Mormon Church To US Supreme Court: Ban Gay Marriage

[JayJayDee]

Like many Christian "laws," the original does not say what man has added to it over the years.

Blood transfusions were not practised when the Bible was written, so we have to use the principles behind the law to understand what position to take. Blood is not good medicine today. Ask any good doctor if they would have one?

How does a law about animal butchering become a law against life saving blood transfusions???

Because the method of butchering the animal was significant. Its blood was to be poured out on the earth and its lifeblood symbolically returned to God. Even the American Indians had this concept of respect for life.

Who told you that blood transfusions were "life-saving"? More people die after receiving blood than they do from accepting alternative therapies. You really need to brush up on bloodless medicine...it exists for a very good reason.

It is no accident that the human circulatory system is compatible with ordinary sea water.

Gen 9:4 But flesh with blood of life ye shall not eat.

That says absolutely nothing against blood transfusions.

Funny that. I have already explained how taking blood into the body in any form is against God's law, even for Christians.
What does "abstain" mean? Look it up.

If the doctor told an alcoholic to "abstain" from alcohol but he figured that he could just hook himself up to an alcohol drip, is he abstaining?

Later Men always add their own interpretations to the originals making them into ridiculous crap.

Whatever you reckon.

 

[Ingledsva]

Blood transfusions were not practised when the Bible was written, so we have to use the principles behind the law to understand what position to take. Blood is not good medicine today. Ask any good doctor if they would have one?



Because the method of butchering the animal was significant. Its blood was to be poured out on the earth and its lifeblood symbolically returned to God. Even the American Indians had this concept of respect for life.

Who told you that blood transfusions were "life-saving"? More people die after receiving blood than they do from accepting alternative therapies. You really need to brush up on bloodless medicine...it exists for a very good reason.

It is no accident that the human circulatory system is compatible with ordinary sea water.



Funny that. I have already explained how taking blood into the body in any form is against God's law, even for Christians.
What does "abstain" mean? Look it up.

If the doctor told an alcoholic to "abstain" from alcohol but he figured that he could just hook himself up to an alcohol drip, is he abstaining?



Whatever you reckon.

What you have said concerning the law is not true.

It says only to not eat flesh with life blood in it.

A life saving blood transfusion, is obviously NOT eating flesh with the life blood still in it!

Everything else is man made bull added to the original verse.


*

 

[JustCallMeNick]

Blood transfusions were not practised when the Bible was written, so we have to use the principles behind the law to understand what position to take. Blood is not good medicine today. Ask any good doctor if they would have one?

Who told you that blood transfusions were "life-saving"? More people die after receiving blood than they do from accepting alternative therapies. You really need to brush up on bloodless medicine...it exists for a very good reason.

Basically all of this is untrue. Blood transfusions save lives...literally every day. JWs are basically the only group holding out on this point. If your objections are religious I understand. But please don't pretend they're scientific.

It is no accident that the human circulatory system is compatible with ordinary sea water.

Docs only use it in emergencies when they have no blood to transfuse.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

What the world decides to do about how they wish to live their lives, is none of my business.
I am no part of that world. (John 15:18, 19)

Except that you are. But I understand what you mean, and I'm not trying to play games.
I can make it specific, then it becomes simple;

Let's say Australia goes down the route of having a referendum on marriage equality, with the stated aim of changing the law to allowing 2 consenting adults, regardless of gender, to marry.

Far as I can tell, there are 3 actions you could take...

1) Vote to allow the change (ie. pro marriage equality)
2) Vote to keep the current state (ie. reject marriage equality)
3) Don't vote, either by not turning up and risking a fine, or turning up and entering a blank ballot

If I'm understanding you correctly, you'd take option 3, in which case I personally have no issue with your position.
Am I understanding correctly, though?

That is what I have always thought......except that God has assigned us a work, much like an emergency service worker going house to house with a warning and a recommendation for a place of safety. People are free to ignore the warning, but we have to sound it none the less. (Matt 24:14) Their response is their choice, not mine....not God's.

Personally, all I'd be looking for if I was a gay person is the right to make my own choice.
This would include risking the wrath of whichever God is against my action.
In much the same way, as an atheist, all I want is the right to live my life free of unavoidable religious interference. I have neither interest nor intent on disrupting the religious views of others, apart from healthy debate with whomever is interested.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Who told you that blood transfusions were "life-saving"? More people die after receiving blood than they do from accepting alternative therapies. You really need to brush up on bloodless medicine...it exists for a very good reason.

Bloodless medicine has improved, but based on independent discussion and sources (primarily with nurses and doctors in RL) I can't see it as equating to transfusion in all cases. Nor is there compelling reasons for the industry to not promote bloodless medicine if it WAS equitable. Near as I can tell, the whole transfusion process is more complex and costly than ever before due to various impurities that need to be tested for.

But that notwithstanding, is your position that blood transfusions have NEVER been more effective than bloodless medicine for any situation? That seems the implication you are leading to.

 

[JayJayDee]

Except that you are. But I understand what you mean, and I'm not trying to play games.
I can make it specific, then it becomes simple;

Let's say Australia goes down the route of having a referendum on marriage equality, with the stated aim of changing the law to allowing 2 consenting adults, regardless of gender, to marry.

Far as I can tell, there are 3 actions you could take...

1) Vote to allow the change (ie. pro marriage equality)
2) Vote to keep the current state (ie. reject marriage equality)
3) Don't vote, either by not turning up and risking a fine, or turning up and entering a blank ballot

If I'm understanding you correctly, you'd take option 3, in which case I personally have no issue with your position.
Am I understanding correctly, though?

