Originally posted by ih8sensAre you for real?
The other thing I think people sometimes miss is this... what possible motive would a loving god have for not allowing people to take blood? Perhaps there's something science hasn't discovered yet about transfusions that make them unsafe. For every supposed 'death by refusal' I'd bet there are 10 'death by bad blood' cases.
Bloodless surgery is better anyways 🙂.
You think that for every 'death by refusal' there are ten deaths as a result of blood transfusions?
I sincerely hope you have nothing at all to do with the medical profession...
Originally posted by no1marauderYou are right in this way; we still don't know that a blood transfusion may have saved her; however you still fail to address the key point.
BTW, the article doesn't state that the woman died because she didn't get a blood transfusion and the family denies it played any part in her death. This is more hysterical demagoguing from someone who should know better.
The second woman (and possible the first) have had to accept a second level of currently acceptable standard medical practice because of pressure (fear, she said) from the 'loving' family around her. The reason :- an interpretation of some verses written well over fifteen hundred years ago that is not accepted by virtually all other members of the Christian church, let alone the human race.
The second woman was lucky, she has her life and her child, and has left the people who so, in my view, uncaringly put her in that position. The first woman was a tad more unlucky, and her children even more so.
And you have the gall to call it 'hysterical demagoguing'? What price a life eh?
Originally posted by ih8sensThere was a German leader who, together with his colleauges, like to use the word 'clean' in relation to his people.
No form of discipline is meant to be happy. I personally know a JW who was disfellowshipped and has since been 'reinstated'... it worked.
Disfellowshipping is the single best method of keeping a congregation clean and disciplining unrepentant sinners in the hopes of a return.
They also used the word 'pure'. To keep the race pure, they said. You might have got on with them.
Their staff would say that they didn't like to disobey (they would be 'disfellowshipped', as it were). That was the reason the whole shebang went on for as long as it did.
(Now is that, no1, hysterical? Probably a bit. but I'm sure you get the point.)
Originally posted by snowinscotlandHe is probably right. But statistics can be misleading. The lives saved by transfusions is probably way higher than both those numbers.
You think that for every 'death by refusal' there are ten deaths as a result of blood transfusions?
For example suppose:
Deaths by refusal: 10 per annum.
Deaths due to 'bad blood': 100 per annum.
Lives saved by transfusion: 10,000 per annum.
He would still be right, though clearly misleading.
In Africa, where HIV is highly prevalent and screening for it in Blood is not always carried out or not 100% accurate, there is a very real risk of getting HIV by that method. It is not uncommon for someone to ask that the blood come from someone they know and trust does not have HIV.
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadwhy not use actual statistics instead of using faith?
He is probably right. But statistics can be misleading. The lives saved by transfusions is probably way higher than both those numbers.
For example suppose:
Deaths by refusal: 10 per annum.
Deaths due to 'bad blood': 100 per annum.
Lives saved by transfusion: 10,000 per annum.
He would still be right, though clearly misleading.
In Africa, where ...[text shortened]... mon for someone to ask that the blood come from someone they know and trust does not have HIV.
(edit) I'm sorry, that was a bit snappy. If we have the actual statistics, why don't we use them, instead of guessing what we might like them to be? It might shed light rather than heat on the argument.
eg from the DOH website, 1 in 25,000 blood transfusions is reported to have a negative effect. It does not quote figures for who the blood transfusion was not used, but may have been beneficial. Because that would be guessing. Guess what? it also does not quote how many lives were saved because of blood transfusions, because that would be guessing too; but I'm sure there are figures out there that may point to the beneficial or otherwise effect of using blood transfusions. I'm guessing here, but if it didn't work (broadly) we wouldn't spend so much money, consistently, to maintain the service.
Originally posted by snowinscotlandWell we don't have the actual statistics do we. You have only found one figure but it does serve to show that blood transfusion is relatively safe (in that part of the world).
why not use actual statistics instead of using faith?
However, I was not disputing that, only pointing out that his use of figures was misleading.
1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambit
That article is perfectly consistent with the stories I've heard.
This statement is especially apt:"After one is disfellowshipped, all baptized members would cut off [b]allassociation with that person." (emphasis added)
The two exceptional cases given by Wiki didn't apply in the stories.
This one is also right on target:[quote] /quote]'Minimal' means that they will only talk to you long enough to shill their faith.[/b]What stories? The ones you've invented?
And I guess you missed were it said family members living with the disfellowshipped person did not have to "shun" them. And if they decide to on their own, that's up to them - you do believe that they should be free to do so, don't you? Or is it up to you and SOS to decide what actions other people can take if they are displeased with what a member of their family does?
2 edits
Originally posted by snowinscotlandYes, it's hysterical demagoguing and you continue to do it. Until the findings of the inquest are made public, there is no reason to conclude that the first woman died because of HER decision not to have a blood transfusion. So all the "what price a life" and her "poor babies" blather is simply an appeal to emotionalism; necessary in this case as the facts don't seem to support your propaganda.
You are right in this way; we still don't know that a blood transfusion may have saved her; however you still fail to address the key point.
