Religious Fanatic

[nPeace]

Whenever the word fanatic is used in other contexts though, it doesn't carry the meaning of 'insane' as it seems to here. One doesn't think of a book fanatic or a film fanatic as someone who goes on rampages against people who don't like to read books or watch movies. I took 'religious fanatic' to mean 'fanatic about one's religion'.

Yes. The question is though, is such a person being rational. That's more what I am trying to get at.

 

[nPeace]

Brainwashed religious fanatic.

Would you care to elaborate?

 

[nPeace]

Both I guess. Jehovah's Witnesses completely twist those verses making them much stricter than they are supposed to be. But I admire her decision to stick to her convictions regardless of what I think about the conviction itself.

May I ask how you think the verse should be applied. Acts 15:20

 

[nPeace]

Although I do not agree with some of the JW beliefs including the interpretation of on the biblical verse about blood, the JWs are a recognised denomination of Christianity and should be respected as such. We need to be extremely careful before using language like brainwashed or fanatic as there is such a diversity of religious belief both within Christianity and other religions.

During my medical training I assisted with a bowel resection on a JW patient with bowel cancer. The man in his 50s clearly needed the operation otherwise he would die. The surgeon simply had a candid discussion about the risks and benefits of the procedure and performed the surgery after obtaining written informed consent. The patients operation was successful and he made a full recovery although it took slightly longer to recover from the post-operative anaemia.

I was impressed that the surgeon accommodated the patients religious beliefs without too much fuss. On the other hand it is a more complicated issue when a minor is placed at increased risk because of their religious beliefs.

Could I ask... how do you think Acts 15:20, 29 should be interpreted?

 

[nPeace]

From the 1964 Watchtower

"Not only is blood being used in connection with modern medical practices, but it is reported that blood is now being used in a variety of products, such as adhesives for making plywood, particle board, hardboard, bottle crowns, furniture and musical instruments. Blood is also being used in polymerization of rubber compounds, insecticidal binder, settling compound for industrial waste treatment, clear water purification (paper industry), uranium purification, foaming agent for lightweight cellular concrete, fire foaming agent, wine clarifying agent, paper coatings and binders, paper flocculants and sizes, replacement of casein in latex emulsions, emulsified asphalt, cork composition, photoengraving platemaking solutions, leather-finishing operations, water-resistant binder of pigments for print dyeing on cotton cloth, fertilizers, animal foods, and amino acid production, such as histidine and histamine, for example. Perhaps additional uses of blood will come to light in the future. In the world the uses of blood are numerous and none of these is in accord with the Biblical method of handling blood, which is to be spilled on the ground. However, the Christian is not responsible for the worldly misuse of blood, what other people do with it, and he cannot spend all his time undertaking detailed research regarding the various misuses of blood in the world of mankind, especially when it comes to nonedible products. If he did so, he would have less time left for preaching the good news of God’s kingdom. To some persons, it may be a hard decision to make as to where one should be employed. It resolves itself to a matter of conscience."

The last sentence in that article, is very important, because some people are unaware that some Jehovah's witnesses refuse blood fractions, for this very reason - due to their conscience.

 

[74x12]

May I ask how you think the verse should be applied. Acts 15:20

That you shouldn't eat blood. Obviously any meat really has blood in it whether cooked or not. But this means just the act of knowingly purposefully eating or drinking blood like some people do. It's not meant to be strict because if it was then we couldn't eat meat at all. But as long as you've reasonably cooked your meat then you aren't offending. A blood transfusion for saving someone's life has nothing to do with a ritualistic dietary law.

In fact the whole point of the Law in the Torah is because "the life is in the blood". So if the "life is in the blood" then there is nothing wrong with saving someone's life with a blood transfusion. Literally sharing your life with someone looks like a good deed to me.

Jesus implied that laws have exceptions anyway. He said to some of the Pharisees go and learn what this means "I desire mercy and not sacrifice" so that's the most important law. To show mercy is more important than sacrifice.

 

[nPeace]

Am I the only one upset the family and the medical professionals let it go that long?

https://www.webmd.com/back-pain/causes-scoliosis#1

That doesn't just appear out of thin air, especially if it's due to poor positioning issues.

Some person who suffer with Scoliosis deteriorate very rapidly. I saw this in a young family member of mine who was awaiting treatment. Each day it was noticeable that more curvature occurred.

On the other hand some go a long time with it, and there is hardly any noticeable change.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Would you care to elaborate?

Anyone who would refuse a time tested medical procedure that could potentially save their lives all because they think some ancient text tells them that they shouldn't is acting in a fanatical manner, IMO.

 

[siti]

I don't know if I agree with that. I mean it (plywood) sounds silly, but think about it. Blood is life. It's sacred to Jehovah who created life. The soul isn't some metaphysical or philosophical concept, some primitive nonsense. It's the blood. Life.

