Are Blood Transfusions Really Life Saving?

[Deeje]

It is in my country. Advantage of having a comprehensive public health system that is free at the point of use. No health insurance providers involved.

Australia also has a NHS. But it leaves people without a choice as to a doctor and on a long waiting list for elective surgery. Private health insurance in my country is taken out by those who can afford it and want to have the doctor of their choice and treatment in a private hospital. This is a system that favors the rich. Low income earners and those on a government pension can't afford the high cost of private health insurance. Our public hospitals are over burdened and understaffed. The only upside is that the poor are never turned away in an emergency. No one has to sell their house to pay for drugs covered by the PBS and ambulances are free for pensioners.

£123 per unit for the NHS. Of course it costs, every unit has to be collected by trained staff, transported, tested for pathogens and then stored. These things all cost money.

I'll point out that the article you link to is from the US where the cost of medical care is silly, partly because hospitals up the costs because they know that they will usually end up dropping the price when the negotiations with the health insurance company start.

I think we all know about the inequality and corruption seen in the American health system.

Here is a link about the real cost to hospitals and their patients (not just money) receiving blood transfusions.

"BACKGROUND:
Red blood cell (RBC) transfusion is independently associated in a dose-dependent manner with increased intensive care unit stay, total hospital length of stay, and hospital-acquired complications. Since little is known of the cost of these transfusion-associated adverse outcomes our aim was to determine the total hospital cost associated with RBC transfusion and to assess any dose-dependent relationship.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS:
A retrospective cohort study of all multiday acute care inpatients discharged from a five hospital health service in Western Australia between July 2011 and June 2012 was conducted. Main outcome measures were incidence of RBC transfusion and mean inpatient hospital costs.

RESULTS:
Of 89,996 multiday, acute care inpatient discharges, 4805 (5.3%) were transfused at least 1 unit of RBCs. After potential confounders were adjusted for, the mean inpatient cost was 1.83 times higher in the transfused group compared with the nontransfused group (95% confidence interval, 1.78-1.89; p < 0.001). The estimated total hospital-associated cost of RBC transfusion in this study was AUD $77 million (US $72 million), representing 7.8% of total hospital expenditure on acute care inpatients. There was a significant dose-dependent association between the number of RBC units transfused and increased costs after adjusting for confounders.

CONCLUSION:
RBC transfusions were independently associated with significantly higher hospital costs. The financial implication to hospital budgets will assist in prioritizing areas to reduce the rate of RBC transfusions and in implementing patient blood management programs.

© 2014 AABB."


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25488623

This is the hospitals' own survey data. Blood costs money, but the real cost is in patient outcomes. Complications from the use of blood mean longer hospital stays and increased costs. The figures don't lie. It will prove to be beneficial to hospitals, governments who subsidize medical practice, (as seen in countries with NHS systems) and patients who have better outcomes when blood is not used.

 

[jeager106]

Decades ago I was very, very, sick with tonsils that were constantly getting
infected. Strep throat.
My doctor at the time said they MUST come out as soon as the last sickness
past.
It passed. I was awaiting surgery in the hospital when forms to be signed were
brought to me.
One was permission to give me NECESSARY blood transfusions.
Really?
I refused to sign for blood, I didn't want someone else's blood in me.
Then the "necessary" operation was cancelled by my doctor!
Really?
Methinks I would have "needed" blood at a very great cost to my insurance
company.
I still have the things and have NO trouble being sick any longer.
The tonsils are there for a good reason.
Doctors would take out kids tonsils for any reason.
Good pay for a simple operation. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[Shak34]

Do they just think that you are embarrassing? Once they get older and leave home and mature a bit, its surprising how much their parents have learned in the interim.

Actually, no they don't find me embarrassing. I just got back from a cruise with my daughter which is why I didn't respond sooner.

Regardless of what you believe and from whom you derived your beliefs, if you are a worshipper of the Bible's God, you will have followed the direction of men appointed by God to lead his people, both in the OT and the NT. The churches today are no different...they are all led by men. But Jesus said we had to identify the real Christians "by their fruits" or the kinds of people they produce. Those people would be following the commands laid down by Jesus Christ. Having come out of the church system, I can tell you now, that the churches do not follow Christ's teachings in any genuine way. If they want to spill blood in a war, they will justify it. If they want to celebrate pagan festivals, they will justify it .
If they have a choice between the law of God and the laws of men, they will follow man's law every time. When have the churches NOT been a friend of this world? (James 4:4)

Because Jesus framed the identity of the FDS in the form of a question, it appears to be something that will not be easily discernible. (Matthew 24:45-47) Jesus appoints the "slave" to feed the rest of his household in his absence. When he returned, he was to reward them with authority over all his "belongings". We believe we have found our "Faithful and Discreet Slave." and that their direction is the one we should follow. Others are free to find their own.

