Are Blood Transfusions Really Life Saving?

[Deeje]

So I understand that to resolve doubts you use internal Watchtower resources and Strong's Concordance, is that right?

I do look up other stuff on the net that is relevant. I like to quote material from evolutionists when I am discussing that topic because I think their 'evidence' speaks for itself.

But if I am discussing things of a biblical nature, I refer to generally accepted sources to back up my arguments. I just won't touch the twisted stuff that apostates publish.

What if it is not about a particular scripture?

To us, everything is about scripture. It must be backed up by the Bible.

But I was asking generally about non-Watchtower resources, because you would not look up references to current medical journals. Do you assume all of these to be produced by apostates?

I believe that we live in a world under the control of the devil. (1 John 5:19) His main MO is deception, so what appears to be the right thing, accepted by the majority, may not necessarily be so.
Are there medical "apostates"? I believe that the corrupt element is always lurking when money is the driver. Manipulation of people's perceptions about everything is carefully managed. Just how 'managed' would shock a lot of people.

I understand that "knowing right from wrong" is a biblical concept not related to a specific age. Nevertheless a child is not capable of making informed decisions that affect her/his entire life because of the lack of development and experience. That's why minors are not permitted to marry, for instance. Allowing, encouraging a child to make a massive commitment such as baptism and then holding him/her accountable when they later cannot live in accordance with those promises is simply wrong.

This is why baptism is such a serious step, not to be undertaken unless a minor is deemed to be mature enough to make that commitment. I would like you to meet some of these kids one day and make up your own mind.They are awesome human beings....mature way beyond their years and with the deepest love for Jehovah.

Thanks, I know what a parable is, and there are many aspects to interpreting and understanding it. For instance, do you identify the older brother with Israel? The father in the story can indeed represent God the Father, but I've also seen the 'Prodigal Son' video produced by the Watchtower where the actions of the biological father exactly mirror the parable. When the son returned to his home his father dashed out into the rain to embrace him and bring him inside. He did not stop to check whether the son was 'truly repentant' did he?

I am pleased to hear that you watched the video. It is the action of the son in returning home that prompted the father's reaction to him. But we all know that what transpires from then on may be a different story. If the prodigal continues to show a repentant attitude and endeavours to live in such a way as to gain his father's confidence, all will turn out well. The past is forgiven and the future looks bright.

But if the son (or daughter) shows a reluctance to conform to the Bible's standards, then more discussion needs to take place. Working on the problem in love is the secret.

 

[Olinda]

I know that I am not part if this conversation, but I am curious. What do you mean until they changed it?

Hi Shak, I mean I couldn't accept on trust whatever the Governing body decreed, and especially not when their decrees kept changing. For instance, the meaning of 'generation' was changed at least three times.

 

[Deeje]

Hi Shak, I mean I couldn't accept on trust whatever the Governing body decreed, and especially not when their decrees kept changing. For instance, the meaning of 'generation' was changed at least three times.

I have been a JW for 45 years (after leaving the Church of England) and I cannot say that any adjustment in the GB's published thoughts has had an adverse effect on anyone I know.
The musings of the GB are sometimes just thinking out loud. I have never found their writings to be out of step with scripture but always trying harder to make the application clearer.

They aren't prophets and never claimed to be. The light on the path was to get brighter as the day progressed (Prov 4:18) It's what we expect.

 

[savagewind]

I
The musings of the GB are sometimes just thinking out loud. I have never found their writings to be out of step with scripture but always trying harder to make the application clearer.

Did you not read the quote of the society that said Holy Spirit had left the organization and since it left it was the angels who were guiding it?

They aren't prophets and never claimed to be

Define prophet: a person regarded as an inspired teacher or proclaimer of the will of God.

What is your definition of prophet @Deeje

 

[Olinda]

Always happy to discuss individual doctrine...fire away.


https://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsi...ticles/australias-children-safe-and-well?HTML

That is left up to individuals, but because we are out in our work all the time, opportunities open up on a daily basis. We don't blow a trumpet about it because it isn't what we are primarily about....we are first and foremost preachers and teachers like Jesus was. He was sent exclusively to the "lost sheep of the house of Israel" so the ones he helped were his own fellow believers. When it was time to open up the way for gentiles to come on board, then opportunity was extended to those of other faiths, to come into our community.

Nice. Could you give a recent example that you experienced?

