I'm curious of your opinion - page 8

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
    If you quote me you must do it in context please.


    "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. "
    {end quote}

    You're using it to make a religiouse statement, and it actualy belongs in the original "spirit" LOL of the thread.

    {quote from JW's post }
    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...".
    {end quote}
    I'm at least twenty years removed from any "bable" study but I remember that the lords prayer and the description of heaven that you excepted from don't go together.
    You have to put all thoughts of going to heaven out of your mind and hope that "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven" pertains to your post- armageddon "reward" because................

    {Quoted from an informational website }
    "The Jehovahs Witnesses are a religious movement which was founded in the 1870s by the American Charles Taze Russell. He considered himself able to calculate the year in which the end of the world was due, primarily from the data in the Revelation of Saint John, and the Book of Daniel. He initially came up with the year 1914. In that year the so-called Battle of Armageddon was to take place, in which all true Witnesses of Jehovah would be saved. 144,000 of these Witnesses were to obtain an exclusive salvation................"{end quote}

    Yup JW that's a sure way to ensure a "full plate" at offering time. The old exclusivity angle...nice.
    Back then I'll bet door-to-door witnessing was a real b**ch because there was'nt any gun control or anything. You had to have a BIG spiritual hammer to swing and the old "act now" catchphrase of impulse sales worked quikly....too quickly.

    {continue quote}
    In Heaven, together with Jesus, they were going to govern the coming new world. The remainder of the Witnesses were to be saved in another way: First they were to clean up after all the dead non-Jehovahs Witnesses, and then create a paradise kingdom on earth. Signs of the imminent End were: natural disasters, increasing violence, wars and economic trouble. "
    {end quote}
    Darn JW. Batting cleanup for those elitest 144,000.

    Yea,"natural disasters"(occuring since the extinction of the dinosaurs)......"increasing violence" (since Cain opened up a lil' can-o-whupass on Able) "wars and economic trouble"( from the first conquered civilization on)
    All very safe bets. Spoken by every false prophet since it was profitible long before Jesus ever died for our sins. (John 3:16 if you have that in your edition)

    {quote from same text}
    "When the end did not come in 1914, new dates were fixed: 1918, 1925, 1941, and 1975. These mistaken predictions have been embarrassing every time. Yet, there has been no shortage of imaginative explanations. The closeness of the end of the world remains the most important part of the teachings, though today there is no longer a fixed year for the battle of Armageddon"
    {end quote}

    Heck no! That gig just does'nt bring in the membership like it did the FIRST time.

    {from JW's post of Healing touches VERY GOOD POINT}
    [i]"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 beleive that was written for men like Charles Taze Russell.

    Although I knew this all along I hesitated to bring up the 144,000 because we were discussing parents concerns. Not some kooky religiouse doctrine, but the parents right to grant permissions.
    If you will read my above post with sincerity, about how the parents love can be theraputic, you'll get more out of it.

    I don't have any snappy scripture to wrap this up and "slay you in the spirit" because I'm respecting your right as a parent to speak your mind, and that's just not me anymore.
  2. by   JW-HLC
    Firstly I apologise for the "typo", my 2nd scriptural reference was from Matthew 10:27 not verse 2.

    That having been said, the quotes were in fact not from "my bible" but from "William Barclays Translation", which has nothing to do with me or JW's.

    You say that ""yours" is different from "mine"
    Perhaps you could show how "your" bible is different - what does"your" bible say at Acts 5:42 and Matthew 10:27 that is so different from the quotes from "William Barclays"?
  3. by   JW-HLC
    My we have come a long way from the issue of blood!
    So now we're trawling sites of disgruntled ex-witnesses to discuss the faith of those who are JW's.

    "Although I knew this all along I hesitated to bring up the 144,000 because we were discussing parents concerns. Not some kooky religiouse doctrine"

    I do not know why you should hesitate to bring up the 144,000 - the bible doesn't hesitate to bring it up, it is there for all to see - In the last book of the bible, Revelation (this is a book of prophecy of the future {it says so in the opening verses} and the 144,000 are mentioned at:-

    Chapter 14:1 "Then I looked again and before my eyes the Lamb was standing on Mount Sion, and with him were a hundred and forty-four thousand who had his name and his Father's name written upon their foreheads."

    Who are these?
    Chapter 14:3 says "And they are singing a new song of praise before the throne, and before the four living creatures and the elders. No one could learn the song except the one hundred and forty-four thousand who have been redeemed from the earth". (JB Phillips Translation used this evening).

    The 144,000 are also mentioned at Revelation 7, spoken of in verse 4 as a number "sealed". Verse 9 then discusses another group "beyond man's power to number". Both groups are shown to be in receipt of salvation and both groups are shown to be different.

    The identification of the 144,000 and their purpose etc has nothing to do with the discussion on blood, neither does it affect what God's word clearly says about the sanctity of blood and what should not be done with it by those who take God's word seriously.

    "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. "
    {end quote}

    You're using it to make a religiouse statement, and it actualy belongs in the original "spirit" LOL of the thread.

    I agreed with you that we must do those things, but as a JW I believe that the only way to finally and completely do away with ignorance, death and pain is by Gods Kingdom and that's why I showed the promise at Revelation 21. It is not just making a religious statement - I as a JW parent see it as a promise of what is to come. That promise impacts upon my family, my view of the future and my view of the life now and the life to come. That is not just a religious statement, it is a life committment and impacts upon my choice of medical treatment, my view of what is important and also what death means for me now.

