Religious Fanatic

Hockeycowboy said:

When all is said and done, “abstaining from....blood” is not for health reasons. It’s an obedience issue.

The same as abstaining from fornication / sexual immorality.

But there are derived health benefits from obeying both. Jehovah’s way is best, as always.

Click to expand...

Except when they die, of course:
http://www.krev.info/library/pocetumrti.pdf
Refusal of blood transfusions key to deaths of 2 Jehovah's Witnesses, coroner finds | CBC News
Family of Jehovah's Witness who died after refusing blood transfusion can't keep suing doctors
Man who almost died after refusing blood transfusion hits out at 'harmful' Jehovah’s Witness teachings - Independent.ie
Teenage Jehovah's Witness refuses blood transfusion and dies

Is death a health benefit?

ImmortalFlame said:

Except when they die, of course:
http://www.krev.info/library/pocetumrti.pdf
Refusal of blood transfusions key to deaths of 2 Jehovah's Witnesses, coroner finds | CBC News
Family of Jehovah's Witness who died after refusing blood transfusion can't keep suing doctors
Man who almost died after refusing blood transfusion hits out at 'harmful' Jehovah’s Witness teachings - Independent.ie
Teenage Jehovah's Witness refuses blood transfusion and dies

Is death a health benefit?

Click to expand...

I think the posted evidence has revealed the dangerous nature inherent in cannibalizing human blood. Why is it that only those who have died from lack of transfusion is news-worthy, but those who die from being transfused, never seem to make the papers? I know why, but many are blissfully unaware. It has to do with who is really behind this world (John 12:31; 1 John 5:19).

In this world, anything promoting Jehovah God and His standards, is usually discounted and ignored.

But, really, to answer your question.....this life is not all there is! I’d rather die faithful. — Revelation 2:10b

Hockeycowboy said:

I think the posted evidence has revealed the dangerous nature inherent in cannibalizing human blood. Why is it that only those who have died from lack of transfusion is news-worthy, but those who die from being transfused, never seem to make the papers? I know why, but many are blissfully unaware. It has to do with who is really behind this world (John 12:31; 1 John 5:19).

Click to expand...

Because those who die FROM blood transfusions is less than 3 in one million. That's around 0.0003% of blood transfusion recipients.
https://www.fda.gov/downloads/biolo...m/transfusiondonationfatalities/ucm598243.pdf

Also, people who die from blood transfusions DO make the papers, so you're just pulling a conspiracy out of nowhere, there:
Tainted love - BBC News
Killed by a needless blood transfusion
'Wrong blood' death nurse spared jail
Blood contamination has killed 2,400. Why was this disaster ignored for so long? | Diana Johnson

Hockeycowboy said:

In this world, anything promoting Jehovah God and His standards, is usually discounted and ignored.

But, really, to answer your question.....this life is not all there is! I’d rather die faithful. — Revelation 2:10b

Click to expand...

Despite the fact that refusing blood transfusions have no Biblical basis whatsoever and allowing your children to die because of your beliefs is disgustingly immoral.

But, whatever, if you're happy to let yourself and your children die for no good reason whatsoever, why should I care?

ImmortalFlame said:

Because those who die FROM blood transfusions is less than 3 in one million. That's around 0.0003% of blood transfusion recipients.
https://www.fda.gov/downloads/biolo...m/transfusiondonationfatalities/ucm598243.pdf

Click to expand...

“Comparisons of the figures obtained from these surveillance systems are difficult, because: (1) the definitions of transfusion complications vary among systems; (2) the denominators necessary for the estimation of the risk of a transfusion-related death are often unavailable or inconsistent between systems; and (3) the criteria used to definitely, probably, or possibly attribute a death to ABT also vary significantly. Moreover, because surveillance systems usually rely on passive reporting, they generally underestimate the incidence of transfusion-related adverse events, including deaths.

Transfusion-related mortality: the ongoing risks of allogeneic blood transfusion and the available strategies for their prevention

So your “less than 3 in one million” is simply not accurate. Never even read that stat in your posted article.

I couldn’t even copy anything from it!

BTW, the “one million” figure is not ‘per entire transfusion’, it’s ‘per unit’ (of RBC’s, platelets, or plasma.)

Two units would double the alleged odds.

