Jehovah's Witnesses persecuted in Bulgaria (Graphic) | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1269039 United States 04/21/2011 03:39 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | It is mind boggling to think there are actually people who have values, who read, believe, and follow the Word of God. Incomprehensible to the lesser of us, isn't it? That said, a person does NOT have to die by not having blood. There are safer alternatives. Google, that bronze age ignoramus, will enlighten you. That's funny... 99% of the people that "read, believe, and follow the Word of God" think that blood transfusions are OK. But Jehovahs Witnesses, that's a different story, isn't it? How many times do I need to tell you, you mallet head; that I had a family member die in spite of the so called alternatives. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1317855 United States 04/21/2011 03:41 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1269039Blood is a body fluid not a SIN, you dipshit. If you lose enough of it, you will die. Read your first sentence again. A body fluid. Even a VET can replace body fluids with blood substitutes.....dipshit. Obviously he didn't read about safer substitutes. Even most doctors won't take blood and go the way of bloodless surgery. They aren't idiots but will push it on others. They have seen how blood can also kill and make someone very sick. So many safer alternatives could be used. But the witnesses can use hemoglobin and blood fractions that are not whole blood. Whole blood is rarely ever used. As I mentioned before, I had a family member die because of a lack of real blood which would have saved him easily. However, they tried all the things you mentioned, but they don't deliver the oxygen that whole blood does, not even close. Furthermore, what fucking religious and moral sense does it make to allow fractions of someone else's real blood, but not their whole blood? What kind of head bangin'bat shit nonsense is that? That's like saying that a hamburger isn't really a hamburger until is has ketchup on it. You would need to do research on what whole blood is, what blood components are and what fractions are and how each are used by the body. BTW, hemoglobin will deliver oxygen. [link to en.wikipedia.org] |
Nine's User ID: 1140990 United States 04/21/2011 03:44 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1269039Blood is a body fluid not a SIN, you dipshit. If you lose enough of it, you will die. Read your first sentence again. A body fluid. Even a VET can replace body fluids with blood substitutes.....dipshit. Obviously he didn't read about safer substitutes. Even most doctors won't take blood and go the way of bloodless surgery. They aren't idiots but will push it on others. They have seen how blood can also kill and make someone very sick. So many safer alternatives could be used. But the witnesses can use hemoglobin and blood fractions that are not whole blood. Whole blood is rarely ever used. As I mentioned before, I had a family member die because of a lack of real blood which would have saved him easily. However, they tried all the things you mentioned, but they don't deliver the oxygen that whole blood does, not even close. Furthermore, what fucking religious and moral sense does it make to allow fractions of someone else's real blood, but not their whole blood? What kind of head bangin'bat shit nonsense is that? That's like saying that a hamburger isn't really a hamburger until is has ketchup on it. I'm sorry about your family member, but they could just have easily been added to this 35,000. The 35,000 listed for serum hepatitis. This doesn't count the other transfusion deaths: To return directly to the question - How often does death by blood transfusion occur? It’s difficult to say. Remember, "The Centers for Disease Control estimates that as many as 35,000 deaths and 500,000 illnesses a year may be due to the presence of serum hepatits in blood for transfusions." [link to www.mybloodsite.com] |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1317855 United States 04/21/2011 03:48 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | It is mind boggling to think there are actually people who have values, who read, believe, and follow the Word of God. Incomprehensible to the lesser of us, isn't it? That said, a person does NOT have to die by not having blood. There are safer alternatives. Google, that bronze age ignoramus, will enlighten you. That's funny... 99% of the people that "read, believe, and follow the Word of God" think that blood transfusions are OK. But Jehovahs Witnesses, that's a different story, isn't it? How many times do I need to tell you, you mallet head; that I had a family member die in spite of the so called alternatives. I am sorry for your loss. But the JW's are trying to follow the Bible no matter how crazy their beliefs seem to others. But they have revolutionized bloodless surgery and safer alternatives to blood transfusions that we wouldn't have if not for their stance. Early Christians died in the arenas because they would not eat blood sausage. Christians take stands that sometimes means the loss of their life. People die for their beliefs all the time(look at all the wars going on and blood being shed) but the witnesses do have the hope of the resurrection promised by Jesus and again they