I have seen this with my own eyes and heard it from those who operate church charities in my area. They have something called "Hope Fellowship" here where addicts and people who are living less than good lives can come for help and counseling, but they provided coffee and cake and other freebies afterwards so the majority of those who showed up don't listen to the counseling but stay around for the free handouts. They have no intention of altering their lifestyle or coming to God in any way.

Thank you for a textbook example of giving with an agenda. Rice Christians, anyone? Fancy not being able to cheerfully offer a cuppa without wanting something!

I absolutely agree, but the parenting and environment have changed radically in the last decade or so. Parents have no rights over their children's activities and the environment in which they are being raised is polluted, physically, socially, morally and spiritually. Who can survive in such an environment and remain unscathed? Very few.

I experienced none of this. How can a responsible parent not have rights over her/his children's activities?

Once something becomes "law" the common person has no rights to oppose it.

Before a law is enacted, there is a period of consultation, and quite a lot can be done to influence the outcome. Afterwards, peaceful protest, activism, political activity or informed noncompliance are all options.

The Bible warns about an international body that will enshrine laws that will take away the freedom of every person on this planet. It has been talked about for decades (The New World Order or Globalization or now Federalism) but the Bible foretells times of great distress in connection with it. (Matthew 24:21)

Well, you can rest easy tonight . The UN can promulgate declarations, but enact no laws.
Each country may or may not
1. Ratify the declaration
2. Draft and enact laws and/or policies based upon the declaration (or partly do so)

Have you not seen news items on current events programs in recent years where parents were forced to kidnap their own teenage children in order to being them home? They were living in awful situations. All these children had to do was spin a sob story to Centrelink about being abused and they could leave home with full financial support from the government. These kids have rights under law that came at the expense of the rights of their parents. Government departments are trying to cope with the demand in child welfare cases but they are swamped. Parents are now more more responsible for contributing to the problem, than they are for solving it.

Centrelink is not known for recruiting dependents. Your link was about dysfunctional families and included a lot about parent support and training; how is that a problem?

Perhaps you mean something like this? http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1136792.htm (sorry, I'll learn to embed links properly tomorrow.) If you read the transcript you'll see that the new process leads to more sensible outcomes than the earlier one.

 

[Shak34]

Hi Shak, I mean I couldn't accept on trust whatever the Governing body decreed, and especially not when their decrees kept changing. For instance, the meaning of 'generation' was changed at least three times.

Thanks for explaining. This is also one of my big issues, from what I noticed the decrees are still changing all of the time.

 

[Dandana]

1 video and some information from Jehovah's witnesses sites isn't enough evidence to prove that blood transfusions are bad. Think about of all the other research out there seriously.

 

[Shak34]

I have been a JW for 45 years (after leaving the Church of England) and I cannot say that any adjustment in the GB's published thoughts has had an adverse effect on anyone I know.
The musings of the GB are sometimes just thinking out loud. I have never found their writings to be out of step with scripture but always trying harder to make the application clearer.

They aren't prophets and never claimed to be. The light on the path was to get brighter as the day progressed (Prov 4:18) It's what we expect.

A person or in the GB's case a group of men that are claiming to be God's only channel is just another way of claiming to be a prophet of God. In the Morning Worship Jehovah Blesses Obedience, Anthony Morris III states(about the Faithful Slave/GB) at the end of the video:
"This is a theocracy, ruled by God. Not a collection of manmade decisions. This is governed from heaven."
This is not just musings of men thinking out loud, but decrees expected to be followed. He just claimed that what comes from the slave/GB comes from God.

 

[Agondonter]

For decades now Jehovah's Witnesses have copped a fair amount of criticism for their refusal to accept blood transfusions for religious reasons. For those who believe that blood transfusions are the life saving procedure that they are claimed to be, please watch this video so that the facts can be brought to the public's attention. This is information provided by the Australian Government, not by Jehovah's Witnesses.

https://www.blood.gov.au/media

With my medical history, it's kinda hard for me to say blood transfusions aren't saving lives.

 

[Deeje]

Nice. Could you give a recent example that you experienced?

Do you mean things that I have done to help others?

Thank you for a textbook example of giving with an agenda. Rice Christians, anyone? Fancy not being able to cheerfully offer a cuppa without wanting something!

Are you serious? These were not simply people who had fallen on hard times dropping in for a cuppa....they were serial welfare 'drop kicks' who had no intention of doing anything but take advantage of whatever was on offer for free.
Jesus offered help to those who could not help themselves....these people are 'helping themselves' in the wrong way. I feel no obligation whatsoever to give them anything but the hope of the kingdom. If they really want that hope, (with the right motive,) God will see to it that they have everything they need (Matthew 6:25-33)....but he expects something in return. He expects our obedience to his laws and commands.

