I can see that DJEggnog dismisses some of the things I said as being "off-topic". It's the same old trick of many a politician: "We will discuss only the points in the agenda", and that sounds all right until you learn that they set the agenda, leaving out all the topics where they will lose. DJEggnog says he's discussing "blood fractions". Well, this is what JGNat wrote at the beginning of this thread:
Djeggnog invited me to start a new thread about the blood doctrine,
In Eggnog's mind, the "blood doctrine" is the same as "blood fractions". According to him, the very fact that the Watchtower claims people should not accept blood transfusion isn't part of the doctrine.
Wow.
Having said, this, I would like to mention a point that is really off-topic.
Mr. Eggnog said about me that
You come off to me as someone in their early- or mid-20s, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that you were actually in your 40s or 50s, and while I could be wrong here, it does seem to me that you were either home-schooled (where a fundamental grasp of certain concepts can impede comprehension of other concepts) or were unable to complete your high school education (although you might have earned a GED).
I find it very revealing of the Jehovah's witness mindset, and very, very sad, that Mr. Eggnog shows such contempt for so many of his brothers and sisters in the Watchtower, who were home-schooled or didn't finish high school precisely because the Watchtower told them so. Or refused a scholarship to become pioneers. I can but shed a small tear here. One witness in particular, the woman I fell in love with, was home-schooled. Her entire formal schooling, that is, the things she didn't learn at home, is four years. She's in her late forties, and didn't earn her GED until a year ago. She never attended college, and it shows in her interactions with us the despicable worldlies. All this happened because her parents were need-greaters, zealous followers of the Watchtower who travelled to very poor countries and lived in miserable conditions to spread the Watchtower doctrine. So did she. These people are now living off welfare. She did, for a while. For some time, she was a maid. Seeing how smart she can be, and how regrettably uninformed she is at times, one can but wonder what would have happened if she had been free to attend college. Instead, she has had to take many menial, low-paid jobs to scrape by. Sometime during her preaching efforts, she lived off selling cakes in a Third World country. It is really heartbreaking to find that one of her co-religionists would dismiss her as a mere ignorant.
It is also so sad to think that, if I were to show this to her, she would be as impervious to rational thought as you are, Mr. Eggnog. In plain English, a man like you could call her an ignorant to her face, but, because that would happen in defense of the very cult whose idiocies resulted in her little schooling, she would instead defend the cult. Like a silent lamb that would give her killer the knife and would indicate where the most blood would flow if a cut were made.
Mr. Eggnog doesn't give a damn about insulting his own brothers and sisters, his "friends", if that is supposed to work in the defense of "Mother". A mother that, to me, is very much like the mother in "Alien".
Seeing the kind of damage that had been done to her was one of the reasons why I wanted to help her out of the cult, or going in if necessary. How sad.
This one is for you, my dear, wherever you are, giving your very last drop of blood to this inhumane cult, ignorant of just how much they have abused you.
I couldn't care less what you think of me, Mr. Eggnog. I do want to point out that calling another person an ignorant is not the way to win a debate. I can but remember the story in a certain book I read. Two big-shot musicians took a taxi and were discussing whether the piece that was being played was Tchaikovksy's or Rachmaninoff's. The taxi driver, a black man, said the piece was Mozart's. The two men spared no criticism of the black ignorant who said such a terrible thing, and, in the end, asked him how it was that he dared to claim so. He said, "well, the announcer said so before you came". Try your best not to equate disagreeing with you with being an ignorant, if only to avoid living in error, will you?
By the way, what you concluded about me is not exact in the least. This informs me that you have difficulty deducting stuff. It is easy to give a ballpark figure. I am, he says, in my "early or mid twenties", but he wouldn't be surprised if I were "in my 40's or 50's". Now that's accurate! If I were in my early twenties, I could be 21. And if I were in my fifties, then I could be 58. A tolerance of 37 years! Wow! Can you guess I had a father and a mother, too? You'd be right on that one!