are not out there shedding blood on the battlefield like many others who profess being Christians are. Will the Dead Live Again [link to www.watchtower.org] |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1317855 United States 04/21/2011 03:50 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Nine's 1140990Read your first sentence again. A body fluid. Even a VET can replace body fluids with blood substitutes.....dipshit. Obviously he didn't read about safer substitutes. Even most doctors won't take blood and go the way of bloodless surgery. They aren't idiots but will push it on others. They have seen how blood can also kill and make someone very sick. So many safer alternatives could be used. But the witnesses can use hemoglobin and blood fractions that are not whole blood. Whole blood is rarely ever used. As I mentioned before, I had a family member die because of a lack of real blood which would have saved him easily. However, they tried all the things you mentioned, but they don't deliver the oxygen that whole blood does, not even close. Furthermore, what fucking religious and moral sense does it make to allow fractions of someone else's real blood, but not their whole blood? What kind of head bangin'bat shit nonsense is that? That's like saying that a hamburger isn't really a hamburger until is has ketchup on it. I'm sorry about your family member, but they could just have easily been added to this 35,000. The 35,000 listed for serum hepatitis. This doesn't count the other transfusion deaths: To return directly to the question - How often does death by blood transfusion occur? It’s difficult to say. Remember, "The Centers for Disease Control estimates that as many as 35,000 deaths and 500,000 illnesses a year may be due to the presence of serum hepatits in blood for transfusions." [link to www.mybloodsite.com] Thanks for the link! |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1269039 United States 04/21/2011 03:50 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Nine's 1140990Read your first sentence again. A body fluid. Even a VET can replace body fluids with blood substitutes.....dipshit. Obviously he didn't read about safer substitutes. Even most doctors won't take blood and go the way of bloodless surgery. They aren't idiots but will push it on others. They have seen how blood can also kill and make someone very sick. So many safer alternatives could be used. But the witnesses can use hemoglobin and blood fractions that are not whole blood. Whole blood is rarely ever used. As I mentioned before, I had a family member die because of a lack of real blood which would have saved him easily. However, they tried all the things you mentioned, but they don't deliver the oxygen that whole blood does, not even close. Furthermore, what fucking religious and moral sense does it make to allow fractions of someone else's real blood, but not their whole blood? What kind of head bangin'bat shit nonsense is that? That's like saying that a hamburger isn't really a hamburger until is has ketchup on it. You would need to do research on what whole blood is, what blood components are and what fractions are and how each are used by the body. BTW, hemoglobin will deliver oxygen. [link to en.wikipedia.org] What's the fucking object? To save someone's life? Or to satisfy brother Knorr's interpretation of some bronze age drivel? How is it that Watch Tower Society allows organ transplants, but not blood transfusions? How is that safe? If you're not afraid of someones else's organs that contain virtually every component of blood possible, then what in hell are you actually trying to avoid by not taking a blood transfusion? JWs blather on about all the diseases that someone can get from someone else's blood, but you don't seemed too concerned that the hazard is 10 times worse with an organ transplant! |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1106916 United States 04/21/2011 03:52 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1269039 United States 04/21/2011 03:54 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | It is mind boggling to think there are actually people who have values, who read, believe, and follow the Word of God. Incomprehensible to the lesser of us, isn't it? That said, a person does NOT have to die by not having blood. There are safer alternatives. Google, that bronze age ignoramus, will enlighten you. That's funny... 99% of the people that "read, believe, and follow the Word of God" think that blood transfusions are OK. But Jehovahs Witnesses, that's a different story, isn't it? How many times do I need to tell you, you mallet head; that I had a family member die in spite of the so called alternatives. I am sorry for your loss. But the JW's are trying to follow the Bible no matter how crazy their beliefs seem to others. But they have revolutionized bloodless surgery and safer alternatives to blood transfusions that we wouldn't have if not for their stance. Early Christians died in the arenas because they would not eat blood sausage. Christians take stands that sometimes means the loss of their life. People die for their beliefs all the time(look at all the wars going on and blood being shed) but the witnesses do have the hope of the resurrection promised by Jesus and again they are not out there shedding blood on the battlefield like many others who profess being Christians are. Will the Dead Live Again [link to www.watchtower.org] There is a big difference between dying for cause and dying for abject stupidity. If you people had a clue how fraudulent the so called "holy scriptures" are, you certainly wouldn't be "dying" for them. |