As we get closer to the end of the system, we will need this guidance more than ever. Just as God's people have always relied on the guidance of men appointed to the task of shepherding them (Moses, Joshua, the Prophets, Jesus and the Apostles) so too we have shepherds today who are responsible before God to care for his sheep. (Hebrews 13:17) I for one am very happy under their care

What I quoted where not my beliefs but a talk given by governing body member. I will quote it again for you.


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. I can quote the entire talk if you would like, it won't change that fact that the GB makes decrees.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

We demonstrate every day that this is not true.



From the numerous studies they took their stats from....you didn't watch the video either, did you?

We have equal numbers of cases where people didn't get blood and lived, in spite of the dire predictions of medical personnel. People die in spite of the fact that they have transfusions.
We have proven that doctors can be dead wrong about blood and its effectiveness.



I have a close friend who lost more than half her blood in an auto accident. She was told point blank that she would die without blood. She didn't and recovered quickly without any blood transfusions being given. So how can doctors say with any certainty that someone will die? They don't really know....all they can do is guess.
That the benefits outweigh the risks is simply not true in our experience....and doctors are realizing it. We recover more quickly and with less post operative complications because we don't have blood.

Pretty much every claim you have made here is false. The only one true is that I didn't watch the video. Bring solid evidence from a verifiable accredited source that has been per reviewed. Other wise I shall continue to believe the clinically supported evidence at hand. Now you may feel some kind of let down or even a sense of hollow victory ay how shallow this response is. The truth however is that I have grown tired of the endless pseudo science debates. Bring real evidence, not YouTube fringe theories or I won't waste my time. Though I do have to ask, do you believe people can dir from blood loss? And if so how would you treate it?

 

[Deeje]

What I quoted where not my beliefs but a talk given by governing body member. I will quote it again for you.


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. I can quote the entire talk if you would like, it won't change that fact that the GB makes decrees.

I am confused. I went into some detail to demonstrate that God's people have always been under the direction of appointed men.

Jesus indicated that he was going to direct his disciples "all the days until the conclusion of the system of things", in a global preaching work. I see that he has done this with one global brotherhood who are known the world over for their preaching. (Matt 24:14)

Moses was appointed to lead God's people out of their enslaved condition in Egypt.

The prophets were appointed to correct and to teach God's people when they strayed off the path of true worship.

Jesus came to correct the erring leaders of Judaism in his day, but they had so indoctrinated the people that they were incorrigible. When the lost sheep were gathered, God cast off the Jews and chose a new nation to serve his son. (Matt 23:37-39; Acts 15:14)

In these last days, men too were to lead God's people in worship. We are told to gather together (Heb 10:34, 35) and we are also told to "obey those taking the lead among us". (Heb 13:17)....for JW's that is our GB. For others I guess it is their own church hierarchy or even themselves if they have a "special" direct line to the holy spirit.

We are all free to find "the faithful and discreet slave" for ourselves. I believe I found him a long time ago....you sound like you have given up on him.
What is your connection with JW's Shak?

 

[Deeje]

Pretty much every claim you have made here is false. The only one true is that I didn't watch the video. Bring solid evidence from a verifiable accredited source that has been per reviewed. Other wise I shall continue to believe the clinically supported evidence at hand. Now you may feel some kind of let down or even a sense of hollow victory ay how shallow this response is. The truth however is that I have grown tired of the endless pseudo science debates. Bring real evidence, not YouTube fringe theories or I won't waste my time.

Can you do me a favor and just watch the video in the OP. It is put out by the Australian Government and features respected doctors in the field of blood based medicine...these are NOT 'fringe theory' doctors but specialists in their field. If you won't watch the video, then you cannot dismiss the evidence if you refuse to see it. What have you got to lose except a few minutes of your time?

Though I do have to ask, do you believe people can dir from blood loss? And if so how would you treate it?

