According to your religion it is. At one time JW's were not allowed to have organ transplants. The WTS reversed its decision on that years ago. It's now a "conscience matter." Many JW's have had organ transplants. There have even been Awake articles featuring experiences of JW's who have had transplants without receiving blood transfusions. It doesn't sound like you know a whole lot about this religion you're head over heals for.
Here's another thing you may not know. The Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses is made up of a group of men in New York. Decisions on major issues like blood transfusions and organ donations are made by vote. There are many issues on which members of the GB disagree, but the majority vote goes down as doctrine: the "light" of God. It's because of the disagreement within the GB that rules within the religion change. Organ transplantation was against the religion's laws until enough members of the GB agreed that it could be scripturally justified. Then the law was changed and it became a conscience matter. JW's who formerly died without choice, now have the option of organ donation if they choose. There are members of your organization, active Jehovah's Witnesses, who believe in the truth of your religion and support the GB, but who think that the WTS's stand on blood transfusions is wrong. They are not allowed to actively oppose the GB out of fear of being disassociated for apostacy. However, some members of the WTS as well as some active elders secretly support a reform on blood transfusions. Hopefully one day your GB leaders will change the rules on blood like they did organ transplantation so that your members don't continue to needlessly die without choice. Until then, the sheep will continue to blindly follow their master to the slaughter.
[Me, I'd say that the doctors who spent a bunch of years in school to learn
about the body, then specialized in trauma and recovery,
then spent years putting that training into practice,
and having late 20th-century diagnostic tools at their fingertips,
and using that skill and those resources to diagnose and triage the injured man,
I'd say THEY could say. Some people have suffered severe trauma and blood
loss, and doctors have been able to preserve their lives and eventually they
make a full, if slow, recovery. That certainly doesn't happen as the result
of dismissing some of the more effective methods of preserving life.
When a professional speaks on his profession, I tend to think he knows what
he's talking about.]
[To use your own question, who's to say a transfusion would have been
unable to save him?
The answer, as I've said, is "the doctors". However, they did NOT just
say "well, a transfusion would have made no difference here", and I know
that because you would have trumpeted that to the sky.]
[Thousands of people each year die from being hit by cars.
Do we ban cars?
No, we just try to make them SAFER.
On the other hand, millions of people's lives have been saved solely
due to blood transfusions.
Did they thwart God's will by surviving?
All of life involves risk.
The smart person does what they can to minimize risk, and
maximize benefits.
So, faced with dying if one does not get a transfusion,
and hearing "but there's a chance the transfusion will kill
you anyway"-as if that was the announcement-
a smart person would say "then give me the transfusion
and we'll plan for survival."
And the medical situation HARDLY is as bleak for people who
get transfusions as you paint.]
WordWolf you certainly are well-spoken to say the least...you so often present such a well informed and logical reply that I find it an actual pleasure to take your words in.
So many excellent responses here, I really enjoy them. I used to be of the same mind as the JW's on the topic of blood transfusion but not to the extreme that I would withhold blood from a family member in a life-or-death situation. It was more along the lines of optional transfusions, given as a matter of course, but not absolutely necessary in the doctor's opinion.
I would still rather not have one or authorize the giving of one if I were in the position of having to decide, but since my grandmother died because of blindly sticking to JW rhetoric, I would definitely not rule it out.
Especially not on JW religious grounds, since that religion changes its doctrine like some people change telephone service providers...every few years.
According to your religion it is. At one time JW's were not allowed to have organ transplants. The WTS reversed its decision on that years ago. It's now a "conscience matter." Many JW's have had organ transplants. There have even been Awake articles featuring experiences of JW's who have had transplants without receiving blood transfusions. It doesn't sound like you know a whole lot about this religion you're head over heals for.
Here's another thing you may not know. The Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses is made up of a group of men in New York. Decisions on major issues like blood transfusions and organ donations are made by vote. There are many issues on which members of the GB disagree, but the majority vote goes down as doctrine: the "light" of God. It's because of the disagreement within the GB that rules within the religion change. Organ transplantation was against the religion's laws until enough members of the GB agreed that it could be scripturally justified. Then the law was changed and it became a conscience matter. JW's who formerly died without choice, now have the option of organ donation if they choose. There are members of your organization, active Jehovah's Witnesses, who believe in the truth of your religion and support the GB, but who think that the WTS's stand on blood transfusions is wrong. They are not allowed to actively oppose the GB out of fear of being disassociated for apostacy. However, some members of the WTS as well as some active elders secretly support a reform on blood transfusions. Hopefully one day your GB leaders will change the rules on blood like they did organ transplantation so that your members don't continue to needlessly die without choice. Until then, the sheep will continue to blindly follow their master to the slaughter.