    As for my personal view of going to heaven - it's not for me! Neither was it for Adam and Eve who God created to live on earth. It was not His intention to have them die and go to heaven, he already had his heavenly "family" - Adam and Eve were the start of "life on earth". I believe it is still God's intention to have an earth populated by humans, but under perfect conditions. (Numerous scriptures refer to the meek inheriting, NOT HEAVEN but THE EARTH).

    The feelings of Charles Taze Russell going back to the 1870's and any predictions made or not made still do not alter what God's word says on blood. Maybe you are thinking "Well, because of past errors in predictions of time JW's could also be wrong on blood!"

    Well, as I said in a previous posting, only God knows the day and the hour and as Jesus told his followers in the 1st century "it does not belong to you to know the day and the hour".
    I believe that - Jesus said we would not know the time when God would act, he said it would be like "a thief in the night", coming when not expected.

    However all of that, right or wrong, still does not change one dot of what the bible has to say on blood. God's law on the sanctity of blood is clear for all to see. What you and I choose to do on reading that law is a matter for each one of us to decide.

    Nobody forces you not to have blood, we just ask that "you" don't force "us" to have it. We don't have a death wish, we have a life wish, but not to the exclusion of obedience to God's law.
  4. by   Peeps Mcarthur
    He was a false prophet.
    He was the foundation of your scriptural interpretations as a seperate religion from others.
    You can't call it a little misunderstanding if it happened FIVE times!
    He's clearly done more than just "dabble" in prophecy.
    When he interprets the meaning of God's word for the congregation he is also prophesying.
    False prophet.
    False doctrine.

    No, it does'nt change God's Word; nor the original meaning.
    You,re so passionate about God JW that you're willing to overlook a false prophet to beleive that you see Him.

    But I won't see you as a JW if I were taking care of your child. Not anymore. I would see you as a confused and scared parent. Just wanting, what they beleive, is what God wants. It likely scares them quite a bit more to know about the false prophet and still have the guts to hold on to faith that somehow there doing the right thing.
    My God. All those people refusing transfusions, and some dying because of it. Because of his original prophesies.

    It's not my place to decide such things. Go back to the original Hebrew yourself.
    I've got a nursing career to run.
    It's not my place to tell you what to beleive. It's my place to deliver the best possible care for my patient.
    If that requires all that psychosocial B.S., Then I will use that also for the benefit of my patient.
    I do accept how you feel.....................as a parent.
    Last edit by Peeps Mcarthur on Jan 26, '02
  5. by   JW-HLC
    "I do accept how you feel.....................as a parent."

    Thank you, I appreciate that comment.

    "My God. All those people refusing transfusions, and some dying because of it. Because of his original prophesies."

    Now if it were really true that I would sacrifice my life or the life of any of my family, on the basis of someone's unwise estimates of timing in God's plan, then I would indeed be most to be pitied. No more than that I would probably need serious psychological help.

    My decision not to accept blood has nothing to do with Charles Taze Russell, or any ideas that he or anyone else had of what might or might not occur at various times in history. Followers of God have always tried to discern His timing in prophecy. My decision not to accept blood is based on MY PERSONAL reading of the bible and MY PERSONAL decision to do what it says "abstain from blood". I have never been forced or fooled into making this decision, I am a reasonably intelligent person who is very able to analyse data, consider evidence and come to my own decisions and I know the implications of my decision. The decision was not taken lightly and I had no JW connections to influence me (family etc) prior to this.

    "You,re so passionate about God JW that you're willing to overlook a false prophet to believe that you see Him."

    Christians have made mistakes ever since Peter denied Jesus 3 times, after Jesus' arrest. But Jesus didn't cast Peter off, he knew his good intentions and the positive good that he would do. He corrected him forgave him and went on use him to be a great strengthening aid to others in the Christian Congregation, even though he made many other mistakes too. There are other examples:-

    Jonah ran away from his assignment but God forgave him and continued to use him to convey a message to Nineveh, which led to that city being saved.

    Moses actually killed someone whilst in Egypt, but God forgave him, adjusted him over many years and eventually used him to lead the Israelites out of captivity.
    I could go on.... but what Charles Taze Russell "started" in its infancy led to many actively looking into the bible rather than just accepting what some clergyman said to them. From that has grown the modern-day international organization of Jehovah's Witnesses (a name not used by Russell), and which has come a long way since his time.

    The following was published in the publicly distributed "Awake" magazine, produced by JW's, in 1995:-

    "Bible Students, known since 1931 as Jehovah's Witnesses, also expected that the year 1925 would see the fulfillment of marvelous Bible prophecies. They surmised that at that time the earthly resurrection would begin, bringing back faithful men of old, such as Abraham, David, and Daniel. More recently, many Witnesses conjectured that events associated with the beginning of Christ's Millennial Reign might start to take place in 1975. Their anticipation was based on the understanding that the seventh millennium of human history would begin then.
    These erroneous views did not mean that God's promises were wrong, that he had made a mistake. By no means! The mistakes or misconceptions, as in the case of first-century Christians, were due to a failure to heed Jesus' caution, 'You do not know the time.' The wrong conclusions were due, not to malice or to unfaithfulness to Christ, but to a fervent desire to realize the fulfillment of God's promises in their own time.
    Consequently, A. H. Macmillan explained later: "I learned that we should admit our mistakes and continue searching God's Word for more enlightenment. No matter what adjustments we would have to make from time to time in our views, that would not change the gracious provision of the ransom and God's promise of eternal life."
    Indeed, God's promises can be trusted! It is humans who are prone to error. Therefore, true Christians will maintain a waiting attitude in obedience to Jesus' command."

