Yorick?

[Moridin]

I have to say that I am starting to get a little better understanding of varying positions I went to my Uni today and printed out this entire thread and boy are they pissed I did not add up the total pages but I printed two 'pages' per page and it was around 150! Anyway I just made it through page 1 and 2 (of the thread, pages 1-70+ of printed) and am amazed and a bit confused at the same time. It does seem IMHO, that we are trying to argue the same point from different sides?!? I do understand that the original debate was "is the trinity a biblical concept?" and I think I understand that for a Christian this concept is dear, for if it was not a biblical concept then it opens itself up to disection and questioning (is this true?). I really don't care if it is or not (being an atheist ) but it is interesting none-the-less.

In my interactions with so-called Christians (and none have ever been as well informed or as well versed as anyone here) I have interpreted their belief that God and Jesus are not the same. They believe that Jesus was the son of God, and not a representation of God on earth. I ask them then, why it is so important to believe in God? Are the teachings of Jesus any less important if he was not the son of God, but merely a man? I know that some believe that Jesus is God?!? (is this correct). He is another form of God. The one that came to earth to teach man. I have tried to understand the previous posts (but I did so outside while tanning and the sun may have fried my brain a bit ) and I will admit that it has been over 15 yrs since I even opened a bible let alone read it, but will someone please enlighten me on this aspect. What is the belief of the relationship between Jesus and God. As an Atheist, I have a non-belief in God (not the same thing as saying God does not exist), but I still believe that Jesus did exist, but merely as a man, not as the son of God or as a representation of God.

------------------

Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig
I've got to admit it's getting better, it's getting better all the time

[Fljotsdale]

Since I am an EX-JW, I feel I must comment on this.
First off, VERY briefly, Jw's refuse blood on bible grounds. At Acts 15:19, 20, 28,29, and Acts 21:25 the Christian is commanded to 'abstain from fornication, things strangled, things offered to idols and from blood', in order to prosper. The key word is ABSTAIN. So JW's feel obliged to obey that command. They are aware that other Christians don't feel obliged to obey any of those commands, but they do.
Many of you may also be unaware of the fact that MOST (not all) blood transfusions are actually unnecessary. When a person loses blood, the body naturally reduces the flow to unessential areas so that essential organs like the brain and heart are kept properly supplied. What IS essential where there has been significant blood loss, is the restoration of lost blood PRESSURE, so that the circulatory system can function properly, and to stop the body going into shock. This is easily and safely done by using volume expanders like saline or Ringers solutions. But blood is cheaper.
Also, you may be unaware that transfused blood has no oxygenating capacity until about 24-36 hours after transfusion - by which time the body without transfused blood has busily gone into overdrive producing new red blood cells. Transfused blood, from what I have read, actually inhibits this overdrive reaction of the body.
However, I am aware that there ARE times when blood transfusion seems the only answer. Neither JW's nor I have any argument with people who choose to have blood transfusion.

Tracey. Speaking as a former JW with children, I am only glad that neither my children nor myself had to face this trauma. But even if such circumstance had arisen, my children would have been 'safe' from my beliefs since their father was NOT a JW and would unhesitatingly have overidden my wishes. My children knew this, so, unlike yourself, would have had no fear of dying for lack of blood! I wonder, though, whether any of them would have been afraid of having blood forced on them against their will? I have never asked.

I am no longer a JW, but I will never accept blood transfusion nor transplants. Nothing biblical about it - it is just utterly repugnant to me - and anyway, there are so many things you can catch from blood...

But I have no objection at all to what other people may choose to do regarding blood transfusion and transplants.

