I'm curious of your opinion - page 7

On another board a group of people are discussing a case. It's about a 25 week premature baby needing a blood transfusion. The family refused the blood transfusion. The court's interceded and... Read More

  1. by   Peeps Mcarthur
    JW,
    Wait a minuet there.
    If we're going to uphold the precedent of religious freedoms over 1st choice of treatment(notice I did not say "options" of treatment). We then must uphold those freedoms across the board.
    We can't pick or choose what freedoms suit us.
    That is unless we follow medical guidelines first.
    Ya know "do no harm" and all, and use them for any judgements of credibility.

    If you want the freedom to choose for your child aceptable treatment under religious standards, then you cannot discriminate the religion of others.
    To exclude what they see as the only acceptable medical treatment(just as you see only yours) you are discriminating against the individual for his beliefs. Not because of science.
  2. by   RNKitty
    What a great thread for opening up new ideas to my mind! Sometimes I see the world through rose-colored glasses.

    1) the radical Moslem father who is determined to kill his 16-year old daughter

    The law already prohibits murder, and murder is not considered a medical option.

    2) The animist or Moslem family whose cultural/religious ideals include the horrific practice of female circumcision on their 5 year old daughter

    What, and chopping off a foreskin on a helpless male human is not horrific? Maybe it is not seen as such in our society since it is a common and accepted social practice. (Never mind the fact that it is only medically necessary in <1% of the cases).

    3)The devoutly religious couple who will not allow their teenager with juvenile diabetes to take insulin or see the doctor and she is now in a diabetic coma. The Christian Scientist mother who will not allow her 10-year-old son to receive medical treatment for a broken femur.

    Okay, I'll admit here is where my rose colored glasses come in. I guess I haven't run across these issues. That is why it is so good to hold these discussions. It makes me think and learn.

    4) Only in the most compelling circumstances should the state intervene--matters of life and death involving a minor child.

    I agree. I also feel we should be very careful what rights we remove from the parental guardians and hand over to the state.
  3. by   Peeps Mcarthur
    Screw the state


    LOL.............Harde har har....
  4. by   JW-HLC
    "If you want the freedom to choose for your child aceptable treatment under religious standards, then you cannot discriminate the religion of others."

    I am not discriminating, I just do not see the issue of circumcision as being a "life-threatening" issue, whatever your views on it and that was what this thread was all about - the use of blood when medics consider it a necessary procedure.

    The matter of a person from ANY religion actively trying to kill one of its members, family or otherwise, for shame or otherwise, is as RNKitty states - murder and that is not at issue here.

    "1st choice of treatment"

    Your 1st choice of treatment may be another medics "option", some have experience in bloodless treatment and act accordingly and others do not and so do not feel comfortable with certain procedures. That's why we say if you can't treat, refer as soon as possible.
  5. by   VickyRN
    JW, the Apostle Paul admonishes us, "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed, and WHO CORRECTLY HANDLES THE WORD OF TRUTH." (II Timothy 2:15).
    Jesus rebuked the religious crowd of his day (the Saducees--they had a religious spirit and were oh-so-sad-you-see), "You are in error because you DO NOT KNOW THE SCRIPTURES OR THE POWER OF GOD." (Matthew 22:29).
    The oft-quoted (and misapplied) Scripture in Acts concerning blood, "You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality.." (Acts 15:29), referred to a cultural practice of the time of offering sacrifices to pagan gods, also committing acts of immorality in pagan temples with temple prostitutes. The Gentile Christians were admonished by the Hebrew Christians in Jerusalem to not partake in such activities, not to EAT meat and likewise NOT TO DRINK blood sacrificed to these idolatrous gods and goddesses. This is all this meant, JW. If your interpretation of the Scriptures were correct, then Jesus would be a heretic, when he told his disciples, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him...: (John 6:53-56); Also, during the Last Supper, Jesus stated these immortal words (which foreshadow our Holy Communion) concerning the wine of communion, "Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood the covenant which is poured out for many for the foregiveness of sins..." (Matthew 26:27-28).
    You need to RIGHTLY DIVIDE THE WORD OF TRUTH, JW, not just take a Scripture here and there, out of context, and build a doctrine around it. That's a sure-fire way to get into deception. Jesus stated, "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. BY THEIR FRUIT YOU WILL RECOGNIZE THEM." (Matthew 7:15-16). People dying from lack of blood transfusions is NOT GOOD FRUIT and NOT GOD"S WILL.
    Consider this also, JW, God created the womb and the baby in the womb. During those long nine months before the baby is born, where does she receive her sustenance? FROM THE MOTHER'S BLOOD OF COURSE, VIA THE PLACENTA. The baby is a separate entity from the mother, with separate DNA, a separate destiny and plan from God. If the baby receives the mother's blood before birth (GOD's DESIGN), what is the difference if the baby receives her mother's blood (or someone else's blood for that matter) AFTER BIRTH?
    Prayerfully consider these Scriptures, JW:

    "The Spirit expressly says that in later times some will abandon the truth and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons...." (I Timothy 4:1).
    "For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths..." (II Timothy 4:3-4)
  6. by   semstr
    sorry guys,
    but this thread is getting like sundayschool more and more!
    You still know why you are discussing? I get the feeling, that you're trying who-can-quote-more.

    I had a collegue who was a JW. I learned one thing: not to discus blood and everything made with it, because I just couldn't argue with her.
    She went to her JW meetings every other day and made every single one of us, mouthdeath.
    I was really relieved as she retired, plus I didn't have the watchtower on my desk every week.
    She was one of the most intolerant people I ever knew!
    Especially my catholic collegues "got" it from her, this was no fun!

    Still, take care, Renee
  7. by   Peeps Mcarthur
    Everyone,
    If you don't want to review some quotes, scroll down to "ACTUAL DISCUSSION BEGINS"



    MEDICAL ADVICE PARALLEL

    "The devoutly religious couple who will not allow their teenager with juvenile diabetes to take insulin or see the doctor and she is now in a diabetic coma. The Christian Scientist mother who will not allow her 10-year-old son to receive medical treatment for a broken femur. " (from post by Healing touch)


    "2) The animist or Moslem family whose cultural/religious ideals include the horrific practice of female circumcision on their 5 year old daughter

    What, and chopping off a foreskin on a helpless male human is not horrific? Maybe it is not seen as such in our society since it is a common and accepted social practice. (Never mind the fact that it is only medically necessary in <1% of the cases)."

    {Quote from RNKitty's post} (thanks for tying it in)
    THE MEDICAL NEED OF CIRCUMCISION IS <1%!.........who is that done for then?....the parents. Mine's been taken from me and of course, I had nothing to say about it. Until after it was done. "He'll have a little discomfort".....My ass.
    (quote)
    "HEY......There's an idea. Who is it that manufactures the blood being used in transfusions as first choice now?
    Would'nt that be God? " (me quoting me from a previouse post)

    It does'nt really fit here but the irony amuses me and I did'nt know where else to put it. The fact that JW prefers synthetic blood just brings it all together.

    (HEALING TOUCH)
    "Consider this also, JW, God created the womb and the baby in the womb. During those long nine months before the baby is born, where does she receive her sustenance? FROM THE MOTHER'S BLOOD OF COURSE, VIA THE PLACENTA. The baby is a separate entity from the mother, with separate DNA, a separate destiny and plan from God. If the baby receives the mother's blood before birth (GOD's DESIGN), what is the difference if the baby receives her mother's blood (or someone else's blood for that matter) AFTER BIRTH?
    {END HEALING TOUCH QUOTE}
    That's a good point Healing.

    "Again, no,no,no - we do not try to take over treatment, why should we most of us ore not medically trained; we just object to blood, virtually everything else is acceptable to us and we actively seek the best treatment we just do our utmost to find alternatives to blood. "
    {an earlier JW post which I believe states his case.}



    Religious standards parallel.
    (PEEPS)
    "If you want the freedom to choose for your child aceptable treatment under religious standards, then you cannot discriminate the religion of others."
    (Peeps)


    (JW)
    "Whilst I don't agree with your putting the "circumcision" or "killing for shame" illustrations on the same footing as the JW issue, I can appreciate your views re: the insulin and Christian Scientist cases."
    {Jw's post}


    (JW)
    "I am not discriminating, I just do not see the issue of circumcision as being a "life-threatening" issue, whatever your views on it and that was what this thread was all about - the use of blood when medics consider it a necessary procedure."
    {JW's post}

    THE ABORTION CONUNDRUM (as it observes "necessary")

    It's no longer a matter of life or death. It' a matter of a parent to decide medical treatment over what is medicaly nessescary.