    I would rather overlook someone's over-enthusiasm in seeking to establish God's timing than do what so many so-called christians have done today. They have accepted their churches view that the following is acceptable, despite Gods laws:-

    Abortion ........................................... Exodus 20: 13 Exodus 21:22-25
    Homosexuality/Same sex marriages ........ 1 Corinthians 6:9
    Adultery/Living together ...................... 1 Corinthians 6:18

    Are these churches not truly "false prophets" in leading people directly away from God's laws?

    No, God's law on blood is clear, any history of Jehovah's Witnesses will not change that, the acceptance of whole blood, RBC's WBC's plasma and platelets are absolutely out of the question.
  6. by   VickyRN
    I am not a heresy hunter, neither am I one to split doctrinal hairs. I can fellowship with any believer who loves the Lord Jesus (i.e., Methodists, Baptists, Catholics, Presbyterians, Charismatics, Pentecostals, etc, etc) without any difficulty. However, when it comes to MAJOR DOCTRINAL ERROR, I have to draw the line. I have had plenty of opportunity to converse with JW's such as yourself, as they have appeared (uninvited) on my doorstep, at my place of employment, even on this BB!!! (LOL). So, with all due respect, JW, let me point out to you briefly just a FEW of my major areas of concern:

    Jehovah's Witnesses believe:
    1)That Jesus Christ was not God.
    "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1) (I know, I know, your "New World" translation has its questionably "unique" rendering of this verse, so let me add a few others...)
    "But to the Son He says, 'Your throne, O God, is forever and ever....'" (Hebrews 1:8).
    "And Thomas answered and said to Him [Jesus], 'My Lord and my God!'" (John 20:28)
    Interestingly, the Greek word for "Lord" (Kurios) used in the phrase "the Lord Jesus Christ," Acts 16:31, is the same word used to translate "Jehovah" in the Septuagent, the Greek translation of the Old Testament used by the early church fathers.
    2)That Jesus Christ was in fact the archangel Michael.
    "For to which of the angels did He ever say: 'You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.'" (Hebrews 1:5).
    3)That Jesus was raised as a spirit and not in a physical or human body.
    When Mary saw Jesus and recognized him, she embraced his body in such a way that Jesus had to ask her to stop clinging to him (John 20:11-17). Later that evening Jesus appeared to the men disciples and showed them his hands and side where the nails and spear had left marks (John 20:19-20, cf. 19:34). When Thomas, who was not there at the time, heard about it, he stated that he would not believe unless he also saw the marks in Jesus' body (John 20:24-25). A week later, Jesus appeared again, and showed Thomas his hands and side, inviting Thomas to touch the marks (John 20:26-27). All of these elements confirm the physical nature of Jesus' resurrection body, and it requires an unusually creative, forced reading of the passage to conclude otherwise. The presence of marks where his mortal body had been wounded by the nails and spear certainly is difficult to explain per the Watchtower view.
    "Jesus answered and said to them, 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.' Then the Jews said, 'It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?' But He was speaking of the temple of His body. Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them..." (John 2:19-22).

    4)That human beings do not possess an immortal spirit/soul.
    "...absent from the body and to be present with the Lord." (II Corinthians 5:8).
    "And I know such a man--whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows--how he was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter." (II Corinthians 12:3-4).
    "And Jesus said to him [the thief on the cross], 'Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.'" (Luke 23:43).
    "...The rich man also died and was buried. And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom." (Luke 16:22-23).

    5)That Hell is not eternal.
    "And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." (Matthew 25:46).
    "...and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever." (Revelation 20:10)
    "If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched--'where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.'" (Mark 9:43-44).
    "And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake. Some to everlasting life, some to shame and everlasting contempt." (Daniel 12:2).

    So my point here, JW, is that the scriptures can be made to say anything that the minister may want them to say. Charles Taze Russell certainly had his own way of interpreting Scripture! Are you willing to risk your eternal destiny on this man's teachings? And if his interpretations of the above topics were so questionable in clear light of the Scriptures (I've only listed a few, believe me, there are a WHOLE LOT MORE), this surely casts doubt on the veracity of the Watchtower's unique rendering of the "blood" passage in Acts 16:29.