Hockeycowboy said:

“Comparisons of the figures obtained from these surveillance systems are difficult, because: (1) the definitions of transfusion complications vary among systems; (2) the denominators necessary for the estimation of the risk of a transfusion-related death are often unavailable or inconsistent between systems; and (3) the criteria used to definitely, probably, or possibly attribute a death to ABT also vary significantly. Moreover, because surveillance systems usually rely on passive reporting, they generally underestimate the incidence of transfusion-related adverse events, including deaths.

Transfusion-related mortality: the ongoing risks of allogeneic blood transfusion and the available strategies for their prevention

So your “less than 3 in one million” is simply not accurate. Never even read that stat in your posted article.

Click to expand...

Except you ignored this part:

"Since 1976, the United States has required the reporting of all transfusion-associated deaths to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)"

And, according to the FDA, only 67 reported fatalities were potentially linked to blood transfusions in 2016, of a Conservatively estimated 20 million total blood transfusions:

https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Biolo...m/TransfusionDonationFatalities/UCM598243.pdf

So, my number is actually quite accurate.

And you still have yet to explain why you lied about the news not reporting deaths caused by blood transfusions. I guess you're just going to ignore that, huh?

ImmortalFlame said:

Except you ignored this part:

"Since 1976, the United States has required the reporting of all transfusion-associated deaths to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)"

And, according to the FDA, only 67 reported fatalities were potentially linked to blood transfusions in 2016, of a Conservatively estimated 20 million total blood transfusions:

https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Biolo...m/TransfusionDonationFatalities/UCM598243.pdf

So, my number is actually quite accurate.

And you still have yet to explain why you lied about the news not reporting deaths caused by blood transfusions. I guess you're just going to ignore that, huh?

Click to expand...

Don’t call me a liar. It’s truth,,,some facts are suppressed, even ignored, others exaggerated.

And your number isn’t accurate. It’s based on irregular reporting. I highlighted that.

Get all the blood you want. Go for it.

Deeje said:

From this response I can only assume extreme denial of the facts presented by those who know about this subject better than either of us.

I also have to assume that you either did not watch the video or that you have somehow blocked out the established medical facts presented in it, from your consciousness. I wonder what could prompt a person to do that? Prejudice? Ignorance? Blind belief? Some vested interest in the continuation of a dangerous procedure? Certainly not facts.

There was a cystoscope scan showing what whole blood transfusion does in the veins of a recipient compared to receiving saline solution as a plasma volume expander. It isn't what has been assumed all these years. It actually impedes blood flow and restricts oxygenation of the tissue....the very opposite of why it was given. That has to be very confronting for those in the medical profession who have used this procedure routinely in their practice for decades.
Did you ignore that on purpose? Are doctors who subscribe to old school methods, doing the same? Medicine is no place for dinosaurs.

Those who have watched the video with an open mind will quickly establish who is telling the truth and who isn't.

Click to expand...

Probably owns stock in Red Cross.

Hockeycowboy said:

Don’t call me a liar. It’s truth,,,some facts are suppressed, even ignored, others exaggerated.

Click to expand...

Any evidence of this?

Hockeycowboy said:

And your number isn’t accurate. It’s based on irregular reporting. I highlighted that.

Click to expand...

The irregular reporting is only a factor when attempting to collate different systems of reporting across different countries, but the study clearly states that the USA has a very consistent standard when it comes to relaying transmission-related fatalities, which ALL have to go through the FDA. And according to the FDA, only 67 people died out of around 20,000,000 in 2016.

ImmortalFlame said:

And according to the FDA, only 67 people died out of around 20,000,000 in 2016

Click to expand...

@ImmortalFlame: Thanks for the edit. Good that we respect each others choice.
Good information to know. I could not believe only 3 per million die. So I checked it. Nice to see it's true.
[http://pathology.ucla.edu/workfiles/Education/Transfusion Medicine/10-8-VamvakasBloodTransfusionMortality.pdf]

Jehovah Witness follow the Law in the country. The Law gives "Freedom of Religion". So they have the right to "refuse blood transfusion".

stvdv said:

I find this a very "inhumane" thing to say.

Jehovah Witness follow the Law in the country. The Law gives "Freedom of Religion". So they have the right to "refuse blood transfusion". Period.

Click to expand...

