Total Posts:315|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

JWs and blood

MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2015 4:57:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Whilst JWs have not changed their biblical stance on the use of blood, the medical profession has, considerably.

Why?

Well largely due to the educating work of the WTBTS Hospital Liaison Committee and it's tireless work on behalf of the Brothers and Sisters throughout the earth, Aided in no small part but Medical Professionals like Dr Denton Cooley of the Texas Heart Institute, a heart surgery pioneer who has been using a solution of Ringers Lactate as his preferred transfusion medium of blood in all operations, unless blood was specifically requested by his patients, for around 50 years.

Dr Cooley is one of the most respected heart surgeons ion the world and is one of the pioneers of heart transplants.

Anyone who wants to know might find these feature length videos interesting:

http://www.jw.org...

http://www.jw.org...

http://www.jw.org...

Also these publications:

http://www.jw.org...

http://www.jw.org...

And saving the best for last:

http://www.jw.org...

I don't know how many of you, if any, will download or watch these videos or even download or read the publications, guess it depends how much you want to know of the truth about these things.

If you have any comments on them, feel free.
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 9:57:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/20/2015 4:57:08 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Whilst JWs have not changed their biblical stance on the use of blood, the medical profession has, considerably.

Why?

Well largely due to the educating work of the WTBTS Hospital Liaison Committee and it's tireless work on behalf of the Brothers and Sisters throughout the earth, Aided in no small part but Medical Professionals like Dr Denton Cooley of the Texas Heart Institute, a heart surgery pioneer who has been using a solution of Ringers Lactate as his preferred transfusion medium of blood in all operations, unless blood was specifically requested by his patients, for around 50 years.

Dr Cooley is one of the most respected heart surgeons ion the world and is one of the pioneers of heart transplants.

Anyone who wants to know might find these feature length videos interesting:

http://www.jw.org...

http://www.jw.org...

http://www.jw.org...

Also these publications:

http://www.jw.org...

http://www.jw.org...

And saving the best for last:

http://www.jw.org...

I don't know how many of you, if any, will download or watch these videos or even download or read the publications, guess it depends how much you want to know of the truth about these things.

If you have any comments on them, feel free.

Where in the Bible does it say, 'thou shalt not have blood transfusions'? Blood transfusions have saved countless lives including that of my son!
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 11:13:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Jesus actually insisted people drink his blood.

John 6:53 Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 11:58:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
There is no down-side to the JW (WatchTower) position on their members not receiving blood transfusions, really? I've put a lot of though into it, and there are only two possibilities:

(1) JW refuses blood transfusion, and lives --> that's great
(2) JW refuses blood transfusion, and dies --> So? No big loss.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 12:08:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/21/2015 11:58:07 AM, annanicole wrote:
There is no down-side to the JW (WatchTower) position on their members not receiving blood transfusions, really? I've put a lot of though into it, and there are only two possibilities:

(1) JW refuses blood transfusion, and lives --> that's great
(2) JW refuses blood transfusion, and dies --> So? No big loss.

(1) JW refuses blood transfusion, and lives --> No big gain.
(2) JW refuses blood transfusion, and dies --> So? No big loss.
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 12:14:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/21/2015 12:08:46 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 5/21/2015 11:58:07 AM, annanicole wrote:
There is no down-side to the JW (WatchTower) position on their members not receiving blood transfusions, really? I've put a lot of though into it, and there are only two possibilities:

(1) JW refuses blood transfusion, and lives --> that's great
(2) JW refuses blood transfusion, and dies --> So? No big loss.

(1) JW refuses blood transfusion, and lives --> No big gain.
(2) JW refuses blood transfusion, and dies --> So? No big loss.

Yeah, that's more accurate. It's six of one, and half-a-dozen of the other. Bottom line: no blood wasted.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 12:38:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/21/2015 9:57:59 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 5/20/2015 4:57:08 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Whilst JWs have not changed their biblical stance on the use of blood, the medical profession has, considerably.

Why?

