M
mattharris
Guest
WOW I had no idea. thanks for enlightening me!
- Status
Y
yessisan
Guest
I donât mean to be rude, but I donât trust the WTBS as a source of information.
B
BibleSteve
Guest
Thatâs why I thought you might like to see video of the doctors actually doing the surgeries and the interviews of them explaining why they do bloodless surgery and the successes theyâve achieved. Thereâs some very high powered doctors in there.
As for not trusting sources, consider the source who told you Governing Gody members were photographed donating blood at a UN blood drive.
For goodness sakes, if your interested in the topic, watch the video. This is getting a little silly.
Steve
Y
yessisan
Guest
The only reason I would be interested is because of my DH. He had an accident and had surgery 3 months ago which, thank God, he didnât need the possible transfusion. The ONLY reason I told the doctors he didnât want to receive blood is because his sister was there. I, as his wife, have the right to call the shots in his medical issues, regardless of the directive he has (since it is already expired and he had it done 5 yrs ago). On the other hand, I did it too because I wouldnât want him to refuse a transfusion for me if I ever needed it.
Otherwise, I wouldnât be interested. But I still rather hear it or read it from non-WTBS sources.
M
MBS1
Guest
BibleSteve says:
âTo me this is like arguing fornication is OK. Afterall God created sex and sex is good, so we should just ignore the scripture that says âAbstain from Fornicationâ⌠Afterall, if we do it with thanksgiving, itâs OKâŚâ
Scripture says in Genesis:
"1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earthâŚ26 Then God said, âLet us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the groundâŚ31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morningâthe sixth day.â
Nope, donât see anywhere in the Genesis accounts that God created fornication. You do go by the bible alone, right? The bible does say God created the beasts and man, so did create blood. As it says in the Old and New Testaments - His creation was good.
I think you have picked a very poor analogy to try to make fornication equal to blood. Show me in scripture where God created fornication, or go back to the drawing board and come up with another analogy cause this one is really not comparable to blood at all. The funny thing is, I think you really believe your comparison of fornication to blood as being a valid one. In so doing, you again prove my point about the bible only crowd wanting to be their own Popes when it comes to interpreting scripture.
MBS1
âTo me this is like arguing fornication is OK. Afterall God created sex and sex is good, so we should just ignore the scripture that says âAbstain from Fornicationâ⌠Afterall, if we do it with thanksgiving, itâs OKâŚâ
Scripture says in Genesis:
"1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earthâŚ26 Then God said, âLet us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the groundâŚ31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morningâthe sixth day.â
Nope, donât see anywhere in the Genesis accounts that God created fornication. You do go by the bible alone, right? The bible does say God created the beasts and man, so did create blood. As it says in the Old and New Testaments - His creation was good.
I think you have picked a very poor analogy to try to make fornication equal to blood. Show me in scripture where God created fornication, or go back to the drawing board and come up with another analogy cause this one is really not comparable to blood at all. The funny thing is, I think you really believe your comparison of fornication to blood as being a valid one. In so doing, you again prove my point about the bible only crowd wanting to be their own Popes when it comes to interpreting scripture.
MBS1
B
BibleSteve
Guest
So you are saying you would specifically circumvent your husbands explicit wishes as put in a legally binding medical directive document? Wow.
As the executor of my non-JW parents will, they asked me if I would force my beliefs on their medical treatment⌠I said of course not. Everyone has the right to decide for themselves before God and to make up their own minds.
Do you think your DH would circumvent the doctors from following your wishes?
Steve
B
BibleSteve
Guest
I didnât say God created fornication, I said he created sex. And people want to use sex in an improper way called âfornicationâ.
It was being argued that since God created blood, that we should be able to do anything we wanted with itâŚ
The point is that God creates good things and then gives guidelines on the proper and improper usage.
Sex between married couples = good
God says Sex between unmarried couples = bad = fornication
God creates blood = good, life, etc.
God says bleed your animalsm, donât eat blood, & abstain from blood = all examples of improper use.