------------------

[Fljotsdale]

Originally posted by Moridin: I have to say that I am starting to get a little better understanding of varying positions I went to my Uni today and printed out this entire thread and boy are they pissed I did not add up the total pages but I printed two 'pages' per page and it was around 150! Anyway I just made it through page 1 and 2 (of the thread, pages 1-70+ of printed) and am amazed and a bit confused at the same time. It does seem IMHO, that we are trying to argue the same point from different sides?!? I do understand that the original debate was "is the trinity a biblical concept?" and I think I understand that for a Christian this concept is dear, for if it was not a biblical concept then it opens itself up to disection and questioning (is this true?). I really don't care if it is or not (being an atheist ) but it is interesting none-the-less. In my interactions with so-called Christians (and none have ever been as well informed or as well versed as anyone here) I have interpreted their belief that God and Jesus are not the same. They believe that Jesus was the son of God, and not a representation of God on earth. I ask them then, why it is so important to believe in God? Are the teachings of Jesus any less important if he was not the son of God, but merely a man? I know that some believe that Jesus is God?!? (is this correct). He is another form of God. The one that came to earth to teach man. I have tried to understand the previous posts (but I did so outside while tanning and the sun may have fried my brain a bit ) and I will admit that it has been over 15 yrs since I even opened a bible let alone read it, but will someone please enlighten me on this aspect. What is the belief of the relationship between Jesus and God. As an Atheist, I have a non-belief in God (not the same thing as saying God does not exist), but I still believe that Jesus did exist, but merely as a man, not as the son of God or as a representation of God.

Moridin, to answer your questions in part I shall post what The Catholic Encyclopedia says about the Trinity Doctrine:
".. term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion - the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another. Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: 'the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God'".

Now Yorick will tell you that that is a bible teaching. I will tell you that it is not.
If you read the posts by Yorick and me (not denigrating the others'! Just trying to cut down on reading matter! ) you will get the scriptural evidence and arguments with supporting authorities for both sides of the debate.

I wont give you my unexpurgated personal opinion of the trinity doctrine as it's too strong to post here without offending friends.

We are not really arguing the same point from different sides. We ARE sometimes using the same scriptures to prove opposing beliefs. That is where your confusion probably lies! I can only suggest that you dig out a bible from somewhere, if you are interested enough, and check out the scriptures quoted or cited yourself. Any version of the bible will do, except possibly the Catholic Douay version - you need to be a dictionary to comprehend some of the words used. How do you like 'concupiscence', for example?
The most useful bibles, though, are 'interlinear' texts, where one side of the page has a word-for-word translation below the Greek/Hebrew text, and the other side of the page is in modern English (or whatever language you use). That way you get to see how words are translated, and become aware that sometimes doctrine determins the translation of a word rather than context and the normal use of the word everywhere else in the bible...
I'm gonna get shouted at - politely - now!


------------------






[This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited 07-22-2001).]

[Yorick]

Moridin that's a great way to read the thread! Unreal.

The biblical origination of the concept is dear to a Christian because the concept is central to defining Christianity and the bible is central in guiding a Christians concepts. Every Christian is encouraged to read an understand the bible for themselves as Christianity is not supposed to be about organised religion (which seems to be a byproduct of the apparent human necessity to categorise, regulate and box), but about a relationship. You would use the word "Christianity" in place of say "marriage" it's about developing a relationship with Jesus/God, not about performing rituals, reciting mantras and living in impossible perfection.

Islamics follow Jesus the man. They believe he was the supreme prophet af Allah, greater even than Muhammad. However in denying Jesus Godness, they also deny the cruciafixion - as common execution is too much of an indignity for "Gods greatest prophet".

What defines a Christian is the belief that Jesus is and always was God. That he died in the place of every single human and enabled both a relationship with God outside "law". The removal of the "law" means eternal life is enabled. As "sinful beings" the consequence of that "sin" is death. Because that consequence is taken by God, by Jesus-without-sin, he allows whoever wishes it eternal life with him. Some Christians believe a choice to accept Christ as Lord and saviour, or mentor, companion and guide - whatever words you want to use - and the action of praying to initiate that relationship ultimately results in eternal life.

Others (such as C.S.Lewis) believe that Jesus looks at the heart of humans and that belief is a choice, so there are those who for whatever reason have not believed and put trust in Christ, yet who in their deepest heart want to be with God who will be with God in eternal life. The benefit of knowing Jesus is not merely the "reward" factor, but the chance to know God while living in his artistic creation.

For both of these scenarios Jesus being God is central, as it is by relating to him that we can relate to God. He is proof of Gods love for us.