I asked a few questions and required Mr. Eggnog to answer them. He didn't reply. I assume they were not "off-topic" because he didn't claim they were. I am asking those questions again. I'm simply cutting and pasting the paragraphs:
In your opinion, no judge would order that a transfusion be given to a child who is already at risk of dying, because the transfusion MIGHT pose a risk. I beg to differ. If I were such a judge, I would sign such an order. It would seem to me that saving the life of the child would be far more important. I happen to know that doctors sometimes prescribe immunosuppresors to prevent organ rejection. Those immunosuppressors may cause cancer later in life. The key here is, "in life". The patient accepts that risk because it is his chance to live a few more years, a decision which could be important, for example, if you have little children and you'd want to leave them when they were in a better position to support themselves. I happen to have a relative who has done just that. Is it wrong to proceed so, Eggnog? A friend of mine is a survivor of breast cancer. She had very low haemoglobin in her blood, so they gave her transfusions, which would help her withstand chemotherapy. Her cancer was controlled with very strong chemotherapy courses, but she is still alive. Was it wrong of her to do so? This is a direct question that can certainly be answered with "yes" or "no". I hope you will give me an answer.
----------------
"No one has the right to force their own religion on someone else's child".
Great. Truly great. I am so happy that you and I fully agree on this. The logical question after this statement is, Does anyone have the right to force his or her own religion on his or her own child? Do children have a right to change religions? Do children have a right NOT to have any religion? Would a Catholic father be right to shun his child if he changed his religion and became a Jehovah's witness? I know your answer. It has to be no. Why, then, are Jehovah's witnesses parents right to shun their children if they leave the Watchtower?
-----------------
You can claim that parents can choose the best treatment for their children, but, can you say that the best treatment is the one that consists of no treatment and results in death?
------------------
I have a new question. Jehovah commanded the faithful witnesses to abstain from blood, or so the witnesses say. Jehovah's loving command means that witnesses might die. For example, haemophiliac witnesses have it more difficult than others. In my humble opinion, using blood substitutes or fractions is the same as finding a way to obey the letter of the command, but not the spirit. You are supposed to "put Jehovah first" and die if that is what it takes. Why, then, it is not wrong to take blood substitutes or fractions?
I take due note that Mr. "I came to discuss fractions" didn't answer nor "respond" to this one.
-------------------
Jehovah also has some curious ways. Of he would have, if he existed. Blood transfusions are wrong; fractions are right. As in "eating a sandwich is wrong, but eating the individual ingredients of it, one by one, is right". Worldlies are supposed to donate blood if the "fractions" that Jehovah approves are to exist at all. Why should it be wrong for Jehovah's witnesses to donate blood, if "fractions" are accepted?
Or this one.
--------------------
Say I am a worldly and will be destroyed at Armageddon. But my family needs me. I need blood to survive. I would think that, in any religion, saving another person's life would be a good thing to do. But a Jehovah's witness won't donate blood for me. He won't save my life if my life depends on a transfusion. He would, however, take blood that I donated and use it as "fractions". What can you say about this?
Or this one.
---------------------
Maybe I didn't make myself understood when I spoke about rendering to Caesar what is Caesar's. Jehovah's witnesses are very obedient of "wordly authorities". Sometimes, by the way, they aren't, as they weren't in Mexico or Malawi. But let's not digress. What I meant is what Jehovah's witnesses would do if the "ruler of the land" passed an act that prevented parents from refusing blood transfusions on behalf of their children. You didn't answer that question. Maybe you didn't understand it then. I hope you understand it now. What would Jehovah's witnesses do if the government of the country they lived in passed an act requiring that children of any faith be given blood transfusions if that saves their lives?
----------------------
Now let's deal with other things.
It should be easy to follow the logic. A two-year old cannot possibly make a decision about a transfusion, neither against it, neither in favor of it. How should she be accountable before Jehovah for a transfusion?
I never suggested that a two-year-old could be held accountable for a decision made for it by its parents
This is surprising for someone who claims to "have mastered the debate format". Or not. Quite often, self-called "debate masters" are masters at splitting hairs, avoiding difficult subjects, dropping questions, attacking those who prove them wrong, et cetera. It is much more difficult to find someone who is a "master of the debate format" (whatever the "format" is) and is also a master at telling and facing the truth. The unfortunate fact is that their skill with words and tactics convinces many of them that they are right because they "master the debate format", not because the facts support what they say. Or they think they are right when they just simply had an opponent who couldn't present his facts as skillfully as the other. Or, someone who wasn't given the time to present the facts. For example, by saying that a certain thing is "off-topic". It is very important to be right; mastering "the debate format" is not as important. If you made me choose, I would invariably choose being right over "mastering the debate format". What do you choose?
