Slashdot Mirror

Jehovah's Witness have a theological objection to blood transfusions, but unlike Christian Scientists, not to medical treatment in general. In fact, they are quite insistent on high quality healthcare.

As such, they advocate the use of blood transfer alternatives.

There are various groups of Witnesses that advocate changing the doctrine, but, however odd it may seem to the rest of us, it's one of core teachings of the church and has survived even when other once-rejected medical technologies (organ transplants, certain immunizations) have now been accepted.

This doctrine has caused the Witnesses to push the medical community to come up with many alternatives to transfusion. These alternatives include Erythropoietin Therapy, Hemopure, a bovine-hemoglobin based blood substitute (this was quite a surprise, as previously even animal blood was considered taboo), perfluorocarbon based blood substitutes (back when I was young, I knew Witnesses who had been guinea pigs for this stuff), and a host of others. There are also specific surgical guidelines published in dealing with Witnesses.

All in all, the Witnesses are one of the main driving forces for research into lessening the need for blood transfusions. There are others to be sure (type matching, blood shortages, infectious diseases carried by tainted blood, etc.), but nothing beats having a large pool of otherwise healthy patients who are highly motivated to be test subjects.

Jehovah's Witness have a theological objection to blood transfusions, but unlike Christian Scientists, not to medical treatment in general. In fact, they are quite insistent on high quality healthcare.

As such, they advocate the use of blood transfer alternatives.

There are various groups of Witnesses that advocate changing the doctrine, but, however odd it may seem to the rest of us, it's one of core teachings of the church and has survived even when other once-rejected medical technologies (organ transplants, certain immunizations) have now been accepted.

This doctrine has caused the Witnesses to push the medical community to come up with many alternatives to transfusion. These alternatives include Erythropoietin Therapy, Hemopure, a bovine-hemoglobin based blood substitute (this was quite a surprise, as previously even animal blood was considered taboo), perfluorocarbon based blood substitutes (back when I was young, I knew Witnesses who had been guinea pigs for this stuff), and a host of others. There are also specific surgical guidelines published in dealing with Witnesses.

All in all, the Witnesses are one of the main driving forces for research into lessening the need for blood transfusions. There are others to be sure (type matching, blood shortages, infectious diseases carried by tainted blood, etc.), but nothing beats having a large pool of otherwise healthy patients who are highly motivated to be test subjects.

but even if I weren't already an atheist it would have been total confirmation that there is no afterlife

Well this experience doesn't necesarily lead into atheism, for me it leads to the conclusion that the soul is not immortal.

Your experience does seem to discredit a lot of belief systems, but for example this one is not discreditet by it.

All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God

btw.. not my beleifs, mine ? .. mine are my own, and I don't pester people with em. but since your into it, you can compare your scriptures to theirs... and damn if your both not right.

There are other items that still have very little archaeological backing: Darius the Mede as King of Babylon comes to mind. However, this is where real faith comes in. Faith is not beliving something is true in *spite* of evidence, or even beliving something with a *lack* of evidence. It's beliving something because all of the available evidence points to a solid track record of something being *true*. (See Hebrews 11:1 for a *Biblical* definition of faith that bears this out; or open your *own* Bible.) When you see people say, "That can't have happened because we have no evidence that it did." and then, later, see that archaeological evidence *does* support it, it makes it much harder to doubt items where the archaeological record is not against something, but just merely missing.

There are other items that still have very little archaeological backing: Darius the Mede as King of Babylon comes to mind. However, this is where real faith comes in. Faith is not beliving something is true in *spite* of evidence, or even beliving something with a *lack* of evidence. It's beliving something because all of the available evidence points to a solid track record of something being *true*. (See Hebrews 11:1 for a *Biblical* definition of faith that bears this out; or open your *own* Bible.) When you see people say, "That can't have happened because we have no evidence that it did." and then, later, see that archaeological evidence *does* support it, it makes it much harder to doubt items where the archaeological record is not against something, but just merely missing.

Heh...

based purely on faith
I see faith in something as a lack of logical conclusion
dumb for having blind faith

You don't know what "faith" is, do you? What you're describing is known as "hope". "Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld." (Hebrews 11:1, NWT) Read that again. Assured expectation and evident demonstration are anything but blind. Faith is based on a logical conclusion, not formed despite one.