Hmm, maybe I did give in to shock value a little too much there. Although I do absolutely disagree with indoctrinating children into a belief that can potentially kill them, or robbing them of life for the sake of the belief of their parents, I think I probably have overstepped the mark quite gratuitously there. I will edit the post accordingly.

Hockeycowboy said:

But there are derived health benefits from obeying both. Jehovah’s way is best, as always.

Click to expand...

God: Thou shall not consume blood. Blood is sacred. It should stay in the body.
God: Thou shalt cleanse the room by sprinkling blood everywhere. Make sure and get every nook and cranny. I'm not in the mood to invent bleach yet, so blood will have to do. I have a new STD virus in the works, and I want to make sure that stuff spreads well. I mean, blood will sanctify the space. *cough*

ImmortalFlame said:

No. I'm saying that the studies aren't saying what you are implying. I made that extremely clear.


Except you clearly ARE watching it with a bias, because you're entirely ignoring the fact that the video clearly states that blood transfusions DO save lives, that the video is produced by an organization that support and facilitates blood transfusions, and the warnings in the video are not about the efficacy of blood transfusions when properly applied, they are about the overuse of blood transfusions. Again, read this very quote you've just given. It is NOT saying "blood transfusions are always inappropriate", it is saying "a large number of transfusions are given inappropriately".


Once again, leaving out context is dishonest. They are not saying ALL transfusions are based on behaviour rather than evidence - it's that transfusions are often given unnecessarily (i.e: without evidence that its use would be helpful or appropriate) and that this practice has to change.


Now you're being nakedly dishonest. It does not say "transfusions are considered harmful". It is saying "transfusions can be harmful IN MANY CLINICAL SITUATIONS".


Once again, selectively quoting the video to provide a blatantly dishonest representation of what it contains. The fact that you cannot let the video and its context speak for itself and have to cherry-pick parts out only proves your dishonesty.


Yes, it is. And I'm willing to bet that if I emailed the experts interviews in the video, they would agree with me.


She's dishonestly misrepresenting a video to create a negative view of transfusions in general.


The entire video, plus the two cited studies which I have already provided you with.

Click to expand...

The entire video? So if you can't point to an exact second or minute, how can it be the entire video?
Can you make a quote then, or is that also impossible?

Hockeycowboy said:

I think the posted evidence has revealed the dangerous nature inherent in cannibalizing human blood. Why is it that only those who have died from lack of transfusion is news-worthy, but those who die from being transfused, never seem to make the papers? I know why, but many are blissfully unaware. It has to do with who is really behind this world (John 12:31; 1 John 5:19).

In this world, anything promoting Jehovah God and His standards, is usually discounted and ignored.

But, really, to answer your question.....this life is not all there is! I’d rather die faithful. — Revelation 2:10b

Click to expand...

Makes sensational news for any opposer of this unorthodox religion, doesn't it?
I was looking at this quote

A Quebec coroner has found that the refusal of blood transfusions played a key role in the deaths of two Jehovah's Witnesses who died of childbirth complications last year.

Click to expand...

and going, so did she die of childbirth complications, or refusing a blood transfusion?

How can any coroner state with certainty that someone died from refusing a blood transfusion?
Sure enough any die hard JWs opposer would accept such a inaccurate conclusion.

As you highlighted though, the whole world is lying in the power of the evil one, (1 John 5:19) and they are thoroughly misled. (Revelation 12:9)

ImmortalFlame said:

Because those who die FROM blood transfusions is less than 3 in one million. That's around 0.0003% of blood transfusion recipients.
https://www.fda.gov/downloads/biolo...m/transfusiondonationfatalities/ucm598243.pdf

Also, people who die from blood transfusions DO make the papers, so you're just pulling a conspiracy out of nowhere, there:
Tainted love - BBC News
Killed by a needless blood transfusion
'Wrong blood' death nurse spared jail
Blood contamination has killed 2,400. Why was this disaster ignored for so long? | Diana Johnson


Despite the fact that refusing blood transfusions have no Biblical basis whatsoever and allowing your children to die because of your beliefs is disgustingly immoral.

But, whatever, if you're happy to let yourself and your children die for no good reason whatsoever, why should I care?

Click to expand...

Think about it.
Here you are, speaking against ancient beliefs, and yet holding on to them for your convenience.

Years ago, when scientists of antiquity believed that disease were associated with gods, they did so without actual evidence.
In this time they used methods that allowed them to determine what really causes diseases.

