True cristhianity

[FearlessLeader2]

Nope, where'd you get that from?

Nope, where'd you get that from?

Here's a shovel, bring it on!

Read post 134 again. I speak of bloodless treatments, and you basically say that because the article about them was 15 years old, they no longer exist.

Hey, what's that on your face? (Think of Ashe from Army of Darkness.)

 

[Shadylookin]

Perf did ok on one or two of them, but the risks, however small they are, are still greater than zero, which is the risk of infection from infected blood in a bloodless operation.

the risk that I might hit my head and drown in the shower are not zero, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to take one

Laser surgery, blood reclamation-recirculating machines, targeted donor (patient donates his own blood a couple months ahead of time), and just plain less hack-and-slash approaches to organs that result in lower bleeding.

that's all well and good for those with planned out surgeries, not when you have massive blood loss from an unplanned accident

AIDS is spread in part by blood transfusions. Bloodless medecine research therefore helps reduce AIDS transmission. It also reduces Type A, B, and C Hepatitus infections, and all other infections from blood transfusions, by reducing the number of transfusions that take place.

Sure I wish the odds were lower on getting aids but life is filled with risks and to not take any is to be already dead. AIDS more often than not is transmitted through sexual activities not transfusions.

In short, all three of your so-called points are baseless and facile. You use ridicule and rhetoric in place of an argument, for no other reason than because I hold an opinion about the universe in general that you do not share. Allow me to inform you that the minority opinion is not always wrong, and just because there are more people like you than like me, does not mean you are inherently superior to me. It just means you don't question anything you're told.

Save your justifications for your cosmic babysitter I'll have none of it. I questioned you didn't I as well as religion.

Read post 134 again. I speak of bloodless treatments, and you basically say that because the article about them was 15 years old, they no longer exist.

Hey, what's that on your face? (Think of Ashe from Army of Darkness.)

post 134 belongs to perfection just so you know

 

[Perfection]

Perf did ok on one or two of them, but the risks, however small they are, are still greater than zero, which is the risk of infection from infected blood in a bloodless operation.

So? The benefits of donated blood are often greater

Laser surgery,

Can't be used for all operations

blood reclamation-recirculating machines,

Can't be used in the case of blood loss and other emergencies, also the blood tends to be contaminated by the environment (yes even more than donated). Logistically cannot be applied in many cicrumstances.

targeted donor (patient donates his own blood a couple months ahead of time),

Doesn't work for emergencies

and just plain less hack-and-slash approaches to organs that result in lower bleeding.

Only works with certain procedures

AIDS is spread in part by blood transfusions. Bloodless medecine research therefore helps reduce AIDS transmission. It also reduces Type A, B, and C Hepatitus infections, and all other infections from blood transfusions, by reducing the number of transfusions that take place.

AID and hepatitus infections by blood are very rare. Still bloodless medecine research is beneficial, however at the momment in many circumstances blood transfusions are the best way to go.

 

[Perfection]

Read post 134 again. I speak of bloodless treatments, and you basically say that because the article about them was 15 years old, they no longer exist.

No, I basicly say that bloodless treatments are not FAR SAFER in all circumstances as you allege. Thus far you've given me no (non JW) evidence that your allegation is ture.

Hey, what's that on your face?

It's a hicky from a sexy supermodel

 

[classical_hero]

People, people, people. Lets not get into personal attacks, after all that is not what a True Christian is all about.
What are the marks of a True Christian?
I don't believe that whether blood transfusions are really that important is God's. After all, blood transfusions are a Modern thing and the Bible does not say anything about blood transfusions. Whenever the Bible talks about blood, it always says that the shedding of blood is a nono, and that eating blood is a nono. The problem with JW's is they misquote the Bible, when it says that we are to 'abstain... from blood.' The only time people of those days would use blood is for cerimonies and eating of it. The practice of blood transfusion is about saving lives, and thus God appoves of it.

 

[Smidlee]

I sure God doesn't condemn blood transfusion as it saves lives but still someone shouldn't do something againest their own conscience. Also as a christian we should be careful not to be offend someone with our liberty we have with Christ. In Paul days the issue was should a christian eat meat or not.
I find no reason why we shouldn't do research for alternatives to blood transfusions especially in many countries blood is in short supply. I remember around 10 years ago Japan had develop artificial blood but for some reason it would only last for 24 hour at most.

 

[Perfection]

I find no reason why we shouldn't do research for alternatives to blood transfusions especially in many countries blood is in short supply. I remember around 10 years ago Japan had develop artificial blood but for some reason it would only last for 24 hour at most.

Niether do I, but if someone alleges that blood transfusions are so unsafe that they do not have a place in the medical community I'm gonna dispute that.

 

[PHSikes]

Some newer, non-partisan (can i use that term?), information would be nice. I guess the only solution is for all the JW to start stocking up on blood as soon as they are born, just in case.

