ADVERTISEMENT
157,966 registered users

| |
(Thursday, 23rd Oct, 2014)
Printer Friendly Version Add to your scrapbook
 

ADVERTISEMENT



Jehovah's witnesses, health choices...

There are certain religious beliefs that tend to raise an eyebrow amongst non-believers. While Western society combats the growing prevalence of obesity, due in part to high-fat diets and rising alcohol consumption, the fasting of all Muslims from dawn until sundown every day for an entire month (Ramadan) as a method of spiritual self-purification, would strike fear into many non-Muslims, whose over-reliance on fast and convenient foods is all too apparent.

And in a world where the number of people contracting sexually transmitted infections, including HIV, is increasing, the opposition of the Roman Catholic Church to the use of condoms appears inexplicable to some.

Matter of conscience

However in the area of health, there is one religious belief that tends to draw more attention than others; that is the refusal of Jehovah's witnesses to accept blood transfusions, even in life-saving procedures. But what is this belief based on? Are there alternatives to blood transfusions? And with an estimated 5,000 Jehovah's Witnesses in Ireland, what does this mean for the medical professionals who may have to treat them?

"It is up to the conscience of each individual whether to permit a blood transfusion or not", Arthur Matthews of the Jehovah's witnesses in Ireland told irishhealth.com.

File written by Adobe Photoshop¨ 5.2

Jehovah's witnesses believe in Almighty God, known as Jehovah and their beliefs are based on the Bible, which they diligently study. They consider the 66 books of the Bible to be inspired and historically accurate and take them literally, except where the expressions or settings obviously indicate that they are figurative or symbolic.

It is because of this literal understanding of the Bible that Jehovah's witnesses choose not to accept blood transfusions. They believe that taking blood into the body through the mouth or veins violates God's laws.

Religious grounds

There are a number of references to blood in the Bible which have led to this belief, including one which appears in the book of Leviticus and states, 'the life of every creature is in the blood. That is why I have told the people of Israel never to eat it or drink it, for the life of any bird or animal is in the blood. So whoever eats or drinks blood must be cut off'.

In terms of modern medicine, this means that a Jehovah's witness will not permit treatment that involves the transfusion of whole blood, packed red blood cells, plasma or platelets.

"There are so many alternatives and we try to draw attention to them. We refer to non-blood alternatives as non-blood medical management. Generally our beliefs are respected by doctors", explained Mr Matthews.

Alternatives to transfusion

It may sound unbelievable but developments in the field of medicine mean that throughout the world, an increasing number of Jehovah's witnesses are being treated without blood transfusions. An article in the medical journal, 'The Lancet', in 1999 provided details of a liver transplant that was carried out on a Witness by Belgian doctors without the use of any blood products.

Similarly in 2000, a kidney transplant was carried out on a man in a Leeds Hospital. This involved preserving the patient's own blood where possible and recycling it in the body during the operation. If an emergency had have arisen however, the man could have died as a blood transfusion would not have been permitted.

But realistically, what would happen in Ireland if, for example, a road accident victim, who was also a Jehovah's witness, was brought to an A&E department requiring a blood transfusion for survival?

This is an extremely grey area, as no precedent on this issue has ever been set in this country. In recent times such a case arose at St Vincent's University Hospital in Dublin, when a student was admitted requiring an operation which involved a blood transfusion. The student, who fell in and out of a coma, had expressed mixed feelings about the issue, however her parents insisted that a transfusion be permitted. A High Court Order was successfully sought.

The Constitution

However what would have happened if the student and her parents had refused the operation? We will probably never know until such a case comes before the courts of this land, but according to article 42.5 of the Irish Constitution, 'in exceptional circumstances, where the parents for physical or moral reasons fail in their duty towards their children, the State as guardian of the common good, by appropriate means shall endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child'.

The refusal of parents to allow their child to receive a blood transfusion would certainly be considered 'exceptional circumstances'. However whether following particular beliefs could be considered 'failing in their duty towards their children', remains to be seen.

File written by Adobe Photoshop¨ 5.0

According to the Medical Defence Union (MDU), one of the leading medical defence organisations in Ireland and Britain, the welfare of the child comes first.

"In the absence of parental consent, an application to the court may be needed if the child cannot understand the meaning and extent of the advice being given and the effect of consenting to treatment".

Lawsuit risk

Again until such a case arises in this country, it is difficult to know how a judge would rule in such a case. However it must be remembered that in the absence of a court ruling, if a patient refuses to give informed consent and is subjected to an invasive procedure, such as a blood transfusion, the doctor may be sued for battery. Such a case occurred in Canada some years ago, when an unconscious patient was given a blood transfusion. In this case, the patient was carrying a card stating that she was a Jehovah's witness, which the doctor saw before giving her blood.

