This is why I don't like transfusions.......

by VioletAnai 37 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Dawn

  Food poisoning in Broward County:
  According to the Department of Health, in Broward County in 1996 there were more than 500 reported incidents of food poisoning and over 840 known exposures that involved 9 outbreaks. Four of the outbreaks were viral, one involved Salmonella, two involved grouper fish food poisoning (by Ciguatera and Scombrotoxin) and two outbreaks involved microparasites (Cryptosporidium and Cyclosporidium). The Cyclospora food poisoning outbreak was related to infested raspberries imported from Guatemala and affected fifty residents. There were also two cases of Hepatitis A involving food handlers in two Broward County restaurants. There were no reported deaths associated with the foodborn illnesses.

  This is why I don't like food..............

  Mat 15:11 not what goes into the mouth defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man."

  Rom 14:10 Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God;

  Rom 14:12 So each of us shall give account of himself to God.

  Rom 14:13 Then let us no more pass judgment on one another, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother.

  And that is why I believe that NOONE should make that decision for you but you should be free to make your choices before GOD - noone else.
• 

  SixofNine

  1 Sam 14:32-5 Saul's men all ate unBLED meat to stay alive, 

  nancee park, as usual from you, bullshit. There is no indication that "staying alive" had anything 

  whatsoever to do with this bible story. Is it even possible for you to write a sentence 

  without putting a dishonest spin on it? Jah hates liars you know.

  Edited by - SixofNine on 30 June 2002 23:28:27
• 

  dungbeetle

  in defense of NP: 1 Sam. 14: ; (NWT;)

  :24 And the men of Israel themselves were hard pressed on that day, and yet Saul put the people under the pledge of the oath, saying: "Cursed is the man that eats bread before the evening and until I have taken my vengeance upon my enemies!" And none of the people tasted bread.

  26: When the people came into the woods, why Look! there was a dripping of honey, but there was no one putting his hand to his mouth, because the people were afraid of the oath.

  28:..(and the people began to get tired)

  29: However, Jonathon said "My father has brought ostracism upon the land. See, please, how my eyes have beamed becasue I tasted this little bit of honey.
  30 How much more so if the people had but eaten today from the spoil of their enemies that they found!"</P>

  31 And on that day they kept striking down the Philistines ...and the people got to be very tired.

  32 And the people began darting greedily at the spoil and taking a sheep and cattle and calves and slaughtering them on the earth, and the people fell to eating along with the blood

  33 So they told Saul, saying "Look! The people are sinning against Jehovah by eating along with the blood..."

  Saul was so obviously an absolute idiot in dire need of lessons in interpersonal relationship skills and methods of communication. Anyway, later, Saul ordered the people to set up altars and slaughter the animals and eat them after having properly bled them.

  Later, Saul decided that Jonathon should die because of the 'little bit of honey he had tasted". The people intervened, however, and so Jonathon was spared. ; I think relations between father and son went downhill from that day.

  1) It DOES appear that the Israelites were famished, and although they may not have been 'starving' in the sense we usually think of (such as the large-bellied African children we see images of all the time) it does appear they might have been weak from heavy fighting. ; I would also venture to guess that eating the animal flesh unbled may have given them fluids as well, as thirst is a much faster killer and greater weakener than being without food. ; In any case, it does not seem the Israelites would have fallen to eating unbled meat without some emergency being present.

  2) If it was NOT an emergency situation, would that not so much ;MORE make NP's case? If God allowed it in a non-emergency, then he certainly would not forbid it in an emergency, and on behalf of a child as well?

  I think this is a very powerful reasoning tool and example to use with JW's, one of the best I've ever heard; In the "Insight on ;the Scriptures"book, page 871 says:

  <In the progress of the campaign against the Philistines, Saul pronounced a curse upon anyone partaking of food before vengeance was executed on the enemy. This rash oath led to adverse consequences. The Israelites tired, and though they triumphed over the Philistines, their victory was not as great as it might have been. Famished, they did not take time to drain the blood from the animals they afterward slaughtered, thereby violating Gods law concerning the sanctity of blood. Not having heard his fathers oath, Jonathan ate some honey. Saul, therefore, pronounced the death sentence upon him. But the people redeemed Jonathan, for he had been instrumental in Israels gaining the victory.1Sa 14:1-45>

  NP's statement is backed up by Watchtower itself. ; There are no adverse consequences from eating the unbled meat.
• 

  SixofNine

  Yep, obviously the blood (or time saved) saved their life. I have some swamp land for sale in Arizona too.

  The only emergency was that they were very hungry and tired. As the bible says, they were greedy. Yes, it does make the case stronger, all the more reason not to embellish (lie).
• 

  Satanus

  I don't like root canals. They hurt. Some of them don't work. It's just not right.

  SS
• 

  Mary

  Here's a little something I found very interesting........apparently, coconut milk has the exact same plasma properties as what our blood does...........people in third world countries who have lost alot of blood and who have no access to a hospital, have been kept alive by drinking large quantities of coconut milk............while I don't believe everything I read on the Net, there were quite a few articles about this that I found to be quite interesting. Here's a couple of links below.......

  http://origin.sundayobserver.lk/2002/01/13/fea18.html

  http://www.living-foods.com/articles/coconutscansave.html
• 

  Nowfree

  It is up to each individual in each set of circumstances to decide what is right for them or their child.