I have never voted in my life. At present, our government has exemptions for those who are conscientious objectors.
I will never vote for any political agenda. I am no part of that kind of decision making. The world can do whatever it likes....I will just never support it.
Its a case of living in the world but not being part of what it does. I can maintain a separation....it isn't difficult.

Personally, all I'd be looking for if I was a gay person is the right to make my own choice.
This would include risking the wrath of whichever God is against my action.
In much the same way, as an atheist, all I want is the right to live my life free of unavoidable religious interference.

And God gives you that right. You choose how to live the life you have. But he is the final arbiter of how we finish.
Our choices affect how he responds to us. It doesn't matter if we believe in him or not....he doesn't not require anyone to do that at this point. We choose. All choices have consequences though. Is this the risk you speak of?

I have neither interest nor intent on disrupting the religious views of others, apart from healthy debate with whomever is interested.

A debate has to have debaters.....so here I am. The rose among the thorns.....

 

[JayJayDee]

Bloodless medicine has improved, but based on independent discussion and sources (primarily with nurses and doctors in RL) I can't see it as equating to transfusion in all cases.

JW's have a Hospital Liaison Committee in all countries, comprised of brothers specifically trained in transfusion medicine and innovative bloodless techniques. This is their job and they know it well. Believe it or not, many doctors do not keep up with the latest techniques and often consult these brothers about various ways of treating Witness patents. They are grateful for their expertise in this area. It takes a great weight off their shoulders.

It is because of the refusal of JW patients to accept blood transfusions that that medics began to see a difference in the recovery rate among JW patients compared to those who accepted transfusions involving the same procedures. Recovery time was reduced and patients did better. Bloodless surgery then began to gain popularity. Whole hospitals dedicated to bloodless medicine have sprung up,all,over the world.

Nor is there compelling reasons for the industry to not promote bloodlessly medicine if it WAS equitable. Near as I can tell, the whole transfusion process is more complex and costly than ever before due to various impurities that need to be tested for.

Yes, this is true. More and more transfusion risks are being detected. This adds to the cost. A single unit of blood is extremely expensive......

"It is estimated that a single unit of packed red blood cells (PRBC's), with an acquisition cost of two hundred U.S. dollars ($200.00) has an actual cost of between one thousand six hundred ($1,600.00) and two thousand four hundred dollars ($2,400.00) to transfuse it to the patient. This actual cost includes all of the direct and variable personnel costs along with the increased costs to any one patient's hospital stay as a result of a transfusion-associated morbidity. The acquisition cost for a unit of aphaeresed platelets is above five hundred U.S. dollars ($500.00 Table 2). Based on the formula used for PRBC's the actual cost of platelets is also incredibly higher. In addition, platelets have also been associated with serious adverse events in cardiac surgery."

Internet Scientific Publications

Blood is a multi-million dollar business, so they are not going to go down without a fight. If bloodless treatment means faster exists from hospital and saving money, then it is preferable all round. The documented risks of transfusions and better recovery times without it doesn't stop them promoting it.

But that notwithstanding, is your position that blood transfusions have NEVER been more effective than bloodless medicine for any situation? That seems the implication you are leading to.

There are rare instances when massive blood loss is experienced. This situation is by no means guaranteed survival even is blood is administered. When a Witness dies as a result of refusing a transfusion, it is rate and usually makes headlines. But what is not stated is that there was a strong possibility that death would have occurred regardless.
People have the mistaken notion that transfusions are some kind of magic procedure that us automatically saves lives....it doesn't. More people die after a transfusion that who die from refusing one.

When you introduce foreign blood into the body, it immediately sets off an immune response. All the body's resources are then used to fighting off the invader instead of getting well. It may well weaken a patient's response to further treatment and cost them their life. No me seems to talk about that.

But regardless of all that, our stance is Biblically based. We would not have a transfusion anyway. The fact that all these things have come to light is only proof that God's laws are right.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I have never voted in my life. At present, our government has exemptions for those who are conscientious objectors.
I will never vote for any political agenda. I am no part of that kind of decision making. The world can do whatever it likes....I will just never support it.
Its a case of living in the world but not being part of what it does. I can maintain a separation....it isn't difficult.

Excellent!
I prefer people who 'walk the walk', so to speak. Hypocrites drive me batty, honestly.
In simple terms, as it relates to the OP, you're not actively blocking it. That being the case, I have no issue with your position, nor need/desire to argue the toss with you.
I'm all for people being able to live a peaceful life which doesn't negatively impact on others.

And God gives you that right. You choose how to live the life you have. But he is the final arbiter of how we finish.

Just as you 'walk the walk', I'm comfortable to leave the judgement of my soul to your God, as well as the various others that I have been told will weigh my soul in judgement. I don't mean that as a throwaway line, though I know it sounds like one. My issue is with humans playing God, not God himself.

Our choices affect how he responds to us. It doesn't matter if we believe in him or not....he doesn't not require anyone to do that at this point. We choose. All choices have consequences though. Is this the risk you speak of?

Yep, exactly. If an all-powerful God is going to judge me, then my belief or otherwise does not effect this (ie. the fact that he'll judge me).
I've chosen to act in accordance with my beliefs, and non-beliefs, which is possibly also what you would say with regards to yourself. Whatever else we might think about each others position, if we're willing to respect our mutual non-interference, and agree to let God be the arbiter, then I think we have enough common ground to share a planet.

A debate has to have debaters.....so here I am. The rose among the thorns.....