My point was that arguing the improper usage of blood was acceptable to God, was like arguing the improper usage of sex was acceptable to him, if was based on extenuating circumstances.
Steve
Y
yessisan
Guest
C
Claude_Kenneson
Guest
The question of fornication was already decided by Jesus to be taboo in Matt. 15:18-19⌠It would hardly make sense for the Jerusalem council to re-decide what is already forbidden. Some students of the Bible see in this passage unlawful marriages (within forbidden degrees of consanguinity and affinityâsee Lev. 18) rather than sexual immorality, which is already condemned.
I also donât think the passage is talking about shedding blood as in murder either since that is also covered in Matt. 15:18-19. I think what is being addressed is the dietary law forbidding eating of animal blood in Lev. 17; also not eating foods sacrificed to idols and eating meat of animals strangled. It doesnât address blood transfusions.
J
Jaypeeto4
Guest
Steve,
you are seriously misunderstanding what the Council in Jerusalem meant by itâs ruling which is recorded in Scripture in the book of Acts.
It is specifically stated that the reason for the ruling was to avoid scandalizing those who had been exposed to the teachings of Moses. They are not equating the common sin of fornication with eating blood in that passage. Nearly all reputable scholars agree that the use of âporneiaâ in that particular instruction is referring to marriage within close degrees of blood relationship, which was commonly practiced by Gentiles at that time, and which the Law of Moses clearly addressed. The common sin of fornication was not what was being referred to because ALL of the early churches had been taught by the apostless that that was wrong. They already KNEW that. There was no need for the council to pass a ruling on the common sin of having sex with someone youâre not married to.
The ruling of the Jerusalem Council was disciplinary in nature, not doctrinal. It was a concession to the sensitivities of the Jewish members of the congregations. Abstaining from blood clearly meant to avoid taking it in as common food because that was extremely offensive to the Jews who had been brought up on the Law of Moses. It had nothing to do with a merciful lifesaving procedure where blood is NOT treated or ingested as food, but where oneâs blood in transfused into the vein of another to save his life. That is an act of mercy. Mercy triumphs over justice.
I have no doubt that Christ is horrified by the JW interpretation of this passage. People have been disfellowshiped IN THE HOSPITAL in a near-death state for agreeing to a lifesaving transfusion of a pint of blood. That is horrifically cruel.
JWs allow liver and bone marrow transplants yet bone marrow is where blood is produced, for crying out loud.
If I had JW parents and one of them was in an accident and bleeding to death, I would of course order blood be given to him.
And he neednât worry about it. Jehovah wouldnât hold him guilty of anything even if my view was mistaken, because it would be MY decision, not his. He would not be disfellowshiped because it was MY decision, not his, and he would be alive and able to practice his religion with a good conscience and I would not have
negligent murder on MY conscience for allowing my dad to die because of a religious interpretation that I in good conscience DO NOT agree with. My dad would be mad at me, I guess, but heâd still be able to comment at the Kingdom Hall afterwards instead of rotting in his grave.
God bless,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
you are seriously misunderstanding what the Council in Jerusalem meant by itâs ruling which is recorded in Scripture in the book of Acts.
It is specifically stated that the reason for the ruling was to avoid scandalizing those who had been exposed to the teachings of Moses. They are not equating the common sin of fornication with eating blood in that passage. Nearly all reputable scholars agree that the use of âporneiaâ in that particular instruction is referring to marriage within close degrees of blood relationship, which was commonly practiced by Gentiles at that time, and which the Law of Moses clearly addressed. The common sin of fornication was not what was being referred to because ALL of the early churches had been taught by the apostless that that was wrong. They already KNEW that. There was no need for the council to pass a ruling on the common sin of having sex with someone youâre not married to.
The ruling of the Jerusalem Council was disciplinary in nature, not doctrinal. It was a concession to the sensitivities of the Jewish members of the congregations. Abstaining from blood clearly meant to avoid taking it in as common food because that was extremely offensive to the Jews who had been brought up on the Law of Moses. It had nothing to do with a merciful lifesaving procedure where blood is NOT treated or ingested as food, but where oneâs blood in transfused into the vein of another to save his life. That is an act of mercy. Mercy triumphs over justice.
