23 Sep 10
Originally posted by Zahlanzias i states elsewhere, it is both prudent and wise to cite expert testimony to substantiate ones arguments, it happens in courts of law every day, indeed, each and every one of those statements is based on an experts testimony, if you wish to dispute the claims, i suggest that you take issue with them, i did not originate them, i merely utilised them for arguments sake. It does of course makes your claims of a conspiracy theory defence null and void.
common, be truthful. you are justifying an already made decision. this is not rational. you made that decision because you thought it was right, because the grand poobahs of the watchtower told you so. the above are simply excuses you found later supporting your decision. kind of like how creationists already believe noah's flood really took place and then ...[text shortened]... d transfusions are bad from the jw's point of view. even if you don't share that view.
23 Sep 10
4 edits
Originally posted by Zahlanziyou shall find everything you need here, knock yourself out Zhalansi!
i know religious belief is one, i want to know the specifics. like bible verses, religious debates, a jw dreaming of jesus telling him the new blood transfusion thingy is bad for you, anything.
and incidentally, you cannot use self determination here. self determination can be used to justify dyeing your hair pink or green or piercing your shlong(thoug determination". not refusing a blood donation when you are bleeding out of 10 gunshot holes.
Christians are commanded to ‘abstain from blood’
Acts 15:28, 29: “The holy spirit and we ourselves [the governing body of the Christian congregation] have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled [or, killed without draining their blood] and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!” (There the eating of blood is equated with idolatry and fornication, things that we should not want to engage in.)
Animal flesh may be eaten, but not the blood
Gen. 9:3, 4: “Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to you. Only flesh with its soul—its blood—you must not eat.”
Any animal used for food should be properly bled. One that is strangled or that dies in a trap or that is found after it has died is not suitable for food. (Acts 15:19, 20; compare Leviticus 17:13-16.)
Only sacrificial use of blood has ever been approved by God
Lev. 17:11, 12: “The soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon the altar for you to make atonement for your souls, because it is the blood that makes atonement by the soul in it. That is why I have said to the sons of Israel: ‘No soul of you must eat blood and no alien resident who is residing as an alien in your midst should eat blood.’” (All those animal sacrifices under the Mosaic Law foreshadowed the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ.)
Heb. 9:11-14, 22: “When Christ came as a high priest . . . he entered, no, not with the blood of goats and of young bulls, but with his own blood, once for all time into the holy place and obtained an everlasting deliverance for us. For if the blood of goats and of bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who have been defiled sanctifies to the extent of cleanness of the flesh, how much more will the blood of the Christ, who through an everlasting spirit offered himself without blemish to God, cleanse our consciences from dead works that we may render sacred service to the living God? . . . Unless blood is poured out no forgiveness takes place.”
Eph. 1:7: “By means of him [Jesus Christ] we have the release by ransom through the blood of that one, yes, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his undeserved kindness.”
How did those who claimed to be Christians in early centuries C.E. understand the Bible’s commands regarding blood?
Tertullian (c. 160-230 C.E.): “Let your unnatural ways blush before the Christians. We do not even have the blood of animals at our meals, for these consist of ordinary food. . . . At the trials of Christians you [pagan Romans] offer them sausages filled with blood. You are convinced, of course, that the very thing with which you try to make them deviate from the right way is unlawful for them. How is it that, when you are confident that they will shudder at the blood of an animal, you believe they will pant eagerly after human blood?”—Tertullian, Apologetical Works, and Minucius Felix, Octavius (New York, 1950), translated by Emily Daly, p. 33.
Minucius Felix (third century C.E.):
“So much do we shrink from human blood, that we do not use the blood even of eatable animals in our food.”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1956), edited by A. Roberts and J. Donaldson, Vol. IV, p. 192.
Blood Transfusions
Does the Bible’s prohibition include human blood?
Yes, and early Christians understood it that way. Acts 15:29 says to “keep abstaining from . . . blood.” It does not say merely to abstain from animal blood. (Compare Leviticus 17:10, which prohibited eating “any sort of blood.&rdquo😉 Tertullian (who wrote in defense of the beliefs of early Christians) stated: “The interdict upon ‘blood’ we shall understand to be (an interdict) much more upon human blood.”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. IV, p. 86.
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?
watchtower.org (peace be upon it)
23 Sep 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobiei will never understand how someone can obey a leviticus law unquestionably because god said so but deny another. most american slave owners justified themselves with bible passages but didn't sacrifice livestock as the old testament required. or wear clothes of only one fabric.
you shall find everything you need here, knock yourself out Zhalansi!