I've often considered myself not anywhere near thorny enough to be an angry atheist. *laughs*
But, stereotypes are so often wrong. Anyhows...appreciate the response.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

JW's have a Hospital Liaison Committee in all countries, comprised of brothers specifically trained in transfusion medicine and innovative bloodless techniques. This is their job and they know it well. Believe it or not, many doctors do not keep up with the latest techniques and often consult these brothers about various ways of treating Witness patents. They are grateful for their expertise in this area. It takes a great weight off their shoulders.

As with any profession, the professionalism of the people within it varies. I don't see 'doctor' and think 'credible about drug issues'. But both myself and my wife have had enough exposure on the inside of the medical profession to be at least somewhat informed. (and I don't mean as patients...lol)
Your point here is both accurate, as I understand it, and meaningless, in terms of convincing me of anything. Were I to treat a patient without use of drugs, it would be sensible to consult people who had been studying bloodless medicine. This does not equate to it being as effective, or more effective.

It is because of the refusal of JW patients to accept blood transfusions that that medics began to see a difference in the recovery rate among JW patients compared to those who accepted transfusions involving the same procedures. Recovery time was reduced and patients did better. Bloodless surgery then began to gain popularity. Whole hospitals dedicated to bloodless medicine have sprung up,all,over the world.

Right. But this doesn't address a couple of key points. One in particular is of interest to me, which I'll refer to a little later in my response.

Yes, this is true. More and more transfusion risks are being detected. This adds to the cost. A single unit of blood is extremely expensive......

"It is estimated that a single unit of packed red blood cells (PRBC's), with an acquisition cost of two hundred U.S. dollars ($200.00) has an actual cost of between one thousand six hundred ($1,600.00) and two thousand four hundred dollars ($2,400.00) to transfuse it to the patient. This actual cost includes all of the direct and variable personnel costs along with the increased costs to any one patient's hospital stay as a result of a transfusion-associated morbidity. The acquisition cost for a unit of aphaeresed platelets is above five hundred U.S. dollars ($500.00 Table 2). Based on the formula used for PRBC's the actual cost of platelets is also incredibly higher. In addition, platelets have also been associated with serious adverse events in cardiac surgery."

Internet Scientific Publications

Blood is a multi-million dollar business, so they are not going to go down without a fight. If bloodless treatment means faster exists from hospital and saving money, then it is preferable all round. The documented risks of transfusions and better recovery times without it doesn't stop them promoting it.

Who is 'they' in this equation?
I'm fairly intimately acquainted with hospital funding and insurance models, at least in Australia...

There are rare instances when massive blood loss is experienced. This situation is by no means guaranteed survival even is blood is administered. When a Witness dies as a result of refusing a transfusion, it is rate and usually makes headlines. But what is not stated is that there was a strong possibility that death would have occurred regardless.
People have the mistaken notion that transfusions are some kind of magic procedure that us automatically saves lives....it doesn't. More people die after a transfusion that who die from refusing one.

People, as a whole, might make this mistake, and I wouldn't doubt that a Witness dying after refusing blood transfusion becomes news, regardless of the unknown survival rate if blood transfusion was accepted. I see no need to argue the point.

When you introduce foreign blood into the body, it immediately sets off an immune response. All the body's resources are then used to fighting off the invader instead of getting well. It may well weaken a patient's response to further treatment and cost them their life. No me seems to talk about that.

It's not quite that simple, and actually that gets talked about a lot, although if you mean in these sort of religious discussions, then perhaps you have a point.
Any foreign item will trigger an immune response. You do need to be a little careful being overly optimistic about sea water as a blood replacement, btw. Quinton's research is too often waved about without any acknowledgement of the inherent issues. But anyway, it's not really germane to the point I want to make, so let's just agree that blood transfusion is risky and expensive, and moving beyond them is a good thing.

But regardless of all that, our stance is Biblically based. We would not have a transfusion anyway. The fact that all these things have come to light is only proof that God's laws are right.

So, here's my point. Or thoughts, perhaps. When offering arguments that blood transfusions are unnecessary, and that there are alternatives, you are quick to point out that there are bloodless medicine clinics, and that sea water is even an alternative, but that this hasn't been adopted, possibly due to 'they', which I would assume are the drug companies.
(Fair enough on that point, I don't trust the buggers either. They've too often proven to be profit-mongerers, and simply looking at how drugs are peddled to GPs cast both the drug companies and the doctors in a bad light, particularly in the United States)

However, the issues with the alternatives are never examined in any detail. It's simply the flip side of what you say happens when a JW dies after refusing a blood transfusion. An assumption that, because the alternative wasn't used, the alternative was better.

Further, the original take-off of blood transfusion wasn't due to it being pushed by medical companies, but instead due to it's use in WW1. Walter Bradford Cannon directly considered various alternative fluids other than blood, and there was no financial incentive for him to to reach the conclusion he did (ie. that blood was most effective). Have you considered his research and conclusions? Have you considered any of the information available from the US Army?

(eg. Office of Medical History )

In any case, as you say, regardless of whether blood substitutes are now, and have always been better than blood for transfusions, and regardless of how scripture is interpreted (eg. where is the line between blood and blood based products, for example) I think it's clear that...as you say...tranfusions would be refused in any case. I'm not sure, then, why there is any effort to convince people that so called 'bloodless medicine' is perfect. It's not. It has flaws and risks. These haven't been constant over the course of history. Sea water is NOT an effective substitute for blood, no matter what a cursory examination of third-party references to Quinton's research might indicate, and I honestly don't know why you'd bother.