Well largely due to the educating work of the WTBTS Hospital Liaison Committee and it's tireless work on behalf of the Brothers and Sisters throughout the earth, Aided in no small part but Medical Professionals like Dr Denton Cooley of the Texas Heart Institute, a heart surgery pioneer who has been using a solution of Ringers Lactate as his preferred transfusion medium of blood in all operations, unless blood was specifically requested by his patients, for around 50 years.

Dr Cooley is one of the most respected heart surgeons ion the world and is one of the pioneers of heart transplants.

Anyone who wants to know might find these feature length videos interesting:

http://www.jw.org...

http://www.jw.org...

http://www.jw.org...

Also these publications:

http://www.jw.org...

http://www.jw.org...

And saving the best for last:

http://www.jw.org...

I don't know how many of you, if any, will download or watch these videos or even download or read the publications, guess it depends how much you want to know of the truth about these things.

If you have any comments on them, feel free.

Where in the Bible does it say, 'thou shalt not have blood transfusions'? Blood transfusions have saved countless lives including that of my son!

Acts 15:28, 29, there are no exceptions to that statement.

There is not one shred of proof that all those saved by transfusions would not have been saved also by the alternatives available

Why do you think Bloodless surgery is catching on so much?

Why do you think Dr Denton Cooley now does not use blood in his heart surgery transfusions unless the patient insists on it?

Have you even bothered watching the videos or are you commenting in ignorance as usual?

we do know that people have been killed by blood transfusions who may have been saved had they been given one of the alternatives, though obviously since it is only can case of "may have been saved" there are no figures available.

It is also an absolute fact that the vast majority of JW of all ages who have died for lack of a blood transfusion would have been saved had the hospital agreed to provide alternative transfusion media, though some would have died whatever was done.

Do you not believe that a patient should have a say in his or her treatment?

Basically, so far your comments on the JWs stance have been typical of those brainwashed into thinking that blood is a vital medium where in fact it is inevitably second best, or worse, because you haven't bothered to look into the alternatives that are available. Or the dangers inherent in using blood as a transfusion medium.

One thing I can tell you for sure is that my father would not have contracted the cancer that killed him had it not been for blood transfusions, and the surgeons even admitted that to me.

His death was a horrible one since his whole body was riddled with metastasised cancer cells.

You see, the JWs objection is purely scriptural.

Mins is both scriptural and medical, even more so since my father's death. He was a horrible man, but no-one deserves to suffer and die as he did.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 12:39:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/21/2015 11:13:29 AM, Harikrish wrote:
Jesus actually insisted people drink his blood.

John 6:53 Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

No he did not. He insisted they drink wine to represent his blood.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 12:44:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/21/2015 11:58:07 AM, annanicole wrote:
There is no down-side to the JW (WatchTower) position on their members not receiving blood transfusions, really? I've put a lot of though into it, and there are only two possibilities:

(1) JW refuses blood transfusion, and lives --> that's great
(2) JW refuses blood transfusion, and dies --> So? No big loss.

It is a loss to their families, but no, not to them since they are guaranteed a resurrection for their faithfulness.

That is a typical heartless, hate filled comment, of the Satanically inspired.

As Dr Denton Cooley would tell you, there is s definite up side when the medical profession cooperate with them though, and patients all over the world have benefited from their work.

If it were not for them there would not have been so much research into Bloodless Surgery, and it would not now be increasingly widely used.
bulproof
Posts: 25,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 12:57:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/21/2015 12:38:57 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
There is not one shred of proof that all those saved by transfusions would not have been saved also by the alternatives available
So says doctor 10yr old.
Oh dear.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 3:09:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/21/2015 12:39:56 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/21/2015 11:13:29 AM, Harikrish wrote:
Jesus actually insisted people drink his blood.

John 6:53 Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

No he did not. He insisted they drink wine to represent his blood.

There is no mention of a parable or wine in John 6. Jesus uses the word real for both.

The people also took Jesus seriously and asked.

John 6:52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

His own disciples were disgusted with what Jesus was asking them to do and walked away.

