The same book of Acts that is the cause of all this blood nonsense is the same one that has the Apostle Peter striking a man and his wife dead for withholding some of their OWN MONEY instead of giving it to the church. Why waste time with this "genius" who obviously also believes in talking snakes and asses?
Inviting djeggnog to discuss the blood doctrine
by jgnat 317 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
jgnat
I’m pulling my feminine card, going back on my word, and caving to the temptation to have the last say. About “experts”. Neither reading books or adept internet searches alone will make a person an expert.
[An expert is one] who by virtue of education, training, skill, or experience, is believed to have expertise and specialised knowledge in a particular subject beyond that of the average person, sufficient that others may officially and legally rely upon the witness's specialized (scientific, technical or other) opinion about an evidence or fact issue within the scope of his expertise.
Do I need to be an expert to know that blood transfusions save lives? I don’t. All I need to do is find sufficient evidence; which I have. Way back at the beginning of this discussion I asked you to judge me based on the quality of the questions I asked. I’m not entirely sure you understand the value of a well-phrased question over pontification.
I'm thinking that what @jgnat was really saying is that he regarded the two of you as being experts on the life-saving properties of blood, which is interesting.(djeggnog)
Besides the annoying ignorance of my gender, you misunderstood me. My quote, which you stated right afterwards, was "both became experts in their loved-one's diseases," I stand by this. When a loved-one is critically ill, we learn all we can about the disease. They know more about the diseases than the average person, and they certainly know more than you; library card notwithstanding.
Thank you for reminding me of your initial interest,
"viability of bloodless surgery as an alternative to accepting blood transfusions," I had pointed out to you that "absolutely no sane person would ever voluntarily agree to undertake any medical procedure where there might be any degree of risk to the patient,"(djeggnog)
You haven’t discussed bloodless surgery at all. Posters have provided examples where this alternative would not save lives. I am grateful for the additional research this discussion inspired, as I learned of the untapped potential to save many more lives in the third world through blood transfusions; especially women in childbirth and anaemic infants.
I’ve discussed the concept of risk at length. Every sane person takes risks daily. It’s assessment of risk that counts – is the risk worth it? So I think I have sufficiently debunked that statement.
-
jgnat
Oh, and about applying blood transfusions to the biblical admonition to abstain from blood. Jehovah's Witnesses may have never changed their mind about this, but they are the first Christians in 1,874 years to interpret the scripture this way. No Jewish scholars or Muslim scholars have interpreted the blood prohibition this way either.
All three religions declare blood a sacred symbol of life, and treat it with due respect. Orthodox Jews and Muslims bleed their meat. Orthodox Christians soberly drink wine in a memorial of Jesus' blood sacrifice. Jehovah's Witnesses eat bloody meat, pass on the wine, and refuse potentially life-saving blood transfusions, though they will sometimes accept manufactured fractions of the same.
Who of these groups most honor and reverence the sanctity of life and it's symbol, blood?
-
mrsjones5
You're a patient and kind woman Jgnat
-
Mary
eggnog, I'm still waiting for an answer to my question: Why did Jehovah allow the Isrealites to sell unbled meat to foreigners if the command to not eat meat with blood in it was 'binding on all mankind' as the Organization claims?
djeggnog said: I don't get why @Mary concluded that "a blood transfusion would have saved the life of my brother had he not been so concerned about being shunned by his 'cult' for doing so,"
For someone who claims to be an "expert" on the subject, you either don't get it (or simply pretend to don't get it). As I already explained: he needed blood transfusions to keep all of his counts up and especially for the oxygen levels that the lungs require. I spoke to an Oncologist at another hospital after my b-i-l died and he explained that when you go for a long period of time without enough oxygen circulating, the cells in your lungs will eventually begin to die off and you'll end up having a heart attack. In a nutshell, he was suffocating to death. Why? Because this cult refuses to allow blood transfusions. It's that simple.
-
dgp
Luvnyall, yes, I know many questions go unanswered. I just happen to feel that I have the man by the balls. I want to see him wrestle his way out of it. Call me "A pain in the ass" if you want.
JGNat: .
-
skeeter1
He wrote, "Concerning the two of you, @jgnat went on to say that "both became experts in their loved-one's diseases," to which I replied that "I am an expert," but what I did not say was that I'm not the kind of expert that becomes such by merely observing the human condition. No, I became an expert by (1) listening to the experiences of others -- experiences like @Mary's, like yours -- then (2) going to a public library, opening up several books and doing some research on a particular aspect of the human condition, and (3) acquiring knowledge about things that cannot be learned by reading Wikipedia articles and performing searches using one's browser when sitting at your PC in the comfort of one's home."
Great, have you read Jehovah's Witnesses, Blood Transfusions, and the Tort of Misrepresentation or the Woolly article I asked you to?
-
OUTLAW
DjEggNogg
No, I became an expert by (1) listening to the experiences of others -- experiences like @Mary's, like yours -- then
(2) going to a public library, opening up several books and doing some research on a particular aspect of the human condition, and
(3) acquiring knowledge about things that cannot be learned by reading Wikipedia articles and performing searches
using one's browser when sitting at your PC in the comfort of one's home.....DjEggNogg
Your Serious.. ? ..