    (JW)
    "Medical abortions are carried out the world over for next to no reason at all. It has become almost an alternative means of "contraception" - "abortion on demand" - 53 million every year; even pop in and have it done over lunchtime and then back to the office! "
    {end JW's post}

    (peeps)
    Their decision or "necessary" is moot to you based on your religiouse beliefs I'm assuming.
    (PEEPS)
    "Abortion of a fetus is a medical procedure and as such needs a medical reason. A patients' anxiouseness does not qualify. The fact she doesn't want to get caught porking some strange guy doesn't qualify. The asumption that taking the fetus to term may(I dislike that word) produce an imperfect replicant does not medicaly call for an abortion"
    (end PEEP's QUOTE)
    The patient's decision is not moot to me based on religiouse veiws, but on their being medicaly necessary. Which is how you want it when you disagree with the beliefs as contradictory to your own religiouse freedom.

    ACTUAL DISCUSSION BEGINS,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

    I can tell you now, I have come a VERY long way since the beggining of our discussion. I have'nt been in that situation yet. I have'nt spent time as an NICU nurse(God bless you all). I have been there as a practitioner of respiratory therapy.
    I understand now why they would hover around me watching every move. Questioning my every motive, starting paperwork for my dismissal at the slight of their perceived authority.
    I've only rotated through NICU. It was such a pitifull place. Pumps and bells drowning out the other sounds. A mass funeral for the babies with the nurses looking for Death to chase it away for a few more hours.
    There they were in the little plastic coffin with the tubes and needles invading their dusky bodies, while debate for their care swirled around the nurses station. Nurses, DR's, parents, all helpless against medical fact and hoping it's wrong.
    Some never have a parent to advise with about care. Abandoned and alone. Abused before they were born and suffering likely a pain of not filling that place that a parent's love belongs. We know, or think we know what losing a parent feels like, but to never have known them and still be denied that comfort, how can I justify that I preside over it?
    The memory of the NICU still brings tears. Big shoulder shrugging crocodile ones.
    Bittersweet because I know I learned there are parents that love their children and tie their convictions between medicine and them, to the point of being medicaly deaf. The caregivers try to hitch those parental convictions to medical fact and options of choice that don't violate their convictions to the point(in my case) of being emotionaly deaf.
    When the courts have to step in, Death leans over the little plastic coffins waiting for a turn to speak.
    Whether we use medical data or skew first-line treatment in favor of religion, custom, parents fears or whatever. We must fight against death, pain, and our own ignorance.
    There's a place in the science of my world now for parents. As I have observed most crack babies die at the hands of medical ignorance.
    Which has no way to fill up the place where a parents love belongs.
  8. by   RNKitty
    Originally posted by Healingtouch
    God created the womb and the baby in the womb. During those long nine months before the baby is born, where does she receive her sustenance? FROM THE MOTHER'S BLOOD OF COURSE, VIA THE PLACENTA. The baby is a separate entity from the mother, with separate DNA, a separate destiny and plan from God. If the baby receives the mother's blood before birth (GOD's DESIGN), what is the difference if the baby receives her mother's blood (or someone else's blood for that matter) AFTER BIRTH?
    Um, actually, the mother's blood and the baby's blood remain separate. In the placenta, there is a membrane that allows nutrients, O2, etc to pass through to the baby. This is why we have mom and baby with different blood types without (usually) complications.

    Good points on the spiritual references though.
  9. by   JW-HLC
    A very interesting posting indeed!

    "The oft-quoted (and misapplied) Scripture in Acts concerning blood, "You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality.." (Acts 15:29), referred to a cultural practice of the time of offering sacrifices to pagan gods, also committing acts of immorality in pagan temples with temple prostitutes. The Gentile Christians were admonished by the Hebrew Christians in Jerusalem to not partake in such activities, not to EAT meat and likewise NOT TO DRINK blood sacrificed to these idolatrous gods and goddesses. This is all this meant"

    We have 4 issues here:-
    1) Not eating meat sacrificed to idols.
    2) Blood.
    3) Strangled animals - hence unbled.
    4) Fornication (certainly not limited to temple prostitutes, it has always been wrong in God's eyes).

    Now remember these are issues for Christians and hence will be still binding upon Christians today. Nos 1 and 4 I think we can "forget" in terms of this thread - neither fornication nor sacrificing meat to idols has any bearing upon the issue of blood transfusions.

    That leaves us with 2 issues, "blood" and "flesh from a strangled animal", hence unbled meat - why the prohibition on eating unbled meat - easy, because it has blood in it and a Christian, just like the Israelite spoken of in Leviticus 17, cannot eat food from which the blood has not been "poured out".