Yes you can believe he was a man and a great teacher, but he didn't really teach much. His healing ministry only lasted for three years from the age of 30 to 33. He taught 11 major themes that, though radical concepts containing alterations of human nature and developed without education, travel and a position of privelliege (like say the travelling Prince who became Buddha and the Magistrate Confucious) played a soft second fiddle to his death and resurection.

We love Jesus, not so much for what he taught, but for what he DID. Jesus did not write a book like Muhammad. His words and actions were only recorded in small part by others around him. Much of the New Testament is spent analysing the way we should be living life after the effects of Jesus actions. Ways of furthering the relationship with God and living harmoniously with each other.

I love the film, "The Last Temptation of Christ" because it rams home that very point. Though it embelishes the humanness of Jesus, and is certainly not "the Christ I know" the fact that everything hinges around Jesus death is rammed home.

I know some who call it "the focal point in history".

Moridin, if you were going to start reading the bible I'd start with John. The book of John. It starts with the beggining of creation and sets down the entire reason for Jesus existance on earth. It also - to my way of reading english - firmly states that Jesus is God. The Book of John is not a huge read by any standard, and contains an assortment of events from Jesus life and details his death and resurrection.

I'd follow it with the Book of Acts which follows immediately after John. Straight away we get Jesus ascension into heaven and the arrival of the Holy Spirit. We then are told of the early Christians actions (hence the title) and the spread of the good news (gospel) throughout the Empire.

If you're still up for it I'd follow that with the book that follows Acts. Romans is a letter from the Apostle Paul to a church in Rome and contains analysis and conceptual discussion.

Thats it. Start with those three and you'll have more of an understanding of where Christians like myself are coming from. I'd definitely recommend against reading from page 1 of Genesis through to Revelation first up. There are books within that cover similar ground from different angles. The four gospels all tell similar stories. Their value is in corroboration and cross referencing for greater detail. Four accounts of the same story.

1 & 2 Kings and 1 & 2 Chronicles of the Old testament perform similar roles, and some of the early books in the Old Testament contain paragraph after paragraph of genealogies and family trees. Later we get reams of measurements for the building of the Temple. Compelling stuff. NOT! However the inclusion is heavy support for the historical accuracy of the Bible. The Jews had dedication to honest and detailed depiction. They record their defeats (unlike say Assyrian historians) and give us all that stuff.

For some Confucious-like wisdom you could check out Proverbs or one of my favourites Ecclesiastes written by one of the philosopher Kings mentioned in..... Kings (funny that). It's brilliant. If you decide to ever attempt to pray you could read Psalms for some example of poetic prayer (much lost in translation of course) and insights into how those of old related to God before Christ.

The Bible is a collection of books, not one long "Lord of the Rings". They perform different roles and have varying degrees of theological significance. Song of Songs is hardly end of the world stuff. Unless two lovers speaking to each other is the end of the world. (Maybe it is )

Aah sorry Moridin. You got me talking about the Bible.


------------------

Now Fljotsdale, I resisted the urge to "yell" at you. I know you disagree with me; and you know that I with you.

Re. blood it felt really unnatural and icky having anothers blood pouring into my veins ("what if it has AIDS in it" I kept thinking in my delerious state) but it soooo saved my life. I couldn't stand and had lost 2 litres in a few hours. The outflow didn't stop for days so I would have been a goner.

However here's a thought. When the Bible was written, blood transfusion did not exist. How can you forbid a concept that doesn't exist? Drinking blood of animals and humans is more than likely what it was referring to because of the obvious health risks.

In any case the New Testament is quite clear that "all things are permissable" regarding certain grey areas like that. Some have the faith to metaphorically "eat meat" and others not.
However he that eats meat.... shouldn'tcriticisetheonethatdoesn'tsoIguessI'dbett ershutupnow....



------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[Yorick]

Moridin that's a great way to read the thread! Unreal.