You don't accept blood transfusions because, in your opinion, God doesn't want you to. That's pretty much the end of the story.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Actually this was pertaining to Christendom which began with Roman Catholicism. They were the liars with corrupted consciences and demonic teachings who turned Christianity into a power trip for their self appointed hierarchy. They introduced many foreign teachings and forbade marriage to their priests (and still do.) They forbade the eating of meat on Fridays for centuries. It was a mortal sin....so when they dropped this unscriptural notion, pity the poor souls who broke that man-made law before it was abolished.

Sure it was.

Forgive me if I don't take your word on this, but I'm suspicious of the idea that the group who compiled the Bible and decided which books should and shouldn't be included would decide to include a book that condemned themselves.

I definitely think you should....especially the ones pertaining to "the time of the end". (Dan 12:9, 10; Matt 24:14)

If you think that it helps your case for you, the representative of a relatively young religious movement, to post a verse saying that there will be "false prophets" in latter days, you're mistaken.

 

[sojourner]

The Bible sets the standard for marriage.

No it doesn't. The bible reflects a few standards for marriage, as understood by its authors, but it sets nothing.

Anyone who wants to mess with that, has to have authority from the author of marriage....God himself.

How is God the "author" of marriage? The bible never explicitly says that.

Those who want to practice sexual behaviors that are condemned in God's word, are free to do so, but they cannot claim to be worshippers of a God who designed males and females to reproduce according to their "kind".

How in the world does one reproduce according to something else's kind???!!!

Same sex marriage cannot fulfill the Biblical definition of marriage.

Right, because there's no wife to lord it over, no rapist to marry, no ownership of the other, and no concubines involved.

It requires the services of a third party to have children.

Same with barren, heterosexual couples. I suppose God condemns them, too.

The standard for marriage in a Christian's life has nothing to do with the laws of the land

Funny... anytime I've officiated at a wedding, I've had to have authorization from the state, and the couple needs a state-issued marriage license.

If we have a "marriage" that is not recognized by God...then we have no marriage at all, regardless of what any human law says.

The IRS disagrees wholeheartedly with you.

We might want our cake and eat it too

Some might want their Kate and Edith, too.

we don't get to dictate to God what his standards are.

Nor do we get to dictate to others what we *think* "God's standards" are.

Sometimes it requires great sacrifice to be acceptable to God.

I counter with: "My yoke is easy; my burden light."

Sacrifice cost us something.

I thought Jesus' sacrifice was "once for all?"

Is God worth it?

Worth what? Tightening our sphincters and being afraid of having some joy in life?

 

[sojourner]

You do realize that God performed the first marriage in Eden when he brought the woman to the man.

No. There is no marriage ceremony in Genesis.

In Israel all a man had to do to be married was to make arrangement with the bride's parents, and take his bride home.

Sounds like the arrangements were all on the parents -- not God.

 

[sojourner]

I don't think God really cares what unbelievers do...do you? He has no use for them so why should he care if they have no morals?

God created them -- but has no use for them. I counter with, "Consider the lilies..."

What a sociopathicesque thing to say!

 

[JayJayDee]

I'm all for people being able to live a peaceful life which doesn't negatively impact on others.

When Christians imitate the attitude and actions of the one they claim as their Lord, they will be peaceable with everyone.....even those who are considered their enemies. Jesus preached to those who wanted to listen but he never badgered people. He told his disciples to search for those who might respond to the message of the kingdom, (Matt 10: 11-15) but if they were turned away, they were to "shake the dust off their feet" having fulfilled their obligation to warn those ones.

Jesus spoke up when it was needed and kept silent when it was appropriate. He corrected his disciples but never chastised them for their faults. He was patient and tried to correct them with empathy for their failings. This did not mean that he ever condoned bad attitudes or behavior. It was a good balanced approach that we all should emulate....even with an emotive topic such as this one on homosexuality. Emotions can cloud issues, so when making important, life altering decisions, truth needs to win over emotion....or others can be badly hurt. Happiness should never be obtained by robbing someone else of it.

Just as you 'walk the walk', I'm comfortable to leave the judgement of my soul to your God, as well as the various others that I have been told will weigh my soul in judgement. I don't mean that as a throwaway line, though I know it sounds like one. My issue is with humans playing God, not God himself.

No one can tell another person what to believe or how to worship. As I mentioned above, the individual's response to the message is their business. Those who want to legislate other people's morality are playing God. God does not force anyone to follow his laws, but observes people's response to his message and will judge them accordingly. We all know right from wrong.

Yep, exactly. If an all-powerful God is going to judge me, then my belief or otherwise does not effect this (ie. the fact that he'll judge me).
I've chosen to act in accordance with my beliefs, and non-beliefs, which is possibly also what you would say with regards to yourself. Whatever else we might think about each others position, if we're willing to respect our mutual non-interference, and agree to let God be the arbiter, then I think we have enough common ground to share a planet.

Yep, sharing the planet is what we should all be doing. We are not told to force everyone believe what we believe...we are just to offer it and let people make up their own minds about things.

I've often considered myself not anywhere near thorny enough to be an angry atheist. *laughs*
But, stereotypes are so often wrong. Anyhows...appreciate the response.

I have always appreciated your reasonableness. Thanks.

 

[JayJayDee]

Who is 'they' in this equation?
I'm fairly intimately acquainted with hospital funding and insurance models, at least in Australia...