Nine's User ID: 1140990 United States 04/21/2011 03:54 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | It is mind boggling to think there are actually people who have values, who read, believe, and follow the Word of God. Incomprehensible to the lesser of us, isn't it? That said, a person does NOT have to die by not having blood. There are safer alternatives. Google, that bronze age ignoramus, will enlighten you. That's funny... 99% of the people that "read, believe, and follow the Word of God" think that blood transfusions are OK. But Jehovahs Witnesses, that's a different story, isn't it? How many times do I need to tell you, you mallet head; that I had a family member die in spite of the so called alternatives. If the JW's are right on the blood issue, that only leaves 1 percent that follows the Word then, doesn't it? Regardless of whether they are right or wrong, your family member made a choice. A choice I'm sure they are proud to have made. Why can't you give them respect for not only living what they believe, but dying for it? The JW's in that building who were attacked, had nothing to do with your relative dying. They were going about their peaceable business. No one should be attacked for going about their peaceful business. They should also not be blamed for your relative's choice. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1317855 United States 04/21/2011 03:55 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1317855Obviously he didn't read about safer substitutes. Even most doctors won't take blood and go the way of bloodless surgery. They aren't idiots but will push it on others. They have seen how blood can also kill and make someone very sick. So many safer alternatives could be used. But the witnesses can use hemoglobin and blood fractions that are not whole blood. Whole blood is rarely ever used. As I mentioned before, I had a family member die because of a lack of real blood which would have saved him easily. However, they tried all the things you mentioned, but they don't deliver the oxygen that whole blood does, not even close. Furthermore, what fucking religious and moral sense does it make to allow fractions of someone else's real blood, but not their whole blood? What kind of head bangin'bat shit nonsense is that? That's like saying that a hamburger isn't really a hamburger until is has ketchup on it. You would need to do research on what whole blood is, what blood components are and what fractions are and how each are used by the body. BTW, hemoglobin will deliver oxygen. [link to en.wikipedia.org] What's the fucking object? To save someone's life? Or to satisfy brother Knorr's interpretation of some bronze age drivel? How is it that Watch Tower Society allows organ transplants, but not blood transfusions? How is that safe? If you're not afraid of someones else's organs that contain virtually every component of blood possible, then what in hell are you actually trying to avoid by not taking a blood transfusion? JWs blather on about all the diseases that someone can get from someone else's blood, but you don't seemed too concerned that the hazard is 10 times worse with an organ transplant! There is nothing specific in the bible about organ transplants. But even transplants don't work many times. The body tries to reject it and you have to be on meds. And we don't have to have an organ transplant if we don't want to because they are risky. This is a conscience matter. |
Nine's User ID: 1140990 United States 04/21/2011 03:56 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1317855Obviously he didn't read about safer substitutes. Even most doctors won't take blood and go the way of bloodless surgery. They aren't idiots but will push it on others. They have seen how blood can also kill and make someone very sick. So many safer alternatives could be used. But the witnesses can use hemoglobin and blood fractions that are not whole blood. Whole blood is rarely ever used. As I mentioned before, I had a family member die because of a lack of real blood which would have saved him easily. However, they tried all the things you mentioned, but they don't deliver the oxygen that whole blood does, not even close. Furthermore, what fucking religious and moral sense does it make to allow fractions of someone else's real blood, but not their whole blood? What kind of head bangin'bat shit nonsense is that? That's like saying that a hamburger isn't really a hamburger until is has ketchup on it. I'm sorry about your family member, but they could just have easily been added to this 35,000. The 35,000 listed for serum hepatitis. This doesn't count the other transfusion deaths: To return directly to the question - How often does death by blood transfusion occur? It’s difficult to say. Remember, "The Centers for Disease Control estimates that as many as 35,000 deaths and 500,000 illnesses a year may be due to the presence of serum hepatits in blood for transfusions." [link to www.mybloodsite.com] Thanks for the link! You're very welcome! |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1106916 United States 04/21/2011 03:56 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | It is mind boggling to think there are actually people who have values, who read, believe, and follow the Word of God. Incomprehensible to the lesser of us, isn't it? That said, a person does NOT have to die by not having blood. There are safer alternatives. Google, that bronze age ignoramus, will enlighten you. That's funny... 