Despite the court agreeing that the doctor had acted quickly and professionally in an emergency, he was nonetheless found guilty of battery.

Currently, Jehovah's witnesses carry on their person a 'medical release directive', which 'releases the medical practitioner of any liability' should something happen to the patient as a result of their beliefs, Mr Matthews explained. Children meanwhile carry an identification card which states that they are the children of Jehovah's witnesses and the decision on their treatment must be made by their parents.

Undoubtedly the issue of consent is becoming more and more prominent in all aspects of healthcare, however until a precedent is set in this particular area, it will for the time being remain a grey area for Jehovah witnesses themselves and will continue to be a baffling belief for non-believers.

Are you a Health Professional? Log on to IrishHealthPro for more...

 

Last Reviewed: 29th July 2003



  Anonymous   Posted: 02/08/2003 22:40
Wow its a tough one. On the one hand hopefully God wants us to live, and on the other I am sure He wants us to live up to and follow our beliefs. How many times, in the Bible, did Jesus forgive people for not keeping the rules? Many times. If this is so can a person not break the rules when a life, which is God given, is at stake? No being of any particular religious persuasion anyway it would not be a problem for me, but I pity the Doctor who has to decide!
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 06/08/2003 15:40
Given the recent issues with AIDS and Hepatitis being transmitted from blood transfusions, perhaps this is a wise Interpretation of Gods word in the Bible. However, choice is the key - everyone has the right to choose what to do in a given situation.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 07/08/2003 21:23
I was under the impression that Johovas Witnesses were not permitted blood as it had "left the body", therefore were not allowed to store blood for operations or indeed have transplant surgery. Can anyone verify this assumption?
 
  Vincent(vincey)  Posted: 11/08/2003 17:51
I think the state should have full power to take care of a child when parents fail them.
 
  kieran(hoffa)  Posted: 14/08/2003 00:25
I agree with Vincent. The case of the People v. Cook resulting from a road traffic accident in Azusa,California which can be viewed on watchtower.observer.org makes for interesting reading.
 
  Mick(Mickooo)  Posted: 27/08/2003 02:49
When I grew up in Dublin , I knew a family of Jehovah's witnesses and paled around with one of their kids. His two brothers died because of this , a simple blood transfusion. To this day it still angers me how the parents could allow this to happen to their children and to their sons brothers. As a father myself , I could and would never allow anything like that to happen. Its one thing having religious beliefs, it’s another to allow a precious life to die for the sake of a simple blood transfusion. Remember God Forgives all who repents; surely, in this situation there is only one winner, your child lives.
 