"They" are the ones who are profiting from the "sale" of blood and blood products. As you know, they do not pay donors in Australia and yet the cost of transfusion is still enormous. Blood is a lucrative business and there is no way they are going to allow it to be painted in a bad light....but it is not the 'be all and end all' of treatment. JW's have pushed that envelope and proven that blood is not necessary in a large percentage of procedures. There are many alternative procedures. Recovery is faster and hospitalisation time is reduced. When money can be saved, it often comes at the expense of unnecessary treatments. Blood is becoming an unnecessary treatment. Unless of course you have a doctor who is ill informed.

Any foreign item will trigger an immune response. You do need to be a little careful being overly optimistic about sea water as a blood replacement, btw. Quinton's research is too often waved about without any acknowledgement of the inherent issues. But anyway, it's not really germane to the point I want to make, so let's just agree that blood transfusion is risky and expensive, and moving beyond them is a good thing.

Actually, I was not advocating the use of sea water per se. I was using it as an example of what is compatible with the human circulatory system. Saline is a volume expander that can be used to keep up volume in the system whilst the body makes up its oxygen carrying red cells. The use of EPO speeds up production. You would not believe the number of people I know personally who have been pressured to have blood in their treatment because doctors told them they would die without blood.....none of them did, and all recovered very quickly. There is basically no surgical procedure that Witnesses cannot have that requires blood. Any surgeons worth their credentials do not insist on it...in fact those doctors who cannot operate without blood are actually telling you that they are ill informed and not up on the latest techniques.

So, here's my point. Or thoughts, perhaps. When offering arguments that blood transfusions are unnecessary, and that there are alternatives, you are quick to point out that there are bloodless medicine clinics, and that sea water is even an alternative, but that this hasn't been adopted, possibly due to 'they', which I would assume are the drug companies.
(Fair enough on that point, I don't trust the buggers either. They've too often proven to be profit-mongerers, and simply looking at how drugs are peddled to GPs cast both the drug companies and the doctors in a bad light, particularly in the United States)

However, the issues with the alternatives are never examined in any detail. It's simply the flip side of what you say happens when a JW dies after refusing a blood transfusion. An assumption that, because the alternative wasn't used, the alternative was better.

I can only give you the flip side. This is my side of the issue....and not enough is told to people about alternative therapies. Does it require more skill on the part of the surgeon...yes it does, but that is the surgeon I would want operating on me. If a surgeon has to rely on blood transfusion, he is not much of a surgeon to begin in with IMO.

Further, the original take-off of blood transfusion wasn't due to it being pushed by medical companies, but due to it's use in WW1. Walter Bradford Cannon directly considered various alternative fluids other than blood, and there was no financial incentive for him to to reach the conclusion he did (ie. that blood was most effective). Have you considered his research and conclusions? Have you considered any of the information available from the US Army?

(eg. Office of Medical History )

Actually from memory, I recall reading about the use of sea water in WW 11 as a substitute when blood was not available.

In any case, as you say, regardless of whether blood substitutes are now, and have always been better than blood for transfusions, and regardless of how scripture is interpreted (eg. where is the line between blood and blood based products, for example) I think it's clear that...as you say...tranfusions would be refused in any case. I'm not sure, then, why there is any effort to convince people that so called 'bloodless medicine' is perfect. It's not. It has flaws and risks.

I would say that the risks of using blood far outweigh the refusal. I say this from my own personal experience with many friends and brothers in the faith.
When AIDS hit the world, one of the ways it was transmitted was through blood transfusion. People then also started to refuse blood because of the risk of disease. There are still risks, ones that last a lifetime...otherwise why would there be a question on a hospital admission form, "Have you EVER had a blood transfusion?"

These haven't been constant over the course of history. Sea water is NOT an effective substitute for blood, no matter what a cursory examination of third-party references to Quinton's research might indicate, and I honestly don't know why you'd bother.

Saline is used as a matter of course in cases of excessive blood loss. Without cross matching, it is dangerous to administer incompatible blood.

You don't accept blood transfusions because, in your opinion, God doesn't want you to. That's pretty much the end of the story.

Yes, that is pretty much it...but it doesn't hurt to inform people about the facts. There is a great deal of ignorance about a lot of issues out there. If one has to make choices....they should at least be informed ones.....shouldn't they?

Alternatives to blood transfusions

 

[lewisnotmiller]

"They" are the ones who are profiting from the "sale" of blood and blood products. As you know, they do not pay donors in Australia and yet the cost of transfusion is still enormous. Blood is a lucrative business and there is no way they are going to allow it to be painted in a bad light....but it is not the 'be all and end all' of treatment. JW's have pushed that envelope and proven that blood is not necessary in a large percentage of procedures. There are many alternative procedures. Recovery is faster and hospitalisation time is reduced. When money can be saved, it often comes at the expense of unnecessary treatments. Blood is becoming an unnecessary treatment. Unless of course you have a doctor who is ill informed.

Becoming? Perhaps. And in all honesty, I hope it becomes completely unrequired. It's to everyone's benefit, humanistically. But the picture isn't as clear as you are painting it, just as blood is not a panacea.
Whilst I have already agreed re: drug companies being problematic to reaching the best possible health outcomes, one thing worth considering is the role and strength of insurers in the funding model. They can play a positive role or a negative role, but one of their drivers is to encourage less costly procedures and processes and less risk of complication. Again, I don't think the truth is as clear as 'Large bodies are hiding the truth, but the Bible has revealed it to the JWs'.
Further, even if blood is becoming unrequired, that has not always been the case. The argument is not timeless, nor unchanging.