The biblical origination of the concept is dear to a Christian because the concept is central to defining Christianity and the bible is central in guiding a Christians concepts. Every Christian is encouraged to read an understand the bible for themselves as Christianity is not supposed to be about organised religion (which seems to be a byproduct of the apparent human necessity to categorise, regulate and box), but about a relationship. You would use the word "Christianity" in place of say "marriage" it's about developing a relationship with Jesus/God, not about performing rituals, reciting mantras and living in impossible perfection.

Islamics follow Jesus the man. They believe he was the supreme prophet af Allah, greater even than Muhammad. However in denying Jesus Godness, they also deny the cruciafixion - as common execution is too much of an indignity for "Gods greatest prophet".

What defines a Christian is the belief that Jesus is and always was God. That he died in the place of every single human and enabled both a relationship with God outside "law". The removal of the "law" means eternal life is enabled. As "sinful beings" the consequence of that "sin" is death. Because that consequence is taken by God, by Jesus-without-sin, he allows whoever wishes it eternal life with him. Some Christians believe a choice to accept Christ as Lord and saviour, or mentor, companion and guide - whatever words you want to use - and the action of praying to initiate that relationship ultimately results in eternal life.

Others (such as C.S.Lewis) believe that Jesus looks at the heart of humans and that belief is a choice, so there are those who for whatever reason have not believed and put trust in Christ, yet who in their deepest heart want to be with God who will be with God in eternal life. The benefit of knowing Jesus is not merely the "reward" factor, but the chance to know God while living in his artistic creation.

For both of these scenarios Jesus being God is central, as it is by relating to him that we can relate to God. He is proof of Gods love for us.

Yes you can believe he was a man and a great teacher, but he didn't really teach much. His healing ministry only lasted for three years from the age of 30 to 33. He taught 11 major themes that, though radical concepts containing alterations of human nature and developed without education, travel and a position of privelliege (like say the travelling Prince who became Buddha and the Magistrate Confucious) played a soft second fiddle to his death and resurection.

We love Jesus, not so much for what he taught, but for what he DID. Jesus did not write a book like Muhammad. His words and actions were only recorded in small part by others around him. Much of the New Testament is spent analysing the way we should be living life after the effects of Jesus actions. Ways of furthering the relationship with God and living harmoniously with each other.

I love the film, "The Last Temptation of Christ" because it rams home that very point. Though it embelishes the humanness of Jesus, and is certainly not "the Christ I know" the fact that everything hinges around Jesus death is rammed home.

I know some who call it "the focal point in history".

Moridin, if you were going to start reading the bible I'd start with John. The book of John. It starts with the beggining of creation and sets down the entire reason for Jesus existance on earth. It also - to my way of reading english - firmly states that Jesus is God. The Book of John is not a huge read by any standard, and contains an assortment of events from Jesus life and details his death and resurrection.

I'd follow it with the Book of Acts which follows immediately after John. Straight away we get Jesus ascension into heaven and the arrival of the Holy Spirit. We then are told of the early Christians actions (hence the title) and the spread of the good news (gospel) throughout the Empire.

If you're still up for it I'd follow that with the book that follows Acts. Romans is a letter from the Apostle Paul to a church in Rome and contains analysis and conceptual discussion.

Thats it. Start with those three and you'll have more of an understanding of where Christians like myself are coming from. I'd definitely recommend against reading from page 1 of Genesis through to Revelation first up. There are books within that cover similar ground from different angles. The four gospels all tell similar stories. Their value is in corroboration and cross referencing for greater detail. Four accounts of the same story.

1 & 2 Kings and 1 & 2 Chronicles of the Old testament perform similar roles, and some of the early books in the Old Testament contain paragraph after paragraph of genealogies and family trees. Later we get reams of measurements for the building of the Temple. Compelling stuff. NOT! However the inclusion is heavy support for the historical accuracy of the Bible. The Jews had dedication to honest and detailed depiction. They record their defeats (unlike say Assyrian historians) and give us all that stuff.

For some Confucious-like wisdom you could check out Proverbs or one of my favourites Ecclesiastes written by one of the philosopher Kings mentioned in..... Kings (funny that). It's brilliant. If you decide to ever attempt to pray you could read Psalms for some example of poetic prayer (much lost in translation of course) and insights into how those of old related to God before Christ.