  Ann Marie(annmh)  Posted: 01/09/2003 17:51
I had an operation about five years ago and my haemoglobin dropped to 8. i was given a blood transfusion and had a very bad reaction. I had another operation 3 years ago and my haemoglobin dropped to 7. Even though it was suggested i have a blood transfusion i told them I didn't want one and they were happy with that. I believe the doctor's should respect the wishes of the Jehovah's witnesses
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 05/09/2003 09:56
I don't know how any responsible parent could bring a precious little human life into the world and then try to stop a doctor (whose duty it is to preserve life) from saving the childs life. In a case in the US in the 80's a little boy was made a ward of court and his prents were threatened with negligence in order that dosctors could save his life with a blood transfusion.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 24/09/2003 08:58
The fundemental problem here is that society cannot allow people cause the death of another just because of their superstitious beliefs. Are we to allow fundemental Muslims to crash planes into buildings because they think its right?
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 20/11/2003 16:18
As one of Jehovah's Witnesses I have been very interested in tracking the comments made. First I have been one since my late teens (now 52)and have never heard of the two children dying as referanced by Mick, I have heard and know of JW children dying in Ireland but not because of not accepting Blood, I would be interested in finding out when this was supposed to be (Mick)?. Second, far, far more people have died directly because of having received blood transfusions by contracting AIDs, Hepititus etc, have we forgotten the recent medical scandels concerning this? Above is factual, so if one takes the issue of parental decision away who is then responsible if a child patient contracts a fatal disese, the State? It is not superstition that causes Jehovahs Witnesses to refuse Blood Transfusion but informed knowledge. Not so long ago it was the custom (medically) to bleed patients, as mans knowledge grew this practice ceased and is now viewed as nonsense, yet the best medical minds of the time insisted it was the best treatment. As a parent of 5 children I know how hard it must be for some one facing this prediciment, all JW parents believe it is thier duty to preserve the life of their children but if they totally disagree with a doctors methods of treatment why would this amount to negligance? many other treatments are available if the doctors are open minded enough to use them and we would absolutely seek other transfusions (non blood) or treatment, remember this would have been an issue when doctors bleed patients, if some one believed this was the wrong way to treat his child would we now say he was negligent because he would not let the doctor treat his child with bleeding? Of course not. Unfortunately no matter what treatment one decides when a serious operation is involved there is always a risk that the patient will die. As one of Jehovah's Witnesses I want to make that decision (what treatment to accept for me and my dependents)and not the state. Remember the saying "Doctors differ and patients die". (Anonymous of 7/8/03 asked a question about stored blood. As a Jehovah's Witness I make a personal choice about treatment methods, we do believe that blood can be diverted via a filter machine and be continously fed back into the body during an operation is a valid treatemnt and would be a matter of choice for us. We would not believe though that stored blood conforms to the Bibles direction on use of blood).
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 21/11/2003 09:22
Whne I was three years old my mother needed a vital blood transfusion following a miscarriage, at the age of seven my father needed a blood transfusion following a heart operation. The 'beliefs' of Jehovah's witnesses would have left me an orphan in state care at the age of 8, intead of enjoying 2 loving parents well into adult years. Any doctrine which allows people to die and children to be orphaned as I would have been could not be ethical.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 21/11/2003 10:28
There are many documented cases of children dying because of the religious beliefs of their parents; we do not have to argue that one. 99% of people who have died of AIDS or Hepatitis did not die because of blood transfusions, they died because of sex with an infected person, sharing needles etc.. Far, far more people have been saved because of blood transfusions than have died because of them. Noel’s point on this is literally daft. There have been far, far more scandals concerning priests and other shamans than doctors, has Noel forgotten that? All religion is superstition. JW’s are no different. Noel does not hold his opinion regarding blood transfusions as a result of “informed knowledge” as he says, otherwise it would be some coincidence that most JW’s believe as Noel does but Catholics do not. It is not informed, it is a religious belief based on their interpretation of the bible. What is really funny about all this is that the majority of bible students of other Christian religions do not interpret the bible to mean this. So not alone is it not an informed opinion it’s a disputed opinion among people of the same broad religion. So in summary we have an illogical, non medical, non scientific, non statistical (see above), disputed religious opinion possibly leading to the loss of life of someone defenseless, i.e. a child. The fact that the child is the child of a JW has long been recognized by courts as irrelevant when it comes to life saving treatment. The “blood letting” point is daft. We cannot be responsible today for the opinion of those that went before. It is even more useless to pray for someone to get better. I dispute that Noel is capable of making a “personal choice”. Once brainwashed into believing a particular religious edict it is very difficult to make logical choices. Look at what the Islamic terrorist morons are up to. The JW religion can be accused of child abuse because not alone do withhold treatment, they brainwash their unfortunate children into believing the hogwash they believe in.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 21/11/2003 11:01
Well said William, I wholeheartedly agree. Afterall, certain religions believe in mutilating their children. The fact that this is their 'beleif' doesn't mean it's not child abuse. (breda).
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 21/11/2003 11:45
I would like to make a final comment on this matter as I believe this forum is for medical debate and not religious. Medical treatment rights are a very large topic and I was addressing the issue of the right to choose as a Jehovah's Wittness, it is very easy to try to denigrate another by saying they are brainwashed because they hold views differant from ones own, the determining factor surely should be if one is prepared to enter rational debate. There is no doubt that blood transfusions at times are life saving but there is also no doubt that at other times they are life destroying, we have literally thousands of cases in the last number of years showing that to be so. The point I would make is that there is alternative non blood tratments that are safe and offer superior recovery from operations. In most cases where blood is used in hospitals it is in non critical cases. Even in critical cases when used effectivly is does not mean that alternative treatments would not have been as effective. See web link below for "some" of the "informed knowledge" I refered to. http://www.watchtower.org/medical_care_and_blood.htm. Jehovah's Witness's do not try to force our view on blood on anyone. We believe it is an individuals choice, we are happy to share the knowledge we have that brings benifits to our community regarding non blood treatment if any one wants to know about it. There are many beliefs that other denominations have (such as hellfire, the immortality of the soul, participating in war) that Jehovahs Witnesses do not hold to, our understanding regarding the bibles direction on blood is another one. Thousands of JW's have gone to prison camps and many died over the past century because we will not take up arms and kill (shed blood). We love life and this is in total harmony with the bibles view. We trust what the bible says about all matters and yes, some times this puts us at varience with "current popular" beliefs and that includes our view on blood.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 21/11/2003 12:43