Actually, I was not advocating the use of sea water per se. I was using it as an example of what is compatible with the human circulatory system. Saline is a volume expander that can be used to keep up volume in the system whilst the body makes up its oxygen carrying red cells. The use of EPO speeds up production.

Diluted sea water.

You would not believe the number of people I know personally who have been pressured to have blood in their treatment because doctors told them they would die without blood.....none of them did, and all recovered very quickly.

Fair enough. That has no bearing on whether blood is a more effective treatment, or was more effective in the past. I'm really not sure why you try to argue this from a scientific viewpoint at all.

There is basically no surgical procedure that Witnesses cannot have that requires blood. Any surgeons worth their credentials do not insist on it...in fact those doctors who cannot operate without blood are actually telling you that they are ill informed and not up on the latest techniques.

This can be 100% true, and yet blood could be the best possible treatment with the highest rate of success. I'm not even arguing that it is...like I said, I'll be happy if/when blood substitutes can provide higher success rates than blood in all cases. But your argument here isn't an argument at all. You're just saying that alternatives have reached a credible point, and that surgeons should both be aware and communicative of alternatives. Fair enough, I agree, but it's not germane to the argument.

Further, this happens in basically ALL areas of surgery. I was amazed at the discretionary powers of surgeons with relation to prosthetic implants, for example.

I can only give you the flip side. This is my side of the issue....and not enough is told to people about alternative therapies. Does it require more skill on the part of the surgeon...yes it does, but that is the surgeon I would want operating on me. If a surgeon has to rely on blood transfusion, he is not much of a surgeon to begin in with IMO.

You're missing or avoiding my point. There isn't a black side and a white side, but to paint a simple picture...

Side A : Blood is the best treatment and JWs avoidance of it risks lives.
Side B : Blood is not the best treatment, and people are actually not understanding the alternatives which are safer, better and cheaper.

Neither of those sides are painting an accurate picture. At the moment I am seeing you as Side B.

Actually from memory, I recall reading about the use of sea water in WW 11 as a substitute when blood was not available.

Maybe. I'd guess it was definitely used in emergency situations. Having said that, biro pens have been used to punch holes in trachias and saved lives in emergencies, but they're not about to be adopted as standard.
I'm a bit of a war buff. I know for sure the French Army in WW1 experimented with sea water or saline (can't remember exactly how they sourced it) in a more deliberate fashion.
The US Army experimented with all sorts of substances, outlined in the link I posted (is why I thought it was relevant). Nothing, including blood, has ever been without issue. They also did some testing of sea water/saline, and it was discounted due to it's inability to transport hemoglobin. It was seen as an emergency method for keeping the heart pumping, etc.
Question : Why do you think the French Army don't use sea water now?

I would say that the risks of using blood far outweigh the refusal. I say this from my own personal experience with many friends and brothers in the faith.
When AIDS hit the world, one of the ways it was transmitted was through blood transfusion. People then also started to refuse blood because of the risk of disease. There are still risks, ones that last a lifetime...otherwise why would there be a question on a hospital admission form, "Have you EVER had a blood transfusion?"

That's kinda my point, though. There are risks with all procedures. For a non-JW like myself, I'm not interested in what the Bible says. I just want an accurate estimation of the risks provided to me so I can make as informed a decision as possible.

Saline is used as a matter of course in cases of excessive blood loss. Without cross matching, it is dangerous to administer incompatible blood.

Do you think that has any baring on whether it is an effective method as compared to compatible and effectively screened blood?

Yes, that is pretty much it...but it doesn't hurt to inform people about the facts. There is a great deal of ignorance about a lot of issues out there. If one has to make choices....they should at least be informed ones.....shouldn't they?

Alternatives to blood transfusions

Indeed they should be informed. Which is why I'd see blanket rejection of blood as every bit as disingenuous as blanket usage.

Anyways, whilst we never seem to agree, I do enjoy our conversations so I'll offer you something to help strengthen your argument against blood. A key factor in the effectiveness of blood as a treatment method is the age of the blood. Stored blood becomes less effective over time. The storage time allowed for blood in the US (and possibly Australia, I honestly don't know) is something like 6 weeks, by which point the product is significantly. degraded. When receiving a transfusion, people should not only be wanting effectively screened blood, but they should be wanting blood that is no older than roughly 2 weeks (depending on the studies you put your faith in).

 

[JayJayDee]

No it doesn't. The bible reflects a few standards for marriage, as understood by its authors, but it sets nothing.

sojourner it appears as if you have a comprehension problem when reading my posts. (if you read them at all)

The Bible does set the standard for marriage...even the words of Jesus Christ himself...

"And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”
(Matt 19:4-6 NASB) Male and female...man and wife, yoked together by God....marriage.

How is God the "author" of marriage? The bible never explicitly says that.

Marriage is God's arrangement.....as Jesus said. The man and his wife are "yoked together" by God. Do you have a problem understanding his words?
When you yoke two animals together, you place them as a team, working together to get a job done. The man and his wife are yoked together as a team in marriage.

Right, because there's no wife to lord it over, no rapist to marry, no ownership of the other, and no concubines involved.

What on earth are you talking about?

Same with barren, heterosexual couples. I suppose God condemns them, too.

God did not introduce polygamy or concubinage or surrogacy in Israel, but they were tolerated for a time and the women were protected under the law. When Christ came, he reinstituted the original standard for marriage....one man, one wife....male and female.

Ishmael was produced by surrogacy but he was not the seed through whom the Messiah was said to come. Isaac had that role, the legitimate son of Abraham and his wife.