I have no doubt that Christ is horrified by the JW interpretation of this passage. People have been disfellowshiped IN THE HOSPITAL in a near-death state for agreeing to a lifesaving transfusion of a pint of blood. That is horrifically cruel.
JWs allow liver and bone marrow transplants yet bone marrow is where blood is produced, for crying out loud.
If I had JW parents and one of them was in an accident and bleeding to death, I would of course order blood be given to him.
And he neednât worry about it. Jehovah wouldnât hold him guilty of anything even if my view was mistaken, because it would be MY decision, not his. He would not be disfellowshiped because it was MY decision, not his, and he would be alive and able to practice his religion with a good conscience and I would not have
negligent murder on MY conscience for allowing my dad to die because of a religious interpretation that I in good conscience DO NOT agree with. My dad would be mad at me, I guess, but heâd still be able to comment at the Kingdom Hall afterwards instead of rotting in his grave.
God bless,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
B
Bishopite
Guest
SoâŚwho is the final arbiter on what is âthe improper useâ of eating or abstaining from consuming blood?
B
BibleSteve
Guest
Jehovah God.
C
Claude_Kenneson
Guest
And please note that the Watchtower Society is not Jehovah God. The Jews have never interpreted any Old Testament passages on blood so as to prohibit blood transfusions. No Christians through the ages have interpreted any Old Testament or New Testament passages as condemning blood transfusions. It is certainly odd that the Holy Spirit, who has been around since Jesusâ time never allowed anyone to reach that conclusion except the Watchtower Society.
J
jschwehm
Guest
You guys might like my podcast on this subject. You can download it for free at the following link:
catholicxjw.blogspot.com/2006/06/blood-on-altar.html
Here is a description of the podcast:
Blood On The Altar
An interview with Lawrence Hughes about his wrongful death lawsuit against the Watchtower Society over the death of his daughter Bethany Hughes. Bethany died when she was only sixteen years old from refusing medical treatment (specifically blood transfusions) for her cancer. Contemporary Christian Music is âKol Yisraelâ by Jeremy Gimbel and âNails and Thornsâ by Steven Stewart. You can donate to Save the Children Fund, P.O. Box 20161, Calgary Place RPO, Calgary, Alberta Canada T2P4J3
Jeff S.
www.catholicxjw.com
catholicxjw.blogspot.com/2006/06/blood-on-altar.html
Here is a description of the podcast:
Blood On The Altar
An interview with Lawrence Hughes about his wrongful death lawsuit against the Watchtower Society over the death of his daughter Bethany Hughes. Bethany died when she was only sixteen years old from refusing medical treatment (specifically blood transfusions) for her cancer. Contemporary Christian Music is âKol Yisraelâ by Jeremy Gimbel and âNails and Thornsâ by Steven Stewart. You can donate to Save the Children Fund, P.O. Box 20161, Calgary Place RPO, Calgary, Alberta Canada T2P4J3
Jeff S.
www.catholicxjw.com
J
Jaypeeto4
Guest
It is certainly odd that the Holy Spirit, who has been around since Jesusâ time never allowed anyone to reach that conclusion except the Watchtower Society.
It certainly is odd. It certainly is.
What I am about to say, I am not saying for the purpose of insulting Steve, but Iâm putting it out there as something for all of us to think about, and think about seriously.
Jesus promised on his life that the Holy Spirit would always be with those who believe in him all throughout history until the very end of the world.
Keeping that promise in mind, it is very odd and very significant that not one human being can be found,
from the year 33 A.D. until the 1870s,
who held to the basic fundamental doctrinal beliefs of the Watchtower Society. Not one person.