The methods included tests that implemented if then statements
You accept that, and ridicule those ancient scientists.
Now...
You are dismissing those methods, and holding on to opinions that do not support tested and verified evidence.

Do you know what that's called?
How would you define it?

If it were true that people die from a refusing a transfusion, then everyone who refused a blood transfusion, would die.

More than 100, 000 physicians! More than 250 successful bloodless operations a year.... imagine that!
...and you are still closing your eyes and ears. Reasonable? Far from.

Transfusion-Alternative Health Care—Meeting Patient Needs and Rights

Numerous Benefits
by Minimally Invasive and Bloodless Heart Surgery Center
Many benefits can be reaped through bloodless medicine and many studies have been conducted to show the proof. Generally, those who do not receive blood transfusions do in fact, recover much more quickly from any type of surgical procedure because the body is not working so hard to adjust. Patients will typically experience far less risks/infections that are associated with transfusions and they will also be able to shorten their hospital stay time.

How Jehovah’s Witnesses Are Changing Medicine
By Amanda Schaffer

Bloodless Medicine Techniques
Bloodless Medicine and Surgery Techniques
..............
Bloodless medicine techniques were originally developed in response to the requests of patients who could not receive blood products for religious reasons. At that time, the established medical community considered the practice of bloodless medicine controversial. However, as the AIDS and hepatitis epidemics of the mid-80s called into question the safety of the nation's blood supply and more people began demanding alternatives, more advanced techniques became available for treatment.

Thanks to these advances, many types of surgery have now been performed without the use of blood products, from simple outpatient procedures to organ transplants.

About Bloodless Medicine and Surgery Services
In keeping with the belief that all persons need to be treated with dignity and respect, UPMC established the Bloodless Medicine and Surgery Services in 2010.
What We Do
Bloodless Medicine and Surgery Services at UPMC:

• Combines the principles of patient blood management with a culture of respect for the convictions and beliefs of individuals who are unable to accept blood transfusions for religious, ethical, or blood safety concerns.
• Offers guidance to physicians and their patients on appropriate blood management strategies. UPMC is a leader in this field, and the center operates in collaboration with the UPMC Patient Blood Management Committee.
• Provides consultations for developing treatment plans for patients who are Jehovah’s Witnesses or members of other religious denominations that refuse blood products.

While Jehovah's Witnesses are being praised, and benefit from the best health care, others can sit and listen to sensational false news.

People believe what they want, and it's not always based on rationality.
To you JWs witnesses are irrational.
To us and many other people, rational people are not unreasonable.
I don't think you are being reasonable Flame, and that's not rationality.

ImmortalFlame said:

Except you ignored this part:

"Since 1976, the United States has required the reporting of all transfusion-associated deaths to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)"

And, according to the FDA, only 67 reported fatalities were potentially linked to blood transfusions in 2016, of a Conservatively estimated 20 million total blood transfusions:

https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Biolo...m/TransfusionDonationFatalities/UCM598243.pdf

So, my number is actually quite accurate.

And you still have yet to explain why you lied about the news not reporting deaths caused by blood transfusions. I guess you're just going to ignore that, huh?

Click to expand...

Wow. You called another one a liar?
That Jehovah's Witnesses have such a splendid reputation for honesty sure seems to be eating you out.
You know the saying, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

Hey @Deeje @Hockeycowboy

Did you guys read this one?
Man who almost died after refusing blood transfusion hits out at 'harmful' Jehovah’s Witness teachings
Sounds like someone that was bribed into giving a sensational story.
It seems to me though that Mr Dunne didn't make a dediction to Jehovah and get baptized.
Either that, or he isn't thinking straight.

Apart from the sensational news items this one
http://www.krev.info/library/pocetumrti.pdf was a good share.

It does highlight the strong faith that even youth among Jehovah's Witnesses display. When we think of Daniel, and his three young Hebrew companions, and how they stood firm for what they believed, rather than compromise in order to save their life, it remind us of the faith of the many Witnesses Paul mentioned in his letter to the Hebrews. Hebrew 11-12:1

To see our young ones stand firm like Josh McAuley, does show the truthfulness of Psalms 110:3.
Reminds me of one of my favorite songs -
Jehovah’s Warm Appeal: “Be Wise, My Son”

I wonder if @ImmortalFlame thinks that Jehovah's Witnesses are fanatics and irrational for refusing to take up arms and fight wars, because they understand the Bible teaches against that.
So would that make Muhammad Ali and others who are not Jehovah's Witnesses, irrational fanatics, for refusing to go to war - even if it meant imprisonment or death?