Many Disciples Desert Jesus
John 6:60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"
John 6:66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
TheWORDisLIFE
Posts: 1,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 3:12:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/21/2015 11:13:29 AM, Harikrish wrote:
Jesus actually insisted people drink his blood.

John 6:53 Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

Ahahaha LOL. That's the reason why you shouldn't be reading the Book of the Israelites.

I guess then that means that the human race is going to die and no human will be saved because Christ said in Matthew 15:24 He came for the lost sheep of Israel. So I guess we humans are all doomed because Christ only died for sheep's and not humans.
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 4:25:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/21/2015 12:44:30 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/21/2015 11:58:07 AM, annanicole wrote:
There is no down-side to the JW (WatchTower) position on their members not receiving blood transfusions, really? I've put a lot of though into it, and there are only two possibilities:

(1) JW refuses blood transfusion, and lives --> that's great
(2) JW refuses blood transfusion, and dies --> So? No big loss.

It is a loss to their families, but no, not to them since they are guaranteed a resurrection for their faithfulness.

"Refuse a blood transfusion .... die from lack of blood transfusion .... "guaranteed resurrection due to 'faithfulness'." How's that for ridiculous reasoning?

As Dr Denton Cooley would tell you, there is s definite up side when the medical profession cooperate with them though, and patients all over the world have benefited from their work.

If it were not for them there would not have been so much research into Bloodless Surgery, and it would not now be increasingly widely used.

Yeah, there would. There has always been a search for adequate blood substitutes, ya dimwit.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 7:00:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/21/2015 12:38:57 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/21/2015 9:57:59 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 5/20/2015 4:57:08 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Whilst JWs have not changed their biblical stance on the use of blood, the medical profession has, considerably.

Why?

Well largely due to the educating work of the WTBTS Hospital Liaison Committee and it's tireless work on behalf of the Brothers and Sisters throughout the earth, Aided in no small part but Medical Professionals like Dr Denton Cooley of the Texas Heart Institute, a heart surgery pioneer who has been using a solution of Ringers Lactate as his preferred transfusion medium of blood in all operations, unless blood was specifically requested by his patients, for around 50 years.

Dr Cooley is one of the most respected heart surgeons ion the world and is one of the pioneers of heart transplants.

Anyone who wants to know might find these feature length videos interesting:

http://www.jw.org...

http://www.jw.org...

http://www.jw.org...

Also these publications:

http://www.jw.org...

http://www.jw.org...

And saving the best for last:

http://www.jw.org...

I don't know how many of you, if any, will download or watch these videos or even download or read the publications, guess it depends how much you want to know of the truth about these things.

If you have any comments on them, feel free.

Where in the Bible does it say, 'thou shalt not have blood transfusions'? Blood transfusions have saved countless lives including that of my son!

Acts 15:28, 29, there are no exceptions to that statement.

There is not one shred of proof that all those saved by transfusions would not have been saved also by the alternatives available

Why do you think Bloodless surgery is catching on so much?

Why do you think Dr Denton Cooley now does not use blood in his heart surgery transfusions unless the patient insists on it?

Have you even bothered watching the videos or are you commenting in ignorance as usual?

we do know that people have been killed by blood transfusions who may have been saved had they been given one of the alternatives, though obviously since it is only can case of "may have been saved" there are no figures available.

It is also an absolute fact that the vast majority of JW of all ages who have died for lack of a blood transfusion would have been saved had the hospital agreed to provide alternative transfusion media, though some would have died whatever was done.

Do you not believe that a patient should have a say in his or her treatment?

Basically, so far your comments on the JWs stance have been typical of those brainwashed into thinking that blood is a vital medium where in fact it is inevitably second best, or worse, because you haven't bothered to look into the alternatives that are available. Or the dangers inherent in using blood as a transfusion medium.

One thing I can tell you for sure is that my father would not have contracted the cancer that killed him had it not been for blood transfusions, and the surgeons even admitted that to me.

His death was a horrible one since his whole body was riddled with metastasised cancer cells.

You see, the JWs objection is purely scriptural.