[b]Christians are commanded to ‘abstain from blood’
Acts 15:28, 29: “The holy spirit and we ourselves [the governing body of the Christian congregation] have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed ...[text shortened]... it drinking alcohol but had it put directly into his veins?
watchtower.org (peace be upon it)[/b]
how do you justify which verse you obey and which you don't. i know jesus said at some point he is the new law and we should forget the "eye for an eye" ot crap. but i am pretty sure he didn't ever said "the law about only one fabric, forget that, that is also wrong".
the acts verse states simply: don't eat blood. which roughly translates to "cook your damn meat thoroughly else you die because you don't have a refrigerator". i am pretty sure meat will preserve better without any blood in it. but anyway, they say don't eat it, not don't put that blood (animal blood) inside you.
i have offered a different hypothesis as to why the commandment of not eating blood was given. i have asked why we(mainly you) obey some laws in the ot and not others.
lets try another aproach. you claim the soul is in the blood. what does that mean exactly? that if i get a paper cut, part of my soul is lost forever? let's take it one step further. suppose i get shot and i bleed a lot but not die, did half of my soul went into oblivion? blood cells constantly die and get replaced, does that means that soulbits jump from one dying blood cell to a young one? or does one loses his soul and gets a new one every few years or so?
23 Sep 10
4 edits
Originally posted by ZahlanziZhalanzi Zhalanzi how i have desired to gather you people as a hen gathers her chicks, but you did not want it?
i will never understand how someone can obey a leviticus law unquestionably because god said so but deny another. most american slave owners justified themselves with bible passages but didn't sacrifice livestock as the old testament required. or wear clothes of only one fabric.
how do you justify which verse you obey and which you don't. i know jesus sa a young one? or does one loses his soul and gets a new one every few years or so?
the prohibitions were not only given in the mosaic law (your reference is the old testament, actually covenant or agreement is a better translation), they were reiterated to the first century Christians as well, as the reference to the book of Acts indicates (Acts 15:28, 29.) Yes it is true that the Mosaic law had become obsolete as now Christians were under a superior arrangement, one not based on laws as before, but one based on the exercise of consciences, however, the principles in the law still remain! (Do we agree that laws and principles are different?)
It is these very principles that were reiterated to the first century Christians and which we hold so dear, 'abstain from blood'. This is the reason why we obey the principles of the Law but not actually the ordinances of the Law for as you correctly state, Christ made them obsolete. For example, the Law stated that you must not steal, you must not murder, you must honour your father and your mother etc etc , principles which are still extant and biding even though the law itself is not.
I have provided numerous references to show how the early Christians themselves viewed blood, human and animal. The discussion of why blood represents life is very long, involved and at times quite deep.If you would permit me some rest i shall be happy to try to explain it at another time, suffice to say that the intent of this post is merely to show why we are able to obey the principles of the law but do not carry out its ordinances which are obsolete.
23 Sep 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhile I strongly disagree with your interpretation of these passages, I support your right to act in accord with your conscience.
Zhalanzi Zhalanzi how i have desired to gather you people as a hen gathers her chicks, but you did not want it?
the prohibitions were not only given in the mosaic law (your reference is the old testament, actually covenant or agreement is a better translation), they were reiterated to the first century Christians as well, as the reference to the ...[text shortened]... able to obey the principles of the law but do not carry out its ordinances which are obsolete.
I would spend sometime refuting these passages, but past experience has shown that no matter how well I argue my point, and irregardless of whether I am right, you will not be dissauded...that is also your right.
23 Sep 10
3 edits
Originally posted by duecerthank you, it is refreshing to hear another advocate the use of conscience! As for the refutation of these verses, I really don't think its possible for reasons already stated. What are you going to say Duecer? that eating blood is prohibited but injecting it intravenously is not simply because its not specifically mentioned? That is the beauty of principles in that they are far more reaching than mere laws. The principles remain.
While I strongly disagree with your interpretation of these passages, I support your right to act in accord with your conscience.
I would spend sometime refuting these passages, but past experience has shown that no matter how well I argue my point, and irregardless of whether I am right, you will not be dissauded...that is also your right.
23 Sep 10
9 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou didn't get my point. You look at the entire set of cases where blood transfusions have been performed then find a relatively small subset where the outcomes were not great. You then argue, only by considering this small fraction of the whole, that the whole is actually bad.
is it not a common practice to cite expert testimony on ones behalf to substantiate ones case? indeed, i deny that such an action is warped. The only thing that i have sought to establish is that
1. blood transfusions carry a risk,
2.that screening is not nor ever can be 100% effective,
3.that transfusion has caused the premature deaths of ...[text shortened]... e are you disputing and on what grounds? and we have not even touched the ethical issues as yet!
You don't seem to have any concept of proportionality; whether 25000 is a big number depends upon what you are comparing it to. Compared to a maximum of 25001, say, then yes it's pretty big; compared to 4,000,000 on the otherhand it's not so big.
http://www.hhs.gov/ophs/bloodsafety/2007nbcus_survey.pdf -number of transfusions carried out in the US in 2006 not the entire world. (oh and I've rounded down to nearest *even* million (since I know that you will want to throw out the data based on the fact it says it is an estimation from extrapolation))
If you are able to say that blood transfusions are bad in general based on this schoolboy style of argumentation then equally one can argue that water is bad, parents are bad, cars are bad, food is bad, eyesight is bad (most victims of murder were *seen* by their killers), etc...