The Bible is a collection of books, not one long "Lord of the Rings". They perform different roles and have varying degrees of theological significance. Song of Songs is hardly end of the world stuff. Unless two lovers speaking to each other is the end of the world. (Maybe it is )

Aah sorry Moridin. You got me talking about the Bible.


------------------

Now Fljotsdale, I resisted the urge to "yell" at you. I know you disagree with me; and you know that I with you.

Re. blood it felt really unnatural and icky having anothers blood pouring into my veins ("what if it has AIDS in it" I kept thinking in my delerious state) but it soooo saved my life. I couldn't stand and had lost 2 litres in a few hours. The outflow didn't stop for days so I would have been a goner.

However here's a thought. When the Bible was written, blood transfusion did not exist. How can you forbid a concept that doesn't exist? Drinking blood of animals and humans is more than likely what it was referring to because of the obvious health risks.

In any case the New Testament is quite clear that "all things are permissable" regarding certain grey areas like that. Some have the faith to metaphorically "eat meat" and others not.
However he that eats meat.... shouldn'tcriticisetheonethatdoesn'tsoIguessI'dbett ershutupnow....



------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[Cloudbringer]

Originally posted by Yorick: The biblical origination of the concept is dear to a Christian because the concept is central to defining Christianity and the bible is central in guiding a Christians concepts. Every Christian is encouraged to read an understand the bible for themselves as Christianity is not supposed to be about organised religion (which seems to be a byproduct of the apparent human necessity to categorise, regulate and box), but about a relationship. You would use the word "Christianity" in place of say "marriage" it's about developing a relationship with Jesus/God, not about performing rituals, reciting mantras and living in impossible perfection.

Absolutely! The relationship between each of us and God, that is the central theme of Christianity. As for the rituals etc. Take the simple act of crossing oneself in prayer. It is a sign, a means of reminding myself as it were, of the inward prayer and thought going on at the time. It looks to the unitiated like some ritual with no real purpose. But it's a symbolic reminder to me, the petitioner, of who I pray to. The to WHOM is the part that matters, not how I perform the ritual.

What defines a Christian is the belief that Jesus is and always was God. That he died in the place of every single human and enabled both a relationship with God outside "law". The removal of the "law" means eternal life is enabled. As "sinful beings" the consequence of that "sin" is death. Because that consequence is taken by God, by Jesus-without-sin, he allows whoever wishes it eternal life with him. Some Christians believe a choice to accept Christ as Lord and saviour, or mentor, companion and guide - whatever words you want to use - and the action of praying to initiate that relationship ultimately results in eternal life.

I had it explained in simpler terms at an Alpha meeting with a priest who is just plain dynamic, inspiring and awesome. He said that we could look at the case of a criminal who has come before the court and having been judged guilty is being sentenced. The Judge declares a very heavy fine must be paid and the criminal is very sorry for his actions but cannot afford to pay it. The Judge takes out his own check book and writes the check to pay the fine. He does not have to, but he does it. Think of mankind as the criminal and God as the Judge. He paid our 'fine' with his own Blood and that is the highest payment and greatest gift we can ever have.

Moridin, if you were going to start reading the bible I'd start with John. The book of John. It starts with the beggining of creation and sets down the entire reason for Jesus existance on earth. It also - to my way of reading english - firmly states that Jesus is God. The Book of John is not a huge read by any standard, and contains an assortment of events from Jesus life and details his death and resurrection. If you're still up for it I'd follow that with the book that follows Acts. Romans is a letter from the Apostle Paul to a church in Rome and contains analysis and conceptual discussion.

Yes, we do believe that Jesus is and always has been a part of God. John is a good book to start with. As Yorick says, it's not long and it covers the basics. Paul is fascinating reading!

I highly recommend an annotated Bible, though, if it is at all possible. Also suggest the 'Good News Bible'. While I think it's not the greatest rendition, it is one we used for our pre-teens/teens in Sunday School and I found the language used was easy to follow. It is always best to do any study of the Bible with at least two versions at hand for reference and crosschecking.