Let me present a few things here.
In the Awake! of May 22, 1994 (the one whose cover I'm posting here), these children of Jehovah's witnesses were praised and set as an example to all other witnesses because they "put Jehovah first". I would expect the so-called "Jehovah's organization" to be the true conduit of Jehovah's messages to the flock. So Jehovah was pleased that these children died, because they were obedient, and, "Christians ought to want to please God in the decisions they make". Fine. In that case, if Jehovah holds their deaths to be a good thing, it is not wrong to conclude that he would hold it against them if they had accepted a transfusion. Decisions you make do matter. What about dying because someone else chose that you died? Should that be held against you? Mr. Eggnog's answer is that he "I never suggested that a two-year-old could be held accountable for a decision made for it by its parents". That is Mr. Eggnong's opinion. What about Jehovah's? Does he hold it against you if someone else chooses that you die? Does he think that earns you points? If so, in what way can something done by someone else become your merit? The so-called Jehovah's organization agrees with me in thinking that no, what someone else does should not earn you points. Let me use an analogy: if Mr. Eggnog didn't go out to peddle magazines, but Eggnog Sr. did, then Eggnog junior would be "encouraged" to go. They would even keep a record of what he has done in the month. Right, Mr. Eggnog?
By the way, Adrián Martínez, one of the children who "put Jehovah first", is supposed to have said that, rather than death, he feared "the risk of losing God's approval by agreeing to a misuse of blood", if we are to believe the Watchtower of June 15, 1991. Sounds like making the decision does matter to Jehovah. Or are we not to believe the Watchtower, Jehovah's mouthpiece?
Questions. What does "Ok" mean here? Not that I don't know the meaning of the word. I would like to understand what you are agreeing to here.
Some time ago I learned a trick that people use. It's called "responding to a question, but not answering it". This trick is often used by politicians that people take for fools. You ask them a question about, say, taxes, and they "take advantage of that opportunity" to speak about something else. They are aware that they evaded the question, but their real intent is to talk about matters that matter (forgive me for the repetition) only to them. I feel you, Eggnog, are doing this here.
Ok.
Were you accepting that this was indeed what you were doing?
------------------------
I wonder how it is that Jehovah's witnesses don't consider this murder.
Ok.
Do Jehovah's witnesses consider it murder, then?
-------------------
It's not a matter of whether it's "reasonable" to think that "a loving parent" would want to kill a child. This is a red herring. It's a matter of whether the child dies as a result of what the parent decides.
Ok.
Is it a red herring? Is it a matter of whether the child dies? What does "Ok" mean here?
---------------------------
Mr. Eggnog also said:
To answer your question though: Parents are responsible for making life and death decisions for their children, including things that might be viewed by some as mundane, like dietary-related decisions or walking home by itself when the child that normally accompanies their child on its walk home from school has a cold and its parents do not let their child attend school that day (most parents in 2011 think it to be irresponsible to permit their children to walk home from school without being accompanied by someone else), so it really isn't relevant what a child might be capable of understanding when such life and death decisions do not belong to the child.
This, again, is your opinion. I'm ok with you having one, but what @jgnat was talking about IMO is about religion, and by this I do not mean what you evidently mean: I do not mean a religion chosen by a child, for a child has no right to choose its own religion. Even though you (and @jgnat) disagree with me, whether a child received transfused blood is not the kind of decision that I child has the authority to make. Such a decision is in the province of its parents, period. If a child hasn't been given by its parents the privilege to decide whether or not it will spend the night at its cousin's house, then how could it possibly be seen to have the power to decide whether or not it will accept any medical treatment for itself as prescribed by a physician without the written consent of its parents?
I agree; the child doesn't have the power to make its own choices in life. A child's parents have such power.
