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

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.

who were the men who first understood gods feeling regarding blood. for you to think these men have discovered the correct message of god as late as the 1940's and every christian scholar before them had gotten it wrong, would make these men very special. what exactly is it about these men that would convince you 100% that these guys had gotten it right?
what were they called? is their any biographies i could read online?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
who were the men who first understood gods feeling regarding blood. for you to think these men have discovered the correct message of god as late as the 1940's and every christian scholar before them had gotten it wrong, would make these men very special. what exactly is it about these men that would convince you 100% that these guys had gotten it right?
what were they called? is their any biographies i could read online?

The names of those men are not important. God has used various men all thru the history of man being on this earth to teach and express God's commands.
The point is what God tells us and when he desides to tell us. Sometimes what he says corrects what we have believed in the past and no doubt will continue to correct those who listen to him in the future. This learning and correction process was shown to happen when Jesus was on the earth with all he taught to his followers. And like now, much of what he taught was not accepted by the masses and even caused many to be put to death just as Jesus was.

Originally posted by galveston75
The names of those men are not important. God has used various men all thru the history of man being on this earth to teach and express God's commands.
The point is what God tells us and when he desides to tell us. Sometimes what he says corrects what we have believed in the past and no doubt will continue to correct those who listen to him in the futu ...[text shortened]... aught was not accepted by the masses and even caused many to be put to death just as Jesus was.

i disagree, for such a radical policy that involves refusing blood transfusions at the risk of loss of life is a huge thing. the man or men who discovered this must have been very special, having a skill of understanding the bible in a way that nobody before them has. surly this would make them the greatest christian scholars of all time. there men must be very famous in the j.w. world. i would imagine they have lots written about them.

if i was following a religion and one day the religion brought in a radical new understanding of the bible, an understanding that would potentially put me or my family at risk, i would want to know who had made the decision and why. i would need to weigh up why i would trust this person over the person who had made the previous translation of the text.

so why do you trust the current understanding over the previous understanding?

Originally posted by galveston75
The names of those men are not important. God has used various men all thru the history of man being on this earth to teach and express God's commands.
The point is what God tells us and when he desides to tell us. Sometimes what he says corrects what we have believed in the past and no doubt will continue to correct those who listen to him in the futu ...[text shortened]... aught was not accepted by the masses and even caused many to be put to death just as Jesus was.

What was it you suddenly "learned" about blood transfusions in 1944? And how did you "learn" it?

Originally posted by galveston75
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 ...[text shortened]... dangers that are actually there and that millions have paid the price for since it acceptance.

So in those cases of 100% death, you are sure beyond doubt that a blood transfusion will actually save 100% of these people?

No, of course not. Presumably if someone is in critical need of a blood transfusion, their health is never guaranteed.

You would also guaranty there would be no ill side affects after the transfusion and even years after it was administered?

No, of course not. As I said though, the chance of side-effects is surely outweighed against the certainty of death.

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.

Of course, any medication may have damaging side-effects and there may be no guarantee of survival. Are you also opposed to inoculation, penicillin or anaesthetics? I guess you have to be.

Originally posted by galveston75
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 ...[text shortened]... do it even if they see the need to do something that might go against the belief of the masses.

What is obviously ignorant of me is, as time has changed, and science developed, that water can't be turned into wine at a supper.

You also mention that beliefs change. Sure they do, as we learn new things!

E.g. blood transfusions save hundreds of thousands of lives daily.

What you haven't demonstrated is how you have learned from the 'bible', as you put it as a book of demonstrative knowledge that is infallible, as times have changed. Especially with the developments of sound laws, which have been built upon eons of historical learning and proofs.

You have continually questioned the laws implemented against the JW fraternity in this thread, and that is a paradox about how you currently write about 'my ignorance'.

-m.

Originally posted by galveston75
As I mentioned one reason God does not allow man to consume blood of another living creature are the obvious health risk.

Can you please state what the 'obvious health risk' actually is? I am afraid it is far from obvious to me.
If I take an animal that has been drained of blood and cook it, and one that has not and cook it, which is more 'risky' to eat and why?

Blood transfusion risk?
Are you saying that the risks outweigh the benefits? Or just that there is some risk to this medical procedure?
If the former, then please explain why so many hospitals do blood transfusions. Are they all wrong? Do you have any scientific studies to back up such a claim?
If you are arguing the latter, then is God equally against all medical procedures that incur risk?

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.

Spam is based on the amount of links and the reputation of the sender.

If someone send you an email with the subject You too can lose 40 pounds in 3 days!!!!, you don't read the links, no matter how legitimate they might turn out to be. You delete the email, or mark it as 'spam'.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Spam is based on the amount of links and the reputation of the sender.

If someone send you an email with the subject [b]You too can lose 40 pounds in 3 days!!!!, you don't read the links, no matter how legitimate they might turn out to be. You delete the email, or mark it as 'spam'.[/b]

I guess spam is in the eye on the beholder....

Originally posted by twhitehead
Can you please state what the 'obvious health risk' actually is? I am afraid it is far from obvious to me.
If I take an animal that has been drained of blood and cook it, and one that has not and cook it, which is more 'risky' to eat and why?

[b]Blood transfusion risk?
Are you saying that the risks outweigh the benefits? Or just that there is som ...[text shortened]... are arguing the latter, then is God equally against all medical procedures that incur risk?[/b]

The health risk are explained in the links I posted. This is from many sources including the medical field we all use.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]So in those cases of 100% death, you are sure beyond doubt that a blood transfusion will actually save 100% of these people?

No, of course not. Presumably if someone is in critical need of a blood transfusion, their health is never guaranteed.

You would also guaranty there would be no ill side affects after the transfusion and even years a ...[text shortened]... ival. Are you also opposed to inoculation, penicillin or anaesthetics? I guess you have to be.

Thanks for your honest answers. Also if one were to look at those links and even other info on the actual need for a transfusion when that decision is made by a doctor, it is said that many times blood is the quick fix but actually not needed. It is more convienient to do that instead of the doctors taking their time and using the blood alternatives.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
i disagree, for such a radical policy that involves refusing blood transfusions at the risk of loss of life is a huge thing. the man or men who discovered this must have been very special, having a skill of understanding the bible in a way that nobody before them has. surly this would make them the greatest christian scholars of all time. there men must ...[text shortened]... n of the text.

so why do you trust the current understanding over the previous understanding?

You disagree and that is fine. Again those mens names are not an issue as they are simply servents of God.

Originally posted by galveston75
The health risk are explained in the links I posted. This is from many sources including the medical field we all use.

Please carefully read my post again and answer the questions I ask. I have not asked what the health risks of blood transfusions are.

Originally posted by galveston75
You disagree and that is fine. Again those mens names are not an issue as they are simply servents of God.

would i be right in guessing you dont know who decided. my understanding is the j.w. laws about blood and interpretation of what the bible says is constantly changing and there have been many people over the last 100 years who have tweaked the laws.

as science improved an j.w's have changed rules regarding blood alternatives how do the scholars decide what is acceptable? its the same few lines of text they have read over and over. or is the idea that the guys in charge are not being advised by the bible but by god directly?

Originally posted by galveston75
You disagree and that is fine. Again those mens names are not an issue as they are simply servents of God.

how do you know they are servants of god and not some loon who has conned there way in?