    The interpretation of any verse of scripture is determined upon a consideration of its context, either verse, passage, book or testament context. Every verse must be considered in the light of the entire Bible. We must compare Scripture with Scripture to see a verse in light of another. Since God gave the Bible to us in books, not in isolated prooftexts, we ought to make an effort to read the debated verses in the context of the whole book of the Bible in which they appear. The most effective interpreter of Scripture is Scripture; all Scripture is inspired by God, who does not contradict Himself. We must consider every direct reference to the subject we are in study of, and then assemble all of the pieces of the puzzle so that we can see more fully the Truth that God has scattered throughout His Word. So, my point in brief: Don't take the words of Scripture apart from the Spirit in which they are written!
    Hosea 4:6:
    "My people are DESTROYED for LACK OF KNOWLEDGE..."
    The May 22, 1994, issue of Awake! featured the stories of five children who died after refusing blood transfusions. Rather than mourning such a horrific and needless waste of life and potential, these are exalted to martyrdom status. All this over a botched translation of a verse of Scripture.
    Jesus warns us, "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. YOU WILL KNOW THEM BY THEIR FRUITS." (Matthew 7:15). Young children dying such needless deaths IS NOT GOD'S WILL and IS NOT GOOD FRUIT!!!!
    Last edit by VickyRN on Jan 26, '02
  7. by   GreytNurse
    People, people, people.....you can't win an argument with JW...........

    These people are taught from an early age how to argue! I have several relatives who are of the JW faith.....I respect their beliefs, but I don't agree AND I don't argue with them either......you can't

    We will all have different opinions regarding this issue. It's very sensitive. We need to just change the subject and stop 'fueling' JW here.......he/she will always have a counter reply regardless and have the final word!!!!

    What about those Rams??????????
  8. by   JW-HLC
    back to blood

    i'll respond to your posting more fully a bit later, when i have more time. whilst it is interesting it does not address the issue of blood it merely attacks me and my fellow jw's.

    "so my point here, jw, is that the scriptures can be made to say anything that the minister may want them to say. charles taze russell certainly had his own way of interpreting scripture! are you willing to risk your eternal destiny on this man's teachings? and if his interpretations of the above topics were so questionable in clear light of the scriptures (i've only listed a few, believe me, there are a whole lot more), this surely casts doubt on the veracity of the watchtower's unique rendering of the "blood" passage in acts 16:29." {typo - acts 15}

    if you read my previous posting to peeps mcarthur you will see that the above assumption on your part is totally incorrect, god's law on blood is not ct russell's law on blood.
    whilst you offer a number of "points of debate" which might appear to be controversial you do not show how god's law on blood excludes blood transfusions. your last posting about acts 15 was clearly in error (as was your understanding of the foetus/mother blood supplies) - what more do you have to offer on why god's law on blood excludes blood transfusions? scripturally, not just according to your personal interpretation. - (genesis 9:4, leviticus 7:26; 17:11; 17:13; 17:14, deuteronomy 12:23-25; 12:27, acts 15:20; 15:29, hebrews 9:22 etc etc.)

    :d :d :d "enough of anger, leave rage aside". (psalms 37:8)
  9. by   GreytNurse
    See what I mean????????? My point proven!!!!!

    Get back to the issue here. Parents, who have a certian belief, refused a blood transfusion, that could make a major difference in the life of their child.........living or dying. If they, as parents, chose to disregard the child, as an individual with his/her own right to chose, which cannot due to age, then we as medical professionals should honor that request, regardless of what our personal views may be.
    We must forget our own 'religious views' and honor what these parents believe, as they must live with the realization that they allowed their own flesh and BLOOD to die when they had a chance to make a choice.
    Reminds me of a man that was very religious and trusted God for everything. Never made a move without prayer (as we should all do). It began to storm, the man did not fear for he put his trust in the Lord. The storm grew worse, water began to rise......no fear, God will provide a way. Warnings went out urging everyone to leave.......the man didn't budge, "God will provide a way". The water rose and the man fled to the roof of his home, he kept praying, "God will provide a way". Friends happened by with a boat, however the man stayed, firm in his belief. The water was almost to the top and a helicopter came to rescue him, he refused...."God will provide a way".....The next thing the man knew, he was standing in heaven and saw God. God looked alittle surprised......."my son, what are you doing here?" The man replied," I waited for you to provide a way for me, this isn't it???" God replied, "No, it wasn't your time yet, I sent you a storm warning, a boat and helicopter".
    Enough said!
  10. by   GreytNurse
    Maybe it makes a big difference to us as Americans......seems to me that we value life differently. (???)
  11. by   JW-HLC
    Now an attempt to answer your "non-blood" issues - it will take time, probably several postings to deal with the context, so here's the first.

    Firstly JW's call "uninvited" as you put it, yes in exactly the same way as Jesus did and as the 1st Century Christians did in following his command at Matthew 28:19, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and the Holy Spirit". This they did with great zeal as is evidenced from the not only the bible accounts but from the spread of christianity today. Had they not done so neither you or me would have heard of Jesus!

    JW's believe Jesus was not God - emphatically true! We believe that Jesus was God's Son, who when on earth was subject to the Mosaic Law for Jews, who's God then was Jehovah, Yahweh, call Him what your national language does.

    You speak of the need to examine the "context" of scripture and I wholeheartedly agree with you. It has been said that you can prove anything from the bible by isolating texts and whilst I don't know if that it actually true, it certainly highlights the need to examine things very carefully and completely. Let's do just that with your verse John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." I don't know what translation you are using but no matter - let's see how we should understand that verse, in context.

    Let's see who we have here:-
    We have "the begining", we have "the Word" (who it suggests IS God) and we have "God".
    So it appears to say that in the begining there was "God" and with him was "the Word", who was himself! So a long-winded way of saying that God was with Himself! Puzzled?

    Firstly why does it mention "the begining"? What begining? Did God have a begining? As the "King of Eternity" and the "creator of all things", if He did, it was certainly before any other created thing heavenly or earthly.