When a patient is hemorrhaging, stopping the bleeding is what saves their life. Keeping the veins expanded with saline stops hypovolemic shock. The veins do not collapse and the body makes up red cells very rapidly. Low levels of hemoglobin can be tolerated and EPO is given to accelerate red cell production. Plasma volume expanders actually deliver oxygen carrying red cells to all vital organs and tissues, whereas whole blood transfusions actually impede it. The video will show you what happens when blood is administered. Please see the evidence for yourself and then comment. JW's do not die from refusing blood....we live to show doctors that God was right to prohibit the consumption of blood. They have learned much from us about the benefits of refusing blood. Hospitals dedicated to bloodless medicine have sprung up all over the world because of this.

 

[Shak34]

I am confused. I went into some detail to demonstrate that God's people have always been under the direction of appointed men.

Jesus indicated that he was going to direct his disciples "all the days until the conclusion of the system of things", in a global preaching work. I see that he has done this with one global brotherhood who are known the world over for their preaching. (Matt 24:14)

Moses was appointed to lead God's people out of their enslaved condition in Egypt.

The prophets were appointed to correct and to teach God's people when they strayed off the path of true worship.

Jesus came to correct the erring leaders of Judaism in his day, but they had so indoctrinated the people that they were incorrigible. When the lost sheep were gathered, God cast off the Jews and chose a new nation to serve his son. (Matt 23:37-39; Acts 15:14)

In these last days, men too were to lead God's people in worship. We are told to gather together (Heb 10:34, 35) and we are also told to "obey those taking the lead among us". (Heb 13:17)....for JW's that is our GB. For others I guess it is their own church hierarchy or even themselves if they have a "special" direct line to the holy spirit.

We are all free to find "the faithful and discreet slave" for ourselves. I believe I found him a long time ago....you sound like you have given up on him.

You said:

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)

You seemed confused that they make decrees. When you wrote "decrees?" So I quoted a talk showing that the GB does make decrees. If using the word decrees makes them sound like the mafia that is the GB's doing not mine.

What is your connection with JW's Shak?

My connection to the witnesses is irrelevant to this conversation.

 

[Deeje]

You seemed confused that they make decrees. When you wrote "decrees?" So I quoted a talk showing that the GB does make decrees. If using the word decrees makes them sound like the mafia that is the GB's doing not mine.

I was commenting on your implied meaning of the word. Like it's some kind of dictatorship. I know it isn't, but you seem to want to promote that idea.
Our GB are no more dictators than Jesus or the apostles were.
We have a directive to "obey those taking the lead among us" so Christians are obligated to obey their shepherds. (Heb 113:17) I don't want to be without a shepherd. It makes us easy prey to the wolves.

My connection to the witnesses is irrelevant to this conversation.

I thought you might say something like that....you know the 'language' too well not to have had a very close connection, but have now given that away perhaps? Your choice of course.

Its our choices that determine our future after all, so we have to make them wisely. You seem open to the possibility of a "higher power"......why not Jehovah?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Doctors would take out kids tonsils for any reason.
Good pay for a simple operation. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

In my case, I had a difficult time breathing when I was a child and I would even wake up at night from having difficulties breathing. My tonsils and adenoids were removed, and I've been breathing better ever since, and I rarely get sick.
I didn't have to have any blood transfusions over it though, but then again I was also still pretty young when I had that surgery, so young the only reason I remember it was because it was a pretty scary experience for me, enough so that I remember it more than any surgery after that, even my last knee surgery that was only two years ago.

 

[Shak34]

I was commenting on your implied meaning of the word. Like it's some kind of dictatorship. I know it isn't, but you seem to want to promote that idea.
Our GB are no more dictators than Jesus or the apostles were.
We have a directive to "obey those taking the lead among us" so Christians are obligated to obey their shepherds. (Heb 113:17) I don't want to be without a shepherd. It makes us easy prey to the wolves.

I was not implying dictatorship, but dogma. In many cases decree and dogma can be considered the same thing and both words are even used in that talk I referenced. The word decree was actually used in a conversation with another person so i used it instead of changing it to dogma. The talk even calls decrees decisions and to obey them, since you brought up dictatorship, some might consider that a dictatorship. Again I will quote part of the talk. I am not twisting or promoting, only quoting a GB talk.

"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."