Noel, how old do you think the Earth is? Do you believe life and all the species, including man, evolved from previous species? I think your answer will give anyone who doesn't know about JW's a clue as to your view of reality.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 21/11/2003 13:02
Noel, I strongly support an individuals right to choice in health matter, and applaud any religion, JW's and quakers included in their refusal to take up arms but I could never and would never support an individuals right to make a choice for another individual, including their own child, if that choice were to harm or result in the childs death. How a parent could do that, is beyond my understanding
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 21/11/2003 13:45
William, I believe the Earth is Billions of years old. I do not believe in evolution if that is what you are asking, as an Engineer who has studied the fossil record I believe the "theory" of evolution has many missing gaps that I believe never existed as per the evidance in the fossil record. But what has this to do with Medical Choice and parental responsibility?, none that I can see. I would just repeat WE DO NOT WITHHOLD TREATMENT (read my email again) we activly seek and chose alternative (I believe a better) treatment then blood transfusion.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 21/11/2003 15:20
I certainly do not “applaud any religion”. The problem is religion. No one to the best of my knowledge withholds blood transfusion EXCEPT on religious grounds. The whole argument here is whether the religious views of a parent should allow them make a decision that in the opinion of the state via the courts endangers their children. If a JW adult wants to commit suicide that’s their business. I am not interested in Noel’s argument about alternative treatments, that’s the doctors business. You don’t buy a dog and bark yourself! The only reason JW’s came up with the need for alternative treatments is their weird interpretation that the bible forbids blood transfusions. His “missing gaps“ comment says it all. All the biologists in the world believe in evolution, as one of them said, “there is no other game in town”. There is no other scientific theory of how life got here. Noel’s religious beliefs cloud his thinking on all matters where science or medicine contradict his interpretation of the bible and that is why the state must intervene when his illogical and superstitious beliefs endanger his children. At least he now believes that the world is billions of years old, that’s a new one. How come he disagrees with that fine humanitarian and bible scholar, Ian Paisley who thinks its only 6,000 years old. Noel, were you one of the JW’s who thought the world was going to end around 1975? It didn’t. As to what this has got to do with the blood issue. When someone is brainwashed into believing something as daft as a god or gods then whatever religion they belong to makes their decisions for them and they loose the ability to think logically. In a sense they go mad and then the state has to interfere.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 21/11/2003 15:37
Noel, I just thought of something funny. You referred to evolution as a "current popular belief" but the Jehovah's Witnesses are a religious movement which was started in the 1870's by Charles Taze Russell. Evolution predates this. The JW movement is more current than the theory of evolution! Evolution was discovered 100 years before DNA was discovered which explains exactly the mechanism that is the basis for evolution. Some guess by Darwin!
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 21/11/2003 17:21
William, you obviously have a thing against any "faith" belief that does not agree with your concept of what should be believed. Would you have believed the Earth was flat because it was believed by most scientists (and religions) at the time? The matter of Parental Decision is THE vital medical question here, most doctors today would believe blood transfusion is vital in dire circumstances but not all, thousands of life threathening operations have successfully been carried out with out the use of blood and often with better post operative results. William stick to the issue of this forum and not a very subjective and I believe misguided and biased understanding of what you think JW's believe on other matters. If you want to have a dialogue about other non medical matters feel free to email me directly, ncmay51@hotmail.com.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 25/11/2003 20:24
Noel, correct I do have a problem with faiths. The problem with faith is that it is by definition not susceptible to proof, completely subjective, illogical, the antithesis of reasoning and science and therefore very dangerous. Under the banner of faith one can believe in absolutely anything, and people do. Recently one religious sect committed mass suicide to catch a lift to heaven on a passing comet! The Scientologists believe that we are inhabited by aliens and the Mormons inventor translated god’s book by using a magic stone! Because of faith people mutilate their children, (e.g. circumcision for boys and genital mutilation for the girls). They withhold life saving medical treatments, (JW’s re blood transfusion, Church of Christ, Scientist re virtually everything and now Muslims in Nigeria are withholding vaccine treatment against polio). They execute those that change their religion, (in many Islamic countries) and of course Christians in the past etc………. You seem to believe, as many people incorrectly do, that Scientists keep changing their minds. This is not the case. You either are deliberately misrepresenting the way science works or you do not understand it. No Scientist in the past ever proved that the Earth was flat. Your statement is daft. There were no scientists, in the modern meaning of the word, until the last few hundred years, say until after Galileo and by then most educated people knew the Earth was not flat. I am sticking to the issue. When adults decide because of religious reasons, i.e. illogical reasons or otherwise for that matter to harm their children, then the state has a right to make them wards of court and protect them.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 26/11/2003 09:16
Noel, you state that "The matter of Parental Decision is THE vital medical question here".But the salient point is that Parental decision is just that - paretal decision. It is not and should never be a medical question. Medical questions should be decided by medical professionals, with the co-operation of parents. If those parents refuse to co-operate, then the state has a duty to intervene.
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 26/11/2003 11:31