    Now who is "the Word"? Well let's check the context - (I'll use the New American Standard version for a change):-
    Verse 14 says, "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only-begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth."

    Now who became "flesh and dwelt among us" - yes Jesus.
    What does it say of him? "the only-begotten from the Father", who was the only-begotten of the Father? - well remember that well-known scripture at John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life."

    So who is "the Word"? - no problem, clearly God's only-begotten son Jesus, but let's continue with the context.
    Verse 18, "No man has seen God at any time, the only-begotten God, who is in the bosom position of the Father, He has explained Him."
    Now just a minute! - if Jesus is God and no man has seen God at any time? Were the Apostles hallucinating? Did Lazarus only think he was resurrected? Were the Pharisees chasing an apparition? Was it a hologram that was put to death?
    The whole idea that Jesus was God is absurd!

    But let's continue - if Jesus was God, then God was on earth and had forsaken His dwelling place in the heavens. At Jesus' baptism recorded at Matthew chapter 3 it says the following at verses 16 and 17, "And after being baptised Jesus went up immediately from the water and behold the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and coming upon him. and behold a voice out of the heavens saying, 'This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased'."

    A few problems there then - Jesus is God, who is no longer in heaven, receives a message from himself in heaven! Puzzled?

    Let's seek an explanation from another scripture - Mark 9:37 - Jesus own words, "Whoever receives one child like this in my name receives me and whoever receives me does not receive me but Him who sent me."
    Now assuming Jesus was God and somebody "sent him", who could possibly have sent God, isn't He Almighty God? He is no ones "sent one".

    No, the simple and accurate understanding is that "the Word" is Jesus Christ, who has been with Almighty God from "the beginning" (when he, Jesus, was "begotten" by Almighty God) and that he is the Son of God, not Almighty God Himself. As God's Son he was sent to earth, whilst Almighty God remained in heaven, to preach the message of salvation and to die, pouring out his blood as a ransom sacrifice, to provide atonement for the sins of mankind.

    And if you are still convinced that Jesus is God, where was God when God died and who resurrected God from the dead when God was dead? Puzzled, you should be, the very concept is as ridiculous as it is inaccurate.

    The literal Greek translation of John 1:1 according to Benjamin Wilsons translation of the Greek from Vatican Manuscript 1200 says, "In a beginning was the Word and the Word was with the God and a God was the Word. - Makes perfect sense to me!

    to be continued.............
  12. by   JW-HLC

    "The May 22, 1994, issue of Awake! featured the stories of five children who died after refusing blood transfusions. Rather than mourning such a horrific and needless waste of life and potential, these are exalted to martyrdom status. All this over a botched translation of a verse of Scripture."

    Your information, once again, is incorrect and totally biased - for anyone who genuinely wants to read of these accounts with an open mind I quote them hereunder, courtesy of the Watchtower Society :-

    Youths Who Have "Power Beyond What Is Normal"

    YOU are young. Only 12. You have a family you love. You have school friends you enjoy. You have outings at the beach and in the mountains. You feel awe when gazing at a night sky packed with stars. You have your whole life ahead of you.
    And now you have cancer. Such news is a blow when you're 60. It's total devastation when you're 12.

