Hi TD,
Thank you for those posts! It is sometimes incredible what modern medicine can accomplish!
Cheers,
-Randy
Posts by rawe
-
15Question: In what cases is a transfusion of whole blood or the 4 wt prohibited components the only lifesaving solution?
by Daniel1555 indear friends,.
my mother in law said, that bloodless medicine works in all situations.. .
i don't have a lot of medical experience.
-
-
-
15
Question: In what cases is a transfusion of whole blood or the 4 wt prohibited components the only lifesaving solution?
by Daniel1555 indear friends,.
my mother in law said, that bloodless medicine works in all situations.. .
i don't have a lot of medical experience.
-
-
rawe
Hi Daniel1555,
"My mother in law said, that bloodless medicine works in all situations."
Twice in my life I faced the issue of blood transfusions and both times refused. The first time was in Canada in the 1980s when I was in the hospital for a bleeding ulcer. My blood count dropped to 5.0. Since then I have moved to the USA. However while on vacation in 2001 in Canada I fell out of tree and seriously injured myself. The doctors in Prince George, BC, performed emergency surgery to remove my spleen and did so without blood.
Thus, I had a fairly positive view of my Witness-inspired view of blood and medicine. In fact, even after leaving the faith, I continued to carry my medical directive (no blood) card for about a year.
Eventually, a couple things started to make me think about this issue more deeply. One was my wife's refusal of an epidural blood patch as an option is something should go wrong during the birth of our last daughter. My wife refused believing that once blood had left the bood it should not be returned. Only later on did we realize that epidural blood patch had been designated as acceptable by the faith. Perhaps even more shocking was plasmapheresis had also in recent years been given the green light -- even though blood completely leaves the body.
In Canada I was very aware of the tainted blood scandal, wherein Canada was slow to start testing for HIV. You can bet that made me pretty glad to have avoided that first transfusion. If you Google Horace Krever you can read about this.
Eventually, though I asked myself this question: What expertise do I have on this issue? Frankly most things I knew about the issue had come from Watchtower publications.
My conclusion was this: I am not a medical expert, so really I have no basis to really comment on how effective blood or blood components might be in any given situation. In general though I know thousands upon thousands of procedures involving blood products are done every day. In one case I did write to the University for the source of a Awake! quote that was negative about blood. The provocative title of news article Awake quote was "Banked Blood Could Do More Harm Than Good." When I followed up the source, it was very clear the researchers involved were tackling the issue of how blood is stored after collection and how that can be improved. At the very top of the article it cited references to the effectiveness of blood transfusions. In any regards, why would these researchers even be trying to find a more effective way to store blood, if blood transfusions did "harm" -- the impression Awake! left with its readers.
Finally, I must say, I was impressed with Greg Stafford (Christian Witnesses of Jah & Elihu Books) letter to the Governing Body on the subject of how blood is presented in the Bible. I'm an atheist and don't agree with Greg's religious views in general, but I do credit him for helping me see it is more consistent to see blood in the Bible as sacred and life-sustaining and therefore should not be consumed as food. Indeed medical use of blood, does not involve consuming it as food.
Cheers,
-Randy
-
55
"You knew what the consequences were when YOU decided to leave The Truth. This is YOUR decision and the outcome is YOUR responsibility."
by nicolaou inhow many of us have had to deal with a version of that retort?!
it's hurtful and i suspect - for some - that's partly because of the nagging feeling that our families may have a point.. but do they?.
i was 15 when i got baptised, is it reasonable that as the 50 year old man i'll be on my next birthday i continue to be held to a decision i made as a schoolboy?.
-
-
rawe
Hi Nic,
Randy, I'm struggling to pin down my reasons but your post really pissed me off.
