Yorick?

[tracey]

right. will you STOP being so holier than thou. i didn't know that you objected to your name being shortened oh esteemed lady of the fiords! i grovel at you feet in a positively abject and demeaning manner. happy now? it's not disrespectful to shorten words. when you type a lot it's convenient and some people enjoy nit picking for the sake of it...!!"3598itljkfdg;aiojL:MF ml; just give me a bloody list of the rules!!!!!!!!!!

okay ranting over. sense of humour in defrag mode or possibly a victorian asylum for the mentally discombobulated. don't respond to the post i can already hear it. zip it. shush.

[Cloudbringer]

Tracey,

If Fljotsdale says it offends her to have her name abbreviated that way, then it does. I fail to see how you can say it's not disrespectful when she has indicated it does bother her.

Cloudy

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


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

[Fljotsdale]

Originally posted by tracey: just give me a bloody list of the rules!!!!!!!!!! okay ranting over. sense of humour in defrag mode or possibly a victorian asylum for the mentally discombobulated. don't respond to the post i can already hear it. zip it. shush.

Only one, when it gets down to it - be polite!

As for the rest - I suddenly realised why I like you! You sound SOOOOO like my daughter, lol! I reckon you and she would fight like cat and dog!

Also - YOU may not find your abbreviations disrespectful, and neither will many others - but if someone EXPRESSES that they do not like certain abbreviations then it shows respect for their feelings if you avoid using them. I have said that I do not like my name shortened, someone else said he finds xtian offensive. That is only two words, Tracey, that you have been asked to be careful of - no big difficulty, surely?

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




[This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited 07-24-2001).]

[Zateel]

Tracy,

I covered most of my "blood transfusion" defense on page two of this thread. As a Christian, my stance is from "what is the most loving thing to do, and what examples have been set for us".

[Fljotsdale]

Sorry to be so long with this, Yorick! I have been/still am, very busy. Lots of writing and editing, theatre accounts, and now rehearsing/learning lines for the Pantomime. Can’t imagine how I ever found time to go to work!
Briefly, then:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yorick:
[B]
1) 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?

Yes, the difference between Catholic & Protestant teachings regarding the same event is interesting. And is one of those things that can be argued equally well from both sides. After all, Jesus DID at one point say that his followers would have to 'eat his flesh and drink his blood' in order to be saved, didn't he? Which shocked most of them so much that they left him (not the 12, though). John 6:53-56. Jesus also said his ‘flesh was true food’ and his ‘blood was true drink’
At the Last Supper, two of the Gospels say ‘this is that blood of mine’ ‘this is my blood’ (Mark 14:23,24; Matthew 20:27,28. [It is not mentioned in John.]) after he told them to drink the wine he had blessed.
It is not difficult to see the Catholic view that the wine was ACTUALLY the blood, even though the scriptures do not clearly state that. Context is all! So, a few contextual points:
a) First off, the Last Supper was a Passover meal. At that meal, Jesus said to 'do this in remembrance of me' after giving them the bread and wine. It seems evident that just as the Passover was an annual event, so the celebration of the Last Supper should be an annual event, not a several-times-a-day event.
b) Luke 22:19,20 in my Greek interlinear says, in part, "This cup is the New Covenant in my blood, that in your behalf being poured out."
Remember the Old Covenant via Moses? Animal blood was poured out to seal it. In the same way, Jesus blood was to be poured out to seal the New Covenant. The scripture at Luke has to mean that the wine represented Jesus’ blood that was to be poured out to seal the New Covenant.
Luke shows that Jesus was telling them that they were drinking wine that REPRESENTED the blood of the New Covenant (sealed by his blood) rather than ACTUALLY drinking his blood.
So what did Jesus mean when he said> ‘unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood’,? And that his ‘flesh was true food’ and his ‘blood was true drink’?
It looks like it comes out pretty conclusively on the Catholic side, doesn’t it, despite the scripture in Luke?