The point we as Jehovah's Witnesses would make (as stated previously several times) is that we believe there is a better safer treatment then blood transfusions. We do NOT refuse treatment for our selves or our children, indeed we go to extrordinary lengths to get what we believe is the best medical treatment. Yes, the view is based on our belief that the instruction given in the Bible about the use of blood is both a moral and health issue, in Acts 15 where the prohibition on blood is reiterated for Christians it concludes with the statement "good health to you"!. It has been demonstrated to me over and over again where the bible touches on health matters it has always proven right and medical science eventually comes round to the bibles view. 20 years ago few people ever thought about the dangers inherent in blood transfusions, yet today we know many thousands of people are dead and many more dying because of receiving contaminated blood products (see articles in the side bar on this web site). So a real choice has to be made, we happen to chose to want other types of treatment. We believe we have the right to decide that for ourselves and our dependents. We do not force this view on anyone it is a free choice Jehovah's Witnesses make after considering all the facts.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 26/11/2003 12:10
But you are forcing your view on people - your own children. The most vulnerable of all, yet those thru trusting innocence, who have the right to expect the best possible care from their parents. If there are no better alternatives available do you still refuse screened (all blood in the western world is now screened for HIV antibodies, so the aids argument is no longer relevant) blood to save the life of your children?
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 26/11/2003 16:40
Anonymous, says we as JW's force our view on non blood medicine on our children, we say we take responsibility for our childrens medical treatment. Surely most parents who have childen that require life treatening operations must at times decide on certain treatments, this is what free choice is about. Remember the state if it is to decide all matters for its people will at times commit them to kill and die. If this happens have the state made the right decision? Ask the parents of the many hundreds of thousands who were conscripted against thier will to fight for example in Vietnam! As responsible Parents we believe we have the best interest of our children at heart. Blood is an incredibly complex organism and medicine is only scratching the surface of its complexity, so to believe we can screen out all varients of life treatening disese (HIV still having new varients being discovered)is not realistic. Just on this web site on the Feature Article side bar alone, it refers to West Nile Virus, CJD and Hepititus C (all killers)being transmitted in blood and also refers the hundreds of Irish Haemophiliacs either dead or now dying from disese contracted through blood transfusions, I can guarantee you the parents of these people if they asked would have been told the blood they were getting was perfectly safe, yet look at the tragedy heaped upon those poor people because they unknowingly and unwitingly went along with their doctors recommendation and the doctors to the best of their knowledge were acting in good faith. For each of these people at the time there was alternate treatment but it is very unlikely they were offered it, we as Jehovah's Witnesses would have because of our knowledge regarding blood demanded it. What if one of JW's children were forced to have any of the above referred to contaminated blood because of a doctors insistance and getting a court order, who would then carry the can, the doctor?, the state? Unfortunately not, its the family who lost a loved one. So I for one would rather make decisions for me and my dependants and not push that responsibility to others.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 26/11/2003 17:34
(Orlath) I'm curious, perhaps you couod tell me where in the King James Bible, Jesus is reported to have dissallowed the use of blood transfusions? I'm not a medical person but I wasn't aware that people, 2000+ years ago were medically advanced enough for blood transfusions to be availalbe
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 26/11/2003 17:53
The statement, “Jehovah's Witnesses … believe there is a better safer treatment then blood transfusions” is obviously illogical. A decision like this can only be made by experts in medicine and not the followers of a particular and may I say weird religion. It is as daft as saying say, “JW’s believe that diesel engines are better for the environment than petrol” or a car mechanic to give advice to a computer programmer or visa versa. Noel says that the “instruction given in the Bible” prohibits blood tx, but only JW’s believe this and not the other billion Christians. One of the major “proofs” that all religious thinking is intrinsically wrong is that they all contradict one another, therefore at the very least most of them must be wrong. Because we now know that most of them must be wrong, how can we allow this class of people to decide to prevent necessary medical treatment for defenseless children on the basis of their religions? The bible is contradictory nonsense. JW’s & all Christian sects select quotes from the bible when it suits them and ignore others or decide they are allegorical when they disagree with them. All Christian & Islamic groups do this, e.g. the bible seems to prohibit homosexuality and this is used as a reason not to allow it but it also proscribes the death sentence for homosexuality. So if you quote the bible to ban homosexuality then you must also call for the death penalty for it. JW’s do not believe in evolution but now the Pope, another Christian, has said that its OK. Whose interpretation is correct? As for the bible being right, this is totally daft. The sun does not go around the Earth, the world is not 6,000 years old, plants & animals were not just put here they evolved, homosexuality is in your genes and cannot be related to morality and blood transfusion is not immoral. Noel does not “make decisions”, his religion does and I have already pointed out the dangers there. Noel never answered a previous question. Noel and the JW’s believed in the early ‘70’s, presumably based on their interpretation of the bible, that the world was about to end. Many of them gave away all their money. It didn’t end and the whole matter caused a schism in the JW religion. If this interpretation was wrong then how does he know that his blood tx position is not wrong?
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 27/11/2003 11:31