    So blood is special, and that is confirmed right the way through the scriptures:- (Jerusalem Bible - just for a change).

    Genesis 9:4 "I give you everything, with this exception, you must not eat flesh with LIFE, that is to say BLOOD, in it." (The command given to Noah as to what man could eat after the flood).

    Exodus 12:7 "Some of the blood must then be taken and put on the two doorposts and the lintel of the houses where it is eaten" ... Verse 13,14 "The blood shall serve to mark the houses that you live in. When I see the blood I will pass over you and you shall escape the destroying plague when I strike the land of Egypt." (The command given to the Israelites in Egypt prior to their leaving Egypt and to avoid the death of their first-born. Blood is not mentioned here in terms of "eating" but in terms of "salvation", i.e. very special significance).

    Exodus 24:6 "Half of the blood Moses took up and put into a basins, the other half he cast on the altar. And taking the book of the covenant he read it to the listening people and they said 'We will observe all that Yahweh has decreed; we will obey. Then Moses took the blood and cast it towards the people. 'This' he said, 'is the blood of the covenant that Yahweh has made with you, containing all these rules'." (In the ratifying of the covenant between God and the Israelites after leaving Egypt. Blood is not mentioned here in terms of "eating" but in terms of "a covenant", again, very special significance - think Jesus Christ's blood).

    Mark 14:23-25 "Then he took a cup and when he had returned thanks he gave it to them and all drank from it and he said to them, 'This is my blood, the blood of the covenant, which is to be poured out for many.' " (Jesus makes the new covenant with the 12 at Passover time. Did Jesus literally cut his wrist and pour blood into the cup and make tham drink it? No of course not, they drank wine which had been there with the bread at the Passover meal. The red wine represented Christ's blood just as the bread represented his body. That blood he was going to shed in death as a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins of mankind, the whole purpose of his coming to earth.)

    Leviticus 17:10,11 "If any man of the House of Israel, or stranger living among you eats blood of any kind, I will set my face against the man who has eaten the blood and will outlaw him from his people. The LIFE of the flesh is in the BLOOD. This blood I myself have given you to perform the rite of atonement for your lives at the altar; for it is blood that atones for a life." (The prohibition on eating blood - WHY? - because blood is special - it atones for sin - think Jesus Christ's blood. The Israelites had to perform numerous blood sacrifices under the Mosaic Law to receive forgiveness of their sins - there are numerous references in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. This had nothing to do with "eating" but everything to do with forgiveness of their sins).

    Matthew 26:27,28 "Then he took a cup and when he had returned thanks he gave it to them. Drink all of you from this, he said, for this is my blood, the blood of the covenant, which is to be poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."
    Ephesians 1:7 "... in whom, through his blood, we gain our freedom, the forgiveness of our sins."

    I could go on - there are dozens and dozens of scriptures showing that blood is sacred in Gods eyes. So we have to ask ourselves, if blood is so special that a Christian is not to directly eat it in flesh (within the bounds of "pouring out" from the animal carcass), or to literally drink it, would it be okay to transfuse blood?

    The issue is not "simple", because blood transfusion are (not surprisingly) not mentioned in the bible, so we have to look for guidelines to help us see how God would view it. (Assuming we want to do everything that is pleasing to God and put our worship of Him above EVERYTHING else. We should because Jesus said at Matthew 22:37 "You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the greatest and first commandment".) This is the case to such an extent that Jesus also said, ""For anyone who wants to save his life will lose it, but anyone who loses his life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel will save it."

    On the one hand we could say that a transfusion is just "eating" by means of a short-cut - nourishment via the circulatory system rather than the digestive tract and oxygen similarly instead of the pulmonary system. The blood in a transfusion is used to nourish and supply oxygen to the patient at a time when he/she does not have sufficient blood to nourish and oxygenate themselves. If that were not the case then a simple volume expander would be all that is required. If this is the case then clearly a blood transfusion would be against God's law and a Christian should not accept one and a Christian parent could not consent to one for his/her child.

    Now what if we do not agree that a blood transfusion is like "eating" blood, what then?

    Well going back to our Israelite at Leviticus 17, having killed his bird he must "pour out the blood and cover it with the earth". He could not take the blood home and make a sausage with it, or put it on his "roses" or use it in some medical procedure. Blood that was shed had to be poured out on the ground, not re-cycled. Now could a Christian accept blood that has been shed from the body and stored - NO, such blood storage would be wrong, the blood should be poured out.