Mins is both scriptural and medical, even more so since my father's death. He was a horrible man, but no-one deserves to suffer and die as he did.
Must you lie even about your fathers cause of death.

"Blood Transfusions and Cancer Risk
The study analyzed data gathered between 1968 and 2002 from computerized blood bank registers in Denmark and Sweden, including information on 1.13 million blood donors and 1.31 million blood transfusion recipients.

Out of the more than 350,000 recipients included in the final analysis, just over 12,000 (3%) were exposed to blood products from donors who later went on to develop cancer.

The blood transfusion recipients were followed for up to 34 years, and the results showed no increased risk of cancer associated with the exposure.

"Our data provide no evidence that blood transfusions from precancerous blood donors are associated with an increased risk of cancer among recipients compared with transfusions from non-cancerous donors," the researchers conclude."
http://www.webmd.com...
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2015 2:45:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
There is NOTHING which mentions blood transfusions in the Bible, however much the daft JW cult want it to!
dee-em
Posts: 6,464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2015 6:58:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/21/2015 12:38:57 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/21/2015 9:57:59 AM, JJ50 wrote:

Where in the Bible does it say, 'thou shalt not have blood transfusions'? Blood transfusions have saved countless lives including that of my son!

Acts 15:28, 29, there are no exceptions to that statement.

Mark 7:15 "There is nothing from outside a man that passes into him that can defile him; but the things that issue forth out of a man are the things that defile a man."
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2015 7:56:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/21/2015 4:25:45 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/21/2015 12:44:30 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/21/2015 11:58:07 AM, annanicole wrote:
There is no down-side to the JW (WatchTower) position on their members not receiving blood transfusions, really? I've put a lot of though into it, and there are only two possibilities:

(1) JW refuses blood transfusion, and lives --> that's great
(2) JW refuses blood transfusion, and dies --> So? No big loss.

It is a loss to their families, but no, not to them since they are guaranteed a resurrection for their faithfulness.

"Refuse a blood transfusion .... die from lack of blood transfusion .... "guaranteed resurrection due to 'faithfulness'." How's that for ridiculous reasoning?

As Dr Denton Cooley would tell you, there is s definite up side when the medical profession cooperate with them though, and patients all over the world have benefited from their work.

If it were not for them there would not have been so much research into Bloodless Surgery, and it would not now be increasingly widely used.

Yeah, there would. There has always been a search for adequate blood substitutes, ya dimwit.

Another possible reason why MCB was disfellowshipped and shunned by the JW. He was an unbearable dimwit.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2015 2:42:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/22/2015 2:45:58 AM, JJ50 wrote:
There is NOTHING which mentions blood transfusions in the Bible, however much the daft JW cult want it to!

There are no exclusions to the ban on using blood, therefore transfusions do not need to be mentioned separately.

Jehovah was more than aware of the directions that Satan would push this world in,so had transfusions been allowable he would have made sure we had some way of knowing it.

The point you refuse to take on board is that by tempting us to save our lives via blood transfusion he is trying to tell us that the blood of any man can save our lives where in reality only the blood of his son has the power to do that.

His distortion of scripture is very much along the lines of his distortion of:

Psalm 91:11, 12
11 For he will give his angels a command concerning you,
To guard you in all your ways.
12 They will carry you on their hands,
So that you may not strike your foot against a stone.

As recorded at:

Matthew 4:6
ASV(i) 6 and saith unto him, If thou art the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and, On their hands they shall bear thee up, Lest haply thou dash thy foot against a stone.

Satan is very good at distorting scripture which is why we now have about 3,000 fake Christian denominations.

Fortunately not all of us fall for it, which is why we have the JWs.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2015 2:53:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/21/2015 4:25:45 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/21/2015 12:44:30 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/21/2015 11:58:07 AM, annanicole wrote:
There is no down-side to the JW (WatchTower) position on their members not receiving blood transfusions, really? I've put a lot of though into it, and there are only two possibilities:

(1) JW refuses blood transfusion, and lives --> that's great
(2) JW refuses blood transfusion, and dies --> So? No big loss.