Funny... anytime I've officiated at a wedding, I've had to have authorization from the state, and the couple needs a state-issued marriage license.

I said "the standard for marriage", not its legal basis under the laws of the land. If the law was to introduce a legally recognized marriage between same sex couples, that does not justify those who claim to be Christians to break God's laws on marriage. God would not recognize such a marriage no matter what the law said. Man's law does not override God's law.

Nor do we get to dictate to others what we *think* "God's standards" are.

God does not leave us to "think" about any of it. His standards are stated very clearly in the scriptures. It is not "dictating" to anyone to tell them what God's word says...do you have a problem with God's word? Do you "officiate" at weddings in the capacity of a civil celebrant or as clergy in a church? If it is the latter, then your posts are very telling.

I counter with: "My yoke is easy; my burden light."

Are you playing Russian Roulette with the word of God? Jesus' words do not mean that he sacrificed his life for law breakers. Those who claim to be Christian but who flout the laws of God will have no part with Jesus. (Matt 7:21-23) We don't get to dictate our own terms in worship.....or marriage.

I thought Jesus' sacrifice was "once for all?"

Jesus' sacrifice was offered for the sin of Adam, thereby releasing his children from their inheritance of sin and death. (Rom 5:12)
He did not die to justify willful and deliberate sins committed by us....we pay for those ourselves......you know "the wages of sin...."?

Worth what? Tightening our sphincters and being afraid of having some joy in life?

Are you yourself gay sojourner? Is that why there is so much sarcasm in your replies?

Good grief......you know the more I dialogue with you, the more I find that you are far from the teachings of Christ, yet you pretend to know him.
Would you like to write your own Bible. I'm sure it would suit you much better than the one you ignore now.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

"So Jehovah God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep, and while he was sleeping, he took one of his ribs and then closed up the flesh over its place. 22 And Jehovah God built the rib that he had taken from the man into a woman, and he brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said: “This is at last bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh. This one will be called Woman, Because from man she was taken.” 24 That is why a man will leave his father and his mother and he will stick to his wife, and they will become one flesh. 25 And both of them continued to be naked, the man and his wife; yet they were not ashamed." (Gen 2:21-25)

That is all the evidence I need. I don't expect that it will mean much to you but you did ask for "biblical evidence".

What version is this? I just looked up a few different versions and it stated nothing about them being married. Also even within your verses it states that they became man and wife not that god married them. Though I also find it strange that even if it explicitly stated that he married them this is in no way the way it has been done since then.

Since Jesus spoke about the first man and woman, I have no reason to believe that they were fictitious.

"Matthew 19:4-6 "In reply he said: “Have you not read that the one who created them from the beginning made them male and female 5 and said: ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’? 6 So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together, let no man put apart.”

I believe that these words still form part of some people's marriage vows.

His expression, "have you not read" is obviously referring to the Hebrew Scriptures which is where the account about Adam and his wife are recorded. Since God is the one who "yokes together" two people who are viewed by him as "one flesh", the yoking is not two people of the same sex. Males and females are anatomically "made" for each other. Couples of the same sex are not. So sexual acts between these are not "natural" but perverted. (unnatural) The intent of the sexual act between a man and his wife was to produce children. The fact that it was pleasurable, was a bonus, not the exclusive reason to engage in it.

None of Jesus's words indicated he was against homosexuality. He was speaking on the bond between a married couple. Though he referenced the Hebrew scripture which means he indicated that they were being used as a parable much like his other messages. Do you really think all of the parables that Jesus spoke about were real stories from actual people? Or were they made up to make his point?

It is relevant because getting married was not always a formal ceremony. God did not perform a marriage ceremony with Adam and Eve.....he simply brought her to the man.

This is somewhat to my point. Marriages have only recently become a public thing. Whoever you were with was your wife/husband. Homosexuals did the same thing. Its not new.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

We are all free to make our own choices about those works, for our own reasons......or to reject all of them as you have done.

Since God is the one who "draws" people to his son, (John 6:44) by reading their hearts, (discerning their thoughts and attitudes) that eliminates those who want to do things their way or who want to ditch any notion of a Creator altogether. These ones will not even get a foot in the door. They won't know a thing until it's too late....just like the people of Noah's day. (Matt24:36-39)

So if there is a God and the Bible is correct, that we will each account to him for the life we have chosen to live, then it would be remiss of him not to warn us about that, wouldn't you say? He has sent his messengers out with that warning, but he already knows that the majority will not listen. But they are given opportunity none the less.

God is not forcing any of us to do anything, but he will demand an accounting. Have you thought about what that might mean for you, should the Bible actually be a work inspired by him? Dismiss it as nonsense if you want to.....I'm just putting it out there.

What does this exactly have to do with my sarcastic post that was meant to show you that the bible isn't anything special by any objective means. There is no shortage of holy books that have impressive backings from followers who all claim it is god's truth. How do you know that the bible is real? Is it because god spoke to you? Do you not believe that people in other religions have the exact same experiences? Are their experiences somehow less real than your own?

 

[sojourner]

The Bible does set the standard for marriage

No. It doesn't. Marriage was around long before the bible was written. Hebraic marriage was around long before the bible was written.

even the words of Jesus Christ himself...

We don't know with any degree of certainty what "Jesus himself" said.

"And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”
(Matt 19:4-6 NASB) Male and female...man and wife, yoked together by God....marriage.

Is that Jesus talking? Or is it the writer of Matthew having Jesus, as a character in his story, say that?