The second woman (and possible the first) have had to accept a second level of currently acceptable standard medical practice because of pressure (fear, she said) from the 'loving' family around her. The reaso ...[text shortened]... ore so.
And you have the gall to call it 'hysterical demagoguing'? What price a life eh?
The first women HAD to accept nothing; she CHOOSE to. She's wasn't a child. The fact that you think her choice was ridiculous doesn't make it so; it's really NOYFB.
The second women decided to leave the JW's because she disagreed with this article of faith. How exactly was she harmed by doing so? More importantly, so what if she was; she's another grownup.
From now on, should everybody e-mail you personally so you can declare to them what part of their faith is too ridiculous to be followed?
Originally posted by snowinscotlandwell if you wanna play that way..
There was a German leader who, together with his colleauges, like to use the word 'clean' in relation to his people.
They also used the word 'pure'. To keep the race pure, they said. You might have got on with them.
Their staff would say that they didn't like to disobey (they would be 'disfellowshipped', as it were). That was the reason the who ...[text shortened]... did.
(Now is that, no1, hysterical? Probably a bit. but I'm sure you get the point.)
I remember this one guy who was considered perfect by God...
A few self righteous guys didn't really like him and decided he'd be better off dead unless he'd stop calling their hypocricy out...
... did you have a problem with his decision too?
3 edits
Originally posted by snowinscotlandYes, it's hysterical. And BS. If all the Nazis had done is "disfellow" some people, there wouldn't have been much of a problem.
There was a German leader who, together with his colleauges, like to use the word 'clean' in relation to his people.
They also used the word 'pure'. To keep the race pure, they said. You might have got on with them.
Their staff would say that they didn't like to disobey (they would be 'disfellowshipped', as it were). That was the reason the who ...[text shortened]... did.
(Now is that, no1, hysterical? Probably a bit. but I'm sure you get the point.)
The JWs are not Nazis; they are deeply religious people who take their interpretation of Scripture seriously. For example, you won't see JW panzer divisions overrunning Poland; they refuse to serve in the military. Interestingly it was JW's who refused to salute the flag of the US during WWII (they consider flags false idols; guess you won't see them with swastikas) that led to one of the most important Supreme Court cases regarding individual rights in the first 50 years of the 20th century here.
"They're just like the Nazis" is about as intellectually dishonest a ploy as anyone could come up with regarding the JWs. So I'm not surprised YOU would stoop to it. Got anything on the Amish?
EDIT: "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation," it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."
Barnette v. West Virginia Board of Education
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderAnd I guess you missed were it said family members living with the disfellowshipped person did not have to "shun" them.
What stories? The ones you've invented?
And I guess you missed were it said family members living with the disfellowshipped person did not have to "shun" them. And if they decide to on their own, that's up to them - you do believe that they should be free to do so, don't you? Or is it up to you and SOS to decide what actions other people can take if they are displeased with what a member of their family does?
That exceptional case does not apply. None of the shunned people I know of were living in a house with other JW's.
And if they decide to on their own, that's up to them - you do believe that they should be free to do so, don't you? Or is it up to you and SOS to decide what actions other people can take if they are displeased with what a member of their family does?
I knew it. You've confused this with a 'rights' issue. It's not. I haven't disputed the JW's right to disfellowship or shun people.
This goes back to our earlier discussion. You are unable to think about the concept of 'coercion' outside the courtroom. You have trouble recognizing that there are forms of coercion that are perfectly legal.
Edit: It appears other people may indeed be disputing their right to shun. I don't wish to be lumped in with them.
Originally posted by snowinscotlandThe Nazi Association Fallacy again. It really deserves its own entry in textbooks. It's such an overused and tiresome tactic.
There was a German leader who, together with his colleauges, like to use the word 'clean' in relation to his people.
They also used the word 'pure'. To keep the race pure, they said. You might have got on with them.
Their staff would say that they didn't like to disobey (they would be 'disfellowshipped', as it were). That was the reason the who ...[text shortened]... did.
(Now is that, no1, hysterical? Probably a bit. but I'm sure you get the point.)
Originally posted by no1marauderYes, she chose to.
[b] The first women HAD to accept nothing; she CHOOSE to. She's wasn't a child. The fact that you think her choice was ridiculous doesn't make it so; it's really NOYFB.
[b]
she chose to because if she didn't, she would be cut off from those who surrounded her, her family and 'friends'.
I'm not saying she isn't an adult and makes adult choices, but there needs to be some recognition that the 'choice' is not as free as you blithly suggest.
1 edit
Originally posted by ih8sensyou still don't get it do you... who is the hypocrite? where is the balance? who is 'forcing' who? The woman died didn't she? and for what?
well if you wanna play that way..
I remember this one guy who was considered perfect by God...
A few self righteous guys didn't really like him and decided he'd be better off dead unless he'd stop calling their hypocricy out...
... did you have a problem with his decision too?
who took the risk and why?
Originally posted by SwissGambitI apologise. It was the use of the word 'clean'.
The Nazi Association Fallacy again. It really deserves its own entry in textbooks. It's such an overused and tiresome tactic.
As in 'clean' the streets.
These people are not worthy... etc It made me spew, 'thank God we are not like these others....'