Even the Arians, who denied the Deity of Christ, NEVER asserted that Jesus was the Archangel Michael. Nobody in the history of the Church from apostolic times down to the time of the rise of Arius, had ever, ever heard of such a notion. And nobody not even the Arians denied that Jesus was resurrected with a glorified body (except the gnostics who taught that material itself was EVIL, having been created by a wicked God). And nobody, not one soul, taught that human beings have no spiritual soul which survives the body after death. And nobody, not one soul from 33 A.D. (except those gnostics again) ever taught that there was NO conscious eternal punishment. Origen later came up with a theory that the punishment of hell would eventually end and that everyone, even the Devil, would be redeemed, but the entire Christian people rejected this theory.
There was nobody, and not even small groups, who held to these basic beliefs of the Watchtower Society as a âsetâ of doctrines, which really is proof that the basic belief system of the Jehovahâs Witnesses, however sincerely they believe in it, is most definitely NOT the teachings handed down by the apostles.
Please everyone, think about this.
Steve, it really is a serious thing to think about.
Please donât dismiss this out of hand.
This set of beliefs popped up for the first time in human history in the mind of Charles Taze Russell who was spiritually accountable to nobody but himself.
Godâs love to all of you,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
It certainly is odd. It certainly is.
What I am about to say, I am not saying for the purpose of insulting Steve, but Iâm putting it out there as something for all of us to think about, and think about seriously.
Jesus promised on his life that the Holy Spirit would always be with those who believe in him all throughout history until the very end of the world.
Keeping that promise in mind, it is very odd and very significant that not one human being can be found,
from the year 33 A.D. until the 1870s,
who held to the basic fundamental doctrinal beliefs of the Watchtower Society. Not one person.
Even the Arians, who denied the Deity of Christ, NEVER asserted that Jesus was the Archangel Michael. Nobody in the history of the Church from apostolic times down to the time of the rise of Arius, had ever, ever heard of such a notion. And nobody not even the Arians denied that Jesus was resurrected with a glorified body (except the gnostics who taught that material itself was EVIL, having been created by a wicked God). And nobody, not one soul, taught that human beings have no spiritual soul which survives the body after death. And nobody, not one soul from 33 A.D. (except those gnostics again) ever taught that there was NO conscious eternal punishment. Origen later came up with a theory that the punishment of hell would eventually end and that everyone, even the Devil, would be redeemed, but the entire Christian people rejected this theory.
There was nobody, and not even small groups, who held to these basic beliefs of the Watchtower Society as a âsetâ of doctrines, which really is proof that the basic belief system of the Jehovahâs Witnesses, however sincerely they believe in it, is most definitely NOT the teachings handed down by the apostles.
Please everyone, think about this.
Steve, it really is a serious thing to think about.
Please donât dismiss this out of hand.
This set of beliefs popped up for the first time in human history in the mind of Charles Taze Russell who was spiritually accountable to nobody but himself.
Godâs love to all of you,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
B
BibleSteve
Guest
Dear Claude.
Thank you for expressing your opinion. I really donât care what the Jews decide, or other Christian through the ages have decided for themselves. I find it interesting to read what they thought, but at the end of the day, I make my own decisions on what I believe.
Iâve explained what I have decided on this topic without pointing to anyone elses authority. I havenât pointed to the Jews, early Century Christians, the Catholic Church, or even the Watchtower.
Iâve simply pointed the the scripture that says âAbstain from __________â. It seems very clear to me. And I am making that decision for myself,
Thank you for your opinion,
Steve
B
Bishopite
Guest
And who speaks for Jehovah God on Earth?
R
Ravyn_Guiliani
Guest
since a husband and wife are one flesh and the husbandâs body belongs to the wife and the wifeâs body belongs to the husbandâneither one has any right to make such a decision one-sided.
and if that is a problem then it should have been addressed before marriage or the unevenly yoked conversion of one spouse.
Ravyn
B
BibleSteve
Guest
Dear Jaypeeto4,
Thank you for expressing your opinion. Since I notice from one of your other comments youâre not feeling well, let me say I hope you are feeling better soon.