Question: If you are a JW and get in a accident and are given blood (without your knowledge) what happens?

 

[Birdjaguar]

JW's are just another splinter sect of christianity claiming knowledge of Truth to the exclusion of all other christians. IIRC they make the claim that only 250,000 or so folks are eligible for salvation. Better join now or miss the bus.

 

[Saga of Gemini]

People, people, people. Lets not get into personal attacks, after all that is not what a True Christian is all about.
What are the marks of a True Christian?
I don't believe that whether blood transfusions are really that important is God's. After all, blood transfusions are a Modern thing and the Bible does not say anything about blood transfusions. Whenever the Bible talks about blood, it always says that the shedding of blood is a nono, and that eating blood is a nono. The problem with JW's is they misquote the Bible, when it says that we are to 'abstain... from blood.' The only time people of those days would use blood is for cerimonies and eating of it. The practice of blood transfusion is about saving lives, and thus God appoves of it.

Well as a matter of fact eating blood and inyecting it is the same thing what? am I crazy? Nope.....when u are in a hospital and cant eat by your mouth dont they inyect u the "food" via intravenosa??

Isnt it the same if a doctor says: "abstein from alcohol" and the patient goes and instead of drinking it inyects ethanol on his veins? would that be following tha Docs instructions? srry but its the same thing.

As a matter of fact because blood transfusions didnt exist back then obviusly there could not be any refference to them...if they had existed and there was no mentioning them in the Bible then your point most certanly be valid.

I Got Q about the las sentence...if you kill a men to save your own live does God aproves that as well? If you rob so u can eat to survive I guess God is Ok with that too rigth?

 

[Saga of Gemini]

Question: If you are a JW and get in a accident and are given blood (without your knowledge) what happens?

Nothing...if u have some sort of document wich says u dont accept blood and your still given blood without your knowldedge u could take it to court.

But other than that...what are u gonna do? u were unconcius. Nothing happens....

 

[Saga of Gemini]

No, I basicly say that bloodless treatments are not FAR SAFER in all circumstances as you allege. Thus far you've given me no (non JW) evidence that your allegation is ture.

Well I had some free time and I did my homework here ya go:

American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (June 1 1968 page 395 ) "Theres no doubt that when one is operating without the possibility of a transfusion it makes you improve your surgery. One becomes more agresive when aplying a subjection to any bleeding pipe" ( not sure the word is "Pipe" since Im translating the qoute from spanihs to enlglish.)

The Doctor Denton Cooley,from the cardiac institute of Texas said: "We were impressed both with the results in using non sanguineal solutions to expand the plasma in Jehovas Witneses that we started using the procedure in all of our cardiac patients".The newspaper of San Diego,Dec 27 1970, page A-10)

"The open heart surgery without blood, that was originally developed for the adult members of the Jehovas Witness sect because their religion forbids blood transfusions, now has been adapted to use it without risks in delicate procedures related with the heart of infants and children. ( Cardiovascular News, Feb 1984, page 5).

Ill try to get more recent Qoutes and info.....but for now this is what I have.

 

[Shadylookin]

Well I had some free time and I did my homework here ya go:

American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (June 1 1968 page 395 ) "Theres no doubt that when one is operating without the possibility of a transfusion it makes you improve your surgery. One becomes more agresive when aplying a subjection to any bleeding pipe" ( not sure the word is "Pipe" since Im translating the qoute from spanihs to enlglish.)

The Doctor Denton Cooley,from the cardiac institute of Texas said: "We were impressed both with the results in using non sanguineal solutions to expand the plasma in Jehovas Witneses that we started using the procedure in all of our cardiac patients".The newspaper of San Diego,Dec 27 1970, page A-10)

"The open heart surgery without blood, that was originally developed for the adult members of the Jehovas Witness sect because their religion forbids blood transfusions, now has been adapted to use it without risks in delicate procedures related with the heart of infants and children. ( Cardiovascular News, Feb 1984, page 5).

Ill try to get more recent Qoutes and info.....but for now this is what I have.

a Gynecologist from 36 years ago in a south american country is not a credible source for any relevant medical procedures of today.

Your good ol' Texan isn't very credible either, since this day and age I haven't heard of needing a blood transfusion for cardiac patients. My father had a heart attack and they only put a few incisions in his legs to fix him up. This day and age rarely would a surgery require a blood transfusion, usually you would only need one after you've had massive blood loss in an acident.

I could care less if you want to kill yourself because of religious fundamentalism, the more insanely religious that die from their own practices the better in my opinion. Just don't try to use your rhetoric as science please.

 

[Saga of Gemini]

a Gynecologist from 36 years ago in a south american country is not a credible source for any relevant medical procedures of today.