I'm taking it that you approve of a scripturally-based ban on plywood then - I never had any problem with plywood even when I was a JW. I was completely unaware of that WT article - which is more than 50 years old mind you. There are a lot of things I disagree with JWs about but their lack of opposition to the use of plywood is not one of them.

 

[Milton Platt]

Religious fanatic, or rational human being?
This girl was only fourteen. What do you think of her?
Do you consider her to be a religious brainwashed fanatic, or a rational thinking person?
Her experience.

I'm conflicted. She was a minor, which means the question to be asked was whether her parents were being rational to withhold blood transfusions during the operation. There was of course no certainty that a transfusion would be needed until the operation was underway. The surgeons were simply committed to doing whatever is necessary to save a life. They did not want to loose a patient on the operating table when there was a way to prevent the death. The parents were not. They felt that the life of their daughter was less important than following their religious beliefs. However, the child also believed the same things, and that should also be considered.

I think it is questionable that a religious community would be such a stickler for Old Testament rules and regulations about blood when they do not follow the vast majority of the laws and morality from the Old Testament.

 

[Earthling]

I'm taking it that you approve of a scripturally-based ban on plywood then - I never had any problem with plywood even when I was a JW. I was completely unaware of that WT article - which is more than 50 years old mind you. There are a lot of things I disagree with JWs about but their lack of opposition to the use of plywood is not one of them.

Yes, it was an old article, but it's been a long time since I was told about it myself. It would have been the early to mid 1990's. Maybe that's changed, maybe it hasn't. I don't know.

 

[siti]

Disagreed. @RothschildSaxeCoburgGotha exactly "hit the point". JWs don't worry, they just don't use blood. Others should NOT worry whether or not JWs worry IMHO

I'm not...I was just pointing out that JWs have no particular issue about plywood - which was the ridiculous point that @RothschildSaxeCoburgGotha made based on his misreading of a 1964 Watchtower article that didn't say what he thought it did. I'm not too worried about that either - we needn't get too worried about the RF staple of misinterpretation.

This, on the other hand - in the context it was written - is mildly disturbing...

I am fine dying.

This even more so...

Doctors are there for people who do not trust God to take care.

 

[nPeace]

Anyone who would refuse a time tested medical procedure that could potentially save their lives all because they think some ancient text tells them that they shouldn't is acting in a fanatical manner, IMO.

Potentially?
Time tested?

Well I am glad that's just your opinion.

[GALLERY=media, 8607]SIr_David_Diesel_King2scr by nPeace posted Jul 26, 2018 at 3:29 PM[/GALLERY]

Why Scientific Studies Are So Often Wrong: The Streetlight Effect
A bolt of excitement ran through the field of cardiology in the early 1980s when anti-arrhythmia drugs burst onto the scene. Researchers knew that heart-attack victims with steady heartbeats had the best odds of survival, so a medication that could tamp down irregularities seemed like a no-brainer. The drugs became the standard of care for heart-attack patients and were soon smoothing out heartbeats in intensive care wards across the United States.

But in the early 1990s, cardiologists realized that the drugs were also doing something else: killing about 56,000 heart-attack patients a year.

MODERN SCIENTISTS ARE WRONG FAR MORE THAN YOU THINK
Statisticians have shown that many scientific findings are wrong, and without an increase in statistical know-how for scientists it'll continue happening.

SCIENTIFIC ADVICE PROMOTING DIESEL ‘WAS WRONG’, FORMER CHIEF SCIENTIST ADMITS

I don't want to go through the statistics of death related to this time tested medical procedure you speak of, but many persons are thankful for this ancient text. Some who have not used the ancient text, but still benefit from medical procedures, that do not involve the use of blood - thousands of which have been successful, are equally thankful.
This seems to me to be a rational decision.

Thanks to an ancient text, hundreds of doctors are now saving lives - many of which could potentially have been lost through blood transfusions.
Transfusion-related mortality: the ongoing risks of allogeneic blood transfusion and the available strategies for their prevention

 

[nPeace]

That you shouldn't eat blood. Obviously any meat really has blood in it whether cooked or not. But this means just the act of knowingly purposefully eating or drinking blood like some people do. It's not meant to be strict because if it was then we couldn't eat meat at all. But as long as you've reasonably cooked your meat then you aren't offending. A blood transfusion for saving someone's life has nothing to do with a ritualistic dietary law.

In fact the whole point of the Law in the Torah is because "the life is in the blood". So if the "life is in the blood" then there is nothing wrong with saving someone's life with a blood transfusion. Literally sharing your life with someone looks like a good deed to me.

Jesus implied that laws have exceptions anyway. He said to some of the Pharisees go and learn what this means "I desire mercy and not sacrifice" so that's the most important law. To show mercy is more important than sacrifice.