    Your reasoning would tell us that the law "abstain from blood" in Acts 15 refers only to "not to EAT meat and likewise NOT TO DRINK blood sacrificed to these idolatrous gods and goddesses" You tell us that this "referred to a cultural practice of the time of offering sacrifices to pagan gods, also committing acts of immorality in pagan temples with temple prostitutes" But is it reasonable to suggest that these laws are applied only to this particular time in history?

    As we have already seen, God's law on blood is not isolated to one part of history or one isolated set of events. It is a pattern that extends right throughout the bible from Genesis through to Revelation.

    The scripture at Acts 15 is indeed dealing with the Christian Hebrews instructing the Christian Gentiles on important matters. The reason for the statement was that certain Hebrew Christians were insisting that Gentile Christians should get circumcised, even though they were no longer under the Mosaic Law, having come under the Law of Christ. The section of scripture at Acts 15 deals with the issue of circumcision (which had been required under The Mosaic Law) and it affirmed that it was no longer necessary for Gentile Christians; but it then went onto add things from the law that were necessary - this included the law on blood, the law on fornication, the law on meat sacrificed to idols and on strangled, and hence unbled, meat.

    Confirming this back in 1728 in his book "The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended", Sir Isaac Newton wrote "This law was ancienter than the days of Moses, being given to Noah and his sons, long before the days of Abraham: and therefore when the Apostles and Elders in the Council at Jerusalem declared that the Gentiles were not obliged to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses, they excepted this law of abstaining from blood, and things strangled, as being an earlier law of God, imposed not on the sons of Abraham only, but on all nations"

    So rather than being a law relating to "a cultural practice of the time", the law had been in place at the time of Noah, through the period of the Mosaic Law and was now being re-affirmed by the Apostles in the 1st Century Christian Congregation.

    In "handling the word of God aright" it is necessary to look at the full context of the message of God in its entireity, to know God and His "personality" well enough to be able to know what course of action a lover of God would take in any given situation.

    Now to pass onto your use of Jesus' words:-
    "If your interpretation of the Scriptures were correct, then Jesus would be a heretic, when he told his disciples, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him...: (John 6:53-56)"

    If your assumption of this were true then no man or woman alive today (or in fact since Jesus died) would have the chance of eternal life because it is not possible to literally eat Jesus' flesh or drink his blood; he is a spirit person in heaven and has neither flesh nor blood - "flesh and blood cannot inherit God's Kingdom", (1 Corinthians 15:50).

    "Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood the covenant which is poured out for many for the foregiveness of sins..." (Matthew 26:27-28).

    Taking this in context Jesus continues in verse 29, "From now on, I tell you, I shall not drink WINE until the day I drink the new wine with you in the kingdom of my Father." Why did he say that? - because they were drinking wine, not blood.

    To take these words literally would mean that Jesus actually made himself bleed and removed sufficient blood from his body to allow the 12 to drink it, also it would mean that he cut up some of his body into 12 pieces so that the disciples would eat his raw flesh. So what YOU are saying is that they LITERALLY drank his blood and ate his flesh, there in the upper room. Yet at that time all of them were still subject to the Mosaic Law which forbade those things. There is also no evidence that his body had been mutilated as your argument suggests, indeed the requirement for his sacrifice was to be "... in the precious blood of a lamb without spot, or stain, namely Christ;" This was pointed to in all of the animal sacrifices of the Mosaic Law - they all had to be absolutely perfect, without a blemish. When Jesus was put to death only the marks of the nails in his hands and feet and the cut from the soldier's spear were visible on his body. Nowhere is there evidence of lumps of flesh having been cut away for people to eat.

    Many translations give a correct understanding of this situation, for example "William Barclay's Translation" where he renders the section, "This MEANS my life-blood, through which the new relationship between man and God is made possible, the blood which is being shed for many, that their sins may be forgiven."

    Jesus and his followers were drinking wine, which Jesus told them, represented his blood which he was "pouring out" by giving his life as a sacrificial lamb to make atonement for the sins of mankind. In Hebrews 9, Paul speaks of the contrast between the sacrifice of Jesus and the sacrifices under the Mosaic Law and says in verse 12, "and he has entered the sanctuary once and for all, taking with him not the blood of goats and bull calves, but his own blood..." Yes all of those animal sacrifices under the Mosaic Law pointed forward to the perfect ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Just as in those animal sacrifices no blood would be eaten, because it was "poured out" for forgiveness of sins, so would be exactly the same for Jesus. His blood would be poured out at his death for the forgiveness of the sins of all mankind, not used for drinking by any men or women.