 

[jeager106]

dogma from wiki:

"Dogma is a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted.[1] It serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology or belief system, and it cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system's paradigm, or the ideology itself. The term can refer to acceptable opinions of philosophers or philosophical schools, public decrees, religion, or issued decisions of political authorities."

Challenging dogma by a J.W. in the Society of J.W.'s is, ah, er, well, frowned upon.
I'd love to know who the translators of the New World Translation of their Bible is.
I've read reviews of the N.W.T. by accredited scholars and the reviews were........
VERY POSITIVE as to accuracy of translating original language into modern
language.

 

[jeager106]

Generally speaking ................NO!
Blood transfusions can cause all manner of unwanted effects not contributing to
the health of the patient.
The Medical world isn't so quick to use blood as CHEAP medicine as it once was.
I know blood isn't cheap when the bills come it, but it is given FREELY in most
cases by donors.
Even donors with hep-C, Aids, genetic illnesses and several forms of things
a patient won't want.
Some donors actually SELL their blood. Must be desperate people like
alcoholics, drug addicts, people in need of a few bucks for whatever reason.
I'm not talking about kind donors, but those in need of a few bucks
for bad reason.
A blood transfusion is the LAST thing I'd want.
Some people have their own blood stored in case of need.
(paranoid?)

 

[Deeje]

I was not implying dictatorship, but dogma. In many cases decree and dogma can be considered the same thing and both words are even used in that talk I referenced. The word decree was actually used in a conversation with another person so i used it instead of changing it to dogma. The talk even calls decrees decisions and to obey them, since you brought up dictatorship, some might consider that a dictatorship. Again I will quote part of the talk. I am not twisting or promoting, only quoting a GB talk.

According to Jeager's posted definition, "The term can refer to acceptable opinions of philosophers or philosophical schools, public decrees, religion, or issued decisions of political authorities." so it appears as if "dogma" is attached to almost everything humans do. To single JW's out for special mention in this regard is a bit discriminatory then, isn't it?

Tell me who runs an organization of humans without dogma?

"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."

A "decree" is a directive issued by someone who has authority over us. Do our spiritual leaders have rightful authority over us?

Heb 13:17:
"Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you."

Since we are told to "Obey your leaders and submit to them" (Heb 13:17) and seeing as how these men have been appointed to that position, how can we ignore their directives.....unless of course they are downright ridiculous or unscriptural. I cannot think of a single directive made by our GB that has been unscriptural or that has turned out badly for anyone.

"Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you; and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith.."
We see where their faith is leading us and we want to follow their example. They have proven to be loving shepherds who work hard to care for a global brotherhood, not just a local church.

I don't know what your personal beef is, but it seems to me to be blown out of all proportion, like most of the accusations leveled at us. All the focus is on perceived flaws, not on the incredible achievements. Nothing humans do can be perfect, but this has never stopped God from using them to accomplish his purpose. A little reality check is in order here.

We are well into "the last days" and we are approaching the greatest tribulation in the history of mankind, (Matthew 24:21) so who in their right mind would want to stand alone without the direction of the ones appointed to care for the entire flock in this time period? (2 Tim 3:1-5) We will obey our leaders and we will come out the other side, as the apostle John saw in his Revelation. An unnumbered "great crowd" was seen attributing salvation to God and to the Lamb, and when John asked who they were, the angel answered "These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb" (Revelation 7:13, 14)
These dedicated Christians are the ones who see the trouble coming and carefully follow the direction of their shepherds....their very lives depend on it.

 

[Ingledsva]

Australia also has a NHS. But it leaves people without a choice as to a doctor and on a long waiting list for elective surgery. Private health insurance in my country is taken out by those who can afford it and want to have the doctor of their choice and treatment in a private hospital. This is a system that favors the rich. Low income earners and those on a government pension can't afford the high cost of private health insurance. Our public hospitals are over burdened and understaffed. The only upside is that the poor are never turned away in an emergency. No one has to sell their house to pay for drugs covered by the PBS and ambulances are free for pensioners.



I think we all know about the inequality and corruption seen in the American health system.

Here is a link about the real cost to hospitals and their patients (not just money) receiving blood transfusions.

