Originally posted by duecerAren't both ways to nurish, feed and keep the body alive? Aren't they for the same result in the big picture? Can't you still be exposed to diseases both ways?
how is abstaining from eating blood the same as abstaining from a transfusion
If one can't eat thru the mouth isn't one usually fed intravenously?
If a doctor told you to never drink alcohol, would it be ok to do it thru a tube into a vein?
Originally posted by Conrau KIt was posted clearly but perhaps you missed it. The Bible says abstain from "Blood." It doesn't specify at this scriptures as it did in Genesis which was speaking of animals. It did not specify with Lukes command. So it would no doubt mean any blood from any living creature since the drinking of human blood was practiced by some paganistic religions.
I can't find your answer. Why can't you just repost it? Do you abstain from all blood or is it only blood transfusions? It is not clear to me at all. Your last answer was just evasive.
I'm sure you or others will say "it doesn't say human so it doesn't count." I expect that from some reasonings done here but use some common sense and get the point of this command.
Originally posted by galveston75So, am I to surmise that you abstain from animal blood too? You do, then, eat Kosher meat?
It was posted clearly but perhaps you missed it. The Bible says abstain from "Blood." It doesn't specify at this scriptures as it did in Genesis which was speaking of animals. It did not specify with Lukes command. So it would no doubt mean any blood from any living creature since the drinking of human blood was practiced by some paganistic religions.
...[text shortened]... m some reasonings done here but use some common sense and get the point of this command.
Originally posted by Conrau KNo I don't as there is no need because most meat that is bought in stores has been bled properly and what little is left is cooked out when the food is prepared. That's why the command was not to eat meat that has just been strangled. It has not been bled properly.
So, am I to surmise that you abstain from animal blood too? You do, then, eat Kosher meat?
Acts 15:19-20 (New International Version)
19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.
Leviticus 17:13-16 (New International Version)
13 " 'Any Israelite or any alien living among you who hunts any animal or bird that may be eaten must drain out the blood and cover it with earth, 14 because the life of every creature is its blood. That is why I have said to the Israelites, "You must not eat the blood of any creature, because the life of every creature is its blood; anyone who eats it must be cut off."
15 " 'Anyone, whether native-born or alien, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then he will be clean. 16 But if he does not wash his clothes and bathe himself, he will be held responsible.' "
Originally posted by galveston75But you could not, however, eat cuisine which does not drain the blood? Many Western foods are like this.
No I don't as there is no need because most meat that is bought in stores has been bled properly and what little is left is cooked out when the food is prepared. That's why the command was not to eat meat that has just been strangled. It has not been bled properly.
Acts 15:19-20 (New International Version)
19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we ...[text shortened]... ut if he does not wash his clothes and bathe himself, he will be held responsible.' "
Originally posted by Conrau KWell it's possible that could happen in a restaurant. I personaly always order my meat cooked well done. And if one has doubt about a certain dish and what's in it you should simply ask. And if it is a dish cooked with blood, simply don't order that.
But you could not, however, eat cuisine which does not drain the blood? Many Western foods are like this.
But if one were to eat a dish that has been cooked in blood unknowingly, it would surely not be held against you by God. Why would he do that?
Originally posted by Conrau Kspam!
I acknowledged that in many states, the parents may not have the legal right to deny a blood transfusion (assuming they take the child to the hospital in the first place.) If you read my post, you would have noticed this in the first sentence. The issue however is that children will be brainwashed to believe that blood transfusions are morally impermissible ...[text shortened]... you mention it? Do you think that immorality elsewhere exempts your organisation from criticism?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBy the way, you cannot seriously expect anyone to accept citations from 1982 and 1989. This is dated material in the world of medical science. You really have to supply current citations of current scholarship in hematology.
because as i have pointed out, in the case of plasma it can be split up into many different constituent parts and therefore may no longer be viewed as whole blood. There is nothing bizarre about it. I must also point out that many fractions are derived from animal blood (immunisations for example) and some are recombinant (purely synthetically prod ...[text shortened]... ic if blood loss occurs over a period of time." —Techniques of Blood Transfusion, 1982.
2 edits
Originally posted by Conrau Kit qualifies as spam because you are suggesting that inculcating bible principles on the use of and sanctity of blood, researching what health professionals have stated on its use and looking at alternative treatments is brainwashing and then to add icing, or should we say brown sauce to the spam you provide a list of hypothetical scenarios with which to substantiate it! 'It may be the case, what if , it can be construed that', etc etc etc
I don't understand how my post could have qualified as spam. Is this another attempt of evasion?
Evasion esmasion, we have been entirely candid about our stance , our beliefs and the procedures we deem acceptable or otherwise, i had truly hoped that you would learn something and at least form some kind of understanding in this regard !
Originally posted by Conrau Kyes, that is correct , just think what amazing advancements have been made since then, indeed , i should thank you for pointing that out.