Nad
yes nadia good points they have been noted...i wouldnt have organs...
starbird x
WordWolf you certainly are well-spoken to say the least...you so often present such a well informed and logical reply that I find it an actual pleasure to take your words in.
So many excellent responses here, I really enjoy them. I used to be of the same mind as the JW's on the topic of blood transfusion but not to the extreme that I would withhold blood from a family member in a life-or-death situation. It was more along the lines of optional transfusions, given as a matter of course, but not absolutely necessary in the doctor's opinion.
I would still rather not have one or authorize the giving of one if I were in the position of having to decide, but since my grandmother died because of blindly sticking to JW rhetoric, I would definitely not rule it out.
Especially not on JW religious grounds, since that religion changes its doctrine like some people change telephone service providers...every few years.
if you dont mind, can i ask why you would still rather not have a transfusion
if you dont mind, can i ask why you would still rather not have a transfusion
starbird x x x
Starbird, it's just the thought of someone's insides being inside of another person; a little gross if you will! And it's along the lines of "catching" something from someone else - we recoil if someone coughs, spits, or sneezes around us, or even speaks over our food, right? So to take in their blood, you're basically "getting" everything they've got! And I can barely stand to touch or kiss anyone other than a little child as it is....
You know when you give blood, you replenish your body with more blood.
When you recieve blood (from someone else) it eventually gets broken down and YOU make more YOU blood. Of course the blood you recieved was in no way characteristically someone elses blood, specifically (as stated before...no DNA), unless that is, their soul was in it somewhere.
So this gets interesting. If you give blood and therefore part of you soul, are you missing some of it until your body replenishes it? When the blood you gave is used and is broken down in someone else's body, is the soul broken down too? If not where does it go? Is part of their soul forever in your tissues or something? So if I keep giving blood does that mean I have more and more soul (just in different people's bodies)?
Whoa!
Maybe this is how James Brown did it. The man had a lot of soul.
That's called "Anglican", and if you're in the USA,
it's called an "Episcopalian" church.
All the same church.
I'd let this go except that I know WordWolf is an intense stickler for details.
The American Episcopal Church falls under the umbrella of The Worldwide Anglican Communion, but although it is similar in many ways to the Church of England it actually draws its genesis directly from The Scottish Episcopal Church and not the English Church.
Although there are close similarities; there are Anglican Churches and Episcopalian Churches in the United States. The Anglicans generally being the more conservative and the episcopalians the more progressive.
Similar roots, similar in many ways, but different churches, not exactly 'all the same'
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
20
10
21
32
Popular Days
Jan 30
37
Jan 31
33
Feb 1
31
Feb 3
13
Top Posters In This Topic
Belle 20 posts
WordWolf 10 posts
cman 21 posts
starbird 32 posts
Popular Days
Jan 30 2007
37 posts
Jan 31 2007
33 posts
Feb 1 2007
31 posts
Feb 3 2007
13 posts
Naddia
Starbird stated:
According to your religion it is. At one time JW's were not allowed to have organ transplants. The WTS reversed its decision on that years ago. It's now a "conscience matter." Many JW's have had organ transplants. There have even been Awake articles featuring experiences of JW's who have had transplants without receiving blood transfusions. It doesn't sound like you know a whole lot about this religion you're head over heals for.
Here's another thing you may not know. The Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses is made up of a group of men in New York. Decisions on major issues like blood transfusions and organ donations are made by vote. There are many issues on which members of the GB disagree, but the majority vote goes down as doctrine: the "light" of God. It's because of the disagreement within the GB that rules within the religion change. Organ transplantation was against the religion's laws until enough members of the GB agreed that it could be scripturally justified. Then the law was changed and it became a conscience matter. JW's who formerly died without choice, now have the option of organ donation if they choose. There are members of your organization, active Jehovah's Witnesses, who believe in the truth of your religion and support the GB, but who think that the WTS's stand on blood transfusions is wrong. They are not allowed to actively oppose the GB out of fear of being disassociated for apostacy. However, some members of the WTS as well as some active elders secretly support a reform on blood transfusions. Hopefully one day your GB leaders will change the rules on blood like they did organ transplantation so that your members don't continue to needlessly die without choice. Until then, the sheep will continue to blindly follow their master to the slaughter.
Nad
Edited by NaddiaLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Naddia --- WONDERFUL POSTS!!!
:eusa_clap: 
:eusa_clap: 
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
Siouxzahn
I agree, I'm happy to see her doing just that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
"Anglican."
The Church of England is shortened to "C. of E.".
That's the group that split off from the Roman Catholic Church because
one king wanted a divorce and the RCC wouldn't give it to him,
so he made his own church just like the RCC except for the divorce.