I experienced none of this. How can a responsible parent not have rights over her/his children's activities?

Do have much to do with teenagers? They basically have the right to do whatever they like. Responsible parents can produce irresponsible children for the simple reason that teens are influenced by their peers and their school environment in more of their waking hours than they are at home with their parents.

Before a law is enacted, there is a period of consultation, and quite a lot can be done to influence the outcome. Afterwards, peaceful protest, activism, political activity or informed noncompliance are all options.

You really don't know how controlled everything is by the system obviously? Do you honestly believe true democracy exists? Perceptions are being managed so well that enslaved people actually think they are free.

Well, you can rest easy tonight. The UN can promulgate declarations, but enact no laws.
Each country may or may not
1. Ratify the declaration
2. Draft and enact laws and/or policies based upon the declaration (or partly do so)

A lot of people wonder why the world has been let go to this seeming "breaking point", but if the UN offered a solution for international "peace and security" for all, don't you think they would jump at the chance? We are all fed up with the violence and the killing, the poverty and the exploitation....if the proposal sounded good and it was presented the right way, by the right people, who would oppose it but the die-hards? The only catch will be the surrender of their national sovereignty, so that will introduce a "world government" with absolute power and absolute laws that no one can break. (Rev 13:16-18)
The concept has been around for a long time.
http://www.renewamerica.com/article/050524

Have you noticed the police uniform and how their role and methods have changed in recent decades? We are getting ready for the 'rule of law' that the Bible says is coming.

Centrelink is not known for recruiting dependents. Your link was about dysfunctional families and included a lot about parent support and training; how is that a problem?

Perhaps you mean something like this? http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1136792.htm (sorry, I'll learn to embed links properly tomorrow.) If you read the transcript you'll see that the new process leads to more sensible outcomes than the earlier one.

Yes, it's very much a no win situation when a teenager is bent on a certain course and knows how to manipulate the law in their own favor. The new process may be an improvement, but by no means a solution. There is more danger to more children than ever before. The system cannot cope.

I have in mind a case that happened recently to people I know. A 17 year old boy is smitten with a 15 year old girl. Both have been raised in loving Christian households with responsible parents, but technology made it possible for these two to get very intimate without their parent's knowledge.....until they decided they wanted to live together. They have each moved out of home and in with an renegade uncle who could care less about their age. It has left devastated parents on both sides who are wondering what went wrong. At 15 and 17 these children are both minors but they are living living together and having sex. Who is looking after the children? How do you protect these children from themselves and the mistakes that could lead to permanent consequences if there is a pregnancy? As long as the law is satisfied about their criteria, nothing will happen. They can do as they please. http://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch06s03s01s04.php

 

[Deeje]

Thanks for explaining. This is also one of my big issues, from what I noticed the decrees are still changing all of the time.

LOL..."decrees"?

You are hilarious. You make them sound like the mafia. They are our spiritual shepherds, not our masters. (Hebrews 13:17; 2 Corinthians 1:24)

 

[Deeje]

1 video and some information from Jehovah's witnesses sites isn't enough evidence to prove that blood transfusions are bad. Think about of all the other research out there seriously.

I think you forget who is doing the research. It isn't Jehovah's Witnesses who are exposing the truth about blood...it is the doctors who are specialists in the field, revealng what numerous studies have shown. Blood is NOT the life saver it was once thought to be.

 

[Deeje]

With my medical history, it's kinda hard for me to say blood transfusions aren't saving lives.

What medical history is that?

 

[Agondonter]

What medical history is that?

Sure you want to know?

Bleeding ulcer
Prostate cancer (radical prostatectomy)
2 hernia operations
Kidney cancer
lacerated spleen
Lap to open hernia operation

 

[Deeje]

Sure you want to know?

Bleeding ulcer
Prostate cancer (radical prostatectomy)
2 hernia operations
Kidney cancer
lacerated spleen
Lap to open hernia operation

Hmmmm that is quite a history.

But I have to ask who told you that you had to have blood for any of these conditions or procedures? It is simply standard practice for some physicians to routinely use blood no matter what. For us, the standard practice is NOT to use blood. More and more doctors are seeing the benefits of using alternate procedures. Our recovery rate is quicker and we have way less post operative complications.

I have very close friends and relatives who have had many surgeries where blood loss was experienced and they never had to have blood for any of them...even open heart surgery and orthopedic procedures were all performed without blood. There are alternatives to blood that can be used safely and effectively as is demonstrated on the OP video.