Orlath, asked where in the King James Bible is the statement about blood that we take as grounds to refuse Blood, there are many referances but one is Acts 15 v 20, it reads in the King James (very old English)"But that we write to them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and From fornication, and From things strangled and From blood." This was the outcome of the first Apostols council where they also stated that circumcision and other requirements under the Jewish law were no longer binding on Christians. History demonstrates that at that time in the Roman Areana's it was considered a "health tonic" to drink fallen gladiators blood. As regards Williams comments all I can say is he is believing anti Jehovah's Witness propaganda, I was a Witness in the early 70's and we never taught that 75 would end the world, we firmly believe Jesus words that "no one knows the day and the hour". I know no Wittness that "gave all their money away" as a result of any teaching regarding the end of the world. We are rational truthful people who take seriously the bible injunction to take care of our family's well being, not only spiritually but physically giving away all ones wealth is not conducive to that. William you really dont know what the "Bible" actualy teaches, what you are attacking in your broad sweep is church specific teachings and not what the bible actually says, for example this thing about the age of the Earth, the Bible gives NO age for the Earth, its very opening words in Genesis 1v1 are "In the begining God created the Heavens and the Earth." NO time frame is given, this we believe took place billions of years ago. The Bible says nothing about the SUN going around the Earth, its comment on the Earth in the book of Job (over 3,000 years ago)is that it is a Sphere hanging on nothing (no flat Earth). As I said if one wants to discuss other issues beyond our stand on blood feel free to communicate directly with me and I will be happy to go into detail an each specific subject. Moral issues do effect our actions and these actions often effect our and others health, take smoking for example if one claims to uphold the moral code to "Love your neighbour" could one then smoke in public places and cause harm to their health, or even more so to ones children in our homes? I would think not. We now know the facts about smoking, so should the state take out court orders to stop parents damaging their childrens health in the home? We as JW's wont damage our childrens health in this way because of a moral Bible principle. We took that stand in the 60's when the facts about smoking came to public attention. There are over 6 Million practicing JW which include many doctors also there are many non Witness doctors who respect our views and will provide alternate treatment covering all types of operations from open heart surgery to transplants.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 27/11/2003 12:28
(Orlath). Thank you Noel for your explanation. "they abstain from pollutions of idols, and From fornication, and From things strangled and From blood" This is taken to mean refranining from adoring false Gods, sexual contact outside marriage and as you so plainly state yourself the latter refers to drinking of fallen gladiators blood. How you can then take this to refer to blood transfusions (not then in medical use as far as I'm aware) is completely incomprehensible to me, not to mention illogigal, as is the fact that you can contradict yourself in that statement and not see it. Please don't misunderstand me, I am not out to criticize JW's, only to try to understand your point about blood transfusions. Cetainly not worshipping false idols and not having sexial contact outside marriage are perfectly understandable ideals and I'm not particularly against any religion provded they do not discriminate against a particular section of society or seek to hurt themselves or others but I cannot see where the objection to transfusions fit in.
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 27/11/2003 15:51
Orlath, The word abstain means just that, not to take it into ones body, no of course they did not have transfusions then but some still ingested it for health reasons. Consider if a alcoholic was told he must abstain from alcohol would it mean he could inject it directly into his veins so he could say he did not drink it? No, it would not be abstaining. Also consider the other instruction to abstain from fornication, the whole world knew when Clinton stated he did not have sex with Monica Lewinskey it was ridiculous (he certainly was not abstaining from fornication) but he did not have what would be considered conventional sex. Or say a person is told that they must stop smoking and they now chew tobacco are they sticking to the principle of the instruction, of course not. We view the instruction to abstain from fornication the same as we do the instruction to abstain from blood, they are principles. There are many principles stated in the Bible that we do have to consider how they apply in modern settings, we are not looking for issues to make life difficult but we are not looking to dodge around them either. Another example of this is the instruction to "love your neighbour" we reason on this principle and other statments from Jesus like "he who lives by the sword will die by the sword, put it away" to include we should not kill our neighbour, so we will not join army's. This stand sometimes costs JW their lives and liberty, does that mean you should not obey this principle, we dont think so. It certainly is a tough decision. We are not seeking martyrdom. That is why we will very actively seek alternate treatments to blood transfusion (other types of transfusion and treatments).
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 28/11/2003 09:16
(Orlath) Certainly I can understand your pint about fornication and killing - perfectly understandable ideals but to be fair all types of killing as indeed all types of fornication we're around 2,000 years ago but transfusions were not so how you can take the bibbe to refer to soemthign that didn't exist I cannot comprehend? Just out of interest, does the religion (sect, call it what you will) allow members to donate blood? Or give their own blood before an elective procedure (some operations, I understand, carry a higher risk of this that others) so that it can be stored should they need it after surgery. Also do you allow platelets to be used for transfusion? Like I say, I'm not out to criticize, just to understand
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 28/11/2003 14:07
Orlath, The point I would hold and make is that although transfusions did not exist in the first century then and long before it blood was used in medicine, the only real differance between drinking it and injecting it in ones veins is the transport mechanism, which ever way it is done does not change the fact that it is imbibed. there is over 300 referances in the Bible to blood and it is often linked to ones life force. The first referance is in Genisis so those reading it 3000 + years ago would have also known of people that used for blood medical treatment. It is interesting how the ancient Egyptians viewed it I quote "human blood was regarded as the sovereign remedy for leprosy". In ancient Assyria one physician recorded his treatment of King Eser-Haddons son "The Prince is doing much better; the King my lord can be happy. Starting the 22nd day I gave him blood to drink, he will drink it for 3 days". It was in the 16th Century that blood transfusions began to be experimented with and one comment from Thomas Bartholin (1616-1680), professor of Anatomy at the University of Copenhagen in his objection to it, when comparing drinking human blood to feeding it into a cut vein was "Either manner of taking blood accords with one and the same purpose, that by this blood a sick body be nurished". We view it the same way. As regards your other questions. We do not give or take blood for transfusions. As Platelets are one of the four primary parts of blood we would not take a transfusion of them. We do not store blood pre operation. As said before we as Jehovah's Witnesses do not try to impose our views on non Witnesses, we believe people must make their own choices but we are happy to answer questions and share our succeses with non blood medical treatment.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 29/11/2003 17:40