"BACKGROUND:
Red blood cell (RBC) transfusion is independently associated in a dose-dependent manner with increased intensive care unit stay, total hospital length of stay, and hospital-acquired complications. Since little is known of the cost of these transfusion-associated adverse outcomes our aim was to determine the total hospital cost associated with RBC transfusion and to assess any dose-dependent relationship.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS:
A retrospective cohort study of all multiday acute care inpatients discharged from a five hospital health service in Western Australia between July 2011 and June 2012 was conducted. Main outcome measures were incidence of RBC transfusion and mean inpatient hospital costs.

RESULTS:
Of 89,996 multiday, acute care inpatient discharges, 4805 (5.3%) were transfused at least 1 unit of RBCs. After potential confounders were adjusted for, the mean inpatient cost was 1.83 times higher in the transfused group compared with the nontransfused group (95% confidence interval, 1.78-1.89; p < 0.001). The estimated total hospital-associated cost of RBC transfusion in this study was AUD $77 million (US $72 million), representing 7.8% of total hospital expenditure on acute care inpatients. There was a significant dose-dependent association between the number of RBC units transfused and increased costs after adjusting for confounders.

CONCLUSION:
RBC transfusions were independently associated with significantly higher hospital costs. The financial implication to hospital budgets will assist in prioritizing areas to reduce the rate of RBC transfusions and in implementing patient blood management programs.

© 2014 AABB."


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25488623

This is the hospitals' own survey data. Blood costs money, but the real cost is in patient outcomes. Complications from the use of blood mean longer hospital stays and increased costs. The figures don't lie. It will prove to be beneficial to hospitals, governments who subsidize medical practice, (as seen in countries with NHS systems) and patients who have better outcomes when blood is not used.

Not sure what kind of conspiracy you are trying to portray here?

OBVIOUSLY - ACUTE CARE patients are going to require blood more often.

OBVIOUSLY acute care costs the hospital more money in equipment and supplies.

OBVIOUSLY acute care is thus going to cost the patient more money.

OBVIOUSLY acute care patients, that may, or may-not require blood, are also going to be in the hospital longed then general patients.

The only conspiracy I see here is the hyped cost of medical care for all patients.

*

 

[Deeje]

Not sure what kind of conspiracy you are trying to portray here?

OBVIOUSLY - ACUTE CARE patients are going to require blood more often.

OBVIOUSLY acute care costs the hospital more money in equipment and supplies.

OBVIOUSLY acute care is thus going to cost the patient more money.

OBVIOUSLY acute care patients, that may, or may-not require blood, are also going to be in the hospital longed then general patients.

The only conspiracy I see here is the hyped cost of medical care for all patients.

*

And that is the only language they understand.

They won't listen to other doctors who are specialists in blood based medicine because the medical profession doesn't like to be told that they are doing anything wrong. The only conspiracy theory going on is the one that tries to portray blood transfusions as safe and routine practice. The words "increased morbidity and mortality" should never be used when describing a routine medical practice.

 

[Shak34]

According to Jeager's posted definition, "The term can refer to acceptable opinions of philosophers or philosophical schools, public decrees, religion, or issued decisions of political authorities." so it appears as if "dogma" is attached to almost everything humans do. To single JW's out for special mention in this regard is a bit discriminatory then, isn't it?

Tell me who runs an organization of humans without dogma?

I never said that they were the only ones that have dogma. Every religion has dogma. You really seem to jump all over the place in a conversation. I think I might be best to start from the beginning. I was talking to someone else and said:

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

Now I will start where you replied to that.

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)

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.

Regardless of what you believe and from whom you derived your beliefs, if you are a worshipper of the Bible's God, you will have followed the direction of men appointed by God to lead his people, both in the OT and the NT. The churches today are no different...they are all led by men. But Jesus said we had to identify the real Christians "by their fruits" or the kinds of people they produce. Those people would be following the commands laid down by Jesus Christ. Having come out of the church system, I can tell you now, that the churches do not follow Christ's teachings in any genuine way. If they want to spill blood in a war, they will justify it. If they want to celebrate pagan festivals, they will justify it .
If they have a choice between the law of God and the laws of men, they will follow man's law every time. When have the churches NOT been a friend of this world? (James 4:4)

Because Jesus framed the identity of the FDS in the form of a question, it appears to be something that will not be easily discernible. (Matthew 24:45-47) Jesus appoints the "slave" to feed the rest of his household in his absence. When he returned, he was to reward them with authority over all his "belongings". We believe we have found our "Faithful and Discreet Slave." and that their direction is the one we should follow. Others are free to find their own.