99% of the people that "read, believe, and follow the Word of God" think that blood transfusions are OK. But Jehovahs Witnesses, that's a different story, isn't it? How many times do I need to tell you, you mallet head; that I had a family member die in spite of the so called alternatives. If the JW's are right on the blood issue, that only leaves 1 percent that follows the Word then, doesn't it? Regardless of whether they are right or wrong, your family member made a choice. A choice I'm sure they are proud to have made. Why can't you give them respect for not only living what they believe, but dying for it? The JW's in that building who were attacked, had nothing to do with your relative dying. They were going about their peaceable business. No one should be attacked for going about their peaceful business. They should also not be blamed for your relative's choice. They are not right on the blood issue in my opinion. I believe that the Bible was addressing pagan ceremonies where they drank blood as part of pagan rituals. What does that have to do with someone getting a blood transfusion to save their life? Nothing. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1269039 United States 04/21/2011 03:58 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians and they should be free to worship the way that they want. Quoting: Lisa*LisaExcept when they destroy otherwise healthy family structures, subvert free and open minded thought, and allow innocent children to bleed to death. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1317855 United States 04/21/2011 03:58 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | It is mind boggling to think there are actually people who have values, who read, believe, and follow the Word of God. Incomprehensible to the lesser of us, isn't it? That said, a person does NOT have to die by not having blood. There are safer alternatives. Google, that bronze age ignoramus, will enlighten you. That's funny... 99% of the people that "read, believe, and follow the Word of God" think that blood transfusions are OK. But Jehovahs Witnesses, that's a different story, isn't it? How many times do I need to tell you, you mallet head; that I had a family member die in spite of the so called alternatives. I am sorry for your loss. But the JW's are trying to follow the Bible no matter how crazy their beliefs seem to others. But they have revolutionized bloodless surgery and safer alternatives to blood transfusions that we wouldn't have if not for their stance. Early Christians died in the arenas because they would not eat blood sausage. Christians take stands that sometimes means the loss of their life. People die for their beliefs all the time(look at all the wars going on and blood being shed) but the witnesses do have the hope of the resurrection promised by Jesus and again they are not out there shedding blood on the battlefield like many others who profess being Christians are. Will the Dead Live Again [link to www.watchtower.org] There is a big difference between dying for cause and dying for abject stupidity. If you people had a clue how fraudulent the so called "holy scriptures" are, you certainly wouldn't be "dying" for them. One person's cause is another's stupidity. By not going to war you end up saving your life and the lives of others you might have taken. There is no cause for most of these wars if not all of these wars. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1106916 United States 04/21/2011 03:58 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians and they should be free to worship the way that they want. Quoting: Lisa*LisaExcept when they destroy otherwise healthy family structures, subvert free and open minded thought, and allow innocent children to bleed to death. Yea, that's true too. |
Nine's User ID: 1140990 United States 04/21/2011 04:00 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | It is mind boggling to think there are actually people who have values, who read, believe, and follow the Word of God. Incomprehensible to the lesser of us, isn't it? That said, a person does NOT have to die by not having blood. There are safer alternatives. Google, that bronze age ignoramus, will enlighten you. That's funny... 99% of the people that "read, believe, and follow the Word of God" think that blood transfusions are OK. But Jehovahs Witnesses, that's a different story, isn't it? How many times do I need to tell you, you mallet head; that I had a family member die in spite of the so called alternatives. If the JW's are right on the blood issue, that only leaves 1 percent that follows the Word then, doesn't it? Regardless of whether they are right or wrong, your family member made a choice. A choice I'm sure they are proud to have made. Why can't you give them respect for not only living what they believe, but dying for it? The JW's in that building who were attacked, had nothing to do with your relative dying. They were going about their peaceable business. No one should be attacked for going about their peaceful business. They should also not be blamed for your relative's choice. They are not right on the blood issue in my opinion. I believe that the Bible was addressing pagan ceremonies where they drank blood as part of pagan rituals. What does that have to do with someone getting a blood transfusion to save their life? Nothing. By the same token, what does blood transfusion have to do with peaceful law abiding people going about their business, being attacked? Nothing. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1269039 United States 04/21/2011 04:03 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | What's the fucking object? To save someone's life? Or to satisfy brother Knorr's interpretation of some bronze age drivel? How is it that Watch Tower Society allows organ transplants, but not blood transfusions? How is that safe? If you're not afraid of someones else's organs that contain virtually every component of blood possible, then what in hell are you actually trying to avoid by not taking a blood transfusion? JWs blather on about all the diseases that someone can get from someone else's blood, but you don't seemed too concerned that the hazard is 10 times worse with an organ transplant! There is nothing specific in the bible about organ transplants. But even transplants don't work many times. The body tries to reject it and you have to be on meds. And we don't have to have an organ transplant if we don't want to because they are risky. This is a conscience matter. Let me see, I think I'm starting to get it. You don't take whole blood because it's "risky," but it's OK to have an organ transplant even though it's "risky." Thanks for clearing that up. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1317855 United States 04/21/2011 04:04 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | It is mind boggling to think there are actually people who have values, who read, believe, and follow the Word of God. Incomprehensible to the lesser of us, isn't it? That said, a person does NOT have to die by not having blood. There are safer alternatives. Google, that bronze age ignoramus, will enlighten you. That's funny... 99% of the people that "read, believe, and follow the Word of God" think that blood transfusions are OK. But Jehovahs Witnesses, that's a different story, isn't it? How many times do I need to tell you, you mallet head; that I had a family member die in spite of the so called alternatives. If the JW's are right on the blood issue, that only leaves 1 percent that follows the Word then, doesn't it? Regardless of whether they are right or wrong, your family member made a choice. A choice I'm sure they are proud to have made. Why can't you give them respect for not only living what they believe, but dying for it? The JW's in that building who were attacked, had nothing to do with your relative dying. They were going about their peaceable business. No one should be attacked for going about their peaceful business. They should also not be blamed for your relative's choice. They are not right on the blood issue in my opinion. I believe that the Bible was addressing pagan ceremonies where they drank blood as part of pagan rituals. What does that have to do with someone getting a blood transfusion to save their life? Nothing. Because JW's believe taking blood into the mouth is used to sustain life just like taking it into the veins. They don't accept whole blood but other alternatives including hemoglobin and a myriad of other procedures. Leviticus 17:10 And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people. 11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. 12 Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood. 13 And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust. 14 For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off. In the old testament there was a ban on eating fat as well. But in the new testament only the ban on eating the blood was kept. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1046584 Canada 04/21/2011 04:06 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | You're right. Instead they should elevate themselves to the piety of the rest of christendom. Mame, murder, steal, rape, torture and go to war like rest proclaiming to be servants of Jesus. Our lord and savior.. pass the ammunition. At least those refusing transplants are only hurting themsleves. Of course the families will be greatly plained, but its a hell of alot better that killing and causing pain to other's like the rest of christendom. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1317855 United States 04/21/2011 04:07 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | What's the fucking object? To save someone's life? Or to satisfy brother Knorr's interpretation of some bronze age drivel? How is it that Watch Tower Society allows organ transplants, but not blood transfusions? How is that safe? If you're not afraid of someones else's organs that contain virtually every component of blood possible, then what in hell are you actually trying to avoid by not taking a blood transfusion? JWs blather on about all the diseases that someone can get from someone else's blood, but you don't seemed too concerned that the hazard is 10 times worse with an organ transplant! There is nothing specific in the bible about organ transplants. But even transplants don't work many times. The body tries to reject it and you have to be on meds. And we don't have to have an organ transplant if we don't want to because they are risky. This is a conscience matter. Let me see, I think I'm starting to get it. You don't take whole blood because it's "risky," but it's OK to have an organ transplant even though it's "risky." Thanks for clearing that up. No, the ban on blood is in the bible. that is why JW's don't take it. there is no ban on organ transplants in the bible. Both are risky but we can choose weather to take an organ transplant or not. God just said no blood. There are plenty of people who won't take blood because of the risks but JW's stance is because of the Bible. Not the risks. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1269039 United States 04/21/2011 04:07 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | By the same token, what does blood transfusion have to do with peaceful law abiding people going about their business, being attacked? Nothing. In Bulgaria it is against the law to allow a child to bleed to death by preventing a blood transfusion. That does not make them "peaceful law abiding people," it makes them crimminals. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1317855 United States 04/21/2011 04:07 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | You're right. Instead they should elevate themselves to the piety of the rest of christendom. Mame, murder, steal, rape, torture and go to war like rest proclaiming to be servants of Jesus. Our lord and savior.. pass the ammunition. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1046584At least those refusing transplants are only hurting themsleves. Of course the families will be greatly plained, but its a hell of alot better that killing and causing pain to other's like the rest of christendom. true |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1317855 United States 04/21/2011 04:10 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1269039That's funny... 99% of the people that "read, believe, and follow the Word of God" think that blood transfusions are OK. But Jehovahs Witnesses, that's a different story, isn't it? How many times do I need to tell you, you mallet head; that I had a family member die in spite of the so called alternatives. If the JW's are right on the blood issue, that only leaves 1 percent that follows the Word then, doesn't it? Regardless of whether they are right or wrong, your family member made a choice. A choice I'm sure they are proud to have made. Why can't you give them respect for not only living what they believe, but dying for it? The JW's in that building who were attacked, had nothing to do with your relative dying. They were going about their peaceable business. No one should be attacked for going about their peaceful business. They should also not be blamed for your relative's choice. They are not right on the blood issue in my opinion. I believe that the Bible was addressing pagan ceremonies where they drank blood as part of pagan rituals. What does that have to do with someone getting a blood transfusion to save their life? Nothing. By the same token, what does blood transfusion have to do with peaceful law abiding people going about their business, being attacked? Nothing. Yep, you have one group of Christians who will not take blood who are peaceful people and another group who call themselves Christian trying to shed their blood. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1046584 Canada 04/21/2011 04:13 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | By the same token, what does blood transfusion have to do with peaceful law abiding people going about their business, being attacked? Nothing. In Bulgaria it is against the law to allow a child to bleed to death by preventing a blood transfusion. That does not make them "peaceful law abiding people," it makes them crimminals. User: 1269039, you are grasping here. Please, forgive your family member who took their own life by following their faith and conviction. Please, remember how lucky we are for having the freedom to even make the choice. Mandatory medical treatment is very bad. If it starts with transfusion it won't end at vacinactions. |
Nine's User ID: 1140990 United States 04/21/2011 04:14 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | By the same token, what does blood transfusion have to do with peaceful law abiding people going about their business, being attacked? Nothing. In Bulgaria it is against the law to allow a child to bleed to death by preventing a blood transfusion. That does not make them "peaceful law abiding people," it makes them crimminals. There were children bleeding to death in the film? I saw no children. I noticed MEN were at the door. It appeared that children and women were not "in the line of fire." How quaint those "crimminals" are. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1106916 United States 04/21/2011 04:16 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1269039That's funny... 