Noel ignores the point I already made that as different religions interpret the bible differently it MUST be ambiguous and therefore useless in an argument or as proof of a particular position. There is no point Noel or anyone else quoting the bible, millions of other bible scholars will simply contradict him not to mention Jews and Muslims whose religion is also tied to the bible, although JW's will argue about their interpretation all day long if allowed, particularly on your door step. On the other hand Science is not ambiguous and where it has clashed with religious beliefs over the last few hundred years it has ALWAYS won because it can prove what it says. Furthermore all scientific theories make predictions and these predictions have come true in hundreds of thousands of experiments and observations. This includes evolution. As the evolutionist Richard Dawkins says, “The answer to every question in Biology is Evolution”. Noel says, “In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth”. This is completely wrong. In the beginning there was the Big Bang, then the Hydrogen cooled and formed stars, then the stars via nuclear fusion made other heavier elements, then some bigger stars exploded and in doing so generated even heavier elements, then other generations of stars formed, then the heavier elements formed planets around the stars, then life evolved on the planets and here we all are. No God involved. The vast, and I meant vast majority of all the millions of Scientists on Earth believe this is how we got here, however JW’s don’t. JW’s are wrong. The Scientists are right. If anyone bases any opinion on a book written by humans that is not based on evidence/observation, measurement, logic & proof then quoting it is not alone a complete waste of time it is almost certainly going to be wrong. The bible has predicted absolutely nothing, where it tried to explain where we came from it was wrong. It is a book written by technologically primitive men thousands of years ago and mainly based on their current and previously handed down superstitions, and it shows. The bible has been the basis of the following beliefs & actions; gross discrimination against women, slavery, oppression of others, homophobia, the burning of (mainly) women to death, executions, torture, the burning of heretics, war, the imprisonment, killing & oppression of scientists, the banning of books & films, sexual hang ups, banning of contraception, banning of medical intervention and of course the banning of blood transfusions. All totally 100% wrong. It is a puzzle why someone educated like Noel continues to believe in nonsense such as Creationism as opposed to Evolution but it is probably to do with how the brain learns. There seems to be evidence that once someone forms firmly held opinions that theses pillars that support the persons notion of “self” cannot easily be knocked over. To actually prove to Noel that there is no God would probably cause a great deal of trauma. The brain washing of defenceless children whose brains have not developed the skills & tools to question what they are told, poor education particularly in science, alcoholism & drug addiction, nervous disorders & breakdowns, are probably related to why so many people can “believe 6 impossible things before breakfast” as the Queen in Alice in Wonderland said. Once anyone uses the bible to argue against science then they are going to be wrong, AGAIN.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 01/12/2003 10:11
I think it would be extrememely dagerous to allow the opinions of Jehovas Witnesses to influence the medical treatment of anyone. Afterall, if we allow all religious superstition to influence medical intervention, what would be next, docters agreeing to mutilate little children because their parents thought it was for the good? No, we must ever allow this to happen
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 01/12/2003 10:30
Hi Noel, thanks for the response. Tho to be honest, I think the opinion of 1616-1680 would be outdated and primitive to say the least. Why tho' are member not allow ed to store blood pre-op. I cannot understand how their owm blood could have any negative health implications. Maybe you could tell me? Also, is organ donation / transplantation allowed? Also, why would it not be acceptable for a parent to to donate blood exclusively for use with their child. Afterall, if they were in good health, had refrained from transfusions themselves and from fornication, then how could their blood pase a risk to their own child? Finally, are JW's vegetarians? I ask this becuase surely eating meat (streak, liver etc) involves by its very nature, the injesting of some blood components. I'd be very interested to hear your response on these.
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 01/12/2003 12:45
Williams comments are almost bordering on religious belief in science, I am a great believer in science myself (but do not believe it is infalible) and the benefits scientific research can bring mankind, but don’t forget the harm it can bring also (arms, enviorenmental pollution etc). To believe in evolution as William appears to would mean ruling out moral reasoning. Remember evolution is only a theory. There are many variants of evolutionary theory. What Genises 1.1 says (not my words but the Bibles) is in total harmony with the idea of the Big Bang. What it goes on to say it that “Intelligent Design” (God) was explicitly involved in making life and the elements that sustain it come about in an orderly and logical manner (which coincides with the fossel record). As regards the point made that different religions teach different (often contradictory)things, that is true, but you will find that most of the differences are “church” doctrine, I remember in school being thought the catechism only later to fully realise that the majority of it was church teachings and not from the Bible at all. It was because of the church suppression of the Bible that in the middle ages we had the burnings and book banning (the Bible was banned for hundreds of years in many languages). So it is grossly incorrect to blame the Bible for the disgraceful conduct of society when the Bible it self condemns the actions referred to. Is Anonymous saying that no parental choice on type of treatment should be allowed if it differs from a doctors? Jehovah’s Witnesses do not try to force Doctors to treat us in a way that does not agree with their conscience. Orlath, asked about why we don’t store blood pre operation. We view this as having left the body and therefore no longer part of our life force and once that has happened it would then be treated as any other foreign blood. Organ transplants are a matter of an individuals conscience and some JW’s would have a transplant and some would not, I read recently of a very successful liver transplant operation on a Witness in the UK without blood transfusions being used. We are not vegetarians (although some would chose to be so for personal reasons). As noted in Genises and in Acts meat used for food is to be bleed and was part of the regular diet. The Bible did not demand every drop of blood to be squeezed out, it over and over again says the “life blood” must be poured out. Once the meat is bleed as it is normally done today (other then meat strangled or game trapped) it would conform to our requirements for acceptable food. In this regard though we would not eat black pudding (blood sausage etc.,).
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 01/12/2003 14:55
(Orlath) Thanks Noel, but maybe you could answer my questions regarding Why members are not allowed to store blood pre-op. I cannot understand how their own blood could have any negative health implications. Afterall, you say you are doing this for Healths sake, otherwise, it's just following a what you believe to be a rule, without reason or logic. Also, why would it not be acceptable for a parent to to donate blood exclusively for use with their child. Afterall, if they were in good health, had refrained from transfusions themselves and from fornication, then how could their blood pose a risk to their own child? Thanks.
 