OK. Now, take the ban on blood that ALL Jews were obliged to obey, including Jesus who was also ‘under law’ (Galatians 4:4). He was not free to break that Law, since he came to ‘fulfil’ it (Matthew 5:17-19 and context). So, even though he was the Son of God, he was not free to break God’s laws to the Jews. This included the ban on blood. So, Jesus could not, in that context, have meant the LITERAL eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood.
So, do the scriptures give us any explanation? Yes, I think so.
A person needs to eat and drink to stay alive. Now, what was Jesus doing with his flesh and blood for mankind? He was giving it up – handing it over to us - so that we could live and have ‘everlasting life’ (John 3:16). His flesh and blood were to give us life – but not by our LITERALLY eating and drinking. (Hebrews 9:11-14, 22; 1 John 2:2; John 10:27,28; Romans 6:23).
Hope that makes some sort of sense to you!

2) 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.

Who is to say that Jesus was ‘breaking the laws of nature by healing’?. We have still not sussed out all the ‘natural’ healing processes of the body, have we? But God would know! No problem for him to pass on that power to his son. Jesus was not the only one God used to perform ‘miraculous’ healing in the bible, after all! And in any case, there was NO BAN on healing in the LAW CODE. No – the Jews were quibbling about him doing ‘work’ on the Sabbath – but, as he pointed out to them, they would save a trapped livestock animal on the Sabbath – and that was not banned in the law, either, only in their nit-picking additions to the Law. So far as I am aware, Jesus never broke a single one of the laws in the LAW CODE, though he certainly DID break the petty additions which were not God’s Law, but their own.

JW’s do NOT prevent a child – or anyone else – from receiving healing. Do you think they do not love their children as much as anyone else? Of course they do!! But they also care about obeying God – and the ban on blood was carried through to the New Testament, just as was the ban on fornication, things sacrificed to idols, and things strangled. (And how many ‘Christians’ even bother to keep the law on fornication, for instance?)
JW’s go to great lengths to get the best treatment for their children. But did you know that some hospitals/surgeons have REFUSED to treat JW children/adults with alternative therapies, even though they are available? JW’s have had to take their children/sick adults to other hospitals that WILL use the alternative therapies. The only reason for the refusal has often been sheer prejudice, not lack of alternatives. And then they say the JW’s are at fault!
And the stand the JW’s have made in order to keep God’s law on blood has paid off in ways that now benefit the whole of the USA, Canada, the UK, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and many other places besides.
A HUGE media issue is made of the deaths of the ‘amazingly’ few JW adults/children – but how much do the media make of all the problems/deaths CAUSED by transfused blood?
----------------
3)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.

Briefly we did. But we didn’t go into it much. Would you like to?

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




[This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited 07-25-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited 07-25-2001).]

[tracey]

fljotsdale

i bet you wouldn't name your daughter 'tracey' now, would you?
a bit close to the BONE dear heart!!!
well, i suppose i could try, but i know i'll slip up at some excitable moment and then get my legs smacked. on the other hand i could start to become deeply offended by the term christian! actually, i particularly loathe 'lol'. however.......

oh, and no, i had no idea about esso - hmmmm.

[Fljotsdale]

Dead right I wouldn't call her Tracey!! She is partly Polish, and her name is Tanya. Still - your names start with the same initial - LOL!!!!!! Go see the new thread Absynthe has started - you will like it!

Jabidas once expressed a distaste for 'lol' as well. I can see what you both mean.. I only use it 'cos almost everyone else does.

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




[This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited 07-25-2001).]

[Yorick]

Zateel, I don't think I ever thanked you for your posts. I enjoyed reading them mate. Cheers!

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

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[Zateel]

Yorick, you're quite welcome! I've enjoyed following this thread as well. Although I usually steer clear of the general conversation area, I've found that I'm learning quite a bit about about the members this way. And by the way, although I haven't posted it before, I have prayed for your ex-wife. I hope she does well.

Fljotsdale, you said "But did you know that some hospitals/surgeons have REFUSED to treat JW children/adults with alternative therapies, even though they are available? JW’s have had to take their children/sick adults to other hospitals that WILL use the alternative therapies. The only reason for the refusal has often been sheer prejudice, not lack of alternatives."