It is a loss to their families, but no, not to them since they are guaranteed a resurrection for their faithfulness.

"Refuse a blood transfusion .... die from lack of blood transfusion .... "guaranteed resurrection due to 'faithfulness'." How's that for ridiculous reasoning?

As Dr Denton Cooley would tell you, there is s definite up side when the medical profession cooperate with them though, and patients all over the world have benefited from their work.

If it were not for them there would not have been so much research into Bloodless Surgery, and it would not now be increasingly widely used.

Yeah, there would. There has always been a search for adequate blood substitutes, ya dimwit.

Well, since they have had them for as long as they have had transfusions, why were they not using them as they do now.

True they have developed more since. For instance back in the 1970s the Japanese even developed one which would carry oxygen from the lungs and CO2 from the muscles.

But people were so obsessed with blood that they were never used.

It is only the intervention of the WTBTS Hospital Liaison Committee, and their influence on the medical profession, with the support of bloodless surgery pioneers like Dr Denton Cooley (not a JW).

Where do you think the WTBTS Hospital Liaison Committee got all their information from? It was information which the Medical profession knew and were taught for many years, but deliberately chose to ignore, at the cost of many lives which could have been saved had they been allowed alternative treatments they requested.

IT is not as if the medical profession wasn't aware of the truth about blood, they simply chose to ignore it for their own convenience.

Just like you ignore the truth from scripture for your own purposes.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2015 2:57:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/22/2015 6:58:10 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 5/21/2015 12:38:57 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/21/2015 9:57:59 AM, JJ50 wrote:

Where in the Bible does it say, 'thou shalt not have blood transfusions'? Blood transfusions have saved countless lives including that of my son!

Acts 15:28, 29, there are no exceptions to that statement.

Mark 7:15 "There is nothing from outside a man that passes into him that can defile him; but the things that issue forth out of a man are the things that defile a man."

Out of context.

Jesus was talking about foods there, and legitimate food at that.

You are doing as Satan did at Matthew 4:6 and misapplying scripture to your own ends, by widening it's application beyond where it should be..
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2015 2:59:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/21/2015 3:12:32 PM, TheWORDisLIFE wrote:
At 5/21/2015 11:13:29 AM, Harikrish wrote:
Jesus actually insisted people drink his blood.

John 6:53 Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

Ahahaha LOL. That's the reason why you shouldn't be reading the Book of the Israelites.

I guess then that means that the human race is going to die and no human will be saved because Christ said in Matthew 15:24 He came for the lost sheep of Israel. So I guess we humans are all doomed because Christ only died for sheep's and not humans.

On the contrary, since Jesus and the Apostles taught from it, it is absolutely necessary to know it as well as they did.
TheWORDisLIFE
Posts: 1,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2015 3:01:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/22/2015 2:59:51 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/21/2015 3:12:32 PM, TheWORDisLIFE wrote:
At 5/21/2015 11:13:29 AM, Harikrish wrote:
Jesus actually insisted people drink his blood.

John 6:53 Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

Ahahaha LOL. That's the reason why you shouldn't be reading the Book of the Israelites.

I guess then that means that the human race is going to die and no human will be saved because Christ said in Matthew 15:24 He came for the lost sheep of Israel. So I guess we humans are all doomed because Christ only died for sheep's and not humans.

On the contrary, since Jesus and the Apostles taught from it, it is absolutely necessary to know it as well as they did.

And the Apostles where what? Israelites.
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2015 3:11:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/22/2015 2:53:16 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/21/2015 4:25:45 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/21/2015 12:44:30 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/21/2015 11:58:07 AM, annanicole wrote:
There is no down-side to the JW (WatchTower) position on their members not receiving blood transfusions, really? I've put a lot of though into it, and there are only two possibilities:

(1) JW refuses blood transfusion, and lives --> that's great
(2) JW refuses blood transfusion, and dies --> So? No big loss.

It is a loss to their families, but no, not to them since they are guaranteed a resurrection for their faithfulness.

"Refuse a blood transfusion .... die from lack of blood transfusion .... "guaranteed resurrection due to 'faithfulness'." How's that for ridiculous reasoning?