Your good ol' Texan isn't very credible either, since this day and age I haven't heard of needing a blood transfusion for cardiac patients. My father had a heart attack and they only put a few incisions in his legs to fix him up. This day and age rarely would a surgery require a blood transfusion, usually you would only need one after you've had massive blood loss in an acident.

.

More reason to me.....if in those "dark" times ( like u wanna put them in my opinion) it was secure more reason for this days and technological advances... U said it in here:

usually you would only need one after you've had massive blood loss in an acident.

I could care less if you want to kill yourself because of religious fundamentalism, the more insanely religious that die from their own practices the better in my opinion.

So I guess those soldiers in iraq are fundamentalists also since they are basically send there to die for their country or for any other X reason rigth?.

 

[Birdjaguar]

could care less if you want to kill yourself because of religious fundamentalism, the more insanely religious that die from their own practices the better in my opinion.

So I guess those soldiers in iraq are fundamentalists also since they are basically send there to die for their country or for any other X reason rigth?.

You are misreading his post. Shadylookin said that he didn't care if extremist fundamentalists killed themselves for their religion. You twisted it into stating that all US soldiers were fundamentalists because they put themslves in harms way for their country and its reasons. Not even close to the same.

 

[Shadylookin]

More reason to me.....if in those "dark" times ( like u wanna put them in my opinion) it was secure more reason for this days and technological advances... U said it in here:

The cleaner and less messy the surguries the better in my opinion. That's still no good when you have lost a lot of blood in an acident and need a blood transfusion to live though.

So I guess those soldiers in iraq are fundamentalists also since they are basically send there to die for their country or for any other X reason rigth?.

Soldiers are paid to fight wars that they may or may not believe in that the US has decided to fight. Some join because they want to fight to make sure they and others have freedoms which is very honorable and others do it for college or the money which is fine. They aren't fundy extremist and they aren't killing themselves and they sure aren't dying because of their own stuborness because they think a deity will strike them down if they endulge in all medical science has to offer. Your point is moot, but your ability to take things out of any reasonable context seems quite fine.

 

[Saga of Gemini]

The cleaner and less messy the surguries the better in my opinion. That's still no good when you have lost a lot of blood in an acident and need a blood transfusion to live though.

Well can the Doctor give u any warranty that if u are given the blood transfusion u will still live? huh?

Soldiers are paid to fight wars that they may or may not believe in that the US has decided to fight. Some join because they want to fight to make sure they and others have freedoms which is very honorable and others do it for college or the money which is fine. They aren't fundy extremist and they aren't killing themselves and they sure aren't dying because of their own stuborness because they think a deity will strike them down if they endulge in all medical science has to offer. Your point is moot, but your ability to take things out of any reasonable context seems quite fine.

Dont see much difference they still have ideals of what they want money may not be a "noble" ideal but its still one u can make a god out of money many or most ppl do.

At the end what are they doing? hey do it for the "pay" the "reward" wether it is money selfsatisfactioon, freedom, the US, england Canada X country....

Hows that different from doing it for God? (the christhian god or, money or food or for a country flag or X kind of god) I really dont see the difference.

At the end theres always some sort of ideal or reward seek behind this and other "fundamentalist" behavior. Its no different...well there is they are seen as heroes we are seen as fundamentalists.

 

[Inter4]

shady: so you don't find honorable dieing for a personal belief that gives you a reason to live?

 

[Saga of Gemini]

JW's are just another splinter sect of christianity claiming knowledge of Truth to the exclusion of all other christians. IIRC they make the claim that only 250,000 or so folks are eligible for salvation. Better join now or miss the bus.

theres a difference between knowing the truth and having the truth we certanly dont have it we just know it.And we try to tell it as much ppl we can some will listen some will not...what can one do about it?

BTW where did u got that 250.000 number? thats totally not truth ( or rigth ,since there is a number but it is 144.000 but its not the number of "tickets to salvation)

 

[Shadylookin]

Well can the Doctor give u any warranty that if u are given the blood transfusion u will still live? huh?

That's quite mature of you. Of course you can't be guranteed to live, but they could gurantee your going to die if you don't get one. You really should step back and look at what your posting do you honestly think this way?

Dont see much difference they still have ideals of what they want money may not be a "noble" ideal but its still one u can make a god out of money many or most ppl do.

At the end what are they doing? hey do it for the "pay" the "reward" wether it is money selfsatisfactioon, freedom, the US, england Canada X country....

Hows that different from doing it for God? (the christhian god or, money or food or for a country flag or X kind of god) I really dont see the difference.

At the end theres always some sort of ideal or reward seek behind this and other "fundamentalist" behavior. Its no different...well there is they are seen as heroes we are seen as fundamentalists.

money, freedom, countries, and cheap overseas prostitues exist. YOUR god on the other hand probably doesn't and if he does isn't worthy of anybodies time. There is a large difference between reality and fantasy and dying for real world ideas is a lot better than killing yourself for a deity you made up to comfort you but persistantly tries to kill things.