 

[Agondonter]

Hmmmm that is quite a history.

But I have to ask who told you that you had to have blood for any of these conditions or procedures? It is simply standard practice for some physicians to routinely use blood no matter what. For us, the standard practice is NOT to use blood. More and more doctors are seeing the benefits of using alternate procedures. Our recovery rate is quicker and we have way less post operative complications.

I have very close friends and relatives who have had many surgeries where blood loss was experienced and they never had to have blood for any of them...even open heart surgery and orthopedic procedures were all performed without blood. There are alternatives to blood that can be used safely and effectively as is demonstrated on the OP video.

I think you're grasping at straws. There may be more than necessary, but I stand by what I said.

 

[Shak34]

LOL..."decrees"?

You are hilarious. You make them sound like the mafia. They are our spiritual shepherds, not our masters. (Hebrews 13:17; 2 Corinthians 1:24)

I'm really not funny, ask my kids.

In the Morning Worship Jehovah Blesses Obedience, Anthony Morris III talks about decrees that come from the slave/GB. That these decrees can also be called decisions. Here is little bit of he says in the video:

"Who really is the faithful and discreet... slave?" Singular, see? "Whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time."

So, this is obvious that this slave is a composite slave. The decisions that are made... by the... Faithful Slave today, are made collectively. So no one man's making these decisions. These decisions, if you want to call them a decree, are made collectively. So, when that direction comes out, to branch committee members, or when it comes out to the... congregations, if you want Jehovah's blessing on you as uh an individual or a family, certainly as a elder or a congregation, it'd be best to just ask Jehovah to help you understand it, but obey, the decision. See, that's the same thing's going to happen today happened in the first century, notice in verse 4 and 5 of Acts 16, asked you to keep your place there, so, when Circuit Overseers visit, and they've brought information from the Faithful Slave, when Branch uh Committee members uh meet to discuss things and go by the guidelines, well what's the result? According to verse 5, then, see, when these are obeyed, then, indeed, you're going to be made firm in the faith. Congregations will increase. Branch territories will increase, day by day. Why? Because as we mentioned beginning, Jehovah blesses obedience. This is a theocracy, ruled by God. Not a collection of manmade decisions. This is governed from heaven.

Decisions, decrees, or dogmas, call them whatever you like, are to be obeyed.

 

[Olinda]

Do you mean things that I have done to help others?

http://www.renewamerica.com/article/050524

Have you noticed the police uniform and how their role and methods have changed in recent decades? We are getting ready for the 'rule of law' that the Bible says is coming.

Do you mean things that I have done to help others?

Yes please.

Are you serious? These were not simply people who had fallen on hard times dropping in for a cuppa....they were serial welfare 'drop kicks' who had no intention of doing anything but take advantage of whatever was on offer for free.
Jesus offered help to those who could not help themselves....these people are 'helping themselves' in the wrong way. I feel no obligation whatsoever to give them anything but the hope of the kingdom. If they really want that hope, (with the right motive,) God will see to it that they have everything they need (Matthew 6:25-33)....but he expects something in return. He expects our obedience to his laws and commands.

How can we judge who can 'help themselves'? Where are we commanded to make such a judgement?Isn't it possible that God helps people through those who give freely?

Do have much to do with teenagers? They basically have the right to do whatever they like. Responsible parents can produce irresponsible children for the simple reason that teens are influenced by their peers and their school environment in more of their waking hours than they are at home with their parents.

Thankfully, mine are beyond that stage, but although it is a time for questioning authority and establishing identity, teens are also unwilling to cause distress to a parent they love, and are capable of logic and restraint.
I found it particularly important to give them honest, complete and balanced information on everything they asked; it led to mutual trust and good decisions.

You really don't know how controlled everything is by the system obviously? Do you honestly believe true democracy exists? Perceptions are being managed so well that enslaved people actually think they are free.

I don't think vague conspiracy theories are relevant to this thread, although of course it's yours.

A lot of people wonder why the world has been let go to this seeming "breaking point",

Who, apart from jws, are this 'lot of people'? And whatever is this 'seeming breaking point'?

but if the UN offered a solution for international "peace and security" for all, don't you think they would jump at the chance? We are all fed up with the violence and the killing, the poverty and the exploitation....if the proposal sounded good and it was presented the right way, by the right people, who would oppose it but the die-hards? The only catch will be the surrender of their national sovereignty, so that will introduce a "world government" with absolute power and absolute laws that no one can break. (Rev 13:16-18)
The concept has been around for a long time.

