my appointment is for 8/8 at 1pm.
what should i expect?
will i pass out?
Good for you!
Definitely eat first. For some reason it shortens the donation time. (Perhaps the slightly elevated blood pressure?)
The needle is large, but it really doesn't hurt. (If you hate needles, just don't look)
You're supposed to sit down for 15 minutes or so right afterwards and have something to eat and drink because you might experience some dizzyness (When you stand up) --I do once in awhile and I consider myself in fairly good shape for an old geezer.
first of all i am going to need some help with this...any added info is very welcome.
help me make sense!
sometimes getting my thoughts down is hard, i know what i mean but others are..eh?
There are few things Christians seem to enjoy more than heaping scorn on the sect of the Pharisees.
For example, remember the nature of Jesus' disagreement with the Pharisees at Mark 3:1. Although this was a very long time before RAMBAM, the priciples of pikuach nefesh were still understood. A withered hand was not considered life threatening and therefore did not make the Sabbath hutra. In other words, waiting one more day to be healed would not have endangered this man's life.
However if this man's life had been in danger, there would have been no disagreement. The transfusion medicine taboo is so far beyond anything that even the Pharisess could have come up with, that comparing them to Jehovah's Witnesses is probably an insult to the Pharisees.
first of all i am going to need some help with this...any added info is very welcome.
help me make sense!
sometimes getting my thoughts down is hard, i know what i mean but others are..eh?
Hi Shera
It's sometimes hard for anyone raised in the Christian tradition to understand the Jewish mindset when it comes to the Law.
While Christianity holds that the Law was basically a cruel joke God inflicted on mankind to drive home the point that they were "imperfect," Judaism does not.
The Jews regard the Law as a priceless gift from a kind father. G-d gave the Law to Man that he may LIVE by it --literally. Living by the Law will not only enable you to live longer, you will be happier and healthier while you are alive --At least according to the Jews.
The Jews, therefore are coming from an entirely opposite direction when it comes to interpreting the Law. To them, the Law is a blessing, not a curse and the idea that death would be the natural result of observing the Law is an alien concept.
Accordingly, Judaism holds pikuach nephesh (Saving Life) as the very highest of all mitzvoth. For example, if an occupied building collapses on the Sabbath, which takes precedence, Sabbath law or G-d's requirement to preserve life?
The requirement to preserve life trumps all other considerations. The only exceptions are murder, idolatry and sexual misconduct. Any other aspect of the Law could be set aside in an emergency.
The transfusion medicine taboo as taught by Jehovah's Witnesses is something that would not even occur to a Jew. The idea that observance of Kashrut (The dietary law) would result in death is something the Jews simply cannot fathom.
It takes the Christian view of the Law (e.g. A cruel burden) to come up with something as warped as this.
Tom
old heated paint.
let me explain.
the old kh i went to would give off this strange smell of burnt paint ever time the central heating was put on.
The smell of their literature.
http://www.commentarypress.com/eng-search-ch9-01.html
this blood issue is so important.
even the wts knows now the doctrine was in error but has painted itself into a corner, from which it tries to extract itself very gradually for fear of a backlash.. if you folks read nothing else this month, please read the free online chapter 9 from in search of christian freedom, if you truly wish to understand scriptural truth about blood.
I can never understand why JW's don't realize that invoking a partial predicate apart from the context that completes it is not grammatical ---Not in English and not in Koine Greek.
I wonder if they truly realize how stupid they sound.
daily mail article today uk newspaper.
jehovahs mother chose death before baby
a dying mother refused a life-saving blood transfusion despite nurses holding up her new-born son in a desperate attempt attempt to get her to change her mind.
In the majority of cases, JWs or otherwise, even with the blood having been applied the person would've died anyway.
Have you ever spent any time in a trauma center/emergency room?
do you think that john f kennedy was killed in dallas in 1963 by a lone psychopathic gunman -lee oswald- or by a large conpiracy that included the cia, the mafia, the military and many others.
.
hundreds of books were written on the subject and 85% of americans believe that it was a conspiracy though the mass media world always believes that a lone gun man did it.
Governor Connolly's wounds were consistent with a slow moving, monolithic solid bullet fired from a 7.65 Mannlicher-Carcano.
President Kennedy's wounds were not.
Therefore I have to (reluctantly) side with the conspiracy crowd on this one. There were at least two weapons involved.
holy crap it's hotter than hell out there!!
i know, i know, i had bitched back in early may cause it was snowing outside, but this is crazy!
right now, it's 30 celcius, or 86 fairenheit outside.
---Yesterday at 4:00 PM, 121 (49C) in the shade. Had to go try and save a bank of servers at 10:00 PM last night because the refrigeration unit had run itself to death.
Allegedly it will be a little "cooler" today
i like guns.
i like the feel of them.
i like the fine engineering too.
I don't see much discussion on the "well regulate militia" part of the single sentance of the amendment. How many militia people do we have currently? I would pose that the National Guard is a militia. Thoughts? Not part of the militia = no guns?
In my opinion, this is simply the fallacy of special pleading
Effectively this is a claim that the "People" of the second ammendment are not be the same as the "People" of the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th ammendments. At least insofar as these latter four amendments are concerned, rights guaranteed the "People" are individual, not collective rights and this has been affirmed by the courts over and over
Of course this raises the question of what a "well regulated" militia has to do with an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Citizen's militias at the time were ubiquitous. Every frontier township had one. The 2nd ammendment incorporated this facet of life in the Americas as a check on federal government. I think this is apparent in the vernacular of the framers of the constitution, where "Militia" is used at least as an alternative to, and frequently in outright opposition to "Standing army."
For example:
The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. (Madison, Federalist 46)
As used in the Second Amendment, and elsewhere in the Constitution, "Militia" referred to a body consisting of all adult male citizens up to a certain age (anywhere from forty-five to sixty), the goal being to include all who were physically capable of service. As a result, the reference to the "Militia" in the Second Amendment's preface explicitly agrees with the individual right that the Amendment's operative text sets out because securing to "the people" a right to keep and to bear their own arms made such a broad-based, privately armed force more likely to exist and to be effective.
The National Guard does not qualify as the "militia" of the 2nd ammendment, not only because it did not exist at the time as such, but because it currently is for all intents and purposes, an extension of the standing army under federal control.
i like guns.
i like the feel of them.
i like the fine engineering too.
Englishman,
Maybe this will help.
The 2nd ammendment does not confer the right to carry a concealed weapon. In *some* states, (Mine for instance) you can be issued a permit to carry a concealed weapon by agreeing to a thorough background check, attending class and passing written, oral and proficiency examinations.
Holding a CCW is a privilege, not a right and like all privileges, it can be taken away.
Many other states have no such provision and consequently private citizens may not legally carry concealed weapons under any circumstances.
A few states, (e.g. Maryland) have outlawed ownership of handguns completely. This in my opinion, is argueably a violation of the 2nd ammendment, but as I hope I have explained, that is a separate topic.
Tom