As someone who has studied the Bible quite a bit, I can assure you that there's nothing in that book that says that the universe isn't 13.8 billion years old. There's nothing in the Bible that says the Earth is flat. There's nothing that says that imperfect reproduction doesn't cause minor variation in a species. In fact, it directly refutes at least two of those things, and quite plainly leaves the other one to the reader to figure out rather than giving facts and figures.

(For your info: Isaiah chap. 43 describes the earth as a circle or ball by using the Hebrew word "chugh". Also, the flood account in Genesis speaks of taking animals along "according to their kind" leaving the color and shape variations for later generations' imperfect reproduction.)

These are things that "true Christians" understand. The Bible isn't a science textbook, but it isn't inaccurate, either.

I think that the definition of faith as something you believe without evidence is an extremely poor one. It's a very common one, especially among those who look down upon religion. It's also not what the Bible (my chosen old book...) says faith should be:

Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.Hebrews 11:1.

Assured expectation and evident demonstration of realities does not expect "blind" faith. Rather, it expects that evidence has been presented to the person, who can use that evidence to extrapolate what will happen in the future.

I am naturally a skeptical person. I do *not* believe just because I have been told to. No one should believe something because they have been told to. Only because they have *proven* it to themselves.

The sad thing is that most religions teach that faith is exactly what you described. As someone who spends a great deal of time talking to others about religion, most people have been told that "God is a mystery" and "You're not supposed to know." Nothing could be further from the truth.

True faith only comes after something is proven to you. It's not what you need to overlook problems. It's what you have because, try as hard as you might, you can't find problems. When you see that something is correct after 10 times, you begin to believe that it'll be right on the 11th time as well. *That* is true faith.

The whole "hand in horns" sign ISN'T a rock-and-roll thing, ISN'T about Satanism (although Xtian extremists simply love to blame everything on so-called "Satanic Forces", and quasi/pseudo-satanic (as opposed to the Church of Satan folks) types love to pillage anything and everything that's remotely metaphysical or occult-related as "their own" to make it "evil"-er. Even the cops tend to regurgitate the same stupidities spouted forth by the masss media.

The Mano Cornuta is an ancient occultic symbol that's commonly (although incorrectly) attributed to Italians. It's used to ward off "The Evil Eye", not to invoke 'Ol Split-Hoof. The "Why" and "How" of heavy-metal artist's starting to use an ancient occultic symbol should be self-evident as the industry (still) clings to half-truths and misconceptions of "evil-ness" as part of it's "charm" and "allure" to impressionable minds.

There is a comprehensive article with faqs currently at watchtower

Content:

• The Gospels - History or Myth?
• Could the Gospels be a masterful invention?
• Could the Gospels be legends?
• If the Gospels were legends, could they have been compiled so quickly after the death of Jesus?
• Were the Gospels later edited to fit the needs of the early Christian community?
• What about seeming contradictions in the Gospels?
• Does modern-day Christianity represent the Jesus of the Gospels?

Elohim is sovereignty plural. Known in hebrew and other semitic languages.

Secondly, since you link to Watchtower.org, I Know you are probably not allowed to read this

So you don't seem to know a lot about us, or you learned it from the wrong people.

My point is that these mistakes have a history of generating a legacy which then takes a revisionist look at those mistakes themselves.

The Tetragrammaton existed long before these 'histories of generating'. There even is a form of it in old hebrew letters.

Look at how the Christian revisionism regarding the Hebrew concept of the Messiah has developed. If you actually research this ...

It is one of the main goals of our bible study to remove any influence of jewish, catholic or evangelical revisionism. So about the Messiah, we go back to the prophecy in Eden: Genesis 3:15 which is very clear about the role of the Messiah.

I don't think that the pagan holidays like easter or xmas have anything in common with biblical history. It simply was easier for catholic proselityzers to attract people this way those times.

When you look at the different bible translations, there are fanatic eliminations of god's name (which appears over 7000 times in the form of the Tetragrammaton YHVH). The name is replaced with neutral and common titles, even if the result makes no sense (e.g. Psalms 83:18, 110:1).