By the way, you cannot seriously expect anyone to accept citations from 1982 and 1989. This is dated material in the world of medical science. You really have to supply current citations of current scholarship in hematology.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf you read however the article by Professor Bruce Spiess, which you cited earlier, you would have noticed he said that the efficacy of alternatives to blood is a very future possibility. This was in 2004. Read it in the conclusion.
yes, that is correct , just think what amazing advancements have been made since then, indeed , i should thank you for pointing that out.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAre you disputing that people in the past have died because of a refusal to receive blood transfusions? Are you serious? They exist and the blame is totally on your organisation.
it qualifies as spam because you are suggesting that inculcating bible principles on the use of and sanctity of blood, researching what health professionals have stated on its use and looking at alternative treatments is brainwashing and then to add icing, or should we say brown sauce to the spam you provide a list of hypothetical scenarios with whic ...[text shortened]... d that you would learn something and at least form some kind of understanding in this regard !
1 edit
How is this not child abuse:
A HOSPITAL has won the right to give a child potentially life-saving blood transfusions despite the religious objections of the boy and his family.
In a South Australian legal first, the Supreme Court this afternoon gave the Women's and Children's Hospital the right to give a 10-year-old boy - a member of the Jehovah's Witness faith - transfusions as part of his cancer treatment.
The decision, in line with similar rulings from around the world, paves the way for hospitals to take action in future debates with religious parents.
The boy is suffering from an aggressive form of cancer that doctors fear will spread throughout his entire body if not treated with an intense 39-week regime of chemotherapy and surgery.
The speed of that process will not allow his blood cells time to regenerate, meaning he will require transfusions so that the chemotherapy can continue unabated.
In a statement read to the court, the boy said transfusions carried spiritual consequences.
"The doctors have told me I might die and I don't want to - but I don't want blood," he said.
"The blood will change me... when you take blood, you are taking someone else's life.
"I really don't want this and my heart is ripping apart."
On May 10, doctors discovered a tumour in his left leg.
He commenced treatment and has so far had four weeks of chemotherapy.
He is due for more on Monday but, when doctors said he may need a blood transfusion as well, the family objected.
In the Jehovah's Witness faith, transfusions are not permitted because of a Bible verse that says one must "abandon from blood" to "keep well".
The hospital asked the court invoke its power of parens patriae - to look after those incapable of doing so - and over-rule the family's objections.
Today, pediatrician Tamas Revesz, told the court the regime was "the gold standard" and had a 70 per cent survival rate.
Other options, such as amputation, had a 30 per cent survival rate.
"This is a disease that is otherwise universally fatal," he said.
"The longer we delay, the chance of survival decreases considerably and the chance the disease will come back and be untreatable increases."
The boy's father said the application felt like "an unwanted attack" on his family's beliefs.
"I love my son, I love him more than I love myself," he said.
"If the court orders a transfusion, I will love him the same as before, and I will follow the law.
"But my son will suffer emotional and spiritual consequences for the rest of his life... he will always, in his own head, be unhappy."
In his statement, the boy said he feared a transfusion would "make the Creator unhappy".
"If I listen to my Creator then there will be a Paradise, which is like a new life," he said.
"If I die, I will get another chance of living.
"But I still want to live now because I'm finding my life really good and I'm liking it."
In his ruling, Justice Richard White said the boy's parents were "loving and caring" and had their son's "best interests at heart".
He said it was important to consider the boy's religious beliefs and attitude toward transfusions.
"Whilst I respect the religious beliefs of the boy and his family, and the strength of their faith and convictions, I am satisfied it is in his best interests to receive transfusions," he said.
"He otherwise risks the grave consequence... of a painful death within a matter of weeks or months."
The Women's and Children's Hospital did not seek to recover its legal costs.
The parents declined to comment outside court.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/court-orders-jehovahs-witness-boy-be-given-blood-transfusion/story-e6frea83-1225875658322
Why should a ten-year old child, confronted with the strong possibility of death, facing a grueling treatment for cancer, be worrying about the morality of blood transfusions and his salvation? This is sick. This kid thinks that God will be unhappy. Absolutely disgusting.
3 edits
Originally posted by Conrau Ki am sorry but this type of emotionally charged tabloid reporting is the level that you people must now stoop to. There are gross inaccuracies, for example, it cites that we believe that we must 'abandon from blood', to keep well???? no that is not what we believe its not even an accurate statement of our beliefs, you think they would have at least got that correct, but no, they could not even report that correctly! One only wonders what else they made up to incite your prejudices and continue to aid your lack of understanding, but then again, as one who has publicly admitted to reading tabloids its hardly surprising that what one takes into ones mind, has serious consequences on ones thinking!
How is this not child abuse:
[quote]A HOSPITAL has won the right to give a child potentially life-saving blood transfusions despite the religious objections of the boy and his family.
In a South Australian legal first, the Supreme Court this afternoon gave the Women's and Children's Hospital the right to give a 10-year-old boy - a member of the Jehov d will be unhappy. Absolutely disgusting.