Thats it. Start with those three and you'll have more of an understanding of where Christians like myself are coming from. I'd definitely recommend against reading from page 1 of Genesis through to Revelation first up. There are books within that cover similar ground from different angles. The four gospels all tell similar stories. Their value is in corroboration and cross referencing for greater detail. Four accounts of the same story.

I echo this recommendation wholeheartedly! Read in any order but don't do a cover to cover reading. Definitely start with the New Testament books that Yorick has suggested! The four gospels are good reading and the "corroboration and cross referencing" are worth the time to investigate. We read the various versions of Christ's birth at Christmas time in my church. Luke's is the most frequently quoted, I think. Of course it IS 4am as I type this so I'm not sure of anything I type at the moment.

Aah sorry Moridin. You got me talking about the Bible.

Hey, I'm really glad he did! Thanks, Moridin! And Yorick, thank you for another lucid and inspiring post! See, I did manage to put 2 cents worth into this thread after all.

Cloudy

------------------


Raindancer of the Laughing Hyenas Clan
Storm-Queen
StormCloud of the Black Knight: Heart Mind Soul Forever
"To sleep, perchance to dream..."

[Zateel]

Hello again to all.
.
I am having trouble with this bitfrom Fljotsdale)
.
Many of you may also be unaware of the fact that MOST (not all) blood transfusions are actually unnecessary. When a person loses blood, the body naturally reduces the flow to unessential areas so that essential organs like the brain and heart are kept properly supplied. What IS essential where there has been significant blood loss, is the restoration of lost blood PRESSURE, so that the circulatory system can function properly, and to stop the body going into shock. This is easily and safely done by using volume expanders like saline or Ringers solutions. But blood is cheaper.
Also, you may be unaware that transfused blood has no oxygenating capacity until about 24-36 hours after transfusion - by which time the body without transfused blood has busily gone into overdrive producing new red blood cells. Transfused blood, from what I have read, actually inhibits this overdrive reaction of the body.

.
.
Blood is definately *NOT* cheaper than a bag of saline or LR, nor easier to come by (not in the U.S.A. I am certain!) The reason transfused blood suppresses "the body from going into overdrive" is the same reason you don't stop at a filling station when your automobile is not low on gas (or petrol). Expanding volume will help maintain kidney perfusion as will blood pressure raising agents (like dopamine), but oxygenation is the only thing that can prevent brain damage. No hemoglobin, no oxygen. I've seen JW's (and have been caregiver to them) who have refused blood, bled, received fluid therapy, and *DIED* because of that choice. Ignorance or Divine knowledge, that choice to "abstain" may be one's passport to Sheol. I'm curious about the information source of the 24-36 hour oxygenation delay as well.
.
By the way, I have no personal grievances with anyone posting here. If my remarks have seemed edged, I apologize. I choose to "abstain" from HTML code which would probably help out a little. Tracey, if you're reading, I would invite you to read my post(s) earlier on this very thread where I discussed the command to abstain from blood with Fljotsdale, if you have not already. I believe I completely agree with you at least on this singular matter. As far as the other, when is a child not an innocent? An age in years? After it knowingly commits a sin? Who would know best when? Maybe God? Remember, before the covenant of grace, one solitary sin was GROUNDS FOR DEATH in God's eyes. They were promised nothing more. Don't think I mean eternal death for pre Christians, but my belief on "after this life" would be a whole other thread completely.
.
I feel sorrow for you, with your childhood ordeals and spiritual abuse/guilt. God did not mandate those things; man did. As far as blood *in general*, outside the sacrifice (which is what all the other references are to) God commanded (in Numbers 19) for *BLOOD* as well as other parts of the red heifer to be burned and added to water and used for CLEANSING. I assume that this implies "partaking" of blood topically by man, at least.
.
Respectfully...

[Fljotsdale]

Zateel?
I no longer possess the original source of the info on the time it takes transfused blood to start oxygenation - it was in a JW booklet on blood and was quoting from a medical journal, though. I dumped most of my JW literature! However, I found the following on the net:

Time "more and more patients are clamoring for safer and more effective options than transfusions." The magazine also reported: "According to some estimates, 25% of U.S. transfusions are unnecessary. There are also indications that patients cannot tolerate levels of hemoglobin as high as previously thought and that young people especially have a built-in reserve of blood. . . . [Shander] is convinced that withholding blood is a viable and preferable choice for most patients."

