• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Religious Fanatic

nPeace

Veteran Member
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.
I agree that those Jews who heard and read the letters from the brothers in Jerusalem would have understood what it meant to abstain from blood. After all, they understood the only proper use for blood - namely, atonement for sin.
(Leviticus 17:11) For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have given it on the altar for you to make atonement for yourselves, because it is the blood that makes atonement by means of the life in it.

(Leviticus 17:13, 14) . . .“‘If one of the Israelites or some foreigner who is residing in your midst is hunting and catches a wild animal or a bird that may be eaten, he must pour its blood out and cover it with dust. 14For the life of every sort of flesh is its blood, because the life is in it. . . .

They understood clearly what these texts meant.
They understood that these laws were not for dietary reasons.
The blood represented life, and is sacred to the life-giver - Jehovah God. It has atoning value.
So the blood of the creature is the life of the creature, hence God determines how it is used - It's atoning value is in line with the principle - life for life. Genesis 9:5, 6

The Jews clearly understood how serious it was to not have the right view of blood and it's uses.

What of the Gentiles in the Christian congregation... How would they have understood it? They were not under the Mosaic Law, and so this is new to them... but from the scriptures they understood that Christ's blood - his life - made atonement for sin, once for all time - The only proper use of blood in their time.
Animal sacrifice - atonement by means of the blood - life - of the animal, was no longer valid.

So when that letter was read to them, containing the words, "Abstain from blood." They too understood what it meant. They was no need to try to determine what it meant. In the same way there was no need to determine what "Abstain from idolatry" and "Abstain from fornication" meant.

The same is true of us today, who read those letters.
To the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, it simply means what it say - no twisting, no adjusting to suit what we think, in order to fit modern day uses of blood. Simply put, "Abstain from blood".

Everyone else can decide for themselves how they see it.
If "Abstain" to you, means "do not eat", in the case of blood, what does "Abstain from idolatry" and "Abstain from fornication" mean to you?
I really would like to know how you can switch the application without twisting it.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
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?
What? Are you denying those links dealt with science? Or are you saying that science is only science when it is "right"?

So my point is, no matter how "time tested" it is, it has not become right. Time still continues, and over time the "time tested" do adjust or change with time.
The article does show that the "time tested" is still undergoing adjustment to improve or if need be replace.
With science the testing never ends.

So what about those thousands of successfully achieved medical surgeries without blood that are meeting the test?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/doctors-explore-potential-benefits-of-bloodless-surgery/
THE RISE OF ALTERNATIVES TO ALLOGENEIC BLOOD

Nothing to say on those?
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
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.
The article was simply mentioning in principle that mankind today make use of blood in many ways. There is no need for God's people to focus on how man misuses blood.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
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.
Okay, thanks for the update about plywood, I don't know anything about that, I just have to trust you in that
Agreed, good not to get too worried about RF staple of misinterpretation

This, on the other hand - in the context it was written - is mildly disturbing...
I am fine dying
Okay, good you are only mildly disturbed by that. I can take all your worries easily away. Sai Baba told me personally "you only die if I want". Of course being scientist and having finally the chance to TEST if Sai Baba is Poorna Avatar as He claims and keeping His promise to me, I did do quite some severe testing. Consuming large amounts of toxic stuff that would normally kill me. Luckily He let me do some extensive testing before He came into my dream telling me "Your body can't handle this stuff, so when you ingest it I have to take it out". I did feel quite bad [Ramana said that Guru takes karma until you can take yourself], because I realized Sai Baba had taken my "stupid testing karma", so I decided not to put Sai Baba to the test anymore.

I hope this clears your disturbance. I can't die by ingesting poison. So I don't even have the option of "Physician-assisted suicide" it seems.

This even more so...
Doctors are there for people who do not trust God to take care. They need to keep control.
Above example should explain it a little. If you fully rely on God then you accept all the consequences, also dying. Others who don't have this trust go to doctors out of fear. That is reality. I don't say that I don't go to doctors, I only state that if I go to a doctor it means I do so out of fear of pain/death/etc. I can't fool myself, that is all.

In the end even "you eating daily" is only because you have fear to die. Or do you disagree on this? People just don't like to think about these facts. But facts remain facts.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
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.
IMO it only shows they have "faith in the ancient text". I don't see that as "acting in a fanatical manner" at all. Why you "label others that way?".

Potentially?
Time tested?
Well I am glad that's just your opinion.
You little sneaky ....
I just love such a sudden twist:D

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

Thanks a lot, this is useful information. I am curious if all the people who were judgmental sofar can "say sorry" now and admit "judgment is not wise always".
I am just curious, did you have above information already up your sleeve when starting the OP, or it just came to you right now?
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
IMO it only shows they have "faith in the ancient text". I don't see that as "acting in a fanatical manner" at all. Why you "label others that way?".


