http://jehovahswitnessreport.com/blog/jw-refusal-of-blood-transfusion-mother-and-baby-die#more-4001.
a 28-year-old woman and her unborn child have died because of the womans decision not to accept a lifesaving blood transfusion.. doctors at the royal hospital for women and prince of wales hospital in randwick, sydney, australia, have described the harrowing effect on hospital staff of two otherwise avoidable deaths.. the woman, a jehovahs witness, was seven months into her pregnancy when it was discovered she had leukaemia.. amy corderoy, health editor, reporting in the sydney morning herald states,.
more than 80% of pregnant women suffering from the cancer, called acute promyelocytic leukaemia, will go into remission with proper treatment, and the outlook for their babies is good.. .
The murderous, criminal GB need to be brought before the International Criminal Court for offences against humanity. Just like all the murderous, cowardly, pig-ignorant, loser Muslim males currently ruining the lives of generations of Syrian innocent women and children.
One day, in the far, far, future, the human race will not tolerate such barbarity in the name of religion anymore.
Death to religion.
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
Come on guys, just admit 'God' was ancient aliens
perhaps i'm just getting older and crankier, but it really seems to me that the jw faith is deteriorating at an accelerated rate.. case in point: this year's memorial talk.
it was one of the most incoherent messes i've ever heard.
(and i've heard a lot of memorial talks over the last 50 years....).
The memorial talks are an incoherent, cold, prosaic shambles because the JW's doctrine on the subject is an incoherent shambles.
A company shareholders meeting with the Board is more exciting and emotionally satisfying than the Memorial talk.
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
Wrong, EdenOne. You've just done it again: presupposed the existence of a 'something'.
In your example, there was 'a bit' that just hadn't been found yet. It was missing but you found it, as you said. To say the "bit that was missing...had never been there before", is absurd.
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
Agnosticism has different meanings but the 'formal' one you've given is not at all the popular understanding most people mean who describe themselves as agnostic.
This is an excellent thread to demonstrate a form of fallacious reasoning known as 'persuasive definitions' or the 'Definist' fallacy.
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
You've presupposed the existence of 'something' in your definition EdenOne. Contradicting yourself.
You're arguing for agnosticism but going about it the wrong way. Agnosticism in its simple modern sense just says there is not enough evidence to know either way.
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
Try agreeing on the definition of 'absent' first.
All standard dictionary definitions of 'absent' presuppose there is something that first exists to be absent.
... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
"Additionally, the entire discussion of blood takes place in the context of killing, either animals or humans. This is an important point because a blood transfusion does not involve killing."
BINGO. This is a knock-down argument against the JW blood policy. The whole point of the scriptural prohibition is that the blood is merely a symbol of the soul that is lost. By observing the prohibition, the taker of the life is giving recognition that only YHWH is the source of life.
