Why become a Jehovah's Witness?

-Removed-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contaminated_haemophilia_blood_products

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2036629/Medics-infect-23-children-HIV-contaminated-blood-transfusions-India.html

all one needs to do is google contaminated blood and there is a plethora of cases, hundreds of thousands. Please project your ignorance elsewhere.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
it does for those people who were affected by it. whether you constitute it as evidence of its efficacy or otherwise is your affair, its irrelevant to me and essentially meaningless. You have of course conducted a study under scientific conditions and will now publish your results.

We have no need of justifying our stance to you, you want to t ...[text shortened]... for demonstrating what we have known all along, you are the real fundamentalist in all of this.

Who are the real fundamentalists here, you or us?

Still you guys. The distinguishing feature of 'fundamentalism' is in doctrinal seriousness, to the exclusion of other considerations. As I said, you would still hold your same stance against blood transfusions even if, hypothetically, you had overwhelming reasons to recommend blood transfusions. Why? Because you automatically default to doctrinal conformity. As you stated, you "have religious and philosophical principles whereby..."; which is to say you have your doctrines and to hell with everything else.

Originally posted by LemonJello

Who are the real fundamentalists here, you or us?

Still you guys. The distinguishing feature of 'fundamentalism' is in doctrinal seriousness, to the exclusion of other considerations. As I said, you would still hold your same stance against blood transfusions even if, hypothetically, you had overwhelming reasons to recommend blood tran ...[text shortened]... iples whereby..."; which is to say you have your doctrines and to hell with everything else.

you do what you want with your body, we claim the same right. what is there to debate, nada, cya later and have a healthy day.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you do what you want with your body, we claim the same right. what is there to debate, nada, cya later and have a healthy day.

Duh, I know there's nothing really to debate with you fundamentalist cult members, since you take your doctrine as inviolable and have otherwise turned your brains off. Debate about textured issues requires brains on. It's really your disingenuity that I'm addressing here, not the actual topic of blood transfusions and its efficacy. At any rate, you surely already know by now how incredibly disingenuous I think you are on such topics; so point made.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Duh, I know there's nothing really to debate with you fundamentalist cult members, since you take your doctrine as inviolable and have otherwise turned your brains off. Debate about textured issues requires brains on. It's really your disingenuity that I'm addressing here, not the actual topic of blood transfusions and its efficacy. At any rate, you su ...[text shortened]... lready know by now how incredibly disingenuous I think you are on such topics; so point made.

Christians have always been willing to exercise the right of conscience in the face of adversity and even to die for principles that they held sacrosanct above all else rather than bow to mere expediency, may I suggest you read the account of Vibia Perpetua, it has some rather interesting parallels.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
In other words you have no scientific studies to back up your claim, well well. You will explain entire hospitals dedicated to bloodless surgery and the advancement of bloodless surgery for the most intricate of operations. I am not saying they are wrong, they can do what they like, but we have reasons for abstaining, whether you or anyone else thi ...[text shortened]... hundreds of thousands of persons who have been infected by contaminated blood, you never said.

who is arguing against the benefits of bloodless surgery??? not me. if all medical procedures become blood free....brilliant!! but currently that is not the case. currently doctors still need blood or people would die.

but this doesnt detract from the fact that blood has been key in saving peoples lives. if you want to argue that its against god then fine, abstain. but trying to rationalize it by arguing its done more harm than good is beyond idiotic.


sorry I didn't catch how blood transfusions have benefited the tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of persons who have been infected by contaminated blood, you never said.

can you tell me how chemotherapy has benefited the tens of possibly hundreds of thousands of persons who have died of cancer..........oh i guess this mean chemotherapy is bad!!!! i think you must have shat your brain out at some point in the past, how you play chess so well is a freaking miracle!!!!

Originally posted by stellspalfie
who is arguing against the benefits of bloodless surgery??? not me. if all medical procedures become blood free....brilliant!! but currently that is not the case. currently doctors still need blood or people would die.

but this doesnt detract from the fact that blood has been key in saving peoples lives. if you want to argue that its against god then your brain out at some point in the past, how you play chess so well is a freaking miracle!!!!

