Originally posted by FMFAs I stated at the outset its impossible to say either way and therefore any allusion to the ' but blood has saved many lives argument', is misleading for no one can say with any certainty what may have transpired if these persons had recourse to alternative treatment.
Well blood transfusions have saved many many millions of lives; that surely in and of itself is not in dispute. You are challenging the efficacy of these life-saving treatments compared to the efficacy of something else, right?
So the onus is on you to suggest how many millions of these people would have lived anyway without the use of blood transfusions, an ...[text shortened]... idence that alternatives could have saved as many lives as blood transfusions indisputably have.
I am not questioning the efficacy of blood transfusions, in fact I have said nothing about their efficacy and you will not be permitted to insinuate that I have. Your propensity for believing your own propaganda is readily apparent and you will not be permitted to misrepresent and build arguments upon insinuations you fabricated, its not only dishonest but quite tiresome to be honest.
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper KnobWell run to the hills Ma Barker the Feds are coming! It also doesn't mention taking a sub machine gun and mowing down innocent people does it, but do you possibly think that it may contain principles that have a bearing upon the matter? Principles like, 'you must love your neighbour as yourself', or 'you must not murder?'
Bingo!!!!!!!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI think that maybe covered under 'murder'.
Well run to the hills Ma Barker the Feds are coming! It also doesn't mention taking a sub machine gun and mowing down innocent people does it, but do you possibly think that it may contain principles that have a bearing upon the matter?
Face it Carrobie, this is an extra Biblical interpretation, plain and simple. In early JW literature Witness's who donated blood were praised, now those same people would be disfellowshipped. That's a pretty big u-turn don't ya think? Why was that? Who decided it should be done and what was the process involved?
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by robbie carrobieive read the articles on the first page. i have also read a few pages of biblical quotes. there is nothing biblical that mentions anything remotely connected to blood transfusions.
If you read the articles you will find out.
its funny, there are full biblical quotes given to back up gods dislike of the eating of blood.......yet in the one and only section that mentions medical use of blood the bible is paraphrased rather than directly quoted and even this paraphrased quote mentions nothing about medical use of blood!!!!!!!!!!!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou have not presented any evidence pertaining to the efficacy of the alternative methods you favour nor any evidence of whether they would work on the sheer scale that blood transfusions have been used to save lives.
As I stated at the outset its impossible to say either way and therefore any allusion to the ' but blood has saved many lives argument', is misleading for no one can say with any certainty what may have transpired if these persons had recourse to alternative treatment.
I am not questioning the efficacy of blood transfusions, in fact I have said ...[text shortened]... uments upon insinuations you fabricated, its not only dishonest but quite tiresome to be honest.
Originally posted by Proper Knob'Face it Carrobie', lol, that made me laugh, anyhow to your points at hand.
I think that maybe covered under 'murder'.
Face it Carrobie, this is an extra Biblical interpretation, plain and simple. In early JW literature Witness's who donated blood were praised, now those same people would be disfellowshipped. That's a pretty big u-turn don't ya think? Why was that? Who decided it should be done and what was the process involved?
1. our beliefs are constantly evolving you will be glad to hear, we used to permit smoking tobacco until it came to our attention that it constituted a 'defilement of the flesh' and you were given six months to quit or you were removed from your position of authority if you had one and possibly disfellowshipped as well. I think that was in the seventies. I mention this as new understanding becomes apparent our beliefs change and I suspect that this was the case with regard to blood.
2. secondly our objection to blood is based upon Biblical principles and not really on the medical efficacy or otherwise of blood transfusions themselves although this may be cited as secondary or supplementary reasons, but is not a dependency for the belief. Now if as has been noted that God forbids the eating of blood, can we seriously reason that he therefore approves of intravenously injecting it into ones veins? we have reasoned no, for if your doctor was to say, you must not drink whisky would you therefore conclude that it was acceptable to inject it intravenously into your blood system? Is such a stance reasonable? we dont think so.
Originally posted by FMFNor do I need to for as I stated, our beliefs are not based upon the efficacy or otherwise of intravenous blood transfusions but on religious grounds.
You have not presented any evidence pertaining to the efficacy of the alternative methods you favour nor any evidence of whether they would work on the sheer scale that blood transfusions have been used to save lives.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo your personal proposed threshold for evidence in the case of blood transfusions versus alternatives is that we would "need to prove that every person who was administered a blood transfusion" could have been treated differently. Every single person who ever received a blood transfusion? You'd demand evidence from every single case before you would make a decision?
Its impossible to say for you would need to prove that every person who was administered a blood transfusion would not have survived without alternative treatment.
Originally posted by stellspalfieIt seems that this point is hard to grasp, so I shall attempt to appeal to your reason although its akin to plunking a message in a bottle in the hope that it reaches a distant shore. If God forbids eating blood do you think it reasonable that he would approve of injecting it intravenously into your system? let us take it further if God forbids drinking whisky (heaven forbid) do you think that he would approve of injecting it intravenously into your blood stream?
ive read the articles on the first page. i have also read a few pages of biblical quotes. there is nothing biblical that mentions anything remotely connected to blood transfusions.
its funny, there are full biblical quotes given to back up gods dislike of the eating of blood.......yet in the one and only section that mentions medical use of blood the ...[text shortened]... ly quoted and even this paraphrased quote mentions nothing about medical use of blood!!!!!!!!!!!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHow did this 'new understanding' come about? That's what I'm interested in. How did your organisation go from praising people who donated blood to disfellowshipping them?
'Face it Carrobie', lol, that made me laugh, anyhow to your points at hand.
1. our beliefs are constantly evolving you will be glad to hear, we used to permit smoking tobacco until it came to our attention that it constituted a 'defilement of the flesh' and you were given six months to quit or you were removed from your position of authority if yo ...[text shortened]... inject it intravenously into your blood system? Is such a stance reasonable? we dont think so.
Originally posted by FMFNo i am merely pointing out the fallacy of the argument, for me personally it makes no difference as my stance is based on religious principles.
So your personal proposed threshold for evidence in the case of blood transfusions versus alternatives is that we would "need to prove that [b]every person who was administered a blood transfusion" could have been treated differently. Every single person who ever received a blood transfusion? You'd demand evidence from every single case before you would make a decision?[/b]
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou raised the issue of the efficacy of blood transfusions compared to alternative treatments and that is the issue I am responding to. I am not going to debate you on the "religious grounds" that you say there are.
Nor do I need to for as I stated, our beliefs are not based upon the efficacy or otherwise of intravenous blood transfusions but on religious grounds.
Originally posted by Proper Knobthe same way that we came to an understanding about smoking tobacco, we read the scriptures and things we had not known or thought of comes to light, kind of like listening to a piece of music, after you do it several times, excerpts start to stand out, like a bass line you never noticed before, or a funky background beat, or some fx that are used in an artful way.
How did this 'new understanding' come about? That's what I'm interested in. How did your organisation go from praising people who donated blood to disfellowshipping them?