The Big Question: Who are the Jehovah's Witnesses, and why do they refuse blood transfusions? http://news.independent.co.uk/health/article3132440.ece
Wow. Me thinks this journalist is just a tad outspoken. He is expressing much more of his opinion and not so much of the facts. It's so easy to point the finger from afar isn't it?
Money is my God, Family is my Love, it's all i need to be happy. http://thinkexist.com/quotations/religion/ “We can live without religion and meditation, but we cannot survive without human affection.†Dalai Lama (Head of the Dge-lugs-pa order of Tibetan Buddhists, 1989 Nobel Peace Prize, b.1935) “God has no religion†Mahatma Gandhi (Indian Philosopher, internationally esteemed for his doctrine of nonviolent protest, 1869-1948)
Thanks for your love buddy. “People who want to share their religious views with you almost never want you to share yours with them.†Dave Barry (American Writer and Humorist best known for his weekly newspaper column. b.1947)
Cheap SEO, Can you shed some light on the issue of who's going to Paradise (the few thousands) and what's paradise on Earth?
Its sad for her indeed.. But least she has the right to do as she wanted and worship how she wants too.. i dont agree with their religion but im glad to live in a country and we all have freedom and the right to worship the way we want..
I couldn't possibly tell you who will be in Paradise. That is up to Jesus as he is the one who has been given all authority as judge and executioner. We can only go by the principles found in the Bible that show us what we need to do to "qualify" a place. In other words, if we are doing God's will to the best of our abilities then we would be in good standing. Paradise on earth is what Adam and Eve enjoyed before they disobeyed God's command. The hope of everlasting life in beautiful conditions. The idea of many who think they will be given paradise on a silver platter just by "believing in Jesus" will have to think deeply about this. It's a case of deserving to be given it. There are many who just "believe" yet commit many intended wrongdoings and still think they are OK with Jesus. Does that sound like a fair deal? Does not sound too good a deal to me. There are rules and principles to follow. Jesus set them out quite clearly and so did his apostles and disciples. If we do "all" of these things as best we can, then we have a very good chance of making it. Revelation 21:4 says "death will be no more, nor pain nor outcry anymore. The former things have passed away." In the new system on Earth there will be nothing to fear from anyone or anything. Peace amongst mankind will be here for the first time ever.
Ok, thanks. Now, correct if I am wrong here: You believe in Jesus as a prophet of God. He was lifted up by God and was never crucified. He will return to Earth and rule. Is this true?
Not only was he a prophet of God, he is the Son of God, the firstborn of all creation. Was with God in heaven for eons of time. Together they created all other things. He is what is known as "The Last Adam". He gave back to us what Adam had lost. That being everlasting life. Only Jesus could qualify to do this. I firmly believe he was crucified on a stake (stau-ros) and not on a cross. He is installed as King of God's Kingdom and is awaiting God's day of judgment. He sits at God's right hand and awaits his time, which is soon. He comes/returns but not in the flesh. But as the archangel with full power and authority to strike the Earth and remove wickedness totally. There is so much more to tell. Way too big for one thread.
That is where we part ways. We don't believe Jesus (pbuh) to be son of God. He was a great Prophet indeed but not son.
About 0.5% to 3% of all transfusions result in some adverse events, but the majority of them are minor reactions with no significant consequences. (Public Health Agency of Canada, 15.07.2004) In this post grandad lists examples of death after receiving blood contaminated with HIV, mad cow disease, or hepatitis C. Those deaths occured because of improperly tested infected blood and not because of the blood itself. All examples occured between 1970 and 1985, when all mentioned diseases were not yet researched well. Deaths in 1997 occured in Africa, because of improper blood testing. After testing procedures available today, it can be claimed with a great certainty that transfused blood does not contain any of mentioned harmfull agents. Blood transfusion takes a risk - and like many artificial hormones exist today, it is possible that artificial blood will be synthesized in the future, but if today, after a major blood loss, you don't give a blood transfusion to the patient, he/she will probably die. In some cases it is just no other alternatives as blood transfusion (infusion of other solutions may work in some cases, but not in all). In this post grandad uses proving like this: Above statement may be correct. It does not prove that blood transfusion makes more harm than good though. I can say also this way: thousands survive because they get blood transfusion and thousands die because they don't get it. After all claimes provided so far I'm not convinced that blood transfusion is so bad that it should be rejected today, in cases where no successful alternative treatment exists.
Well, if you read it that way then that's your decision. There are a lot more resources about "bloodless surgery" found in libraries and also on the net. If it was so "OK" and "healthy" for transfusions, why is there more "bloodless surgery" happening today and why is there a "bloodless hospital"?
Bloodless surgery is used only when it is possible to save life without adding blood. The only solution (available today) for a patient who lost above 2 liters of blood is blood transfusion. Minor blood loses may be treated with 0.9% saline solution or other solutions. I support finding better solutions than blood transfusion. But I do not support omitting blood transfusion at the time when this better solution doesn't exist.
This is entirely your opinion. How do you think 100% "bloodless surgery" public hospitals are doing if they omit transfusions as an alternative? If they can find solutions without the use of blood then why can't other hospitals follow suit? Are you aware that "bloodless surgery" is an expanding alternative?
I think at the verge of death , they should of carried the blood fusion operation even if she refused. Why would they just let her die like that?