Please don't read my post as if I'm suggesting it applies to you or anyone else. It is how I personally processed my decision. In other words, I knew beforehand what the consequences would be and for me I could have easily avoided them. Simply by either remaining in the faith, or after leaving deciding not to openly celebrate Christmas. Is the thrust of the "you knew the consequences" a blame the victim approach? Absolutely! That is what the Witness is trying to do, and it is the Witness that I'm addressing, not you or anyone else who is the victim of shunning.
Once *I* am willing to accept the consequence -- lets just say, even simply for the sake of the argument -- *then* where does the reasoning go? And that is the point I'm trying to make. Our Witnesses friends aren't really making the rest of the journey. As if to say, that we *should* have chosen to avoid the consequences and everything would be okay? No it wouldn't! We would, after knowning what we know, be found living an immoral life, by giving tacit support to an organization we now know is bringing harm to people. That is intolerable and as a consequence, we had to leave. That's my point. I appolgise if it doesn't always come across as well as I would like.
Take care,
-Randy
-
55
"You knew what the consequences were when YOU decided to leave The Truth. This is YOUR decision and the outcome is YOUR responsibility."
by nicolaou inhow many of us have had to deal with a version of that retort?!
it's hurtful and i suspect - for some - that's partly because of the nagging feeling that our families may have a point.. but do they?.
i was 15 when i got baptised, is it reasonable that as the 50 year old man i'll be on my next birthday i continue to be held to a decision i made as a schoolboy?.
-
-
rawe
Hi Nicolaou,
You knew what the consequences where when YOU decided to leave The Truth. This is YOUR decision and the outcome is YOUR responsibility.
Dear Witness Friend,
To a large extent I agree with that. I might add that severing as an elder gave me even better insight into what may happen when I left the faith. The only serious objection I have with this statement is the phrase "The Truth", which is in reality merely a euphemism for "the faith." Respect for what is true and rejection of what is false, was a key component of why I left the faith.
Did I know the potential consequences? Absolutely -- in enough detail I was able to predict them.
Did I decide to leave the faith? Absolutely. It was my decision to leave. Nothing other than than a love for truth and rejection of falsehood caused me to leave.
Must I accept responsibility for the consequences? Yes, I agree with that too.
However, accepting the responsibility of decisions we personally make is not one and the same as declaring the consequences just and righteous. When young black students and some of their white friends purposefully sat at white-only counters and asked to be served, some were yelled at, spit upon and even beaten up. Their knowledge that such consequences might await them, did not justify the consequence itself. Or to use a Biblical example, when Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego refused to bow down and worship the image of gold, they took responsibility for their action, but in so doing showed the consequence itself to be wrong and immoral.
But what about you? Are YOU making decisions and willing to accept consequences? In real truth, isn't it the case a "decision" to shun is not something individual Witnesses are making, but instead more of a matter of being obedient -- to bow down to the image of gold as it were? That the shun spigot can be turned and and off at will by the men leading the organization? Do not the facts and truth of history show this? At one moment, non-baptized, but designated "disapproved associates" were shunned, but after a single Watchtower lesson, they were not?
Cheers,
-Randy
-
119
How many of you followed the WTS direction on education years ago and have been screwed by it?
by Julia Orwell ini'm really interested in this question because i've heard for years that if you forgo further education and go pioneering, when you have a family down the track you will get a good job because jehovah will provide for you because you pioneered.
as long as i was a kool-aid drinker, even then, i thought, "how does pioneering pay your bills?
surely education should come first.
-
-
rawe
Hi Julia,
How many of you followed the WTS direction on education years ago and have been screwed by it?
I did wind up following the advice. But for me, I don't feel it worked out too bad.
I fell in love with computer programming when I first encountered it in grade 12 (1982). I took computer science 11 which was offered for the first time that year. With no job, still living at home with my parents who were on welfare, I decided to go back to high school for additional year. I took computer science 12 that second year.
When that year ended, I did apply to go to college and get a student loan. I did not know what else to do to further my interest in computer science. Nonetheless, I felt like I had deeply betrayed the faith by even applying for college. When my loan application ran into problems I took it as a sign and dropped the idea.