23 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell it doesn't mention specifically that you should abstain from having your own blood inside you either. Perhaps you're not going far enough robbie carrobie! You should petition that we should all expel the blood from our bodies to appease your god (Of course we will all die but at least your god will be happy).
thank you, it is refreshing to hear another advocate the use of conscience! As for the refutation of these verses, I really don't think its possible for reasons already stated. What are you going to say Duecer? that eating blood is prohibited but injecting it intravenously is not simply because its not specifically mentioned? That is the beauty of principles in that they are far more reaching than mere laws. The principles remain.
But of course if we think about the passage in context one would infer that was not the intent, equally one should infer it wasn't talking about blood transfusions either.
23 Sep 10
Originally posted by AgergLets look at these scriptures here for a minute..... No where here does it specifally mention such things as blood transfusions, homosexuality, sexual child abuse, stealing, murder, rape, adultry, drunkeness, paganistic practices, witchcraft, etc, etc.
Well it doesn't mention specifically that you should abstain from having your own blood inside you either. Perhaps you're not going far enough robbie carrobie! You should petition that we should all expel the blood from our bodies to appease your god (Of course we will all die but at least your god will be happy).
But of course if we think about the passage ...[text shortened]... s not the intent, equally one should infer it wasn't talking about blood transfusions either.
For example homosexuality, adultry, rape, sexual child abuse would all fall under the command not to commit fornication. Would they not? But since those are not specifally mentioned would it be something that could be done without going against what these scriptures command not to do?
It doesn't specifally say not to steal and take things from your neighbor, or burn his house down, use his car without permission, etc. But the law to love your neighbor as yourself would make this type action completely wrong. Would it not?
So in turn the term blood transfusion is not specifically mentioned but it's clearly says to "Abstain from blood." We all know blood transfusions did not exist then, but then neither did automobiles. But since automobiles were not mentioned or even existed then, does that give some type of silly reasoning that it's ok to take your neighbors car?
Think, reason, meditate on this!!!
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: 29You 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.
Luke 10:27 (New International Version)
27 He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'[a]; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[b]"
23 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75the Acts reference is taken out of context. It is implied that they should abstain from any religous ritual (i.e. non-Christian or jewish) that involves the drinking of animals blood.
Lets look at these scriptures here for a minute..... No where here does it specifally mention such things as blood transfusions, homosexuality, sexual child abuse, stealing, murder, rape, adultry, drunkeness, paganistic practices, witchcraft, etc, etc.
For example homosexuality, adultry, rape, sexual child abuse would all fall under the command not t your strength and with all your mind'[a]; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[b]"
I take it you are a vegetarian then? because if not you have been eating animal blood. The bleeding of an animal is in no way 100% effective in removing all the blood. Ever notice that maxi-pad like thing on the bottom of packaged meat? its there to soak up blood.
23 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by duecerGeeez Duecer...you have to read the other post in order to keep up. That has already been discussed.
the Acts reference is taken out of context. It is implied that they should abstain from any religous ritual (i.e. non-Christian or jewish) that involves the drinking of animals blood.
I take it you are a vegetarian then? because if not you have been eating animal blood. The bleeding of an animal is in no way 100% effective in removing all the blood. Ever notice that maxi-pad like thing on the bottom of packaged meat? its there to soak up blood.
And it is not out of context. It says blood "first" then it speaks of animals bled properly. If it applied to just animal blood it would not have mentioned it twice. It would simple have mentioned the strangled issue.
Read what it says not what you want it to say.
23 Sep 10
Originally posted by galveston75Abstain from blood yet Duecer is right. You ever eat a hamburger? Steak? A little pink in the middle? It's not even possible to abstain from blood unless your a vegetarian. Next time your at the market look at all of those cuts of meat. There is always residual blood just sitting at the bottom of the package. I think the context is not to eat and drink blood sacrificed to pagan god's as was common during that time period.
Geeez Duecer...you have to read the other post in order to keep up. That has already been discussed.
And it is not out of context. It says blood "first" then it speaks of animals bled properly. If it applied to just animal blood it would not have mentioned it twice. It would simple have mentioned the strangled issue.
Read what it says not what you want it to say.
Manny
23 Sep 10
Originally posted by galveston75I am not aware of any tradition in which Jews would eat or consume human blod 2000 years ago, so, no, I am pretty sure they meant animal blood.
Geeez Duecer...you have to read the other post in order to keep up. That has already been discussed.
And it is not out of context. It says blood "first" then it speaks of animals bled properly. If it applied to just animal blood it would not have mentioned it twice. It would simple have mentioned the strangled issue.
Read what it says not what you want it to say.