    Onto your next point:-

    "Consider this also, JW, God created the womb and the baby in the womb. During those long nine months before the baby is born, where does she receive her sustenance? FROM THE MOTHER'S BLOOD OF COURSE, VIA THE PLACENTA. The baby is a separate entity from the mother, with separate DNA, a separate destiny and plan from God. If the baby receives the mother's blood before birth (GOD's DESIGN), what is the difference if the baby receives her mother's blood (or someone else's blood for that matter) AFTER BIRTH?"

    Firstly the baby DOES NOT normally receive the mother's blood before birth. The design of the placenta is so marvellous that it does not normally allow the babies blood to mix with the mother's blood. Whilst blood fractions, proteins etc are passed via the placenta from the mother to the baby the bloods do not under normal circumstances meet. On isolated occasions where a defect exists small quantities of blood may pass across the placents with resultant negative immune responses, that does not reflect God's original design, but rather reflects our inherited imperfection received from our 1st human parents.

    I agree with your concluding scriptures but I do not see them as applying to God's view on blood. The case is clear, blood is sacred to God and should not be misused. Blood transfusions are a misuse in God's eyes although many people today to not accept that view. Christians should not be concerned about this fact, there are many instances of a rejection of God's laws by people in today's world. This is because it is not popular to reject them so they ignore them, yes, having "their ears tickled".
  10. by   JW-HLC
    I missed a few points in my previous answer to you.

    "You need to RIGHTLY DIVIDE THE WORD OF TRUTH, JW, not just take a Scripture here and there, out of context, and build a doctrine around it. That's a sure-fire way to get into deception."

    I don't believe that I have done that - I have demonstrated what God's Word says on the sanctity of blood. Now you may not want to apply that to blood transfusions, you may want to say, 'that's different', but you cannot deny that from Genesis to Revelation God's Word shows that blood is sacred and He has specific laws on its use and abuse.

    You quoted:-

    "The Spirit expressly says that in later times some will abandon the truth and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons...." (I Timothy 4:1)."

    On the subject of using scriptures in context this scripture goes on to explain exactly what it is talking about, it continues, [i]"and the cause of this is the lies told by hypocrites whose consciences are branded as though with a red hot iron: they will say marriage is forbidded and lay down rules about abstaining from foods which God created to be accepted with thanksgiving".

    This does not impact on our discussion about God's view of blood (unless you class God, Moses, and the Apostles amongst those here spoken of!) and JW's do not 'forbid to marry' (though I know a man who does), neither do we forbid the eating of foods (unless they themselves contravene Gods Law, e.g. blood sausage).

    You quote:-

    "For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths..." (II Timothy 4:3-4)"

    I agree entirely and this is exactly what has happened with God's law on blood; it has become unpopular, excused as being old history, not for our enlightened age. The same excuses are made for fornication, abortion, homosexuality, cloning, foetuses for spare parts, etc, etc. Such has been the case from the beginning, people excusing as irrelevant the laws that they do not wish to obey.
  11. by   JW-HLC
    Originally posted by Peeps Mcarthur
    We must fight against death, pain, and our own ignorance.


    Indeed we must, however the only REAL and LASTING solution is shown at Revelation 21:4 where it speak of God , "He will wipe away all tears from their eyes, there will be no more death, and no more mourning or sadness." It is that promise that JW's look forward to seeing fulfilled, just as Jesus indicated in the Lord's Prayer, "...thy will be done on earth...".

    There's a place in the science of my world now for parents. As I have observed most crack babies die at the hands of medical ignorance. Which has no way to fill up the place where a parents love belongs.
    So how good when parents are there and show an active interest that they and medics work together in the treatment of the child.
  12. by   JW-HLC
    "She went to her JW meetings every other day and made every single one of us, mouthdeath."

    I wonder if you would have felt the same about Peter and the Apostles as it was said of them:-
    "All day in the Temple and from house to house they never stopped teaching, and telling the good news that Jesus was the Messiah"(Acts 5:42)

    Or of Jesus, who said to his followers:-
    "What I tell you in the darkness, speak in the full light of day; broadcast from the housetops what is whispered in your ear"(Matthew 10:2)
  13. by   semstr
    see, that's what I mean: on every theme no matter what, there was a quote from the "bible" (no offends, but "yours" is different from "mine")

    Take care, Renee

close