As Dr Denton Cooley would tell you, there is s definite up side when the medical profession cooperate with them though, and patients all over the world have benefited from their work.

If it were not for them there would not have been so much research into Bloodless Surgery, and it would not now be increasingly widely used.

Yeah, there would. There has always been a search for adequate blood substitutes, ya dimwit.

Well, since they have had them for as long as they have had transfusions, why were they not using them as they do now.

LOL No, they didn't "have them for as long as they have had transfusions." Ignorance of a subject certainly doesn't impede you from commenting on it.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2015 4:14:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/22/2015 3:11:11 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/22/2015 2:53:16 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/21/2015 4:25:45 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/21/2015 12:44:30 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/21/2015 11:58:07 AM, annanicole wrote:
There is no down-side to the JW (WatchTower) position on their members not receiving blood transfusions, really? I've put a lot of though into it, and there are only two possibilities:

(1) JW refuses blood transfusion, and lives --> that's great
(2) JW refuses blood transfusion, and dies --> So? No big loss.

It is a loss to their families, but no, not to them since they are guaranteed a resurrection for their faithfulness.

"Refuse a blood transfusion .... die from lack of blood transfusion .... "guaranteed resurrection due to 'faithfulness'." How's that for ridiculous reasoning?

As Dr Denton Cooley would tell you, there is s definite up side when the medical profession cooperate with them though, and patients all over the world have benefited from their work.

If it were not for them there would not have been so much research into Bloodless Surgery, and it would not now be increasingly widely used.

Yeah, there would. There has always been a search for adequate blood substitutes, ya dimwit.

Well, since they have had them for as long as they have had transfusions, why were they not using them as they do now.

LOL No, they didn't "have them for as long as they have had transfusions." Ignorance of a subject certainly doesn't impede you from commenting on it.

Actually they did. They had Saline Solution, which is a very effective alternative.

Admittedly it was the only one at the start, but it still works today.
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2015 5:07:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/22/2015 4:14:27 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/22/2015 3:11:11 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/22/2015 2:53:16 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/21/2015 4:25:45 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/21/2015 12:44:30 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/21/2015 11:58:07 AM, annanicole wrote:
There is no down-side to the JW (WatchTower) position on their members not receiving blood transfusions, really? I've put a lot of though into it, and there are only two possibilities:

(1) JW refuses blood transfusion, and lives --> that's great
(2) JW refuses blood transfusion, and dies --> So? No big loss.

It is a loss to their families, but no, not to them since they are guaranteed a resurrection for their faithfulness.

"Refuse a blood transfusion .... die from lack of blood transfusion .... "guaranteed resurrection due to 'faithfulness'." How's that for ridiculous reasoning?

As Dr Denton Cooley would tell you, there is s definite up side when the medical profession cooperate with them though, and patients all over the world have benefited from their work.

If it were not for them there would not have been so much research into Bloodless Surgery, and it would not now be increasingly widely used.

Yeah, there would. There has always been a search for adequate blood substitutes, ya dimwit.

Well, since they have had them for as long as they have had transfusions, why were they not using them as they do now.

LOL No, they didn't "have them for as long as they have had transfusions." Ignorance of a subject certainly doesn't impede you from commenting on it.

Actually they did. They had Saline Solution, which is a very effective alternative.

LMAO @ at. You are about as dumb as they come on this subject. I've given hundreds of blood transfusions, and thousands of liters of normal saline and LRS. There are many instances in which (1) a transfusion of whole blood is life-saving, but (2) administration of 0.9% saline would hasten death. Yet you equate the two, ignorantly, and call saline a "very effective alternative". Ummm ... yeah, it would be "effective" all right.

Once again, sheer ignorance does not in any way "put the brakes" on your comments.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Geogeer
Posts: 4,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2015 5:16:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/21/2015 3:09:07 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 5/21/2015 12:39:56 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/21/2015 11:13:29 AM, Harikrish wrote:
Jesus actually insisted people drink his blood.

