Has there been any "New Light" on the Blood Issue?

by Mastodon 168 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  rootcause

  hello jgnat,

  I need your answer for this 1st :

  By the way until when in the bible the old law covers? how about the new law when did it started?

  And, by the way I am doing the 3%hydrogen peroxide for a year now in my entire family and I got same great end results as what posted in:http://www.mercola.com/2002/mar/13/hydrogen_peroxide.htm#

  If I were not mistaken my EENT cleaned my ears with the same 3% when I got an ear problem when I was a kid. . .

  And with regards to Aspartame you may oly need to read and not do the experiment:

  Aspartame: Killing Us by Degrees -- Part II -http://www.mercola.com/2005/oct/11/aspartame_killing_us_by_degrees_--_part_ii.htm

  By Pat Thomas This article first appeared in the September 2005 issue of The Ecologist, Volume 35, No.7. This is Part II of the series; this part examines the chemical contents of aspartame Aspartame Toxic Contents Aspartame is made up of three chemicals: the amino acids aspartic acid and phenylalanine, and methanol. The chemical bond that holds these constituents together is fairly weak. As a result, aspartame readily breaks down into its component parts in a variety of circumstances: in liquids, during prolonged storage, when exposed to heat in excess of 86° Fahrenheit (30° centigrade), and when ingested. These constituents further break down into other toxic by-products, namely formaldehyde, formic acid and aspartylphenylalanine diketopiperazine (DKP). Need your answer pls :By the way until when in the bible the old law covers? how about the new law when did it started?

  Thanks,
• 

  jgnat

  No, you first. I insist.
• 

  rootcause

  hello jgnat,

  I can only answer all your question if you will start answering my question. . . .Look.....

  Do you believe that some commands are more important than others? And if so, how do you determine which are more important than others? There are some commands regarding the sacrifice of animals that we do not follow today. There were disputes in Jesus' day whether the Sabbath command should be broken when healing someone or rescuing an animal. What did Jesus answer?

  Do you know why the practice of animal sacrifices were no longer being followed today?

  Yes, the same reason we no longer worry about abstaining from blood, Jesus' blood sacrifice did away with the old laws.-jgnat

  Until when in the bible the old law covers? how about the new law when did it started?

  You have cascaded your questions. . .I need to answer you also one by one. . . .hope you understand. . . .

  by the way, what can you say about the Mercola's Aspartame post? Will you still eat artificial sweeteners?

  Here's another, interesting subject you may find helpful: Why are we having fever?

  Thanks,
• 

  Catholic_Apologist

  Hi everybody,

  The issue of blood transfusions is one where I have profound disagreements with the Jehovah's Witness teaching, although I can say that I respect the desire of Jehovah's Witnesses to please God even when it causes them suffering to do so.

  In the New Testament, Jesus embraces an ethic centered on promoting and protecting human life; whenever He is confronted with questions about the laws of Moses, He always responds in a way that puts human life at the forefront. For example, when He is challenged for healing on the Sabbath, He replies, "Is it lawful to do good on Sabbath days, or to do evil? To save life, or to destroy?" (Mk. 3:4). For Jesus, the fundamental question was how an action either protected human life, or neglected to do so. When the Pharisees put adherence to law above care for people, Jesus always took them to task.

  Today, God has given doctors the means to save lives through using modern medical techniques, including blood transfusions. Jesus asks us the same question today, "Is it lawful to do good or to do evil, to save life, or to destroy?" I believe that God does not want us to adopt a legalistic morality similar to that of the Pharisees, but rather He wants us to use the intellect that He has given us in order to help people to live longer and happier lives.

  Of course, there are just limitations to the ways that we can legitimately utilize science to promote human interests. Ethical objections to embryonic stem cell research come to mind. However, since blood transfusions allow the donor to live and the recipient to live, I see no moral objection to this practice.

  I realize that Jehovah's Witnesses have deeply held views on this subject, but I respectfully disagree.