You little sneaky ....
I just love such a sudden twist:D



Thanks a lot, this is useful information. I am curious if all the people who were judgmental sofar can "say sorry" now and admit "judgment is not wise always".
I am just curious, did you have above information already up your sleeve when starting the OP, or it just came to you right now?
No. I just play the cards as they fall. I'm no gambling man. :smiley:
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Could I ask... how do you think Acts 15:20, 29 should be interpreted?

The verses speak of those things forbibben in Jewish law that remain applicable under the new covenant. Jeremiah 31:31

The reference to things strangled and blood concern consumption of foods. Attempting to apply the verses to blood transfusions as part of a medical procedure in modern times appears completely out of context.
 
Last edited:

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Do you consider her to be a religious brainwashed fanatic, or a rational thinking person?

I consider her a girl who loves God so much, that she is willing to give up her life for her principles

And God showered a lot of Grace on her, by making a cure possible keeping her principles

I know for sure my Guru would love her decision a lot, mega lot, even giga, tera, penta lot.
[He always says "take a decision and do it" ... "If you surrender to God, He will take care of you"]

Do you think God calls her "religious brainwashed fanatic". I mean it's His daughter, not mine. Better ask Him. He obviously helped her [not a blad of grass moves....]
Do you think God calls her "rational thinking person". I mean it's His daughter, not mine. Better ask Him. I don't burn my fingers on these type of question
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
I consider her a girl who loves God so much, that she is willing to give up her life for her principles

And God showered a lot of Grace on her, by making a cure possible keeping her principles

I know for sure my Guru would love her decision a lot, mega lot, even giga, tera, penta lot.
[He always says "take a decision and do it" ... "If you surrender to God, He will take care of you"]

Do you think God calls her "religious brainwashed fanatic". I mean it's His daughter, not mine. Better ask Him. He obviously helped her [not a blad of grass moves....]
Do you think God calls her "rational thinking person". I mean it's His daughter, not mine. Better ask Him. I don't burn my fingers on these type of question
What do you say to the parents of children who died due to rejection of medicine on religious grounds?

https://www.masskids.org/index.php/religious-medical-neglect/cases-of-child-deaths
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.611.6110&rep=rep1&type=pdf
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/101/4/625?download=true
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
I consider her a girl who loves God so much, that she is willing to give up her life for her principles

And God showered a lot of Grace on her, by making a cure possible keeping her principles

I know for sure my Guru would love her decision a lot, mega lot, even giga, tera, penta lot.
[He always says "take a decision and do it" ... "If you surrender to God, He will take care of you"]

Do you think God calls her "religious brainwashed fanatic". I mean it's His daughter, not mine. Better ask Him. He obviously helped her [not a blad of grass moves....]
Do you think God calls her "rational thinking person". I mean it's His daughter, not mine. Better ask Him. I don't burn my fingers on these type of question


In the OP was a simple question which I answered quite well.
You quoted my reply, did not answer my simple questions.
So you obviously don't take me serious.

Still you ask me a question. How can I take you serious?
And do you now expect me to answer your question?

I don't play this kind of games!
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
In the OP was a simple question which I answered quite well.
You quoted my reply, did not answer my simple questions.
So you obviously don't take me serious.

Still you ask me a question. How can I take you serious?
And do you now expect me to answer your question?

I don't play this kind of games!
Why are you being so defensive? I just asked you a simple question. You just wrote a post celebrating the act of putting your life at risk for your beliefs and saying that the necessary reward is being saved by God, so I just wonder how you justify all the children who died because they either believed faith would heal them or else rejected modern medicine in deference to their beliefs.

Was God just not on the ball for those ones? Or did they just not believe enough to deserve being saved?

Also, you didn't ask any questions. And I obviously took your post seriously or else I wouldn't have considered your position worth questioning.
 

Spiderman

Veteran Member
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.
Id say God wanted her to have that condition. He could have fixed it for her.

Also, if God wanted her to have blood-transfusion, he could have made an exception to his rules. He made all kinds of exceptions in Scripture.

Like God is really offended by a blood transfusion to possibly save a life.

If God has a problem with it, he can take away the need for a blood transfusion in the first place, or speak up and tell people personally what course they should take.

I see a lot of hypocrisy from people who use the Old Testament as their guide in making decisions.

People that follow the old testament the best are not Jehovahs witnesses, but rather groups like ISIS, who stone adulterers, kill Idolators, homosexuals, blasphemers, unbelievers, and various other sinners.

People that correct others based on the OT make me sick, because they don't follow all the many primitive policies, procedures, rules, traditions, and instructions found in the OT anyway.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Why are you being so defensive? I just asked you a simple question. You just wrote a post celebrating the act of putting your life at risk for your beliefs and saying that the necessary reward is being saved by God, so I just wonder how you justify all the children who died because they either believed faith would heal them or else rejected modern medicine in deference to their beliefs.