John 6:53 Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

No he did not. He insisted they drink wine to represent his blood.

There is no mention of a parable or wine in John 6. Jesus uses the word real for both.

The people also took Jesus seriously and asked.

John 6:52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

His own disciples were disgusted with what Jesus was asking them to do and walked away.

Many Disciples Desert Jesus
John 6:60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"
John 6:66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

Keep that line of argument up and you'll end up Catholic...
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2015 5:24:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/22/2015 5:07:18 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/22/2015 4:14:27 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/22/2015 3:11:11 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/22/2015 2:53:16 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/21/2015 4:25:45 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/21/2015 12:44:30 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/21/2015 11:58:07 AM, annanicole wrote:
There is no down-side to the JW (WatchTower) position on their members not receiving blood transfusions, really? I've put a lot of though into it, and there are only two possibilities:

(1) JW refuses blood transfusion, and lives --> that's great
(2) JW refuses blood transfusion, and dies --> So? No big loss.

It is a loss to their families, but no, not to them since they are guaranteed a resurrection for their faithfulness.

"Refuse a blood transfusion .... die from lack of blood transfusion .... "guaranteed resurrection due to 'faithfulness'." How's that for ridiculous reasoning?

As Dr Denton Cooley would tell you, there is s definite up side when the medical profession cooperate with them though, and patients all over the world have benefited from their work.

If it were not for them there would not have been so much research into Bloodless Surgery, and it would not now be increasingly widely used.

Yeah, there would. There has always been a search for adequate blood substitutes, ya dimwit.

Well, since they have had them for as long as they have had transfusions, why were they not using them as they do now.

LOL No, they didn't "have them for as long as they have had transfusions." Ignorance of a subject certainly doesn't impede you from commenting on it.

Actually they did. They had Saline Solution, which is a very effective alternative.

LMAO @ at. You are about as dumb as they come on this subject. I've given hundreds of blood transfusions, and thousands of liters of normal saline and LRS. There are many instances in which (1) a transfusion of whole blood is life-saving, but (2) administration of 0.9% saline would hasten death. Yet you equate the two, ignorantly, and call saline a "very effective alternative". Ummm ... yeah, it would be "effective" all right.

Once again, sheer ignorance does not in any way "put the brakes" on your comments.

He is still holding a grudge against the JW. Imagine substituting a saline solution for blood. Any wonder why they disfellowshipped and shunned him.
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2015 5:37:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/22/2015 5:24:40 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 5/22/2015 5:07:18 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/22/2015 4:14:27 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/22/2015 3:11:11 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/22/2015 2:53:16 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/21/2015 4:25:45 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/21/2015 12:44:30 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/21/2015 11:58:07 AM, annanicole wrote:
There is no down-side to the JW (WatchTower) position on their members not receiving blood transfusions, really? I've put a lot of though into it, and there are only two possibilities:

(1) JW refuses blood transfusion, and lives --> that's great
(2) JW refuses blood transfusion, and dies --> So? No big loss.

It is a loss to their families, but no, not to them since they are guaranteed a resurrection for their faithfulness.

"Refuse a blood transfusion .... die from lack of blood transfusion .... "guaranteed resurrection due to 'faithfulness'." How's that for ridiculous reasoning?

As Dr Denton Cooley would tell you, there is s definite up side when the medical profession cooperate with them though, and patients all over the world have benefited from their work.

If it were not for them there would not have been so much research into Bloodless Surgery, and it would not now be increasingly widely used.

Yeah, there would. There has always been a search for adequate blood substitutes, ya dimwit.

Well, since they have had them for as long as they have had transfusions, why were they not using them as they do now.

LOL No, they didn't "have them for as long as they have had transfusions." Ignorance of a subject certainly doesn't impede you from commenting on it.

Actually they did. They had Saline Solution, which is a very effective alternative.

LMAO @ at. You are about as dumb as they come on this subject. I've given hundreds of blood transfusions, and thousands of liters of normal saline and LRS. There are many instances in which (1) a transfusion of whole blood is life-saving, but (2) administration of 0.9% saline would hasten death. Yet you equate the two, ignorantly, and call saline a "very effective alternative". Ummm ... yeah, it would be "effective" all right.