I see, could not bring yourself to answer the question so you dodged it with an irrelevancy, how sad you are reduced to this, how it pains me to see a man so bereft.

actually i was thinking just the same myself, i dont know anything about chess endings and i have reached 1800, today i had to learn elementary King and pawn endings, i can mate with a knight and bishop sometimes, two bishops and a king v a king, a rook and king v a king and a queen and king v a king, but i dont know anything about rook or minor piece endings, so it is pretty amazing. But i study chess a lot, i am a better student than a player to be honest, plus if the game is boring i tend to lose interest or resign.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I see, could not bring yourself to answer the question so you dodged it with an irrelevancy, how sad you are reduced to this, how it pains me to see a man so bereft.

if you are referring to your second paragraph, its such a nonsensical question its impossible to answer. i dont know anything about the circumstances of the patiencents. why were they given blood? what were the consequences of not giving them blood? how many had alternative options? how bad were the infections? were the infections worse than the initial ailments?



my friend was hit by a drunk driver at high speed in leeds city center a few years ago, he had life saving surgery and lost a lot of blood.......should his parents have said no to the blood because of the small risk of infection?



i have zero end game, i think it costs me a few 100 points. i listened to some lessons by josh waitzkin and that helped me briefly get near 1700. i lost interest for a while but im getting the urge to play more. i might re-subscribe as i enjoyed it more in tournaments.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Christians have always been willing to exercise the right of conscience in the face of adversity and even to die for principles that they held sacrosanct above all else rather than bow to mere expediency, may I suggest you read the account of Vibia Perpetua, it has some rather interesting parallels.

Cult-induced persecution complex....

Originally posted by stellspalfie
i dont need to provide studies....ive got the entire global medical profession all as real life physical evidence for the need for blood.

as the overwhelming universal evidence is in my favor its up to you to provide evidence that the entire medical profession has it wrong. you are making the outlandish claims....back em'up.

"that the entire medical profession" you say uses blood and has for decades?
And why is that I ask? Because it's all they've had to use.
Now they have progressed with new understandings and research and because of the (((((((( DANGERS ))))))))) have now many other options and have greatly advanced with better surgery procedures.
In the past they had no other options and every doctor that has done blood transfusions has cleary known of the (((((((DANGERS)))))) involved.
Do you get that the ((((((DANGERS)))))))?
If this were the right and safe way to go, then why the research to get away from using blood?
Geeeez you guys are so ignorant at times.

All this shows is that God was right from the beginning when he said to "abstain" from blood because he knew the dangers long before humans ever came close to seeing it.

Originally posted by galveston75
"that the entire medical profession" you say uses blood and has for decades?
And why is that I ask? Because it's all they've had to use.
Now they have progressed with new understandings and research and because of the (((((((( DANGERS ))))))))) have now many other options and have greatly advanced with better surgery procedures.
In the past they h ...[text shortened]... n" from blood because he knew the dangers long before humans ever came close to seeing it.

you are arguing against opinions i dont have.

please do not call me ignorant until you have taken time to pay attention. i have not criticized the use of non blood based surgery. if you read my posts i actually agree that if its possible then non blood based surgery would be fantastic.

my point is - blood is still needed. not every procedure can use non blood based surgery. so in the instances in which blood needs to be used. it is better to use blood than not. is this not a fair point?

blood can be infected. there are screening processes that get better as technology improves. the risk of blood infection is there, but its small. but in the majority of cases the alternative to not taking blood is death. so blood infection seems like a risk worth taking especially as the risk of infection is so small.

like ive said before, if you guys dont want blood because of scripture then fine....but dont try and argue that logically taking blood is more dangerous than not taking blood. until we have the technology and the quantity to give other options. blood is vital. its saved at least 3 people i know.

Originally posted by galveston75
"that the entire medical profession" you say uses blood and has for decades?
And why is that I ask? Because it's all they've had to use.
Now they have progressed with new understandings and research and because of the (((((((( DANGERS ))))))))) have now many other options and have greatly advanced with better surgery procedures.
In the past they h ...[text shortened]... n" from blood because he knew the dangers long before humans ever came close to seeing it.

All this shows is that God was right from the beginning when he said to "abstain" from blood because he knew the dangers long before humans ever came close to seeing it

oops, missed this little pearl of wisdom. what are the dangers of taking blood. what are the danger of not taking blood?