What if the child wants to live? Do you know of any child who would choose death? You claim I "sound rather clueless to me about this particular aspect of life, namely, children." I was a child once and I knew I didn't want to die. I know I would have chosen life over death. What would you do?
I do not need to be particularly smart or capable or experienced in rearing children to know that I wouldn't refuse a transfusion(or fractions, you asshole) for her if her life were saved with that procedure. I would choose eternal annihilation over my child dying a death such as Adrian Martínez's. This, because I have a loving heart, and I couldn't care less what a bastard of a god thought I should do if my child were concerned. We do know that Jehovah is a player. He asked Abraham to kill Isaac. Sounds like Jehovah cares a lot about us, right? Wait. He sent his own child to die, instead of just forgiving us!
I can speculate what you personally would do. "Speculate" is really a concession, because you clearly spoke your mind: "it really isn't relevant what a child might be capable of understanding when such life and death decisions do not belong to the child." Fear of death is not about understanding anything. It's simply fear of death, a wish for life (in jest, what would I know about this, if I "sound rather clueless about this particular aspect of life, namely children"). You, Eggnog, wouldn't let the child decide. It would be his life, but that would be inconsequential to you. Not only would you let him die: you would refuse him the treatment that would save him. YOU would choose his death. Shame on you.
I have had the fortune of never ever having met a child who chose to die. I have had the opposite experience: meeting children in cancer wards, fighting for their lives. I have had this misfortune of losing friends who were still in their childhood, and they wanted to live. Why is it that Jehovah's witnesses children would "choose" to die? Because they were raised in the religion that their parents chose for them, "for a child has no right to choose its own religion" and, according to Jehovah, or whoever the imposter was who wrote that letter, a child "does not differ at all from a slave (Galatians 4:1)".
Let me ask you this question, and I hope you will answer. If a child were facing death if he refused a transfusion (or "fractions"), and he chose to have the transfusion instead, thus "losing God's approval", what would Jehovah's mouthpiece, Jehovah's organization (one and the same, they say) expect zealous Jehovah's witness parents to do?
You also said:
Again, parents are responsible for making all decisions, including medical decisions, that affect their own children. It seems that you have made this topic about blood transfusions, and I have humored you (and others here) that have taken this thread off-topic, but I am here to discuss blood fractions. I have no opinion as to what decisions you might make for yourself or for your own children. Your decisions are your own, but, from a scriptural perspective, Christians ought to want to please God in the decisions they make, and whereas some Christians have no problem with accepting blood fractions, others might have a problem accepting such, and no one has a right to insert themselves in the decisions that parents make for themselves and/or for their children and their physicians, including congregation elders.
I agree; the child doesn't have the power to make its own choices in life. A child's parents have such power.
Why would congregation elders have anything at all to do with the decision about a blood transfusion if, according to yourself, "no one has a right to insert themselves in the decisions that parents make for themselves and/or for their children"?
Why does the Watchtower have "Hospital Liaison Committees", then? Or are these things "off-topic", and therefore you will not discuss them?
As to being the Devil's advocate, this is what I posted:
Let me play Devil's Advocate here. You consider the Catholic Church to be a Harlot. So, I wasn't reared in "the Truth". In your own terms, was I given the choice to be reared in the true religion, or did my mother choose for me? Was my mother's decision any different from the decision of so many other parents?
I happen to be a former Catholic and I was taught that the Devil's advocate plays the role of what you would call "an opposer", and he tries to find evidence that so-and-so was not really saintly. I am, of course, not a master of the debate format, so I'm not really interested in whether I used the term correctly or not, because it's inconsequential to the questions I asked, which, in turn, made reference to a larger issue.
Was I given the choice to be reared in what you call "the Truth"? You have to consider that wrong, because I was under Satan's influence. Wait, no; "a child has no right to choose its own religion". A Jehovah's witness child doesn't have the right to choose whether he wants to be a Jehovah's witness or not, and, therefore, he can't choose whether he wants a life-saving transfusion or not. According to you, "it really isn't relevant what a child might be capable of understanding when such life and death decisions do not belong to the child."
Maybe there are some points I didn't touch here, but that is on purpose. I have to work this nice Sunday.
Will you answer the questions I am asking?