Marriage is God's arrangement.....as Jesus said.

The whole biblical idea of marriage is wrapped up in cultural ideas that we discard, such as rape victims having to marry their rapist, because they are now "one flesh." It's wrapped in an understanding that being oriented toward the same sex is impossible -- which we now know simply isn't the case.

When you yoke two animals together, you place them as a team, working together to get a job done. The man and his wife are yoked together as a team in marriage.

And the biblical understanding is that the work to be done is "making babies." The "wasting of a man's seed" was a pretty big offense in that world. But when we live in an overpopulated world, in which various usurping powers aren't trying to "breed the Hebrew out of us," the impetus to immediately start popping out puppies isn't so wrapped up in the act of marriage.

What on earth are you talking about?

Biblical marriage, of course. Didn't you know that rape victims had to marry their rapist? Didn't you know that marriages were arranged, and that underage girls were married off? Didn't you know that the husband had full control of his wives (plural) and concubines legally? Where have you been when they talked about the bible in bible study?

God did not introduce polygamy or concubinage or surrogacy in Israel, but they were tolerated for a time and the women were protected under the law.

Uh huh. That's why those things were part of the same corpus of law that says "homosexuality bad!" You insist that the "homosexuality bad!" part is immutable, but the part that says girls have to marry their rapist is not. Why is that? It's all either good or it's not. Right?

Ishmael was produced by surrogacy but he was not the seed through whom the Messiah was said to come. Isaac had that role, the legitimate son of Abraham and his wife.

You, of course, realize that the whole story is just that -- a mythic tale -- and not actual history? It makes a theological -- not a legal -- point. You further note that 1) Hagar was a slave, and 2) Abraham wasn't condemned for going against God's mandate of "one man/one woman." So why are you so quick to have God condemn homosexuals?

I said "the standard for marriage", not its legal basis under the laws of the land.

And you will note that it is the state -- not the church -- who issues the standard for who may be granted a license. In many states and countries, that standard includes homosexuals.

If the law was to introduce a legally recognized marriage between same sex couples, that does not justify those who claim to be Christians to break God's laws on marriage.

Of course it does. Same as Christians justify eating shellfish and wearing 50/50 cotton/poly shirts and not keeping Kosher.

God would not recognize such a marriage no matter what the law said. Man's law does not override God's law.

Of course God would, because God always recognizes love. God allowed God's Self to be killed according to Roman law. Jesus said for us to abide by the laws of the land.

God does not leave us to "think" about any of it. His standards are stated very clearly in the scriptures.

Apparently not, because it seems everyone has a different opinion about what God's standards are. Does God condone slavery? Subjugation of women? Racial discrimination? Some believe so. Some believe that God doesn't love some human beings or care about some of them.

It is not "dictating" to anyone to tell them what God's word says

It is when one insists that one's interpretation is the ONLY valid interpretation.

do you have a problem with God's word?

I have a problem with what some insist "God's word" to be.

Do you "officiate" at weddings in the capacity of a civil celebrant or as clergy in a church? If it is the latter, then your posts are very telling.

Choice B. And yes, my posts state very clearly that I side on the side of love, compassion, fairness, equality, inclusion, welcome, openness, reason, the dynamic of God working through humanity -- not dictating to humanity. I operate out of a stance that when the bible says we were created "very good," that's what the bible means, and that people are capable of doing the best they can -- that that's good enough for God, and that God endorses our attempts to love freely. God doesn't have to make us toe some narrow line in order to be "good enough." I operate out of love for God -- not fear of God.

But you'd rather hide in your little corner and insist that the rest of the world follow suit.

Are you playing Russian Roulette with the word of God? Jesus' words do not mean that he sacrificed his life for law breakers.

Of course he did. All sin, do they not? (BTW: do you keep all the law -- or just the part that says "homosexuality bad!"?)

Those who claim to be Christian but who flout the laws of God will have no part with Jesus. (Matt 7:21-23) We don't get to dictate our own terms in worship.....or marriage.

And yet... that's precisely what you do: dictate the terms you *believe* are correct, and flout the ones you *believe* are not.

Jesus' sacrifice was offered for the sin of Adam, thereby releasing his children from their inheritance of sin and death. (Rom 5:12)
He did not die to justify willful and deliberate sins committed by us....we pay for those ourselves......you know "the wages of sin...."?

IOW, the whole "...and [Jesus] is the perfect offering for our sin, and not for ours only, but for the sin of the whole world" thing is a lie.

Are you yourself gay sojourner?

Nope. I'm just a guy who's happily married to my wife, and defends wholeheartedly my call to bring good news to the oppressed, to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and release to the prisoners, and to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor. I defend the biblical values of love, justice, compassion, mercy, forbearance, equity, and fairness for all people.

Is that why there is so much sarcasm in your replies?

The sarcasm comes from dealing with people who twist the bible to promote indifference, entitlement, ambivalence, harshness, legalism, judgmentalism, and oppression.

Good grief......you know the more I dialogue with you, the more I find that you are far from the teachings of Christ, yet you pretend to know him.

I know a Jesus who is honest, fair, loving, compassionate, kind, forbearing, gentle. A Jesus who welcomes the outcast, includes the disenfranchised, stands in the midst of the marginalized, lifts up the lowly, and does not for one minute tolerate the systemic violence of discrimination based upon "biblical belief."

What Jesus do you know?

Would you like to write your own Bible. I'm sure it would suit you much better than the one you ignore now.

That's funny. I'm not the one ignoring the fact that the bible doesn't condemn homosexuality.