Though contracting disease through blood transfusions is a major danger, there are others. "Banked blood, after it’s cooled and stored, doesn’t have the capability of fresh blood to transport oxygen," Dr. Shander explained. "We’re just beginning to understand what it is we do when we give a transfusion."

"The Gold Standard"
"Finally," Time concluded, "there is the cost: at around $500 for each transfusion, plus administrative add-ons, the total bill comes to between $1 billion and $2 billion annually, more than enough incentive to consider alternatives." The staggering cost of blood transfusions now seems to be a major reason why bloodless surgery has become so popular.

I hope it answers your query at least in part?

Damn! I should have given you the site address - I'll go see if I can find it again...
http://www.watchtower.org/library/g/...article_01.htm

As you can see, I found their official site. And please don't hold their views against ME, Zateel! According to a lot of stuff I read looking for this info, they seem to have relaxed their views slightly anyway, since I was a JW. I don't think I approve.

As for the bible only meaning 'not to eat' blood and the people back then not knowing about transfusions:
1. The word used in Greek translates as ABSTAIN.
2. THEY may not have known about transfusions, but surely God would? The use of the word 'abstain' covers all use of blood.

Using blood for 'cleansing' in the OT included topical use on altars and the splashing of it on the people and certain items by use of a brush, yes. TOPICAL. NO ingesting was allowed.
Blood was considered holy in the OT and no profane (mundane) use was permitted.
------------------





[This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited 07-23-2001).]

[Yorick]

Fljotsdale, then why did Jesus at the last supper when he drank wine say "This is my blood do this in rememberance of me"? A differance between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism is that Protestants believe drinking wine (blood) and eating bread (body) at communion is a metaphor and serves a reminder of Jesus death. Rom.Caths. believe the Priest changes the wine and bread into the actual blood and body during Mass I believe, and that it is necessary to regularly do this for salvation (one of the unecessary "rituals" I was referring to). I may be wrong.

In any case why would Jesus even symbolically perform a consumption of something that was meant to be totally abstained from?

Also Jesus broke the laws of nature itself when he healed. Reversing Leprosy? Raising Lazarus from death? Giving a blind man sight and a lame man the ability to walk? If he can break laws of nature for healing, that is a tad more than breaking the law of the sabbath or blood abstainance for the sake of healing. Jesus established a firm principle that he came to save, not condemn and heal not destroy. Preventing a child from receiving healing is a gross miscarriage of the spirit and intent of Jesus ministry.

Yes it is unnatural, but then so is flying in an airoplane, travelling at 120kms per hour over land, talking to a person on the other side of the world and using pain killers (asprin) to reduce the thickness and clotting ability of blood.


----------------
Did we ever discuss why Jesus was called "Immanuel" BTW? "Immanuel" means God with us. Why would the ancient prophets and early Christians (Matt 1:23 for starters) have referred to him as such if he were not God? Don't mean to reopen the gunfire, I just couldn't remember if we'd covered it.

-----------------

Cloudy. Your two cents are always appreciated m'girl. Your two cents and your two nickles, dimes and quarters. (They are a novelty for me here) Thanks.

------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[This message has been edited by Yorick (edited 07-23-2001).]

[Cloudbringer]

Originally posted by Moni: Tracey, If I may...is this not the same kind of attitude you have regarding your views as a non believer? Also, Zateel asked that you at least show some respect by spelling out the word Christian yet you continue to use the "x". Does it literally burn your fingertips to type out the word Christ or are you just being blatantly rude? Moni

Uh, I was just about to post something about that! LOL Thanks Moni!

CHRIST is what being a CHRISTian is about! Without CHRIST there is no CHRISTian ity.

------------------


Raindancer of the Laughing Hyenas Clan
Storm-Queen
StormCloud of the Black Knight: Heart Mind Soul Forever
"To sleep, perchance to dream..."