As we get closer to the end of the system, we will need this guidance more than ever. Just as God's people have always relied on the guidance of men appointed to the task of shepherding them (Moses, Joshua, the Prophets, Jesus and the Apostles) so too we have shepherds today who are responsible before God to care for his sheep. (Hebrews 13:17) I for one am very happy under their care

What I quoted where not my beliefs but a talk given by governing body member. I will quote it again for you.


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. I can quote the entire talk if you would like, it won't change that fact that the GB makes decrees.

You seemed confused that they make decrees. When you wrote "decrees?" So I quoted a talk showing that the GB does make decrees. If using the word decrees makes them sound like the mafia that is the GB's doing not mine.

I was commenting on your implied meaning of the word. Like it's some kind of dictatorship. I know it isn't, but you seem to want to promote that idea.
Our GB are no more dictators than Jesus or the apostles were.
We have a directive to "obey those taking the lead among us" so Christians are obligated to obey their shepherds. (Heb 113:17) I don't want to be without a shepherd. It makes us easy prey to the wolves.

I was not implying dictatorship, but dogma. In many cases decree and dogma can be considered the same thing and both words are even used in that talk I referenced. The word decree was actually used in a conversation with another person so i used it instead of changing it to dogma. The talk even calls decrees decisions and to obey them, since you brought up dictatorship, some might consider that a dictatorship. Again I will quote part of the talk. I am not twisting or promoting, only quoting a GB talk.

"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."

The funny thing is that this all is because if you saying "decrees?" I was not singling out, merely commenting to your implication that they don't have decrees.

 

[Deeje]

I guess it was this post that set the tone for my responses to you.....

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.

All of God's directives have come through men to his worshippers. What makes you think that today is any different? Jesus' framing the identity of the FDS as a question (Matthew 24:45) is a fair indication that "he" would not be easy to spot...in fact he would probably look like a fraud, just like Jesus was. If the devil can make the perfect son of God look bad...imagine what he can do to his imperfect disciples?

If we are Christians and we have a problem with obedience, then we have missed the point of the whole exercise. You see, disobedience got us into this mess.....only obedience will get us out of it. God is not looking for independent thinkers....he is looking for humble people who can just do as they are told. If Adam and his wife had just done that, we wouldn't be having this conversation

ya know.....

 

[Shak34]

I guess it was this post that set the tone for my responses to you.....

Lol, rrriight! That is why when I made this post:

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

You posted back:

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)

And completely ignored the post that conveniently now set the tone for your responses.

All of God's directives have come through men to his worshippers. What makes you think that today is any different? Jesus' framing the identity of the FDS as a question (Matthew 24:45) is a fair indication that "he" would not be easy to spot...in fact he would probably look like a fraud, just like Jesus was. If the devil can make the perfect son of God look bad...imagine what he can do to his imperfect disciples?

If we are Christians and we have a problem with obedience, then we have missed the point of the whole exercise. You see, disobedience got us into this mess.....only obedience will get us out of it. God is not looking for independent thinkers....he is looking for humble people who can just do as they are told. If Adam and his wife had just done that, we wouldn't be having this conversation

ya know.....

All of this really is irrelevant to my post. The post, that has now set your tone, was in reference to this post:

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.

Specifically, the part of your post that says: "They aren't prophets and never claimed to be."
When they claim to be the only channel of God, then yes they are claiming to be prophets. Quoting GB Anthony Morris III again,
"This is a theocracy, ruled by God. Not a collection of manmade decisions. This is governed from heaven."
They are saying that all of their decisions come from God, that is the claim of a prophet.

 

[Deeje]

Lol, rrriight! That is why when I made this post:

You posted back:

And completely ignored the post that conveniently now set the tone for your responses.

All of this really is irrelevant to my post. The post, that has now set your tone, was in reference to this post:

Specifically, the part of your post that says: "They aren't prophets and never claimed to be."
When they claim to be the only channel of God, then yes they are claiming to be prophets. Quoting GB Anthony Morris III again,
"This is a theocracy, ruled by God. Not a collection of manmade decisions. This is governed from heaven."
They are saying that all of their decisions come from God, that is the claim of a prophet.