Also, since you may need your rest, let me save you some time and effort in typing up your answers to me.
I donât make the decisions of what I believe based on what other people believe. I notice many of the arguments here revolve around, what the Catholic church says, or what early Church Fathers said, what the Jews said, etc. In fact, your last argument here revolves around the idea of ânobody else has believed what you do, so you must be wrongâ
It seems that most people need someone else to determine what to believe for them.
This is not the case with me.
It true, I will read about what other people have concluded. I will read about their reasonings in coming to their conclusion because I value leveraging other peoples research. But just the fact, they came to that conclusion for themselves doesnât mean anything to me. I am respectful of them having the beliefs they do. But ultimately, I am responsible before Jehovah God and Jesus Christ for coming to my own conclusions, based on the Holy Scriptures theyâve provide to make me complete as a spiritual man. As 2 Tim 3:15, 16 says:
(2 Timothy 3:15-17) and that from infancy you have known the holy writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through the faith in connection with Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.
Jesus implied the vast majority would be going in the wrong direction:
(Matthew 7:13) âGo in through the narrow gate; because broad and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are the ones going in through it;
Some arguments are presented that since a belief has been handed down from generation to generation since the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th century it must be true. That something believed by someone for only the last 100 years canât be true.
I donât agree with that. Dan 12:4 tells me that certain things would be understood, only in the time of the end.
(Daniel 12:4) âAnd as for you, O Daniel, make secret the words and seal up the book, until the time of [the] end. Many will rove about, and the [true] knowledge will become abundant.â
I hold the beliefs that I do, not because I am one of JWâs⌠I became one of JWâs because of what I believed the Bible to teach. It is the Bible I look to as the reference and standard. Once I believed I had a solid understanding of the Bible and what I believed it said, I went out looking at the various religions to compare them to the Bible. I made my own checklist and visited all the major religions, sitting down and discussing their religious beliefs with the paster/minister/priest/etc.
I found the JWâs to be most closely following what I had determined the Bible taught as truth.
Perhaps this is different than how others do it, and that is fine for them.
If you want to take blood transfusions because other people have decided itâs OK for them, then go ahead.
If you want to believe the Trinity doctrine because of what some early Church Fathers thought, then go ahead.
If the Watchtower suddenly decided that blood transfusions were OK, I would respect their opinion, but I would still refuse the transfusion because I personally believe that âAbstain from bloodâ means not putting someone elseâs blood in my body.
If the Watchtower suddenly decided the Trinity was true, I would listen to their reasoning and respect their opinion, but I would likely not follow them in that belief.
Whether itâs the Trinity, Purgatory, Hellfire, Immortal Soul, rosary beads, crosses, etc. itâs interesting to note what everyone else believes and why they believe it. That is why I am so interested in talking with others to learn their reasonings. But, ultimately, I am responsible to make my own decision based on Scripture and prayer.
Thank you for comments and opinions. I hope you are feeling better soon.
Steve
Thank you for expressing your opinion. Since I notice from one of your other comments youâre not feeling well, let me say I hope you are feeling better soon.
Also, since you may need your rest, let me save you some time and effort in typing up your answers to me.
I donât make the decisions of what I believe based on what other people believe. I notice many of the arguments here revolve around, what the Catholic church says, or what early Church Fathers said, what the Jews said, etc. In fact, your last argument here revolves around the idea of ânobody else has believed what you do, so you must be wrongâ
It seems that most people need someone else to determine what to believe for them.
This is not the case with me.
It true, I will read about what other people have concluded. I will read about their reasonings in coming to their conclusion because I value leveraging other peoples research. But just the fact, they came to that conclusion for themselves doesnât mean anything to me. I am respectful of them having the beliefs they do. But ultimately, I am responsible before Jehovah God and Jesus Christ for coming to my own conclusions, based on the Holy Scriptures theyâve provide to make me complete as a spiritual man. As 2 Tim 3:15, 16 says:
(2 Timothy 3:15-17) and that from infancy you have known the holy writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through the faith in connection with Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.