99% of the people that "read, believe, and follow the Word of God" think that blood transfusions are OK. But Jehovahs Witnesses, that's a different story, isn't it? How many times do I need to tell you, you mallet head; that I had a family member die in spite of the so called alternatives. If the JW's are right on the blood issue, that only leaves 1 percent that follows the Word then, doesn't it? Regardless of whether they are right or wrong, your family member made a choice. A choice I'm sure they are proud to have made. Why can't you give them respect for not only living what they believe, but dying for it? The JW's in that building who were attacked, had nothing to do with your relative dying. They were going about their peaceable business. No one should be attacked for going about their peaceful business. They should also not be blamed for your relative's choice. They are not right on the blood issue in my opinion. I believe that the Bible was addressing pagan ceremonies where they drank blood as part of pagan rituals. What does that have to do with someone getting a blood transfusion to save their life? Nothing. Because JW's believe taking blood into the mouth is used to sustain life just like taking it into the veins. They don't accept whole blood but other alternatives including hemoglobin and a myriad of other procedures. Leviticus 17:10 And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people. 11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. 12 Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood. 13 And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust. 14 For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off. In the old testament there was a ban on eating fat as well. But in the new testament only the ban on eating the blood was kept. Funny that they hold that to the letter, but they don't observe the sabbath........one of the 10 commandments. Go figure. |
Nine's User ID: 1140990 United States 04/21/2011 04:16 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Nine's 1140990If the JW's are right on the blood issue, that only leaves 1 percent that follows the Word then, doesn't it? Regardless of whether they are right or wrong, your family member made a choice. A choice I'm sure they are proud to have made. Why can't you give them respect for not only living what they believe, but dying for it? The JW's in that building who were attacked, had nothing to do with your relative dying. They were going about their peaceable business. No one should be attacked for going about their peaceful business. They should also not be blamed for your relative's choice. They are not right on the blood issue in my opinion. I believe that the Bible was addressing pagan ceremonies where they drank blood as part of pagan rituals. What does that have to do with someone getting a blood transfusion to save their life? Nothing. By the same token, what does blood transfusion have to do with peaceful law abiding people going about their business, being attacked? Nothing. Yep, you have one group of Christians who will not take blood who are peaceful people and another group who call themselves Christian trying to shed their blood. That's the truth! How ironic. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1269039 United States 04/21/2011 04:18 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | No, the ban on blood is in the bible. that is why JW's don't take it. there is no ban on organ transplants in the bible. Both are risky but we can choose weather to take an organ transplant or not. God just said no blood. There are plenty of people who won't take blood because of the risks but JW's stance is because of the Bible. Not the risks. Great! You're now admitting that the REAL reason JWs refuse blood transfusions isn't because it's unhealthy, like organ transplants, it's because you think it's prohibited in a bronze age book of myth? Right? So, since the ancient zealots didn't have a clue of what an organ transplant or a blood transfusion was, more than 2000 years ago, you confidently assume that they knew that their favorite god "Jehovah" was OK with organ transplants, but not blood transfusions? Just stop and think for a minute... oh, never mind... I forgot that you're not allowed to do that. |
Nine's User ID: 1140990 United States 04/21/2011 04:22 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Lisa*LisaThey are not right on the blood issue in my opinion. I believe that the Bible was addressing pagan ceremonies where they drank blood as part of pagan rituals. What does that have to do with someone getting a blood transfusion to save their life? Nothing. By the same token, what does blood transfusion have to do with peaceful law abiding people going about their business, being attacked? Nothing. Yep, you have one group of Christians who will not take blood who are peaceful people and another group who call themselves Christian trying to shed their blood. That's the truth! How ironic. At this point, it's casting pearls before swine. The issue of innocent people being attacked has been sidetracked by nitpicking and paybacks for supposed wrongs. It's been interesting, and an eye opener for what the future holds. Time for everyone to evaluate how they'd react, and whether they'd stand by and allow this to happen. If this thread is any indication, it doesn't bode well for "true" Christians. Got work to do. You guys have a good day. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1341172 United States 04/21/2011 04:22 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |