Ah, well. I was really looking forward to a discussion. Dialogue is so much more valuable than monologue. When there is a genuine sharing of minds, that is when everyone grows.
Thanks for the links, guys.
Inviting djeggnog to discuss the blood doctrine
by jgnat 317 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
InterestedOne
bump?
-
AnnOMaly
Zzzzzz.
-
PSacramento
You guys do realize that IF Dj shows up all that will happen will be him quoting things and NOT answering them, spewing some nosense that has nothing to do with the subject, ignoring questions and ignoring facts and basicaly ranting on, every post a freaking testament to absolutely nothing.
-
moshe
Ignore, that is what many JWs do Kinda, makes me wonder, if he isn't paid to be a WT apologist here- and not a very good one.
-
jgnat
It's not really for me or djeggnog. I recall several occassions when I have been in the throes of debate with a JW apologist, and a lurker makes the leap from the society. Simply spotting the difference between a reasoned argument and a diatribe is enough for many people.
I haven't followed djeggnog, but the few posts of his I have waded through have me convinced that he's on the edge of leaving the Witnesses. No-one would post so much if they didn't have doubts. Kind of like talking to a reformed smoker about the evils of tobacco. Wave a smoking stick in his face and he'll grab it like a drowning man.
-
dgp
Jgnat .
-
TD
There's certainly more pleasant ways to spend your time than being gang-tackled on an internet forum, so I sympathize if djeggnog does not want to participate on this thread.
He has not commented on the advantages vs. disadvantages of the teaching on blood here, but the statement below was made on this thread.
"The risks associated with the use of blood in connection with the transfusion of blood and blood products far outweigh the benefits that one hopes to obtain. This is true."
djeggnog and I have repeatedly gotten off on the wrong foot on this forum and I acknowledge my share of the blame. I don't intend this to be offense or disrespectful, so I'll make an indirect comment:
Ten years ago, JW elder, author, scholar, and HLC member Rolf Furuli of Norway expressed a similar idea on the Rapid Response forum of the British Medical Journal and he was thoroughly chastised for it. The principal respondant was a Dr. Osamu Muramoto and his reply read in part: (Emphasis is mine)
"Despite his remark that "statistics is completely irrelevant in this situation; what counts is the informed decision of the individual patient"[1], it is Furuli who first quoted Kitchens' article [3] to support his argument "it can be more dangerous to accept a transfusion than to refuse one."[4] If Furuli truly believes "statistics is completely irrelevant", why did he have to bring up such statistics? One wonders if Furuli needs some "emotional support" to drive the fear against blood transfusion, when his "theology" of "major components" cannot withstand the criticism from his fellow Witnesses. In response, I presented Sazama's data [5] which is the closest to Kitchens' data because both were counting the short-term fatality after surgery in comparable years. Neither data is perfect for comparing every aspect of risks and benefits of blood transfusion, but the two studies are comparable. The risks of refusing blood transfusions clearly outweighed the risks of accepting blood transfusions in those comparable data.
The data I quoted from the New England Journal of Medicine [6] is different from Sazama's data because they counted almost all known complications from blood transfusions, not just short-term fatality. This is the most comprehensive data currently available for blood transfusion risks, and now widely quoted in medical literature. It is the closest to Furuli's requirement "to include all diseases and deaths which are caused by taking blood/not taking blood, and not only those occurring at the time of the operation."[1] As I quoted, based on this comprehensive data, the authors of this authoritative article in transfusion medicine concluded that "techniques or strategies to avoid blood transfusion will no longer be driven by the known risks of death from blood transfusion, since they are now so low that no alternative is currently as safe as a blood transfusion."[6] It is not I but the authorities of transfusion medicine who are telling us that blood transfusion is safer than alternatives, including refusal of blood.
It is Furuli who claimed "thousands upon thousands of people have died *because* they have been treated with blood components",[1] yet showed no data published in peer-reviewed medical journals to support his claim, whether the statistics is perfect or imperfect. His claim was based only on a video published by the Watchtower Society and an outdated quote without real data. Of course, thousands of people may have died over many years due to complications of blood products. But out of how many million people who were treated and had no complications? And how the number is compared to the number of Jehovah's Witnesses who died by refusing blood products? Show us any data or any statistics which can withstand vigorous scientific peer-review, Mr. Furuli, before making such a conclusion."
-
PSacramento
One wonders if a person like Furuli would actually research the available data or just take what is give by the society at face value?
-
sabastious
You guys do realize that IF Dj shows up all that will happen will be him quoting things and NOT answering them, spewing some nosense that has nothing to do with the subject, ignoring questions and ignoring facts and basicaly ranting on, every post a freaking testament to absolutely nothing.
Don't forget that every few sentences he finds a way to blatantly toot his own horn. That's always fun to read...
-Sab