Jews began forbid the use of the name of Jehovah (or simply say Jahve if you hate his witnesses...) some time B.C. This was something different from the teachings and experiences of Moses (Genesis 3:15). Jesus too used and teached the name of God: John 17:6+26

More about the name

See this article at watchtower.org for the full scoop on our beliefs.

I don't know if this was already pointed out, but the author seems to be slightly unifomed about the properties of a vacuum. Since NASA has stated it would take 10-20 years at THEIR current level of funding to put a man on the moon again (let alone colonise), I wonder how the lifeboat will be ready in less than 18 years.

Ah well, the quote from the lifeboat FAQ (main, not supplimentary) shows what I am talking about (emphasis mine).

Why not hide in a deep sea colony?

This would have all the disadvantages of a bunker/cave.

Also, the one single atmosphere of pressure in outer space seems inconsequential compared to the hundreds of atmospheres of pressure under the sea.

The predictions of Eric sound similar to another organisation... your favourite door-to-door salespeople. (And the History of the end of the world). Found on Google.

Fundamentalism mostly is used for groups which are violently intollerant of people outside their own group.

It used to be used for a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching, however just as the word "hacker" has been (ab)used lately, so has the word "fundamentalism".

Given the context in which he used it, I believe that most people would read it as something negative. In the news people often hear terrorist and fundamentalist in one breath... this does influence their perception of the word.

For more information about the role JW have had in the protection and extension of freedoms in USA see http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/petjud.html.
In Canada see
http://www.utpjournals.com/product/chr/752/freed om 07.html
.

Or from there own website:
http://www.watchtower.org/library/g/1996/7/22/hist orical_development.htm

I know several former Jehovah's Witnesses.

Now most of them are "normal" Christians. They are not fanatical but they are nice people.

As far as being perfect is concerned

I cited Romans 7:14-25 previously... here are some others that come to mind: 1 Corinthians 9:16; Romans 5:6-8 and 5:12, and 2 Corinthians 4:14, 15.

Actually, even if you were a recluse, you still would not be without sin. That's the tragedy of the inherited Adamic sin -- the only way to escape it is by means of Christ's ransom sacrifice, which buys our freedom.

If you read Matt. 25 you will see that you can go to Heaven just for giving a drink of water to a thirsty man, and you can go to Hell for not doing it.

There is a lot more significance here than simply offering water. It's referring to whether the ones being judged cared for the needs of Christ's brothers (see Romans 8:14-17). This implies also being to recognize who these brothers are -- which is a complex topic.

I think slashdot is not necessarily the best forum for this kind of discussion. If you would like to discuss this further, you're welcome to email me.

Sit down to eat dinner, get ads.

Turn on your cell phone, get ads.

Take a nap, get ads.

it's got to stop somewhere...

Not to troll or anything, but if Mr Adam's did indeed choose to reject our savior Jesus Christ, then he is suffering eternal damnation as we speak. God so loved us that he gave each of us a chance to walk away from Him, if we so chose. If Mr Adam's did this, then, as much as it pains me to say this, he is most likely burning in the fires of Hell. I would hope most Slashdot readers are smart enough to see athiesm as a tool of the devil and reject it. Opening up your heart to the love of Jesus Christ is the only way to gain happiness and eternal life. My prayers are with all of you. Thank you. God bless.

Why is everyone so upset about this? We all believe in evolution, right? Survival of the fittest, right? This is one 13 year old who isn't going to pollute the gene pool, right? If you respond to adversity in this way you clearly are weak and aren't advancing the survival of the species, are you? You can't have it both ways! The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few (or the one). Oh, and if you are a "Christian" you believe that he's in a better place, or God took him or some such rubbish. So why be sad about that? We should all be happy either way, right? Oh, you mean we aren't? I'm callous? I'm full of fecal matter? Hmm. Then there must be another explanation.

Curious George

The official Website of Jehovah's Witnesses. The main featured article goes into what JW's really believe. :)

Genetically Modified Food - Is It Safe for You?
Is genetically altered food safe for you? Do the scientific techniques used to produce GM crops pose any threat to the environment?