    Lenae Martinez
    So it seemed for 12-year-old Lenae Martinez. Her hope was to live forever on a paradise earth. This hope was bolstered by the Bible training she had received from her parents, who are Jehovah's Witnesses. Had not she herself read in the Bible that the earth would continue forever, that it was created to be inhabited forever, and that the meek would inherit it forever?--Ecclesiastes 1:4; Isaiah 45:18; Matthew 5:5.
    Now she was in the Valley Children's Hospital in Fresno, California, U.S.A. She had been admitted there for what appeared to be a kidney infection. Tests revealed, however, that she had leukemia. The doctors treating Lenae determined that packed red blood cells and platelets should be transfused and chemotherapy started immediately.
    Lenae said that she wanted no blood or blood products, that she had been taught that God forbids that, as shown in the Bible books of Leviticus and Acts. "For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication." (Acts 15:28, 29) Her parents supported her in this stand, but Lenae stressed that it was her decision and it was very important to her.
    The doctors talked several times with Lenae and her parents. Even so, they came again one afternoon. Lenae said concerning this visit: "I was feeling very weak from all the pain and had been vomiting a lot of blood. They asked me the same questions, only in a different way. I told them again: 'I don't want any blood or blood products. I would rather accept death, if necessary, than to break my promise to Jehovah God to do his will.'"
    Lenae continued: "They were back the next morning. The platelets were dropping, and my fever was still high. I could tell the doctor listened to me more this time. Even though they didn't like my stand, they did say I was a very mature 12-year-old. Later my pediatrician came in and told me he was sorry but nothing would help me but the chemotherapy and transfusions. He left and said he would be back later.
    "When he left, I started to cry very hard because he had taken care of me all my life, and now I felt like he was betraying me. When he came in later, I told him how he had made me feel--that he didn't care about me anymore. This surprised him, and he said he was sorry. He did not mean to hurt me. He looked at me and said: 'Well, Lenae, if that is the way it has to be, then I will see you in heaven.' He took his glasses off and, with big tears in his eyes, said he loved me and gave me a big hug. I thanked him and said: 'Thank you. I love you too, Dr. Gillespie, but I hope to live on a paradise earth in the resurrection.'"
    Then two doctors and a lawyer came, told Lenae's parents that they wanted to talk to her alone, and asked the parents to leave, which they did. Through all this discussion, the doctors had been very considerate and kind and were impressed with Lenae's articulate way of speaking and her deep conviction.
    When alone with her, they told her that she was dying of leukemia and said: "But blood transfusions will prolong your life. If you refuse blood, you will die in a few days."
    "If I take blood," Lenae asked, "how long will that prolong my life?"
    "About three to six months," they answered.
    "What can I do in six months?" she asked.
    "You will get strong. You can do many things. You can visit Disney World. You can see many other places."
    Lenae thought a bit, then answered: "I have served Jehovah all my life, 12 years. He has promised me everlasting life in Paradise if I obey him. I will not turn away from him now for six months of life. I want to be faithful until I die. Then I know in his due time he will resurrect me from death and give me everlasting life. Then I will have plenty of time for everything I want to do."
    The doctors and the lawyer were visibly impressed. They commended her and went out and told her parents that she thinks and talks like an adult and is able to make her own decisions. They recommended to the ethics committee of the Valley Children's Hospital that Lenae be viewed as a mature minor. This committee, made up of doctors and other health-care professionals, along with a professor of ethics from Fresno State University, made the decision to allow Lenae to make her own decisions with regard to her medical treatment. They considered Lenae a mature minor. No court order was sought.
    After a long, difficult night, at 6:30 a.m., September 22, 1993, Lenae fell asleep in death in the arms of her mother. The dignity and calmness of that night are etched in the minds of those present. There were 482 who attended the memorial service, including doctors, nurses, and teachers, who had been impressed by Lenae's faith and integrity.
    The parents and friends of Lenae were deeply grateful that the doctors and nurses and administrators of the Valley Children's Hospital were so perceptive in discerning the maturity of this minor and that no court case was necessary to make that decision.
    Crystal Moore
    Such consideration was not accorded 17-year-old Crystal Moore when she was admitted to Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center in New York City. She was suffering from inflammatory bowel disease. Upon her admission to the hospital, Crystal, along with her parents, emphasized repeatedly her refusal to accept blood. She did not want to die; rather, she wanted medical treatment consistent with the Bible's command to abstain from blood.--Acts 15:28, 29.
    The medical team caring for Crystal was certain that her condition required a blood transfusion. One doctor bluntly stated: "If Crystal does not have a blood transfusion by Thursday, June 15, then on Friday, June 16, she will be dead!" On June 16, Crystal was not dead, and the hospital applied to the Supreme Court of the State of New York for authority to force transfusions.
    At the hearing, which was hurriedly convened at the hospital that morning, one of the physicians testified that Crystal needed two units of blood immediately and might need at least an additional ten units. He further stated that if Crystal tried to resist the transfusions, he would tie her to the bed with wrist and leg restraints to accomplish the procedure. Crystal told the doctors that she would "scream and holler" if they attempted to transfuse her and that as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, she viewed any forcible administration of blood to be as repulsive as rape.
    Despite her attorney's repeated requests at the hearing, Crystal was denied the opportunity to speak for herself before the court to demonstrate her decision-making ability. Although Crystal had just received an award in the Super Youth Program in recognition of her academic excellence and leadership at her high school, the trial judge refused to allow her to testify on record about her refusal of blood. This amounted to a denial of Crystal's rights of due process of law, bodily self-determination, personal privacy, and religious freedom.
    Although the trial court would not allow Crystal to testify on the record, the court did visit with Crystal alone in her room for about 20 minutes. After the visit the trial judge said that Crystal was "obviously very intelligent" and "very articulate" and explained that Crystal "certainly was sound in mind" and "capable of expressing herself fully." Despite these observations, the trial court adamantly refused to allow Crystal the opportunity to decide on her own medical care.
