I guess it has to do with the fact that some people (dougie_monty, for example) are easily brainwashed into thinking that they should wholeheartedly and unquestioningly believe whatever they are told.
As to why someone would create such doctrine, the best explanation is probably that they’re a few sandwiches short of a picnic, so to speak.
Life is a tragedy for those who feel and a comedy for those who think.
Dougie_monty said:
Almost exactly right – nobody has more to lose than the children themselves. They may lose their lives if their parents insist on following ridiculous religious beliefs. And that is pretty much what this whole thread is about.
Uh-huh. It seems the thread has two themes: Name-calling and pressure to conform.
I consider both concepts far more “ridiculous” than any of the Witnesses’ tenets.
[Test Post]
(Do not try this at home. I am a professional.)
(Ignore the test, above – I saw that the list showed a later time and date for the last message than was actually shown in the thread, and figured there was a message hiding. I was right.)
D-M, what “namecalling” and pressure to conform are you talking about? I’m talking about saving lives and not allowing child abuse (even under the guise of religion).
What if I wrote a “holy book” that stated that all children with brown eyes were the spawn of satan, and reccomended execution. Would I then be justified in killing those children?
Truth does not change because it is, or is not, beleived by a majority of the people.
-Giordano Bruno
But you don’t understand, Flymaster. That would be a false religion, not at all like the true religion that tells parents to kill their kids!
Jeez. Some people…
I cordially invite all of you to voice your opinions over at this thread.
Those who are dancing look insane to those who cannot hear the music.
One-of-a-kind, custom-designed Wally sig available on request.
dougie_monty:
Name-calling and pressure to conform are both major tenets of the JW religion.
JW’s reserve their most impressive hatred and cruelty for those JW’s who have done something to get themselves disfellowshipped (say, questioning something the Watchtower Society says or failing to conform to the strict rules for behavior- and spies are watching you to be sure you do conform). “Apostate!” If you slip up, they will put you on trial. Questioning any detail about the religion is simply not allowed. If your mother or brother or child is disfellowshipped, you must literally “hate” that person and are forbidden from ever speaking to your loved one again.
JW’s are not supposed to study the Bible on their own (without the Watchtower to interpret it for them during the mandatory Bible Studies); they mustn’t consult any version or translation of the Bible other than the one approved by the Watchtower Society.
Of course, according to their literature, JW’s are really not supposed to post messages on a non-approved message board. You may get in hot water if the elders find out you’re associating with us worldly people.
Jehovah’s Witnesses are compelled to conform every facet of their lives and minds to their rigid doctrine, from how they dress to who they can have as friends to what sort of entertainment they may enjoy. They are often discouraged from seeking higher education, and their choice of careers is limited. It’s all about being a good sheep.
Since the prevailing sentiment of other Dopers positing here is that the Witnesses and the Watchtower Society are “hypocritical,” I think it’s a good idea to quote some other authorities these Dopers might heed if they don’t heed me:
“…it is deserving of particular notice that at the very time when the Holy Spirit declares by the apostles (Acts xv) that the Gentiles are free from the yoke of circumcision, abstinence from blood is explicitly enjoined, and the action thus prohibited is classed with idolatry and fornication.”–M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia, Volume I, p. 834.
“It ought to be observed that this prohibition of eating blood, given to Noah and all his posterity, and repeated to the Israelites, in a most solemn manner, under the Mosaic dispensation, has never been revoked, but, on the contrary, has been confirmed under the New Testament, Acts xv; and thereby made of perpetual obligation.”
–Benson’s Commentary, Volume I.
(I should point out that “eating” versus “transfusion” does not matter here: It is ridiculous to assume that if a doctor has told his patient not to drink alcohol he could still inject it into his bloodstream!)
“[Blood transfusions produce] a weird assortment of antibodies, which may prove to be the cause of crossmatching difficulties amd may even endanger the life of the patient if he is given more blood.”–Journal of the Florida Medical Association, Sept. 19, 1952.
(If anyone has anmy information after the date of this last quote, by all means post it here.)
"Outstanding hematologists have found that the circulating blood in humans and animals alike harbors more, if not all, pathogenic protozoans. Of course, the white blood cells in the circulating blood and in the lymphatic system serve as guards for the protection of the human body in warding off these harmful agents; but the massive concentration of the toxic material in blood is always potentially dangerous for human consumption."–Dr. Jacobh B. Glenn, The Bible and Modern Medicine, p. 18; emphasis in original.
I also used to know a man who was working on a scaffold when it collapsed; he fell, breaking both legs. When his wife spoke to the attending physician about the Witnesses’ refusal to accept transfusion, the doctor declined to listen; he said he did not base his treatment of patients on their religion, but he too abstained from the transfusion of blood as a medically unsound practice.
Despite you protests, “eating” is not the same as “transfusing”. Alcohol, water, glucose, and some other substances do not need to be digested before performing their desired effects upon the body. They are in a predigested state, so to speak. If I have a patient with a dangerously low blood glucose, I can inject glucose directly into his vein. I have, on occasion, had a patient who was in danger of death from severe delerium tremens due to alcohol addiction; a ETOH drip was prescirbed, which I administered directly into the patient’s bloodstream to prevent fatal complications.