Once again, sheer ignorance does not in any way "put the brakes" on your comments.

He is still holding a grudge against the JW. Imagine substituting a saline solution for blood. Any wonder why they disfellowshipped and shunned him.

They have quite a few reasons for shunning, most of them a little petty. But if they gave him the boot due to sheer, unabashed ignorance, then I have no disagreement with them on that point.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2015 5:42:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/22/2015 3:01:21 PM, TheWORDisLIFE wrote:
At 5/22/2015 2:59:51 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/21/2015 3:12:32 PM, TheWORDisLIFE wrote:
At 5/21/2015 11:13:29 AM, Harikrish wrote:
Jesus actually insisted people drink his blood.

John 6:53 Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

Ahahaha LOL. That's the reason why you shouldn't be reading the Book of the Israelites.

I guess then that means that the human race is going to die and no human will be saved because Christ said in Matthew 15:24 He came for the lost sheep of Israel. So I guess we humans are all doomed because Christ only died for sheep's and not humans.

On the contrary, since Jesus and the Apostles taught from it, it is absolutely necessary to know it as well as they did.

And the Apostles where what? Israelites.

No, they were members of the tribe of Judah, but had followed God's son back to true worship of his father, in the start of the third phase of the development of the Kingdom. They were Jews by tribe, but not by religion, since Judaism was Apostate anyway and had been since the developments which led to the separation from Israel.

We are now at the start of the 4th and final phase, which ends when Christ hands the kingdom back to his father, when all is returned to where it should be.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2015 5:46:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/22/2015 5:37:55 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/22/2015 5:24:40 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 5/22/2015 5:07:18 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/22/2015 4:14:27 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/22/2015 3:11:11 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/22/2015 2:53:16 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/21/2015 4:25:45 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/21/2015 12:44:30 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/21/2015 11:58:07 AM, annanicole wrote:
There is no down-side to the JW (WatchTower) position on their members not receiving blood transfusions, really? I've put a lot of though into it, and there are only two possibilities:

(1) JW refuses blood transfusion, and lives --> that's great
(2) JW refuses blood transfusion, and dies --> So? No big loss.

It is a loss to their families, but no, not to them since they are guaranteed a resurrection for their faithfulness.

"Refuse a blood transfusion .... die from lack of blood transfusion .... "guaranteed resurrection due to 'faithfulness'." How's that for ridiculous reasoning?

As Dr Denton Cooley would tell you, there is s definite up side when the medical profession cooperate with them though, and patients all over the world have benefited from their work.

If it were not for them there would not have been so much research into Bloodless Surgery, and it would not now be increasingly widely used.

Yeah, there would. There has always been a search for adequate blood substitutes, ya dimwit.

Well, since they have had them for as long as they have had transfusions, why were they not using them as they do now.

LOL No, they didn't "have them for as long as they have had transfusions." Ignorance of a subject certainly doesn't impede you from commenting on it.

Actually they did. They had Saline Solution, which is a very effective alternative.

LMAO @ at. You are about as dumb as they come on this subject. I've given hundreds of blood transfusions, and thousands of liters of normal saline and LRS. There are many instances in which (1) a transfusion of whole blood is life-saving, but (2) administration of 0.9% saline would hasten death. Yet you equate the two, ignorantly, and call saline a "very effective alternative". Ummm ... yeah, it would be "effective" all right.

Once again, sheer ignorance does not in any way "put the brakes" on your comments.

He is still holding a grudge against the JW. Imagine substituting a saline solution for blood. Any wonder why they disfellowshipped and shunned him.

They have quite a few reasons for shunning, most of them a little petty. But if they gave him the boot due to sheer, unabashed ignorance, then I have no disagreement with them on that point.

Actually, there is only one reason for shunning, unrepented, unscriptural behaviour and/or teaching. In other words unrepented disobedience to God's laws and principles.

None of the things which come under that heading are in the least bit trivial, since all are condemned by scripture.