Jesus implied the vast majority would be going in the wrong direction:
(Matthew 7:13) âGo in through the narrow gate; because broad and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are the ones going in through it;
Some arguments are presented that since a belief has been handed down from generation to generation since the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th century it must be true. That something believed by someone for only the last 100 years canât be true.
I donât agree with that. Dan 12:4 tells me that certain things would be understood, only in the time of the end.
(Daniel 12:4) âAnd as for you, O Daniel, make secret the words and seal up the book, until the time of [the] end. Many will rove about, and the [true] knowledge will become abundant.â
I hold the beliefs that I do, not because I am one of JWâs⌠I became one of JWâs because of what I believed the Bible to teach. It is the Bible I look to as the reference and standard. Once I believed I had a solid understanding of the Bible and what I believed it said, I went out looking at the various religions to compare them to the Bible. I made my own checklist and visited all the major religions, sitting down and discussing their religious beliefs with the paster/minister/priest/etc.
I found the JWâs to be most closely following what I had determined the Bible taught as truth.
Perhaps this is different than how others do it, and that is fine for them.
If you want to take blood transfusions because other people have decided itâs OK for them, then go ahead.
If you want to believe the Trinity doctrine because of what some early Church Fathers thought, then go ahead.
If the Watchtower suddenly decided that blood transfusions were OK, I would respect their opinion, but I would still refuse the transfusion because I personally believe that âAbstain from bloodâ means not putting someone elseâs blood in my body.
If the Watchtower suddenly decided the Trinity was true, I would listen to their reasoning and respect their opinion, but I would likely not follow them in that belief.
Whether itâs the Trinity, Purgatory, Hellfire, Immortal Soul, rosary beads, crosses, etc. itâs interesting to note what everyone else believes and why they believe it. That is why I am so interested in talking with others to learn their reasonings. But, ultimately, I am responsible to make my own decision based on Scripture and prayer.
Thank you for comments and opinions. I hope you are feeling better soon.
Steve
R
Ravyn_Guiliani
Guest
first off let me say that bringing up Jayâs health in no way dimishes what he is saying and in fact proves that a âhealthyâ JWs arguments cannot compete with someone who is seriously ill even with that advantage. (dirty lawyer trick by the wayâinfluence the jury by below the waist tactics that are not permissible but snuck in there.)
and secondlyâit was not just Jayâs or anyone elsesâ opinionsâthey are well thought out Catholic Apologeticsâpretty much the official âopinionâ of billions.
thirdlyâwhy ARE you here if you âdonât make decisions based on what other people believeâ? If you donât care and we have no influence then what do you need with our answers? If you donât want to know the answers then why ask us the questions? If you have the truth why are you here?
a quick Qâwhen were you baptized? because after 1985 (when they changed the baptismal questions without telling anyone and tried to make them retroactively apply to everyone else already baptized) you took a vow to obey the WTBS and if you break that vow you will be disfellowshipped. And since it is your intention to break that vow with what you just admitted here about not âgoing alongâ with the Org if they change certain teachings, it seems to me the âlust in your heartâ rule would apply and you have already broken the vowâŚ
Ravyn
and secondlyâit was not just Jayâs or anyone elsesâ opinionsâthey are well thought out Catholic Apologeticsâpretty much the official âopinionâ of billions.
thirdlyâwhy ARE you here if you âdonât make decisions based on what other people believeâ? If you donât care and we have no influence then what do you need with our answers? If you donât want to know the answers then why ask us the questions? If you have the truth why are you here?
a quick Qâwhen were you baptized? because after 1985 (when they changed the baptismal questions without telling anyone and tried to make them retroactively apply to everyone else already baptized) you took a vow to obey the WTBS and if you break that vow you will be disfellowshipped. And since it is your intention to break that vow with what you just admitted here about not âgoing alongâ with the Org if they change certain teachings, it seems to me the âlust in your heartâ rule would apply and you have already broken the vowâŚ
Ravyn
- Status