After working as a construction laborer in Fort McMurray, AB, I returned to Quesnel, where I got a computer-related job for the school district. I was employed both as a teacher of adult education computer courses as well as the defacto PC support person. I also designed and wrote a student registration system for district as well as a few other programs.
Eventually I would be hired by West Fraser where I worked in their IT department.
So... from a career perspective I have wound up doing exactly what I had wanted and to this day still love going to work. Since I didn't take the traditional route, I also did not wind up with any student loans. Furthermore, my connection to the Witness faith did help me with some basics like reading, writing and public speaking. I also give the faith the credit for my interest in the Bible, which continued with me, despite leaving and being an atheist.
So... 100% good, right? Ah, no not exactly. I have run into some interesting issues. Without a degree, I have felt the pressure and expense to pursue industry certifications. Some of these are expensive! When we decided to move to the USA my visa application was delayed, as my work experience was evaluated by the INS to see if it was the equivalent of a degree.
When I struggle with spelling and grammar, I do think this reflects no real post-secondary education. Basics of calculus and algebra are also missing. I do try and improve of course, but time is limited. I had an on-site interview with Google and this gap seemed obvious to me. Both young guys who interviewed me were recent ASU grads and while I could explain my approach to solving algorithms in ways that makes sense to me, it was clear there was a "language gap."
I love supporting my daughters in their post-secondary education. Both my wife and I made that a priority, even when we were in the faith. My oldest is an RN, my second is an art major, my third is at St. John's College (a 'great books' college) being a philosophy major. My fouth is going into 4th grade. And... we're slowly going broke, but enjoying life!
Cheers,
-Randy -
261
Evolution is Crap, there I said it!
by Crazyguy inok i started another thread and every one jumped on me because i was trying to take the theory of evolution out of the mix and most here seem to believe in it so i will just say it.
the theory of major evolution is crap!
the theory is falling apart.
-
-
rawe
Hi QC,
Please forgive me for a lack of insight... but I'm not sure how to take the posts you've made. When you post: " You're done cofty, gig is up. You opted in on Darwin and lost. ALL those old books you’ve read are obsolete (as of June 2013)." it sort of reads like good natured poking at Cofty. Am I right? Or do you really contend that books on the subject of evolution prior to this one of June 2013 have been made obsolete?
Here is part of one of the first quotes about the book...
The issue on the table is not now, nor has it ever been, the fact of evolution (change over time); the issue has always been the mechanism of evolution – is it blind and undirected or is it under the control of an intelligence that had a goal in mind? That’s the nub of the question, and in Darwin’s Doubt, Stephen Meyer has masterfully laid out one of the most compelling lines of evidence for the latter.
This of course gets to the heart of how scientific theories operate. That is, a good theory is able to make correct testable predictions as well as explain things as they are now. So, what then is the predicted outcome of this goal seeking intelligence? Have these goals been tested and shown to be reliable?
Cheers,
-Randy
-
261
Evolution is Crap, there I said it!
by Crazyguy inok i started another thread and every one jumped on me because i was trying to take the theory of evolution out of the mix and most here seem to believe in it so i will just say it.
the theory of major evolution is crap!
the theory is falling apart.
-
-
rawe
Hi snare&racket,
"Oh my goodness...... Evolution is just the science of how animals change over time depending on the environment of the earth at the time...."
First, thanks for posting that picture of flagellum, that Michael Behe asserts is irreducibly complex and therefore could not have evolved. In the picture I counted about 10 components. I find that interesting because one of the illustrations Behe used in his book was animal crossing a road and having the luck of not getting hit my a car. While that would be reasonable to assume as possible, if the number of lanes increased to 1000 (my recall, please verify & correct) we should not expect success. In other words as the number of components required increases there gets a point where it becomes non-plausible to suggest they would all be present at the same time. But... 10 components is not a high number, certainly not "1000 lanes."