    On Sunday morning, June 18, Crystal needed emergency surgery, which she consented to, but continued to reject blood. Only three ounces [50-100 cc] of blood was lost during the procedure. Yet, the physicians claimed that a postoperative blood transfusion might be required. Another doctor testified that no transfusion was needed. He had routinely treated similar cases without blood for the past 13 years, and no follow-up transfusions were ever needed.
    On June 22, 1989, the trial court gave temporary custody of Crystal to the hospital for purposes of blood transfusion to be given only if "necessary to protect and save her life." This guardianship terminated when Crystal was discharged from the hospital. Crystal never needed blood, and none was ever transfused, but it is shocking to see how the court treated Crystal.
    Since being discharged from the hospital, Crystal graduated from high school with honors. Shortly afterward, she became a full-time minister as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. She became a tour guide at the Jersey City Assembly Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses and volunteered as a member of a crew that builds and remodels Kingdom Halls.
    Yet, the doctors at Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center said that if she didn't get transfused on June 15, she would be dead on June 16 and that if she resisted the transfusion, she would be tied down with wrist and leg restraints. When doctors wanting court orders to give blood declare blatantly that if the judge doesn't comply immediately, the patient will die, let them remember the case of Crystal Moore.
    Lisa Kosack
    Lisa's first night in Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children was worse than a nightmare. She checked in at four in the afternoon and was immediately given a series of tests. She didn't get to her room until a quarter past eleven that evening. At midnight--well, let Lisa tell what happened. "At midnight a nurse came in and said: 'I have to give you some blood.' I cried out: 'I can't take blood because I'm one of Jehovah's Witnesses! I hope you know that! I hope you know that!' 'Well, yes, I do,' she said, and immediately pulled out my IV and shoved in the blood. I was crying and becoming hysterical."
    What callous and cruel treatment to inflict on a sick and frightened 12-year-old girl in the middle of the night in strange surroundings! Lisa's parents had taken her to Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children hoping to find kind and cooperative doctors. Instead, their daughter was subjected to the harrowing midnight transfusion, in spite of both Lisa and her parents' position that blood or blood products are a violation of God's law and are not to be used.--Acts 15:28, 29.
    The next morning the hospital sought a court order to give transfusions. The trial lasted five days, presided over by Judge David R. Main. It was held in a room at the hospital, Lisa in attendance all five days. Lisa had acute myeloid leukemia, a condition usually fatal, although the doctors testified that the rate of cure was 30 percent. They prescribed multiple blood transfusions and intensive chemotherapy--a treatment involving extreme pain and debilitating side effects.
    On the fourth day of the trial, Lisa gave testimony. One of the questions put to her was how the forced midnight transfusion made her feel. She explained that it made her feel like a dog being used for an experiment, that she felt she was being raped, and that being a minor made some people think they could do anything to her. She hated seeing someone else's blood going into her, wondering if she would get AIDS or hepatitis or some other infectious disease from it. And chiefly, she was concerned about what Jehovah would think of her breaking his law against taking someone else's blood into her body. She said if it ever happened again, she "would fight and kick the IV pole down and rip out the IV no matter how much it would hurt, and poke holes in the blood."
    Her attorney asked, "How does it make you feel, the Children's Aid Society asking that custody be taken from your parents and given to them?"
    "Well, it makes me feel very, very angry; it makes me feel that they are cruel because my parents have never beaten me, they have loved me and I love them, and whenever I was sick with strep throats or colds or anything, they took care of me. Their whole life was centered around me, and now just to have somebody, just because they disagree, to come and just remove me from them I think is very, very mean, and it upsets me a lot."
    "Do you want to die?"
    "No, I don't think anybody wants to die, but if I do die I'm not going to be scared, because I know that I have the hope of everlasting life in a paradise on earth."
    There were few dry eyes as Lisa courageously discussed her impending death, her faith in Jehovah, and her determination to remain obedient to his law on the sanctity of blood.
    "Lisa," her attorney continued, "would it make any difference to you to know that the court orders you to take transfusions?"
    "No, because I'm still going to remain faithful to my God and listen to his commands, because God is a lot more superior than any court or any man."
    "Lisa, what would you like the judge to decide in this case?"
    "Well, what I would like the judge to decide in this case is to have me just sent back to my parents and to have them to have custody again with me so I can be happy, and so I can go home and be in happy surroundings."
    And that is what Judge Main did decide. Excerpts from his decision follow.
    "L. has told this court clearly and in a matter-of-fact way that, if an attempt is made to transfuse her with blood, she will fight that transfusion with all of the strength that she can muster. She has said, and I believe her, that she will scream and struggle and that she will pull the injecting device out of her arm and will attempt to destroy the blood in the bag over her bed. I refuse to make any order which would put this child through that ordeal."
    Concerning the forced midnight transfusion, he said:
    "I must find that she has been discriminated against on the basis of her religion and her age pursuant to s. 15(1). In these circumstances, upon being given a blood transfusion, her right to the security of her person pursuant to s. 7 was infringed."
    His impression of Lisa herself is interesting:
    "L. is a beautiful, extremely intelligent, articulate, courteous, sensitive and, most importantly, a courageous person. She has wisdom and maturity well beyond her years and I think it would be safe to say that she has all of the positive attributes that any parent would want in a child. She has a well thought out, firm and clear religious belief. In my view, no amount of counselling from whatever source or pressure from her parents or anyone else, including an order of this court, would shake or alter her religious beliefs. I believe that L. K. should be given the opportunity to fight this disease with dignity and peace of mind."
    "Application dismissed."
    Lisa and her family left the hospital that day. Lisa did, indeed, fight her disease with dignity and peace of mind. She died peacefully at home, in the loving arms of her mother and father. In so doing she joined the ranks of many other youthful Witnesses of Jehovah who put God first. As a result, she will, with them, enjoy the fulfillment of Jesus' promise: "He that loses his life for my sake will find it."--Matthew 10:39, footnote.
    Ernestine Gregory