Yes, the concept has been around. But it seems your only problem with it is that it isn't headed by God. I can understand the appeal of the idea, frankly, but doubt even a partial 'world government' has a chance in the foreseeable future.

Yes, it's very much a no win situation when a teenager is bent on a certain course and knows how to manipulate the law in their own favor. The new process may be an improvement, but by no means a solution. There is more danger to more children than ever before. The system cannot cope.

I have in mind a case that happened recently to people I know. A 17 year old boy is smitten with a 15 year old girl. Both have been raised in loving Christian households with responsible parents, but technology made it possible for these two to get very intimate without their parent's knowledge.....until they decided they wanted to live together. They have each moved out of home and in with an renegade uncle who could care less about their age. It has left devastated parents on both sides who are wondering what went wrong. At 15 and 17 these children are both minors but they are living living together and having sex. Who is looking after the children? How do you protect these children from themselves and the mistakes that could lead to permanent consequences if there is a pregnancy? As long as the law is satisfied about their criteria, nothing will happen. They can do as they please. http://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch06s03s01s04.php

The laws you reference are not based on the Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 (CRC), but the processes may well have been modified after the ratification. Basically the premise is that a child of 15+ years will wreak havoc if forced to live where they absolutely don't want to. This may be because of problems with the child (eg substance abuse, rebellion) or the environment (violence, over-controlling, even incest). Or both. This is now treated as 'irreconcilable differences' and as for divorce and settlements, the courts and services try hard for mediation, counselling and a peaceful settlement of differences. Where this is not possible, I think it would be a relief for both the child and family not to be at loggerheads. In the case you mention I find the actions of the 'renegade uncle' hard to fathom.

Now, a suggestion. I cannot see how we can progress the subject of blood transfusions when you will not read any current medical literature on the subject (in case it has been written by apostates; have I understood that rightly?) Could we take our discussion of the other matters (including doctrines) to your thread "How can we identify true worship" where it might fit better?[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[djhwoodwerks]

I would have preferred the use of a more modern translation as this archaic stuff has whiskers on it.

Let's try them in plain English....(ESV)

Gen 9:3, 4:
"Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. 4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood."

Lev 17:10
“If any one of the house of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people."

Acts 15:28, 29:
"For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”

So you will notice that the first command was given to Noah upon coming out of the ark, so it pre-dates the Mosaic Law, which repeated it, and then it was repeated again to Christians. So this is why we believe that it is a very important command from God. From Noah's day to the present it is still in force.
"Abstain" means what?

Why would one take a verse out of context to try and make their point? Let's see,

You quote Gen 9:3-4 as a command not to take blood transfusions, but what is it "Really" talking about?

Gen 9:3-6 (ESVST) 3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. 4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. 5 And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man. 6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.

Are you suggesting that God meant we can even use humans as food? In verses 5 and 6 He is talking about mans blood, why didn't He mention not eating blood then?


You quote Lev 17:10 as a command not to take blood transfusions, but what is it "Really" talking about?

Lev 17:10-11 (ESVST) 10 "If any one of the house of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people. 11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life.

Did God mean that He gave human blood on the altar to make atonement?


You quote Acts 15:28-29 as a command not to take blood transfusions, but what is it "Really" talking about?

Act 15:28-29 (ESVST) 28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements:29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell."

What kind of logic does it take to believe that those verses are referring to human blood? It says to abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, (animals) and from what has been strangled (animals), and in between the 2 animal references, they threw in mans blood, right?


What about this,

Deu 12:15-16 (ESVST) 15 "However, you may slaughter and eat meat within any of your towns, as much as you desire, according to the blessing of the Lord your God that he has given you. The unclean and the clean may eat of it, as of the gazelle and as of the deer. 16 Only you shall not eat the blood; you shall pour it out on the earth like water.

Sounds like He means animal and not human blood.

 

[djhwoodwerks]

For decades now Jehovah's Witnesses have copped a fair amount of criticism for their refusal to accept blood transfusions for religious reasons. For those who believe that blood transfusions are the life saving procedure that they are claimed to be, please watch this video so that the facts can be brought to the public's attention. This is information provided by the Australian Government, not by Jehovah's Witnesses.

https://www.blood.gov.au/media

What is the real purpose of this thread? Anyone who knows about the ways of a JW, knows that even if all medical research proves that a blood transfusion is 100% safe and effective in saving a life, JW's will "STILL" refuse blood because the governing body has put their own spin on scripture.

You are trying to use "science" to promote JW beliefs.