That will probably be the Stupidest thing I read all day..
Unless you make another post..
..........................
...OUTLAW -
mrsjones5
That will probably be the Stupidest thing I read all day..
Unless you make another post..
You kill me Outlaw!
-
TD
djeggnog,
It's nice to talk to someone with a knowledge and interest in this area.
Drug induced thrombocytopenia is not an hereditary condition. Theoretically it can happen to anyone, but it's more common in children because of their more active immune systems. In technical terms this condition is caused by a drug dependant platelet reactive antibody. The main reason I know anything about it all (Besides having experienced it firsthand) is because Sonora Quest was trying to develop a reliable assay for detecting DDPAs at the time. A pediatric hematologist could certainly flesh this out with a more exhaustive explanation.
The phenomenon was first reported in 1928 but the mechanism was not described until 1948 and even today it has not been fully elucidated. What happens is that a molecule in the drug will interract with the cell membrane to produce a neoantigin. This is not necessarily harmful unless by chance there happens to be an antibody in circulation that is a match for this new antigen. A lot depends on what diseases and immunizations the person has recently had. If antibodies bind to the antigen on the platelet surface, the normal housekeeping functions of the body suddenly become harmful because now it's not just worn out and damaged platelets that are being destroyed via thrombophagocytosis; all the platelets are being destroyed.
Corticosteroid drugs, prednisone and methylprednisolone are typically used to treat idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, prednisone for lupus, but what kind of blood transfusion was indicated if your son was somewhere between <10 and <5?
I want to be clear here: The platelet count was <1. It was the worst case anybody had ever seen.
You mentioned some drugs and drug catagories that doctors will try first. Another thing they will try is a massive adminstration of gamma globulin. Usually two 500ml units administered as transfusions. These treatments are intended to get the platelet count back up again, but that takes several days.
The problem, as I'm sure you realize, is what to do if the patient starts to bleed uncontrollably.
There are reticulated platelets (immature platelet fraction (IPF) and plasma thrombopoietin (TPO)) that are blood fractions, and these are not the same as a blood transfusion. Was your son taking aspirin or penicillin at the time? Had he suffered an injury where his spleen was removed? We're here talking about one blood component here -- platelets -- and not all four whole blood components, right?
Only platelets. No injuries, no antibiotics and no aspirin. This was also 20+ years ago and some treatments available today were not nearly as common then.
I have some questions about the balance of what you've said, but I'd like to preface them by saying that when a JW tells me that blood is sacred, they're preaching to the choir. I think blood is sacred too.
To me though, it doesn't necessarily follow that the sacredness of blood is profaned or desecrated when it is performing the function that God designed it to do in the first place. (Circulating in the arteries and veins)
Transfusion is a use of blood as blood. It is not a use of blood as a food, ink, dye, stain, paint, gelling agent or any other use known to the ancient world. Do JW's simply assume that transfusion medicine should be judged under the same rubric as the mundane uses of blood known to the ancient world or is there a logical construction that would get us to that conclusion?
The second one, to abstain "from blood," means that it cannot be eaten or taken into our bodies in any form, whether this be orally by drinking a cup of it or intravenously.
My question would be how do you know that it means this?
There's no such thing as abstinence from a physical object. What would it mean to "Abstain from sky" or "Abstain from ocean?" When the word "Abstain" is used in connection with a physical object the meaning is implicitly understood. In order to make the meaning explicit, an interpolation must be made. (i.e. The translator inserts a finite verb) For a translator, the context is the only legitimate source.
The author of the book, Jehovah's Witnesses Defended: An Answer To Scholars And Critics tried to explain the same language phenomenon. Maybe he did a better job than me:
"First-century culture and the context of the Decree. In reading the command to "abstain...from blood" it is clear that something is missing: a verb. The Decree does not come right out and say, "abstain from drinking or eating blood." Yet a verb of some kind is needed to complete the thought. For example, if I were to say "abstain from paint" it might be understood from the context of my statement that I am referring to "inhaling" paint due to its noxious and possibly lethal affect. Or, I might be referring to "touching" paint as it could ruin you new suit! Of course, I would probably phrase my statement differently, perhaps not using "abstain" at all. But I am using it here to illustrate how a verb is needed to complete the thought, and how this verb would be understood from the context of the discussion." (p. 433)
He went on to propose the following work-around:
"It is clear that "eating" and "drinking" are to be understood in the context of the Decree, for they were the only verbs that could have been understood. But the fact is, there is no verb specifically stated, so it appears that the holy spirit left the matter open in terms of what verb a Christian should supply....
The use of an unqualified prohibition regarding the use of blood would cover the present means of taking blood into one's system (eating/drinking) and it would also allow for a Christian to evaluate future uses of blood such as transfusions." (p. 434)
This explanation takes into account the limitations of the language and it seems to me based on the 2004 Watchtower that this is the direction that future treatments of the subject are going. Maybe this is what you've been saying to me all along and I'm just misunderstanding you.
It appears though that you're telling me that the inclusion of transfusion in the prohibition is clear and explicit (?) On that I would disagree