The other illustration Behe used was a mouse trap. This of course is a comparison between a non-biological systems that is ID vs a biological system, wherein we know how current examples of flagellums arrive, that is biological reproduction, even if we don't know the precise pathway that resulted in the first ever example of the flagellum.
But... let me throw this out there. I agree, the theory of evolution is really just a working model that does a fantanstic job of explaining how life changes over time and how all life is related. It does not address the origin of life for example. But Evolution is also Crap, at least to Crazyguy. I think there are reasons why this seems true as well. The first big reason is the seeming implication that evolution is a counter pointer to special creation as outlined in Genesis. The second is, in my opinion, truly ironic... that is various forces that contribute to our evolution as a species, such as ability to plan and purpose, the fact that we live a short time and die, that we are tool creators, drivers in regards to mate selection, how we process in-group vs out-group loyalty determination, etc, all make the theory of evolution seem wrong.
The process of evolution has resulted in the origin of a species, that ironically was destined to find the theory non-intuitive and somewhat unpleasant.
Cheers,
-Randy
-
261
Evolution is Crap, there I said it!
by Crazyguy inok i started another thread and every one jumped on me because i was trying to take the theory of evolution out of the mix and most here seem to believe in it so i will just say it.
the theory of major evolution is crap!
the theory is falling apart.
-
-
rawe
Hi *lost*,
they are very intelligent, thinking, emotional creatures. Quite amazing to watch and study.
Quick post before I head off to work... a few days ago just watched a Netflix documentary comparing wolves and dogs. The biggest difference: Dogs, unlike wolves will interact in a social manner with humans. Wolves by contrast are social only within their pack of other wolves. They demonstrated this with pointing to a treat under a upside down bucket. They also tied a treat to a rope that was impossible for the dog or wolf to get to. In the pointing case the dog followed the clue, the wolf not. In treat on a rope, the dog looked to the human for help, whereas the wolf continued in frustration.
Cheers,
-Randy
-
261
Evolution is Crap, there I said it!
by Crazyguy inok i started another thread and every one jumped on me because i was trying to take the theory of evolution out of the mix and most here seem to believe in it so i will just say it.
the theory of major evolution is crap!
the theory is falling apart.
-
-
rawe
Hi Cofty,
No he doesn't. He resorts to magical answers again and again.
It has been a long while since I read Behe, but help me out on my misunderstanding. My recall from his Black Box book was ID was required because of IC. That the intelligent designer placed within the first life form the potential for different systems. And in fact, this is was the primary flaw pointed out by Kenneth Miller. That evolution would not preserve, in working order, future-only functional sequences. This is a big problem, because where DNA does not code for functional genes we see the largest degree of mutation.
Nonetheless, I recall Behe saying he accepted macro evolution and a common ancestor between say Apes and Humans.
Cheers,
-Randy
-
261
Evolution is Crap, there I said it!
by Crazyguy inok i started another thread and every one jumped on me because i was trying to take the theory of evolution out of the mix and most here seem to believe in it so i will just say it.
the theory of major evolution is crap!
the theory is falling apart.
-
-
rawe
Hi S,
Hey, rawe, are you suggesting that the first life form was created by god?
No. Actually I believe that if God exists, is able to act without detection, and does so in violation of the laws of nature, then we cannot know anything about our world, even in principal.
We have lots of evidence for ID of many things, computers, cameras, cars, ant hills. We have lots of evidence for evolution, fossil record, DNA, actual experiments such as Richard Lenksi's work with E. coli. However, we are short on examples for the origin of life. But...
We do have, thanks to Miller, et al, have experiments on the origin of amino acids. And we have the testimony of experts like James Watson that life is basically chemistry and does not support the notion of "vitalism" (i.e. something mysterious and God-like about it). So my understanding is the origin of life is unknown, other than we do know it happened in the past. However, when it comes to "this is like that", I definately feel "origin of life is like other productions by natural forces that can (over the short term) build up complexity."
Cheers,
-Randy