Blood is never, ever, ever given as food. If the patient is starving to death, you do NOT give blood; you give Total Parenteral Nutrition (TPN). Blood, given intravenously, is NOT food. It it given when blood loss is severe enough to prevent proper oxygenation of the tissues, or to replace platelets when the patient is bleeding to death. It is not food. The body does not digest it, or use it as fuel. It is used to transport oxygen to the tissues, or to stop uncontrolled bleeding.
I will readily agree with this. The more often you receive transfusions, the more risk of developing antibodies. As an example, I once had a patient who had received so many transfusions (he was a very sick man) than he developed antibodies against cold blood. We therefore had to run the blood through a warmer when transfusing him.
Of course, if you are given a choice between dying right now or living, but potentially having some antibodies against some blood in the future, you will still die now if you refuse the transfusion. This also doesn’t explain why the Watchtower Society continues to allow Factor VIII, albumin, or various other blood components.
Receiving a blood transfusion is always potentially dangerous (though the risk is small: only a tiny fraction of transfusions result in complications); blood transfusions are given when the risk of bleeding to death outweighs the risks of transfusion. Again, I have never seen a person die as the result of a protozooan infection contracted from blood, but I have seen Jehovah’s Witnesses bleed to death.
This quote is also kind of strange; the circulating blood in humans and animals alike harbors more, if not all pathogenic protozoans… than what? If the massive concentration of the toxic material in blood is so dangerous for human consumtion, why wouldn’t it be a good idea to drain out all of that dangerous blood from your system right now? If blood is so terribly dangerous, and contains so much toxic material, why did God design us to have blood?
What was the patient’s hemoglobin and hematocrit? Perhaps the patient wasn’t bleeding as much as you imply; broken legs does not automatically equal severe (life-threatening) blood loss. If the patient’s H&H was not dangerously low, of course the doctor wouldn’t transfuse. It is “medically unsound” to transfuse if there is no need to do so. This does not mean that transfusion is ALWAYS medically unsound. If a patient is bleeding to death, it is medically unsound to NOT tranfuse.
Dougie_monty said:
I don’t know that anybody said it was hypocritical – just dangerous and not terribly bright. But if it’s you or some other adult making the choice, have at it! Evolution in action.
However, if it’s a child, as we’ve noted, that’s quite a different story. And that’s when somebody else needs to step in and say “Whoa!”
I have no information on the man’s hematocrit or other readings. I do know that he did not get a transfusion; that his recovery was uneventful; that he spent several weeks on crutches after he left the hospital. He was about 40 then (1970) and is alive today for all I know. When I was nicked by the power-mower blade (and my mother told me “You know if you had to you would have had a transfusion”) in 1973, I was 24. In fact, the physician who treated me–with whom I have never discussed religion–commented he was surprised I did not bleed very much.
so, are you saying that maybe you didn’t bleed so much because of some divine intervention, or just because it was “one of those things”?
Truth does not change because it is, or is not, beleived by a majority of the people.
-Giordano Bruno
This somehow reminds me of an old Victorian practice of castrating teenage males when they were caught masturbating…Better to ruin their secular future than give htem the oportunity to land themselves a spot in hell. It is now seen as brutality, as i hope refusal of medical treatment will be in the near future.
I read about a case in which a boy’s parents refused to allow a doctor to give him insulin when he was diagnosed with diabetes (type 1). Any of you out there that are diabetic know how bad you feel when you’re first diagnosed: basically, it’s mono with bad eyesite and the flu. I can’t imagine the hell that poor guy went through before he died. His parents might still be charged with abuse, etc.
Remember, you should never discriminate based on looks. you never know when the ugly duckling will turn into the ugly skank with a bottle of cavackia- The Ladies Man, SNL
I’m not evading anyone’s question. I don’t own a computer and can’t always get to a p;ublic computer to log on here.
Your blodface quote sounds like an argumentative statement; you are “heckling” me, claiming you can make up your own religion and bolster it from the First Amendment. Now all I’ll have to do is check in the U. S. Code Annotated under the First Amendment to see how the Courts have addressed the issue of “ersatz” religions. I’m certain that, in this regard, your “brown eyes” cult would resemble, not the Witnesses, but the Moonies, if a comperison had to be made. (The Moonies claim the Bible is a coded message only they can understand. Hoo Hah.)
dougie-monty, I would really be interested in your opinion on the above thread. I realize these parents’ religious preferences have nothing to do with yours–I just wanted your opinion since you seem to believe very strongly in the parents’ right to do as their religion commands. I’m not trying to provoke you–I am genuinely interested in your take.
Those who are dancing look insane to those who cannot hear the music.
One-of-a-kind, custom-designed Wally sig available on request.
“Golly, those Moonies sure is NUTS, yesiree,” he says as he watches his child die a painful and preventable death.
Ok…lets try this again, then. What if I find a book in the arabian desert, that I can prove is over 1000 years old, and is in a box labeled “Word of God ©1000 A.D, Jerusalem, Israel, YHWH House Publishing Co.” I didn’t have to decode it, as the first paragraph is “Kill all brown eyed children.”
Is it then legal for me to kill all the brown eyed kids? And should it be?
Truth does not change because it is, or is not, beleived by a majority of the people.
-Giordano Bruno