  Some people don't like taking antibiotics - fine. They are big enough, strong enough and ugly enough to fight whatever infection they have. Othertake them without a thought - fine. Yet others HAVE to take them otherwise what is a routine chest infection (for example) can very quickly lead to heart failure and potential death.

  As far as medical preference goes - it is the same with blood transfusions.

  But Witnesses will always point out that their refusal of blood is on RELIGIOUS grounds (see How can Blood Save your Life), nothing to do with medical grounds. So it wouldn't make one iota of difference if all blood were 100% safe ALL the time. Witnesses would not be allowed to accept it.

  Nowfree
• 

  ItsJustlittleoldme

  Hep C blood re-circulated: report

  Blood believed to be infected with the potentially fatal hepatitis C virus was deliberately put into Australia's blood system, a newspaper reports.

  The Sydney Morning Herald said many people assumed that the blood plasma, collected from suspect donors for a few months after screening was introduced in February 1990, was not to be used.

  Instead, it was turned into medical products used by thousands of hospital patients and haemophiliacs, the paper said.

  It said the decision was made by officials from the federal government, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories and the Red Cross in the belief that the virus could be killed, but was reconsidered and reversed after only a few months.

  Medical experts and public interest advocates said such use of that blood would today breach all internationally accepted standards for blood safety, the paper reported.

  This information is false, being from a satanic media outlet.. You cannot trust what you read...

  Oh, sorry, thought I was a JW for a moment.. Interesting how there are double standards here... If it's something they don't like to hear (Such as the padophile stuff, it's a satanic media report, and NOT to be believed.. If, on the other hand, it's something that seems to support their ideas/doctrines etc the media is their friend, and is to be believed completely..)..

  Kinda reminds me of a fiasco with the United Nations... Hmmm, I see a pattern here

  Oh, on a serious note, it is certainly YOUR right to refuse blood, and this is a legitimate reason to do so. Would you still feel the same way if the GB announced tomorrow that transfusions were scripturally supported (along with the scriptures that prove their new stance, of course?). I wonder if then you would be looking for articles that showed how blood transfusions saved lives.. After all, you have a better shot at being killed in a car than you do with a blood transfusion.. I assume you avoid cars, also! (oh, that's right, those statistics can be found from SATANIC sources, and as such are not to be relied upon.. (Unless of course we agree with them, then the satanic sources are ok))...

  In fact, this is kinda like the way the society treats secular history and bible chronology.. Take one date from historical chronology that you believe, work your formula's into it, come out with an entirely different date for the destruction of Jeruselam, and then denounce historical records, even though the methods used to 'prove' the date of the destruction of Jeruselam is the same method used to prove the date as the one that you believed and took for a reference point to come up with your 1914 year.

  The same selective acceptance of facts to support your own agenda only...

  Remember, Jehovah HATES unequal scales... Here is an example of a few for ya... !!!

  Edited by - itsjustlittleoldme on 1 July 2002 14:53:55

  Edited by - itsjustlittleoldme on 1 July 2002 14:59:54

  Edited by - itsjustlittleoldme on 1 July 2002 15:6:43
• 

  ItsJustlittleoldme

  Yet, let's stay in reality here, ok?

  Reality, why would a JW want to focus on reality.. Way too much cognative dissonance, very painful!!!!
• 

  dungbeetle

  This came up in Ritzville, and I will put it on the board, BA told me this. It is from a book that no one can remember the title of, if anyone knows this book PLEASE post it here, I would love to read it. It has something to do with the 'Tribes of Israel' that's all anyone can remember.

  Anyway, in those days (thousands of years ago) and in that place (the anicient middle east) there was a custom, and it still exists in some places even today. That custom was to take a part of an animal, WHILE STILL ALIVE and eat it. In a day or so, you can go back to that same living animal, chop off another part of it and eat THAT. This continues untill the animal is finally dead.

  Two reasons for this custom was the lack of being able to save leftover food and also the belief that eating a living animal gave the person some special quality.

  Well, to a god who demanded that two different animals not be yoked together, or not be prevented from eating while it worked, this practice would obviously be abhorent.

  Therefore the command "The animal, its flesh with its blood --its soul--[life] you must not eat. You must drain the blood out upon the ground [thus the animal will be completely dead] before you eat it.

  In the account related at I Samuel support is given for this reasoning. Even thought the Israelites ate unbled meat, they obviously did not eat still - living animals, or consequences would have been dire indeed, for it specifically states they 'slaughtered' the animals. So it was not the eating of UNBLED meat that was really the issue, it was the eating of a still-living animal.

  God commanded that if an Israelite was lashed forty times --no more--and he died, there was no bloodguilt. The Israelites developed a custom of 'forty lashes minus one' just to be on the safe side.

  So, too with blood. Completely bleeding the animal before eating assured in no uncertain terms that the animal was dead. An animal cannot be completely 'bled out' so that would not be a logical conclusion as to the meaning and intent of the law.

  And I have never heard the Society complain about the religious ramifications of eating 'rare' steak. What does Watchtower think that red liguid is----GRAPE JUICE..???