Was God just not on the ball for those ones? Or did they just not believe enough to deserve being saved?

Also, you didn't ask any questions. And I obviously took your post seriously or else I wouldn't have considered your position worth questioning.

I did put these 2 questions in that reply:
Do you think God calls her "religious brainwashed fanatic". I mean it's His daughter, not mine. Better ask Him. He obviously helped her [not a blad of grass moves....]
Do you think God calls her "rational thinking person". I mean it's His daughter, not mine. Better ask Him. I don't burn my fingers on these type of question

So I literally said: "I don't burn my fingers on these type of question"

So probably you now understand why I didn't answer your question.
But as you missed these lines I understand your confusion
I hope this clarifies it.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
I did put these 2 questions in that reply:
Do you think God calls her "religious brainwashed fanatic". I mean it's His daughter, not mine. Better ask Him. He obviously helped her [not a blad of grass moves....]
Do you think God calls her "rational thinking person". I mean it's His daughter, not mine. Better ask Him. I don't burn my fingers on these type of question

So I literally said: "I don't burn my fingers on these type of question"
So, you genuinely meant for those questions, which were not given question marks to denote them as anything other than rhetorical and were literally delivered with a caveat that they were not worth asking except to God, to be answered?

So probably you now understand why I didn't answer your question.
But as you missed these lines I understand your confusion
I hope this clarifies it.
Not really. Can you answer my question?
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
So, you genuinely meant for those questions, which were not given question marks to denote them as anything other than rhetorical and were literally delivered with a caveat that they were not worth asking except to God, to be answered?

Not really. Can you answer my question?
Yes, those 2 questions were genuine. And I know I forgot the question marks, but in the lines i phrased clearly that they were questions I don't elaborate on.
And when you answer these 2 questions then probably you understand my replies

Yes you did not answer my 2 questions, so I understand your reply "Not really"
I can answer your question
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
I agree that those Jews who heard and read the letters from the brothers in Jerusalem would have understood what it meant to abstain from blood. After all, they understood the only proper use for blood - namely, atonement for sin.
(Leviticus 17:11) For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have given it on the altar for you to make atonement for yourselves, because it is the blood that makes atonement by means of the life in it.

(Leviticus 17:13, 14) . . .“‘If one of the Israelites or some foreigner who is residing in your midst is hunting and catches a wild animal or a bird that may be eaten, he must pour its blood out and cover it with dust. 14For the life of every sort of flesh is its blood, because the life is in it. . . .

They understood clearly what these texts meant.
They understood that these laws were not for dietary reasons.
The blood represented life, and is sacred to the life-giver - Jehovah God. It has atoning value.
So the blood of the creature is the life of the creature, hence God determines how it is used - It's atoning value is in line with the principle - life for life. Genesis 9:5, 6

The Jews clearly understood how serious it was to not have the right view of blood and it's uses.

What of the Gentiles in the Christian congregation... How would they have understood it? They were not under the Mosaic Law, and so this is new to them... but from the scriptures they understood that Christ's blood - his life - made atonement for sin, once for all time - The only proper use of blood in their time.
Animal sacrifice - atonement by means of the blood - life - of the animal, was no longer valid.

So when that letter was read to them, containing the words, "Abstain from blood." They too understood what it meant. They was no need to try to determine what it meant. In the same way there was no need to determine what "Abstain from idolatry" and "Abstain from fornication" meant.

The same is true of us today, who read those letters.
To the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, it simply means what it say - no twisting, no adjusting to suit what we think, in order to fit modern day uses of blood. Simply put, "Abstain from blood".

Everyone else can decide for themselves how they see it.
If "Abstain" to you, means "do not eat", in the case of blood, what does "Abstain from idolatry" and "Abstain from fornication" mean to you?
I really would like to know how you can switch the application without twisting it.
Would you really think someone who had a blood transfusion is the same as an idolater or fornicator?

In Acts, they were simply trying to figure out what rules they needed to give the gentile converts. Blood transfusions were unknown.

Do you know what the "letter" is?
Romans 2:29, Romans 7:6, 2 Corinthians 3:6

The "Letter" is the written letter. In other words it's the scriptures. So we are not living to scriptures, but to the holy Spirit. Or at least that's what we're supposed to be doing that. In this case literally living to the literal scripture could literally kill you because you need blood.

So remember that Jesus allowed His disciples to gather heads of grain to eat on the Sabbath day. Jesus worked on the Sabbath. Healing people. Jesus claimed that it was okay for David and his men to eat the show-bread that was normally forbidden.

Even the Maccabees had to learn the hard way. They initially refused to fight on the Sabbath day. However the enemy killed over a thousand of them who refused to defend themselves. After that, the rest of the Maccabees decided(correctly) that God didn't mind if they fought on the Sabbath day when necessary.
 
Top