    At 17 years of age, Ernestine was diagnosed as suffering from leukemia. Upon being hospitalized, she refused to consent to the use of blood products to support the chemotherapy the doctors wanted to administer. Because of Ernestine's refusal and her mother's support of her choice of nonblood treatment, the hospital reported the matter to the welfare officials in Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A., who in turn sought a court order to use blood. A hearing was arranged, at which the trial court heard testimony from Ernestine, a medical doctor, a psychiatrist, and an attorney, as well as from other people involved.
    Ernestine told her doctor she did not want blood. That it was her own personal decision based on her reading of the Bible. That an involuntary transfusion administered under court order still disrespects God's law and is wrong in her eyes, regardless of court authority. That she was not opposed to medical treatment and did not want to die. That her decision was not a death wish, not suicidal; however, she did not fear death.
    Stanley Yachnin, M.D., testified that he was "impressed with Ernestine's maturity, her sense of herself," and the sincerity of her religious beliefs. He also said Ernestine understood the nature and consequences of her illness. Because of her comprehension, Dr. Yachnin saw no need to call in a psychiatrist or a psychologist.
    Nevertheless, one was called, Ner Littner, M.D., a psychiatrist, who after talking with Ernestine was of the opinion that she had the maturity of someone between the ages of 18 and 21. He stated that Ernestine exhibited an understanding of the implications of accepting or refusing blood transfusions. He said she accepted this, not because she was under the control of another, but because she believed this herself. Dr. Littner said Ernestine should be allowed to make her own decision in this matter.
    Jane McAtee, an attorney for the hospital, testified that after interviewing Ernestine, she believed that Ernestine understood the nature of her illness and that she "seemed fully capable of understanding her decision and accepting the consequences of it."
    The court too was very impressed with Ernestine's testimony. The court found that Ernestine was a mature 17-year-old, able to make informed medical decisions; yet, amazingly, the court granted an order allowing blood transfusions. At the hospital two doctors were standing by, transfusion equipment set up, and as soon as the court's decision came in, the transfusion was forcibly given to Ernestine in spite of her vigorous protests. The court's order was promptly appealed but not in time to stop the hospital's precipitate transfusion.
    To stop any further transfusions, the trial court's order was first appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court. In a two-to-one decision, the Appellate Court held that Ernestine could not be forced to submit to blood transfusions against her will. The court reasoned that Ernestine's First Amendment right of religious free exercise along with her constitutional right of privacy protected her right as a mature minor to refuse blood transfusions for religious reasons.
    The child-welfare officials then appealed the Appellate Court's decision to the Illinois Supreme Court. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that even though Ernestine was a minor, she had the right to refuse medical treatment that was objectionable to her. This supreme court based its decision on the common law right of bodily self-determination and the mature-minor rule. The standard to be applied in mature-minor cases in Illinois was summarized by the Illinois Supreme Court in the following statement:
    "If the evidence is clear and convincing that the minor is mature enough to appreciate the consequences of her actions, and that the minor is mature enough to exercise the judgment of an adult, then the mature minor doctrine affords her the common law right to consent to or refuse medical treatment."
    Ernestine had no further transfusions, and she did not die from her leukemia. Ernestine stood firm and put God first, like the other young people mentioned previously. Each one received "power beyond what is normal."--2 Corinthians 4:7.
    [Box on page 13]
    Dangers of Blood Transfusion
    The New England Journal of Medicine, issue of December 14, 1989, reported that a single unit of blood may carry enough AIDS virus to cause up to 1.75 million infections!
    In 1987, after it became known that AIDS was being transmitted by the volunteer blood supply, the book Autologous and Directed Blood Programs lamented: "This was the most bitter of all medical ironies; that the precious life-giving gift of blood could turn out to be an instrument of death."
    Dr. Charles Huggins, director of blood transfusion services at a Massachusetts, U.S.A., hospital, said: "It is the most dangerous substance we use in medicine."
    The Surgery Annual concluded: "Clearly, the safest transfusion is the one not given."
    Because there is a much higher recurrence of cancer after surgery where blood transfusions have been used, Dr. John S. Spratt said in The American Journal of Surgery, issue of September 1986: "The cancer surgeon may need to become a bloodless surgeon."
    The journal Emergency Medicine said: "Our experience with Jehovah's Witnesses might be interpreted to mean that we do not need to rely on blood transfusions, with all their potential complications, as much as we once thought."
    The journal Pathologist referred to the refusal of Jehovah's Witnesses to take blood and said: "There is considerable evidence to support their contention, despite protestations from blood bankers to the contrary."
    Dr. Charles H. Baron, professor of law at Boston College Law School, said concerning Jehovah's Witnesses' refusal to take blood: "All of American society has benefited. Not only Jehovah's Witnesses, but patients in general, are today less likely to be given unnecessary blood transfusions because of the work of the Witnesses' Hospital Liaison Committees."
  13. by   Peeps Mcarthur
    False prophet,


    At one time you were "offended" by my assertion that JW's were dying religiouse martyrs. Now you present these CHILDREN that had their entire lives ahead of them, chosing to die for JW beleifs.

    You told me JW's were not martyrs. That they did not intend for their children to die for their doctrine.


    Martyrs by proxy is exactly what these children were. They trusted "grownups" like you JW. They entrusted you to guide them.

    Children don't get to make decisions............that's why they call them MINORS. They are very easily influenced. That's why the law states all the restrictions on their activities.

    They were influenced...............and you sent them off to eternity while patting their little heads telling them what? That they could be with you cleaning up dead bodies and building stuff for the 144,000 if they would just give up their lives for your church?
    ........and they died for YOUR cause, not theirs. They were too young to understand, but my, what a great showcase for you church. You must be very proud.......JW, that is evil. That's no better than that Jim Jones' idiot feeding his congregation electric koolaid.

    The fruit is proof.
    The prophet is false.
    It's useless to quote "scripture" out of a "bible" written by a FALSE PROPHET.
    I'm a backslider by 15 years and even I can see that. Geeze
    Last edit by Peeps Mcarthur on Jan 27, '02