sense especially as it applies to no one else because no one else is doing the work Jesus said to do. No bragging but simply staiting the facts.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no one allows anyone to die, are you yet unaware that in the united kingdom , euthanasia, either assisted or otherwise is illegal? man you are probably the second most ignorant person i have had the misfortune to correspond with in my short years upon the planet, either contribute something with content or stop spamming the forum with nothingness! y y amount to and no amount of vain protestation on your part can change can that fact. Spammer!

Your rage means nothing to me. My challenge is genuine and based on JW doctrine.

Perhaps you would prefer to explain how certain elements of the JW leadership has softened it view on transfusions despite the original alleged scriptural proof that accepting blood is a sin?

Edit: http://www.ajwrb.org/Watchtower_Leadership_and_Blood.pdf

Originally posted by divegeester
Your rage means nothing to me. My challenge is genuine and based on JW doctrine.

Perhaps you would prefer to explain how certain elements of the JW leadership has softened it view on transfusions despite the original alleged scriptural proof that accepting blood is a sin?

Edit: http://www.ajwrb.org/Watchtower_Leadership_and_Blood.pdf

congratulations you have just been promoted, as i have stated already, we have one leader, the Christ, for all are considered brothers. Our stance nor 'elements' (whatever that means) has not 'softened', for the scriptural admonishment is quite clear, 'abstain from blood'. You do of course realise that i am at perfect liberty to exercise my own conscience in this regard, regardless of what other Jehovahs witnesses have allegedly stated or not. What does that do for your claims, that is correct, it nullifies and relegates them once more to the realm of unsubstantiated opinion. Have a nice day.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]what part of tens of thousands of persons having died as a result of transfused blood are you yet unable to comprehend?

What part of that statistic in isolation is not very meaningful are you yet unable to comprehend? Even if true, how would this statistic rate comparatively with the number of persons whose lives have been saved or prolonged as a result of blood transfusion?[/b]

what part of blood has caused tens of thousands of serious injuries and death regardless of any correlations that you would like to draw don't you understand? you reasoning is akin to the Nazi doctor Josef Mengele, who stated that humanity would thank him for his genetic experiments, is that what you are saying, that these deaths are a necessary bi-product if lots of other people have benefited? are you?

According to U.S.News & World Report (May 1, 1989), about 5 percent of those given blood in the United States get hepatitis—175,000 people a year. About half become chronic carriers, and at least 1 in 5 develop cirrhosis or cancer of the liver. It is estimated that 4,000 die.

Imagine the headlines you would read if a jumbo jet crashed, killing all aboard. But 4,000 deaths amount to a full jumbo jet crashing every month! Yes as long as other Jumbo jets don't crash, in your case, it would be a reasonable proposition. You people are truly, truly sick.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
how safe is blood screening?

According to the hospital’s medical director, soon after Eniola’s birth, she was found to be jaundiced. An exchange blood transfusion was prescribed, and the father donated some units of blood. But the father’s blood was found to be incompatible, so blood from the hospital’s blood bank was administered. Before long, th ...[text shortened]... duals are often most infectious during this time (shortly after they have been exposed to HIV).”

Of course there is a risk. What you fail to acknowledge is that the benefits outweigh the risks. No one in serious need of a transfusion would say 'Better not take that. I might get AIDS'. That's ridiculous.

Originally posted by Nimzofish
Apologies for the 'cult' reference, I didn't realise that you resent the term – I have my own religious views which attract their own thoughtless epithets. Because those epithets offend me, I avoid them when describing the views of others... but being raised Catholic, the word cult doesn't have the same negative connotations for me as it may for others... ...[text shortened]... at makes it significant, and why God gets offended if its used to save a life...

but being raised Catholic, the word cult doesn't have the same negative connotations for me as it may for others... so sorry for being rude.

This is true. The Catholic Church for example describes a marriage between a Catholic and non-Catholic as a 'disparity of cult'. When a saint is canonised, it may also be said that they have a cult. No pejorative sense is intended in these examples.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what part of blood has caused tens of thousands of serious injuries and death regardless of any correlations that you would like to draw don't you understand? you reasoning is akin to the Nazi doctor Josef Mengele, who stated that humanity would thank him for his genetic experiments, is that what you are saying, that these deaths are a necessary bi- crash, in your case, it would be a reasonable proposition. You people are truly, truly sick.

But thousands die in hospitals a year due to infections. In Australia, I understand that the statistic is a few hundred a year. Does this negate the vital role of hospitals in the health-care system? Of course not because most people do not die and the advantages of hospitals are overwhelming.

Again, you need a proper point of comparison. And stop bringing reports in from 1989. That's over two decades ago and practice has significantly changed. There is a greater awareness of infection transmission now and better practices are in place.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what part of blood has caused tens of thousands of serious injuries and death regardless of any correlations that you would like to draw don't you understand? you reasoning is akin to the Nazi doctor Josef Mengele, who stated that humanity would thank him for his genetic experiments, is that what you are saying, that these deaths are a necessary bi- ...[text shortened]... crash, in your case, it would be a reasonable proposition. You people are truly, truly sick.

Bull. According the the Oct. 2004 Journal of the American Medical Association, the chances of getting Hep C from a transfusion are less than 1 in a million, and HIV less than 1 in 1.9 million. According to this year's National Institute of Health report, there are roughly 5 million transfusions per year in the U.S. So that means about 5 people per year get Hep C from transfusions.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Your right, I read your post again, my bad, I'm sorry. I must of been in a very
bad mood that day, you were not the only one I did that too. 🙁
Kelly

Appreciate the apology.

Care to address the content of my post?

Originally posted by Nimzofish
Apologies for the 'cult' reference, I didn't realise that you resent the term – I have my own religious views which attract their own thoughtless epithets. Because those epithets offend me, I avoid them when describing the views of others... but being raised Catholic, the word cult doesn't have the same negative connotations for me as it may for others... at makes it significant, and why God gets offended if its used to save a life...

So the health benefits of avoiding blood transfusions aren't the main reason at all,

yes that is correct, they are not the main reason, although they are valid as well (one learns to fight fire with fire). The main reason is that it is a religious belief and that we claim the right of self determination, i apologise if this was unclear. Also you need not apologise for any perceived rudeness, on the contrary, your posts are quite refreshing 🙂

Originally posted by bbarr
Bull. According the the Oct. 2004 Journal of the American Medical Association, the chances of getting Hep C from a transfusion are less than 1 in a million, and HIV less than 1 in 1.9 million. According to this year's National Institute of Health report, there are roughly 5 million transfusions per year in the U.S. So that means about 5 people per year get Hep C from transfusions.

then i suggest you take it up with the quoted source and tell them of your concerns! they may even care, who can say?