  God bless you all!

  Brian (a.k.a. Catholic Apologist)
• 

  jgnat

  Rootcause, don't answer a question with a question. Answer them. What is the answer to your own question?

  Until when in the bible the old law covers? how about the new law when did it started?

  Oh, sorry, and welcome to Catholic_Apologist. You won't find any disagreement from me.
• 

  rootcause

  hello jgnat,

  Did you mean you did not know the answer to the question?

  Until when in the bible the old law covers? how about the new law when did it started?

  By the way you may want to surf the site below :

  http://www.americasblood.org/download/bulletin_v7_n1.pdf

  Two primary motivations have inspired renewed interest in the development of red blood cell (RBC) substitutes over the last 20 years: concerns about the infectious risks of transfusion and adequacy of the blood supply.

  http://www.americasblood.org/download/bulletin_v5_n1.pdf

  The Institute of Medicine report,

  To Err Is Human , has called attention to the enormous morbidity and mortality associated with hospital-based errors. These errors have been largely ignored by government agencies focused on blood safety. For example, the Canadian Krever Commission selectively applied the precautionary principle only to infectious risks of transfusion, but not to the very real non-infectious hazards of transfusion.

  http://www.americasblood.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=display.showPage&pageID=123

  http://home.arcor.de/mweisser/deathbydoctoring.htm

  “Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy. Chemotherapy does not eliminate breast, colon, or lung cancers. This fact has been documented for over a decade, yet doctors still use chemotherapy for these tumors.” Allen Levin, MD UCSF The Healing of Cancer, Marcus Books, 1990

  I would not let you come within ten kilometres of my flesh-jgnat 07-Oct-05 20:59

  I will take your advice I will not GO to Canada, your Canadian Krever Commission is really good . . . . .

  Will discuss, shortly your other question after you found the answer to my question . . .. .Thanks,
• 

  4nick8

  Rootcause-

  Shoot the flare! Punt! It seems to be getting harder for you to answer any of jgnat's questions. There are a good many folks on this forum who debate VERY well. They have ripped you to shreds.You are toast, my friend.

  I have been lurking here for months. It is my escape for a few minutes after work every day. I feel as if I have gotten to know these people in a small way. I have learned a great deal. Many posters have been lied to and crapped on in ways I can only imagine. They have come through this smarter, wiser and stronger.

  Here's some free advice: Do like me and read all catagories. Learn the posters and their motivations. they are here for each other, and you too, if you chose. At best in a few months you will see the real truth. At worst you might be able to form an arguement without making a shmuck out of yourself.

  Yours

  Tracy
• 

  jgnat

  Hi, tracy/4nick8! It's cool to think there are fan-readers out there.

  Rootcause, if I answer your question to my question, then I have answered my own question, won't I? Well, what's the point to that? I do know the answers, but they lead to a certain conclusion that I am sure you don't want to hear. So why don't you answer my questions, and while you are at it, answer your question to my question that you questioned my ability to answer.

  Do you believe that some commands are more important than others? And if so, how do you determine which are more important than others? There are some commands regarding the sacrifice of animals that we do not follow today. There were disputes in Jesus' day whether the Sabbath command should be broken when healing someone or rescuing an animal. What did Jesus answer?

  Until when in the bible the old law covers? how about the new law when did it started?
• 

  rootcause

  hello jgnat,

  There are some commands regarding the sacrifice of animals that we do not follow today. - jgnat

  (Hebrews 10:10) 10

  By the said "will" we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all time.

  (Romans 10:2-4) 2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God; but not according to accurate knowledge; 3 for, because of not knowing the righteousness of God but seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the Law, so that everyone exercising faith may have righteousness.

  Do you believe that some commands are more important than others?And if so, how do you determine which are more important than others?-jgnat

  (Romans 15:4) 4

  For all the things that were written aforetime were written for our instruction, that through our endurance and through the comfort from the Scriptures we might have hope.

  (2 Timothy 3:16-17) 16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.

  There were disputes in Jesus' day whether the Sabbath command should be broken when healing someone or rescuing an animal. What did Jesus answer?-jgnat

  (Matthew 12:11) He said to them: "Who will be the man among YOU that has one sheep and, if this falls into a pit on the sabbath, will not get hold of it and lift it out?

  Now Is it written in the bible that blood transfusion is allowable? and Is it really love risking your loveones lives on still experimental procedure? or you only love yourself ? Did Act15:29 mean about blood and good health? had this not been proven so many times?can you not see the whole picture?

  (Acts 15:29) 29

  to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!"

  http://www.americasblood.org/download/bulletin_v7_n1.pdf

  Two primary motivations have inspired renewed interest in the development of red blood cell (RBC) substitutes over the last 20 years: concerns about the infectious risks of transfusion and adequacy of the blood supply.

  http://www.americasblood.org/download/bulletin_v5_n1.pdf

  http://www.americasblood.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=display.showPage&pageID=123

  http://home.arcor.de/mweisser/deathbydoctoring.htm

  “Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy. Chemotherapy does not eliminate breast, colon, or lung cancers. This fact has been documented for over a decade, yet doctors still use chemotherapy for these tumors.” Allen Levin, MD UCSF The Healing of Cancer, Marcus Books, 1990

  http://www.bmsi.net/newsindex.htm - New randomized controlled trial: Study Finds That Less Blood or No Blood Transfusions Best for Critically Ill Patients

  
  Now Is it written in the bible that blood transfusion is allowable? and Is it really love risking your loveones lives on still experimental procedure? or you only love yourself ? What did Act15:29 mean about blood and good health? had this not been proven so many times?can you not see the whole picture in our discussion?

  Hope you will answer next my question above after really-really digesting our previous discussions ? Need you to answer in Macro view for all things we discussed. . .

  thanks. . . .
• 

  jgnat

  Thank you, rootcause, for returning to the discussion with a more respectful tone. Macro? LOL. You strain the gnat and swallow the camel.

  You allow that the old commands of blood sacrifice are done away with Jesus' sacrifice, yet you say that ALL SCRIPTURE is useful for instruction, therefore equally valid. How do you reconcile this contradiction?

  Now, we also have a principle that it is MORE IMPORTANT to be merciful to a mere animal than to follow the command to honor the Sabbath. An example, again, that some scriptures are MORE IMPORTANT than others. Is life to be valued and treasured?

  The following scriptures indirectly refer to the sacredness of life, that it is to be desired, valued, fought for, and treasured. Exodus 20:12; Deuteronomy 5:16, Deuteronomy 4:40;22:7, Matthew 16:26; Mark 8:37, Matthew 10:39;16:25,26; Luke 9:24; John 12:25, Job 3;7:1-3;10:18-20, Jeremiah 20:14-18, 1 Kings 19:1-8, Jonah 4:8,9, Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45; 1 Timothy 2:6

  Also, the bible commands are very clear that we are not to murder, nor are we to commit suicide (take or give up life lightly) Amos 9:2; Revelations 9:6.

  I say there is a clear and enduring theme through the scriptures that LIFE IS TO BE VALUED. Therefore another command regarding abstaining from eating bloody meat should not over-ride the overall sacredness of life itself.

  • Fear of infection is not a command. Please stop mixing bible commands with pseudo-science.
  • As I have patiently and thoroughly explained before, transfusions are required to survive a catastrophic loss of blood.
  • The concept is degree of risk, and in life-threatening situations, doctors will weigh the risk and often allow a blood transfusion for the greater good, the saving of a life.
  • You have responded that life is not so precious to break the command against blood.
  • I have responded that life itself is sacred to God, and should not be given up lightly.

  TD provided, I think, the clearest explanation why the command in Acts should not be interpreted beyond dietary requirements. It was a concession to the Jewish Christians at the time, not for Gentiles like us.

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/16/97946/1716515/post.ashx#1716515