Blood transfusion risk? God knew this long before man..

Originally posted by galveston75
We have no reason to twist what this says, that is something that needs to be made clear.
It seems a few if not most here believe we are some cruel and non caring people. That is the farthest from the truth. We all love our life's and if not even more the lifes our families and even more our children.
By no means do we take this stand of no blood tra this command to fit some agenda or for some outrageuos belief. It's as simple as it sounds.

So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.
(John 6:53 NASB)

Here we are commanded to drink blood by Christ. So what is your reply to this? How about having sex with a virgin. I understand this causes blood to come forth on the man's penis. Is it a sin for a husband to have sex with his virgin wife? Therefore, could blood transfusions be an exception to sin, since it saves lives. Jesus said to pull an ox out of the mud to save its life on the Sabbath was not a sin. How much more important is it to save a human life?

Originally posted by galveston75
Now that everyone has had the chance to knock the JW's stand on blood transfusions and our refusal of them, here are just a few links to enlighten you.
As I mentioned one reason God does not allow man to consume blood of another living creature are the obvious health risk.
God knew this from the beginning and once he allowed man to eat flesh, he had ...[text shortened]... ood-transfusions/

http://www.naturalnews.com/030155_blood_transfusions_clinical_trials.html

You don't hesitate to tell others when you think they're wasting your time, so allow me to return the favor.

I have no intention of reading your propaganda/spam.

Originally posted by FMF
Ah no wonder you are being evasive and making personal remarks instead of answering the straight question. No wonder. I have just looked it up. The prohibition of transfusions was not unilaterally declared by the JW organisation in the 1870s. It happened far more recently than that. No wonder you have been dodging and deflecting since you were asked about it.

It was not till 1944 that they started with this doctrine. Before that they praised blood transfusion. Sounds off and whacky to me.




Manny

Originally posted by galveston75
Now that everyone has had the chance to knock the JW's stand on blood transfusions and our refusal of them, here are just a few links to enlighten you.
As I mentioned one reason God does not allow man to consume blood of another living creature are the obvious health risk.
God knew this from the beginning and once he allowed man to eat flesh, he had ...[text shortened]... ood-transfusions/

http://www.naturalnews.com/030155_blood_transfusions_clinical_trials.html

There are many medical emergencies in which a blood transfusion is the only possible remedy. In the case of 100% certain of death, aren't the potential risks of blood transfusion unimportant?

Originally posted by menace71
It was not till 1944 that they started with this doctrine. Before that they praised blood transfusion. Sounds off and whacky to me.




Manny

It's called 'inconsistency'. In general, that means 'change the rules' as you go along, to suit when times do and don't suit you.

It kind of whiffs on an inconsistent, and mis-understood, lobotomised God like creature. A JW perhaps?

-m. 😉

Originally posted by SwissGambit
You don't hesitate to tell others when you think they're wasting your time, so allow me to return the favor.

I have no intention of reading your propaganda/spam.

There is no spam on this thread. If you'd look past your spouting off and look at the links you just might learn something about blood transfusions and all the risk involved. The links have nothing to do with the JW's or the bible but from the medical field and their comments on this issue.
Geeez, what a knee jerk reaction on a serious health issue.

Originally posted by galveston75
There is no spam on this thread. If you'd look past your spouting off and look at the links you just might learn something about blood transfusions and all the risk involved. The links have nothing to do with the JW's or the bible but from the medical field and their comments on this issue.
Geeez, what a knee jerk reaction on a serious health issue.

It was not till 1944-5 that you started with this no transfusions doctrine. No wonder you were being evasive and making personal remarks when I asked you about it.

Originally posted by mikelom
It's called 'inconsistency'. In general, that means 'change the rules' as you go along, to suit when times do and don't suit you.

It kind of whiffs on an inconsistent, and mis-understood, lobotomised God like creature. A JW perhaps?

-m. 😉

Do not all things usually change in time as things are learned and discovered? Do not police departments, fire departments, city policies, science, the medical field, astronomy, governments, etc, etc, change policies or beliefs change as they need to by learning new things?
Of course all things change and to say this is soooooooo bad because we changed as we learn from the Bible is bad?
How ignorant of you.............
Perhaps the issue is the lack of understanding and the inability of religion as a whole to ever change from the dark ages or have the strength morally to do it even if they see the need to do something that might go against the belief of the masses.

Originally posted by FMF
It was not till 1944-5 that you started with this no transfusions doctrine. No wonder you were being evasive and making personal remarks when I asked you about it.

Not being evasive at all. I just don't want to converse with you....Sorry dude that it upsets you so much.

Originally posted by galveston75
Do not all things usually change in time as things are learned and discovered?

So now you are claiming that the JW organisation "discovered" - in 1944 - that the bible's forbidding of the eating and drinking of blood also applied to blood transfusions? I pose this as a question so that you can clarify what you mean by "discovered" with regard to 1944 and transfusions.

Originally posted by galveston75
Not being evasive at all. I just don't want to converse with you....Sorry dude that it upsets you so much.

It doesn't upset me at all. I find your evasiveness and deflecting approach to be very revealing, and when you do it, I think it sheds light on your contribution to the debate and on your mindset.

Originally posted by Conrau K
There are many medical emergencies in which a blood transfusion is the only possible remedy. In the case of 100% certain of death, aren't the potential risks of blood transfusion unimportant?

So in those cases of 100% death, you are sure beyond doubt that a blood transfusion will actually save 100% of these people? You would also guaranty there would be no ill side affects after the transfusion and even years after it was administered?

This is a perfect example of not being truthful with a so called situation like this. You make it sound like this is foolproof and that it is only a wonderful and good thing to do. Well it's not. And If you'd read any of those links from the medical field you just might get a shocking view of this so called wonderful thing you praise and see the dangers that are actually there and that millions have paid the price for since it acceptance.

Originally posted by FMF
It doesn't upset me at all. I find your evasiveness and deflecting approach to be very revealing, and when you do it, I think it sheds light on your contribution to the debate and on your mindset.

My refusal to not respond on this or any other issue has noting to do with this subject. I just have no desire to futher my discussion with you on anything. Take it personal or think Im just being evasive. I really don't care.

Originally posted by galveston75
My refusal to not respond on this or any other issue has noting to do with this subject. I just have no desire to futher my discussion with you on anything. Take it personal or think Im just being evasive. I really don't care.

I am not taking it personally. It's a public forum. People disagree. One would have thought that you would want your beliefs to prevail in the face of skepticism and disagreement. So in that regard your evasiveness and your deflection means what it means. And it puts your beliefs into an emotional and intellectual context, so we can better understand the psychology behind your behaviour and interpersonal problems on this forum.

Originally posted by galveston75
My refusal to not respond on this or any other issue has noting to do with this subject.

Are you claiming that in 1944 the JW organisation "discovered" that the bible's forbidding of the eating and drinking of blood also applied to blood transfusions?