Which part of Acts 15:29 tells you that it applies to eating blood?

 

[nPeace]

I'm conflicted. She was a minor, which means the question to be asked was whether her parents were being rational to withhold blood transfusions during the operation. There was of course no certainty that a transfusion would be needed until the operation was underway. The surgeons were simply committed to doing whatever is necessary to save a life. They did not want to loose a patient on the operating table when there was a way to prevent the death. The parents were not. They felt that the life of their daughter was less important than following their religious beliefs. However, the child also believed the same things, and that should also be considered.

I think it is questionable that a religious community would be such a stickler for Old Testament rules and regulations about blood when they do not follow the vast majority of the laws and morality from the Old Testament.

So are you saying that neither the girl nor her parents were thinking rationally?

 

[74x12]

Which part of Acts 15:29 tells you that it applies to eating blood?

It doesn't have to. We know what they meant. These were Jews who were used to keeping the Law. They were debating whether to tell the gentiles to keep the whole Law or not. They decided that the gentiles only needed to keep a few basic rules. So you should refer back to the Law when you read something like that to get an idea of what they meant.

 

[Earthling]

I'm not...I was just pointing out that JWs have no particular issue about plywood - which was the ridiculous point that @RothschildSaxeCoburgGotha made based on his misreading of a 1964 Watchtower article that didn't say what he thought it did. I'm not too worried about that either - we needn't get too worried about the RF staple of misinterpretation.

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! I was told sometime between 1993 - 1996 by a Presiding Overseer in my local congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses that it wasn't simply blood transfusions that they had to concern themselves with but also blood used in the manufacturing of plywood and adhesive. Especially, he said, on quick builds and I presented a Watchtower article from 1964 that confirmed this. You said you didn't know anything about it.

 

[siti]

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! I was told sometime between 1993 - 1996 by a Presiding Overseer in my local congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses that it wasn't simply blood transfusions that they had to concern themselves with but also blood used in the manufacturing of plywood and adhesive. Especially, he said, on quick builds and I presented a Watchtower article from 1964 that confirmed this. You said you didn't know anything about it.

Well all I can say to that is the PO also misread the WT article. I worked on a number of quick builds as well as renovations and refurbs and was never aware of any special consideration about plywood and glue - as far as I know, we just bought whatever was available in the timber yard or the hardware store. The WT article simply does not say what you are suggesting - regardless of whether you (or that PO) agree with it - it says we shouldn't worry about it too much - and we didn't.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Potentially?
Time tested?

Well I am glad that's just your opinion.

[GALLERY=media, 8607]SIr_David_Diesel_King2scr by nPeace posted Jul 26, 2018 at 3:29 PM[/GALLERY]

Why Scientific Studies Are So Often Wrong: The Streetlight Effect
A bolt of excitement ran through the field of cardiology in the early 1980s when anti-arrhythmia drugs burst onto the scene. Researchers knew that heart-attack victims with steady heartbeats had the best odds of survival, so a medication that could tamp down irregularities seemed like a no-brainer. The drugs became the standard of care for heart-attack patients and were soon smoothing out heartbeats in intensive care wards across the United States.

But in the early 1990s, cardiologists realized that the drugs were also doing something else: killing about 56,000 heart-attack patients a year.

MODERN SCIENTISTS ARE WRONG FAR MORE THAN YOU THINK
Statisticians have shown that many scientific findings are wrong, and without an increase in statistical know-how for scientists it'll continue happening.

SCIENTIFIC ADVICE PROMOTING DIESEL ‘WAS WRONG’, FORMER CHIEF SCIENTIST ADMITS

I don't want to go through the statistics of death related to this time tested medical procedure you speak of, but many persons are thankful for this ancient text. Some who have not used the ancient text, but still benefit from medical procedures, that do not involve the use of blood - thousands of which have been successful, are equally thankful.
This seems to me to be a rational decision.

Thanks to an ancient text, hundreds of doctors are now saving lives - many of which could potentially have been lost through blood transfusions.
Transfusion-related mortality: the ongoing risks of allogeneic blood transfusion and the available strategies for their prevention

Oh my! You found instances in which an established scientific idea was found to be WRONG! Do you conclude that means that science doesn't know what it's talking about? Or do you conclude that it means the scientific method WORKS and is able to assertion when mistakes have been made and to correct for those mistakes? From what I've seen you write in the past, I can only sadly assume that you think the former.

And did you even bother to read the article you linked to about transfusions? Since you clearly didn't, I'll let you know that it talks about how the rate of transfusion related fatalities has drastically declined since the 90's. This means that due to the scientific method, this time-tested procedure has been IMPROVED on over the last few decades. Isn't that wonderful?

 

[Earthling]

Oh my! You found instances in which an established scientific idea was found to be WRONG!

Here we go again . . .