Perhaps, but I know that many surgeons are less prejudiced and more FRIGHTENED about caring for JW patients. As I mentioned, I have *seen* JW patients die from lack of blood transfusion. Before I worked in the Emergency room, I worked on the orthopaedic unit. A JW lady, around age 60 was involved in a motor vehicle accident and had a mid-shaft femoral fracture, with severe deformity. She was obese and had some sort of cardiac history I can't recall, so she was a higher risk for surgery (with expected blood loss) than average. As I'm sure that you are aware, surgery is nearly always indicated for this type injury. Alternatives might have been :going without surgery (and die of pulmonary emboli, hemorrage or pneumonia anyway, and never walk again if she survived), skeletal traction for six to eight weeks with a poor resulting alignment/ rotation/ decubiti/ pain, etc. or an external fixator device (placed in a less invasive surgery). To say that using cell savers and autologous transfusions of blood collected during surgery (I'm not sure, but I think JW's may allow this, but do not allow transfusions of their own blood collected prior to surgery, in preparation for surgery), lactated ringers, nupogen and iron therapy are "alternatives" do not put physicians at ease. Anyway, back to my case study. The lady went to surgery, returned to the recovery room in good condition, and was brought to the floor several hours later alert. Her hemoglobin count was monitored over the next few days, and despite "alternatives" she died as her hemoglobin count plummeted. Whether or not the continuous bleeding was the fault of the surgeon or the lady's personal physiology- who knows? If given early enough, would the blood have prevented the death? The JWs have told me "You can't know", but I believe that it would have. A sickle cell patient with the same hemoglobin count may have been fine, or a chronic, slow GI bleeder, but not a cardiac patient who has lost two thirds of her blood in three days.
.
Here is a layman example if anyone isn't following.
.
You are a mail carrier. You have to deliver 5000 pieces of mail (oxygen) and pick up 2000 letters (byproducts of metabolism)on your mail route. Realizing that you (a red blood cell) are incapable of the task yourself, you ask for help.
(A) You are not a Jehovah's Witness. The Post Master calls in additional staff with their vehicles and you share the load.

(B) You are a Jehovah's Witness. The Post Master gives you two hundred brand new shiny Mercedes/ Benz mail trucks, and you are still the only driver.
.
That is what happens when one thinks that saline or ringers can replace blood. These can only prevent circulatory collapse- the solutions cannot meet the needs of metabolism. It does NOT bring oxygen to deprived tissue.
.
All the JWs I know are friendly people, honest with their dealing with others, and dedicated to serving God. But I disagree firmly with most of the "specifics" of their beliefs, as I know them. I am not a JW, nor have I ever been. I was raised in a church that was also on the "cult" list, which claimed Christianity status, yet argued by semantics and wording, and dictionary definitions, and completely lost the "spirit" of the law, while Phariseecly attempting to obey the "letter" of the law. Not unlike the JWs, doctrine, regulations, and prophesy interpretation changed many times that I can remember, even as a child. If any of the readers are JWs, I apologize if I have misrepresented any of your or your churches views. My claims to the views of JWs come largely from answers I received while being witnessed to over the course of about six weeks, as well as from some Watchtower publications and related materials.

[Fljotsdale]

Zateel, I understand and appreciate all the points you raised in your post.

Maybe blood COULD have saved this lady - maybe not. But she had the right to choose, as I am sure you appreciate. Although I am now NOT a JW, I still would not accept blood, even in the face of certain death without it. My reasons are not religious, either! Partly, it is because I find the idea of it repugnant. Partly it is because I would rather die that catch Hepatitis, Aids, Syphilis, etc, none of which can be identified in blood in the early stages of disease. Partly it is because blood is as individual as fingerprints, and therefore even 'compatible' blood can cause unwanted reactions in the patient. I have seen these things occur, as I am sure you have yourself. Blood transfusion is not the unadulterated blessing many people think it is! And, yes, I am aware that several people on this forum may well not be here had they not had transfusions.
Regarding haemoglobin - an otherwise reasonably healthy person's can bloodcount can 'plummet' to amazingly low levels and the patient survive unimpaired.
I am going to check out something on this and then get back and include it...

http://www.watchtower.org/library/hb/article_03.htm

Try this link. It is to a JW site and is informative on haemoglobin levels, referring to medical sources
------------------




[This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited 07-26-2001).]