Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIt's an opinion, Because it is my judgment.
I see. So, would you consider "Chocolate ice cream tastes better than vanilla ice cream" an opinion? If so, it it because you haven't confirmed that it is so? Or maybe because you're not absolutely sure about it?
"Opinion" can be used in different senses. That is one: judgement.
I could say "in my opinion, that book is wrong", with the same meaning as "I believe it is wrong", an opinion as something not being yet confirmed.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI'm using them interchangeably. By your criticism of KellyJay, I inferred that "matter of opinion" implied that opinions regarding a subject that is "a matter of opinion" are equally valid.
And unless you tell me what the various forms of the terms mean, I don't know what your argument says, but I do know that it resembles other fallacious arguments exhibiting the same symptoms.
Define 'matter of opinion':
Define 'simply a matter of opinion':
Define '"matter of opinion"':
Define 'simply a "matter of opinion"':
Originally posted by snowinscotlandI don't think this is Biblical at all ... except of course in the eyes of literalists ... of all sides .....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/7078455.stm
Can anybody out there tell me what is the Biblical rationale for allowing two babies to lose their mother in this way?
Okay I just read through all this quickly and I just have a few things to say, kinda to all of this.
- JW's believe that blood is to be 'abstained' from (Acts 15:19)
... think about this, if your doctor told you to 'abstain' from alcohol, you certainly wouldn't drink it, but would you have it injected into your veins?
- (Romans 13:1) ... JW's are law abiding citizens in general. With one exception... (see next point)
- (Acts 5:29) When mans laws conflict with god's , JW's obey god. Reasonable?
Finally...
- It isn't against the law to refuse any form of treatment anyways... the ethical issues is when parents decide FOR their newborn babies that they do not want blood transfusions. That's a tough call... I believe the parents DO have this right, being as they have the right to abort...
I should dig up my Final Law Essay ( I hope I still have it)... it was all about this.
I don't see what's wrong with refusing blood transfusions, there are usually safer methods anyways. JW's certainly aren't the only ones who refuse transfusions.
Edit - One other thing I remember studying extensively in one of my Law papers was bias. Remember that all newspaper articles are biased... go read a newspaper in the middle east about the war and compare it to the U.S....
Man this was a lot of work writing all this up... 😛.
Originally posted by ih8sensThanks for adding your point.
Okay I just read through all this quickly and I just have a few things to say, kinda to all of this.
- JW's believe that blood is to be 'abstained' from (Acts 15:19)
... think about this, if your doctor told you to 'abstain' from alcohol, you certainly wouldn't drink it, but would you have it injected into your veins?
- (Romans 13:1) ... JW's are law ...[text shortened]... are it to the U.S....
Man this was a lot of work writing all this up... 😛.
I guess the point about the unclean food is similar to the Indian Mutiny where the pig fat wrappings of the ammunition were just as intolerable; only where a literal point is taken. (More on this later perhaps; to what level should the literal point be taken - one molocule?)
You wouldn't inject it for sure, if you thought of it as unclean.
Well I suppose that also is a point, if you see god's law as above mans. Until you realise that if someone thinks that god's law tells them to purge the earth, what does everybody else do? So you cannot depend on a person's interpretation of a book to rule the physical side of life - it'd end up everybody at war... oh.
It is not against the law to deprive a child of it's parents. It is not 'right' either, and I don't think you would find many disagreeing with that. The law, as they say, is an ass; however I concede it's what we've got to work with.
Bias in the media? surely not.
but seriously what are you trying to say about the viewpoints re east and west?
*news flash update*
Another JW seems to have felt differently after nearly dying in a similar situation.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/7080902.stm
"Having been brought up as a Jehovah's Witness, Ms Underhill, now 32, from Peacehaven, near Brighton, says she believed she had no choice but to sign a form refusing blood treatment which had been handed to her by religious elders.
She says she feared being "disfellowshipped", or being rejected by the religion if she declined to sign."
Interesting, that she felt fear rather than any other emotion when asked to sign the form. Is that coercion?
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesInterestingly ;
Of course it is. Somebody should have kicked those JWs square in the nuts.
Spokesman Stephen Papps says "We are not anti-medicine. When it comes to medical choices we go through the same process as anyone else - but we take the Bible seriously."
He adds: "Many believe blood equals life and no blood equals death - it is not that simple. Abstaining from blood often cuts out the chance of other diseases and other health outcomes."
