Originally posted by galveston75divegeester is a lifelong Christian. He certainly isn't going to become a Jehovah's Witness and he disagrees with many of your opinions and interpretations, but he's a Christian ~ and clearly not "an anti christ person"... however much vitriolic satisfaction it might give you to lob that out there having got yourself in a tangle, yet again. He's not the only Christian here who is sometimes appalled by the Jehovah's Witness take on things.
You know dive dude is about as far from a christian as you can get. He has no desire to learn and is only here to condemn pretty much everyone here as well as any encouragement one can state here. Not once has he been kind or gentle or concerned about any one.
I no longer want to be in any conversation with him at all as the Bible says to completely disassociate any comminication with an anti christ person ....
Originally posted by galveston75Dive dude and I don't agree on everything but I do respect a lot of what he writes I think he loses it a bit with you G-Man but I can understand why as you always answer questions with questions and it tends to get old after a while ....a dialog goes both ways and it is possible to disagree and still be amicable with people ......
You know dive dude is about as far from a christian as you can get. He has no desire to learn and is only here to condemn pretty much everyone here as well as any encouragement one can state here. Not once has he been kind or gentle or concerned about any one.
I no longer want to be in any conversation with him at all as the Bible says to completely disassociate any comminication with an anti christ person ....
Manny
Originally posted by galveston75Yes I would make a decision on if a child lives if God put that power and choice into my hands you better believe it .....I would chose to give that child life every time ...........So G-Man let's flip that around a child is sure to die within the hour if not given a blood transfusion to sustain their life and you alone have the power to allow the blood transfusion what are you going to do ? It's simple What are you going to do ? Allow the transfusion child lives say No and the child dies !! ( Hopefully you are never faced with that decision )
Ok That's all I needed to know. You make the decision who lives as apposed to God's law that says not to partake of blood even as food?
Manny
1 edit
-Removed-I find it interesting that JW's have a whole written history too look at and read for themselves and see that no one is making this up. You can see where something is written in an Awake article at one point in time then later something totally contradictory is written in another awake article. The issue with blood transfusion is dangerous and is indeed error ....I can accept not eating blood but to make the leap to include transfusion is not even logical as it is clear a transfusion is not food and it is not consumed and digested. I do understand if one has been a JW all of their life it would not be easy to disagree with what you have been taught your whole life .....however any group that does not allow you to question and think and make decisions I would question. Lastly I'm sure that in age of scientific enlightenment one would know that it is silly and even absurd to think that receiving someone else's blood is going to make you act as they do !!! take on their vices and all
Manny
Originally posted by menace71yeah it was certainty dangerous for the 5,700 British haemophiliacs who were transfused with contaminated blood,
I find it interesting that JW's have a whole written history too look at and read for themselves and see that no one is making this up. You can see where something is written in an Awake article at one point in time then later something totally contradictory is written in another awake article. The issue with blood transfusion is dangerous and is indeed err ...[text shortened]... one else's blood is going to make you act as they do !!! take on their vices and all
Manny
tell us if they had followed the bibles wise advice to abstain from blood would they have died of contaminated blood?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/uks-tainted-blood-scandal-probed/
Originally posted by menace71infact lets look at the facts, shall we,
I find it interesting that JW's have a whole written history too look at and read for themselves and see that no one is making this up. You can see where something is written in an Awake article at one point in time then later something totally contradictory is written in another awake article. The issue with blood transfusion is dangerous and is indeed err ...[text shortened]... one else's blood is going to make you act as they do !!! take on their vices and all
Manny
In fact, the statistics for blood transfusion can be alarming when it comes to health. Heart surgery patients are twice as likely to die during the first 30 days of hospitalization if they receive a blood transfusion for anemia, according to a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Heart bypass patients who receive blood transfusions are also twice as likely to acquire an infection after their operation, according to a study in the journal BMC Medicine. Overall, the study found that 16% of patients who received a transfusion developed an infection after their operation, as compared to 7% of patients who did not have a blood transfusion acquired an infection. Additionally, the risk of contracting hepatitis B is about 1 in 205,000, according to the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute, and the risk for hepatitis C is 1 in 2 million. The Institute states that if a patient receives blood during a transfusion that contains hepatitis, he or she will most likely develop the virus.
One explanation as to why blood transfusions are linked to higher death rates is that the chemicals in donor blood suppress a patient's immune system, making it more difficult to fight off infections. Within hours of being collected, red blood cells stiffen up, making it harder for them to squeeze down narrow blood vessels and supply oxygen to the body’s organs. In one study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, patients who received blood that was more than two weeks old were nearly 70% more likely to die within a year than patients who received freshly donated blood.
http://www.mdnews.com/news/2011_04/bloodless-surgery-grows-in-popularity
yes dangerous indeed!
3 edits
Originally posted by menace71not convinced of the dangers yet,
I find it interesting that JW's have a whole written history too look at and read for themselves and see that no one is making this up. You can see where something is written in an Awake article at one point in time then later something totally contradictory is written in another awake article. The issue with blood transfusion is dangerous and is indeed err ...[text shortened]... one else's blood is going to make you act as they do !!! take on their vices and all
Manny
The WA health system will become the first in the world to adopt a "bloodless surgery" policy that could significantly reduce the use of blood transfusions and save the State tens of millions of dollars.
The pioneering approach, known as patient blood management, is used at Fremantle Hospital - reducing its use of blood - and will be rolled out across all hospitals.
Experts say it is safer for patients and will help avoid a looming shortage of blood as more people have cancer and orthopaedic surgery.
Under the program, patients going into hospital for surgery will have a blood test several weeks before to check if they need therapy such as iron supplements to treat anaemia. Doctors will also be encouraged to use surgical techniques that minimise blood loss.
Chief medical officer Simon Towler there was good evidence the new approach was safer for patients and led to faster recovery and shorter stays in hospital.
safer, faster recovery, did the chief medical officer say safer for patients, ouch! yeah he said it!
https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/9123230/wa-pioneers-bloodless-surgery/