The blood issue clearly is not a problem for may people. They would rather not have a blood transfusion, but they are driven by fear - fear of losing their life - so they take it.

This seems to me the same as what one person calls...
“child logic” - logic that is hijacked by emotion
The Power of Emotions to Override Rational Thought

I think immortalFlame and others are simply letting their envy blind them to what rational thinking means. That envy, and bias seems to be preventing them from being reasonable - a quality needed for rationality.

Shad said:

Yes given the nature of the OP. You both were attacking a point I did not make. I stayed on topic

Click to expand...

Okay. Since according to you, I have strayed from the topic, let me get back on course then.
If I am truly in the wrong - which I don't think I am - I apologize.

What is your response? Which of the following do you consider irrational, rational, and explain why?
I would be interested in @ImmortalFlame response also.

(a)
A person refused to join the army, or fight in war, because of Jesus admonition here - Matthew 26:52, 53, and Isaiah's prophecy here - Isaiah 2:2-4, and other Bible principles - John 7:14-16; 2 Timothy 3:12; 1 Peter 2:17; 3:16; 5:8. Basically, they want to maintain a clean conscience before God, by loving their brothers and neighbor in every nation, and by trusting in their God, whose instructions they have come to trust.

(b)
A person refused to join the army, or fight in war, because of conscience, to quote one person
“My conscience won’t let me go shoot my brother, or some darker people, or some poor hungry people in the mud for big powerful America,” he had explained two years earlier. “And shoot them for what? They never called me ******, they never lynched me, they didn’t put no dogs on me, they didn’t rob me of my nationality, rape and kill my mother and father. … Shoot them for what? How can I shoot them poor people? Just take me to jail.”

A conscientious objector (CO) is a person who decides not to be a combatant in military forces.
There are many reasons for this decision such as religious beliefs, ethical and moral beliefs to not kill human beings or pacifism.

To such persons, the consequences did not matter.
The conscientious objectors paid a high price
Conscription was seen as a necessary step to boost the number of soldiers and hasten a final victory. But neither Asquith’s coalition government nor the military had considered properly how they would deal with those who objected to military service for reasons of conscience.
..........
There were many justifications for refusing to fight. The most common was that war and the act of killing were inconsistent with most religious teaching. Many followed this conviction despite their respective churches often supporting the government’s position. Others made a political argument against the war. This was the age when socialism was growing in importance and war was deemed to have no place in a truly socialist society.

(c)
A person refuses a blood transfusion for religious reason - i.e. they believe it violates God's laws.

(d)
A person refuses a blood transfusion for ethical reasons, or blood safety concerns, i.e. - they fear the risks involved, or they are not convinced of its effectiveness.

(e)
A doctor refuses to administer a blood transfusion, because he respect the patients rights and wishes, which he understands involves the patient's conscience - whether for religious reasons, or not.

(f)
A doctor refuses to respect the patient's right and conscience, and seeks a court order to administer a blood transfusion against the patient's wishes, rather than consider any other alternatives.


rational
- based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

nPeace said:

Okay. Since according to you, I have strayed from the topic, let me get back on course then.
If I am truly in the wrong - which I don't think I am - I apologize.

Click to expand...

No need to apologize. It happens.

What is your response? Which of the following do you consider irrational, rational, and explain why?
I would be interested in @ImmortalFlame response also.

Click to expand...

Should I use NWT to reference these verses or is the forum's own Bible resource acceptable? I ask as I know translations can vary. I want to reference a translation you accept in case some translation dispute becomes a sticking point.

Shad said:

No need to apologize. It happens.



Should I use NWT to reference these verses or is the forum's own Bible resource acceptable? I ask as I know translations can vary. I want to reference a translation you accept in case some translation dispute becomes a sticking point.

Click to expand...

Use whatever you like, as long as you are honest - which I won't be able to determine anyway.

nPeace said:

Use whatever you like, as long as you are honest - which I won't be able to determine anyway.

Click to expand...

I will use NWT then.