Surely simple statistics could show the mixing of faith and logic is not as pure as it seems. What is the chance of injury through receiving blood, against the injury through not receiving blood? If it was adverse, they hey why is it an acceptable practice in hospitals? Wouldn't they get their pants sued off everytime a transfusion had an adverse outcome... (... wait oh they do...)
Originally posted by snowinscotlandOf course not, at least in a legal or moral sense. The JW's have the authority to decide what acts by a fellow JW warrant " being "disfellowshipped", or being rejected by the religion". If she feels strongly that a tenet of their faith is objectionable, there's another religion down the street.
*news flash update*
Another JW seems to have felt differently after nearly dying in a similar situation.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/7080902.stm
"Having been brought up as a Jehovah's Witness, Ms Underhill, now 32, from Peacehaven, near Brighton, says she believed she had no choice but to sign a form refusing blood treatment whi ...[text shortened]... she felt fear rather than any other emotion when asked to sign the form. Is that coercion?
Originally posted by no1marauderBut not necessarily another husband / family / friends. If your whole social circle including relations are members of one religion then it is not easy to simply change religions.
If she feels strongly that a tenet of their faith is objectionable, there's another religion down the street.
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo what if it's "easy" or not? SoS was asking if it was "coercion", not if it was a "hard" decision. There's a lot of decisions in life that aren't "easy" but that doesn't mean someone is "coercing" us if they want us to do A rather than B.
But not necessarily another husband / family / friends. If your whole social circle including relations are members of one religion then it is not easy to simply change religions.
Originally posted by no1marauderSure, it's not coercion, as long as you don't care about getting cut off from your friends and family circle. I have heard several cases of JWs ostracizing someone completely. No phone calls, no visits, except for maybe a 5-minute stop to pitch the faith yet again.
So what if it's "easy" or not? SoS was asking if it was "coercion", not if it was a "hard" decision. There's a lot of decisions in life that aren't "easy" but that doesn't mean someone is "coercing" us if they want us to do A rather than B.
Originally posted by SwissGambitWhat definition of "coercion" are you using? Generally in law coercion has to be by physical force or threat of the same. I don't see how the word "coercion" applies here; the devout JW's in her family could just as well say that she was attempting to "coerce" them by asking them to accept her failure to abide by a central tenet of their faith yet still maintain close relations.
Sure, it's not coercion, as long as you don't care about getting cut off from your friends and family circle. I have heard several cases of JWs ostracizing someone completely. No phone calls, no visits, except for maybe a 5-minute stop to pitch the faith yet again.
For SoS: A more detailed rationale for the JW belief that blood transfusions are contrary to God's Law from their newspaper, The WatchTower:
Back in the days of Noah, an ancestor of all mankind, God laid down a remarkable law. While granting humans the right to eat the flesh of animals, he forbade them to consume the blood. (Genesis 9:4) He also gave them his reason, equating blood with the soul, or life, of the creature. He later said: “The soul [or life] is in the blood.” In the eyes of the Creator, blood is sacred. It represents the precious gift of life that each living soul possesses. God restated this principle again and again.—Leviticus 3:17; 17:10, 11, 14; Deuteronomy 12:16, 23.
Shortly after Christianity was founded some 2,000 years ago, believers were given the divine commandment to “abstain from . . . blood.” The prohibition was based, not on health concerns, but on the sacredness of blood. (Acts 15:19, 20, 29) Some argue that this God-given restriction applies only to the eating of blood, but the word “abstain” speaks for itself. If a doctor told us to abstain from alcohol, we would hardly feel at liberty to inject it into our veins.
The Bible further explains why blood is so sacred. The shed blood of Jesus Christ, representing the human life that he gave in behalf of mankind, is key to the Christian hope. It means forgiveness of sins and hope of eternal life. When a Christian abstains from blood, he is in effect expressing his faith that only the shed blood of Jesus Christ can truly redeem him and save his life.—Ephesians 1:7.
Jehovah’s Witnesses are well known for taking these Bible commands to heart. They reject all transfusions involving whole blood or the four primary blood components—red cells, plasma, white cells, and platelets. As for the various fractions derived from those components—and products that contain such fractions—the Bible does not comment on these. Therefore, each Witness makes his own personal decision on such matters. Does this Bible-based stand mean that Witnesses reject medical treatment or view their health and life lightly? Not at all!—See the box “Jehovah’s Witnesses and Health.”
http://www.watchtower.org/e/200608/article_03.htm