That's called "Anglican", and if you're in the USA,
it's called an "Episcopalian" church.
All the same church.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
[Me, I'd say that the doctors who spent a bunch of years in school to learn
about the body, then specialized in trauma and recovery,
then spent years putting that training into practice,
and having late 20th-century diagnostic tools at their fingertips,
and using that skill and those resources to diagnose and triage the injured man,
I'd say THEY could say. Some people have suffered severe trauma and blood
loss, and doctors have been able to preserve their lives and eventually they
make a full, if slow, recovery. That certainly doesn't happen as the result
of dismissing some of the more effective methods of preserving life.
When a professional speaks on his profession, I tend to think he knows what
he's talking about.]
[To use your own question, who's to say a transfusion would have beenunable to save him?
The answer, as I've said, is "the doctors". However, they did NOT just
say "well, a transfusion would have made no difference here", and I know
that because you would have trumpeted that to the sky.]
[Thousands of people each year die from being hit by cars.
Do we ban cars?
No, we just try to make them SAFER.
On the other hand, millions of people's lives have been saved solely
due to blood transfusions.
Did they thwart God's will by surviving?
All of life involves risk.
The smart person does what they can to minimize risk, and
maximize benefits.
So, faced with dying if one does not get a transfusion,
and hearing "but there's a chance the transfusion will kill
you anyway"-as if that was the announcement-
a smart person would say "then give me the transfusion
and we'll plan for survival."
And the medical situation HARDLY is as bleak for people who
get transfusions as you paint.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Siouxzahn
WordWolf you certainly are well-spoken to say the least...you so often present such a well informed and logical reply that I find it an actual pleasure to take your words in.
So many excellent responses here, I really enjoy them. I used to be of the same mind as the JW's on the topic of blood transfusion but not to the extreme that I would withhold blood from a family member in a life-or-death situation. It was more along the lines of optional transfusions, given as a matter of course, but not absolutely necessary in the doctor's opinion.
I would still rather not have one or authorize the giving of one if I were in the position of having to decide, but since my grandmother died because of blindly sticking to JW rhetoric, I would definitely not rule it out.
Especially not on JW religious grounds, since that religion changes its doctrine like some people change telephone service providers...every few years.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
starbird
yes nadia good points they have been noted...i wouldnt have organs...
starbird x
if you dont mind, can i ask why you would still rather not have a transfusion
starbird x x x
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Siouxzahn
Starbird, it's just the thought of someone's insides being inside of another person; a little gross if you will! And it's along the lines of "catching" something from someone else - we recoil if someone coughs, spits, or sneezes around us, or even speaks over our food, right? So to take in their blood, you're basically "getting" everything they've got! And I can barely stand to touch or kiss anyone other than a little child as it is....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
What an interesting concept.
You know when you give blood, you replenish your body with more blood.
When you recieve blood (from someone else) it eventually gets broken down and YOU make more YOU blood. Of course the blood you recieved was in no way characteristically someone elses blood, specifically (as stated before...no DNA), unless that is, their soul was in it somewhere.
So this gets interesting. If you give blood and therefore part of you soul, are you missing some of it until your body replenishes it? When the blood you gave is used and is broken down in someone else's body, is the soul broken down too? If not where does it go? Is part of their soul forever in your tissues or something? So if I keep giving blood does that mean I have more and more soul (just in different people's bodies)?
Whoa!
Maybe this is how James Brown did it. The man had a lot of soul.
"Uuuh! Gotta brand new bag. (of blood) Hit me!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Siouxzahn
I just ran across this very interesting discussion regarding the JW's current Blood Policy. Very interesting indeed!
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/16/128917/1.ashx
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
sidebar:
I'd let this go except that I know WordWolf is an intense stickler for details.
The American Episcopal Church falls under the umbrella of The Worldwide Anglican Communion, but although it is similar in many ways to the Church of England it actually draws its genesis directly from The Scottish Episcopal Church and not the English Church.
Although there are close similarities; there are Anglican Churches and Episcopalian Churches in the United States. The Anglicans generally being the more conservative and the episcopalians the more progressive.
Similar roots, similar in many ways, but different churches, not exactly 'all the same'
Thats all
sorry for the interruption
Carry on
Edited by mstar1Link to comment
Share on other sites
Siouxzahn
ha ha... :P
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
thinkin of blood transfusion-
that's how you were born in part
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
The issue of blood is still an issue...
I understand well that flesh and blood will not inherit the Kingdom of God
but I would think that God might think
that we were cheating
if willfully bleeding ourselves to death
to get there.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved All
God loves us all
http://jehovahswitnessrevealed.com/category/videos/
The Watchtower History - Part 2
about the middle of the page
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.