OK, so you have a problem accepting that our GB is the FDS that has been appointed by Jesus and is doing what he commanded? (Matthew 24:45) Do you see any other global brotherhood, who all believe the same things, unitedly preaching the same message about God's kingdom "in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations" before the foretold end of this system comes? (Matthew 24:14) Christendom can't really agree on anything except the false doctrines that were sown by the devil not long after the "wheat" were established. Ask anyone there what God's kingdom is and see how many answers you get. If you have no idea what God's kingdom is, how can you preach to others about it?

I came out of Christendom....I know she doesn't preach the way Jesus commanded. (Matthew 10:11-15; Matthew 28:19-20) In fact, I know that she does very little of what Jesus commanded.

God's people have always been governed from heaven....through human representatives, appointed by him. Why do we say that our GB are not prophets? Because there are no more prophesies. God no longer uses prophets because the teachings of his son, written for our instruction, are all we need.

Heb 1:1,2:
"Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world." (ESV)

All that is left to do now is to obey the Christ. We are in the outworking of one prophesy....the end of this system and the establishment of God's kingdom over this earth. (Daniel 2:44; Matthew 6:10; Matthew 24:3-14)
Now since Jesus is the one who appointed the FDS, he said they would "feed" his household of fellow slaves their "food at the proper time"? What God's people need to know is told to them when they need to know it.
God's eternal purpose has been unfolding like a magnificent flower over all these centuries until now we are almost seeing it in full bloom. We made guesses as to the time of the flower's opening....its color or perhaps its dimensions, but only now when are we so close to the conclusion of this satanic system of things is the light showing us what we could not see clearly before. (Prov 4:18)

No one is forcing anyone to accept our GB as the FDS....but they are accepted by us without complaint. The only complaints are coming from "ex's" or those with a spiteful agenda and some misguided idea of what they must do to silence us. Jesus experienced exactly the same thing and warned us of the same treatment. (John 15:18-21)

John 16:2, 3:
"They will put you out of the synagogues. Indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God. 3 And they will do these things because they have not known the Father, nor me."

Christendom worships a different god to us....no question about that.
Like the people of Noah's day, those who don't want to hear the message or who ignore it and ridicule and oppose the messenger, the Bible says will pay the price. (Matthew 24:37-39; 2 Thess 1:6-9)
They won't know until it is too late. The separation of the sheep and the goats is taking place right now.

 

[savagewind]

I am confused.

I went into some detail to demonstrate that God's people have always been under the direction of appointed men.

Who appointed God's "cloud of witnesses" their jobs?

Jesus indicated that he was going to direct his disciples "all the days until the conclusion of the system of things", in a global preaching work.

True. Did he not say, "I will be with you"?

I see that he has done this with one global brotherhood who are known the world over for their preaching. (Matt 24:14)

That might have been something to get puffed up about in the past, but now most people have access to the internet. The internet is MUCH better at dispensing food at the proper time. Don't you think? Little children who have no knowledge of Jehovah and old men and women who have served Jehovah for a lifetime must eat the same "food" at the same "proper time". You call that right. I call it ridiculous.

Moses was appointed to lead God's people out of their enslaved condition in Egypt.
The prophets were appointed to correct and to teach God's people when they strayed off the path of true worship.
Jesus came to correct the erring leaders of Judaism in his day, but they had so indoctrinated the people that they were incorrigible. When the lost sheep were gathered, God cast off the Jews and chose a new nation to serve his son. (Matt 23:37-39; Acts 15:14)

I see. Jesus in the same class as Moses and the prophets. I can't say that Jesus is God, but Jesus Christ isn't in the same class as men. I think you should know that by now.

In these last days, men too were to lead God's people in worship. We are told to gather together (Heb 10:34, 35)

Does it say to whom we should gather? John 10:27 I am as certain as I am able to be certain that Hebrews 10:34-35 means to gather to HIM. Are you going to prove you are righteous about what it means or are you going to ignore me again?

and we are also told to "obey those taking the lead among us". (Heb 13:17).

OUCH.. IT DOESN'T SAY OBEY. PLEASE,...

for JW's that is our GB. For others I guess it is their own church hierarchy or even themselves if they have a "special" direct line to the holy spirit.

Or, maybe it is Jesus.

We are all free to find "the faithful and discreet slave" for ourselves. I believe I found him a long time ago....you sound like you have given up on him.
What is your connection with JW's Shak?

Nope! He finds us! Luke 15:1-7