  steve(stephenhayes20)  Posted: 01/12/2003 17:57
'' The right of a person to control his/her body is a concept that has long been recognised by common law.The tort of battery has traditionally protected the interest in bodily security from un-wnnted physical interference. Basically an intentional non-consensual touch which is harmfull or offensive to a person's reasonable sense of dignity will be liable in batteryeven if was performed with a high degree of skill and was be-nifitted the patient.'' ''every human being of adult years & sond mind has a right to determine what should be done with his or her own body.'' To neol and william i have watched with interest as your debate rages and i think ye are forgetting yhe issue.I am a medical student doing an essay on this precise subject and to a degree your viewpoints are excellant guage where the opinions of both parties lie. To the jehovah may i say that your viewpoint is based on its entirity on the teachings of the good book but i appeal to YOUR sense of right and wrong and ask you sincerely do you believe it is right not for a doctor to attempt to save the life of a patient.Above i have placed 2 pieces of what today founds the backbone of the view of the courts in relation to the adults and i think it is a correct view.however this is where my views end in relation to you. To th non-jehovah i say this ''the emergency situation is an exception to the general rule requiring a patients prior consent.When immediate medical treatment is necessary to save the lifewho,by reason of unconsciousness or extreme illness; is incapableof either giving or witholding consent the doctor may give a transfusion.'' In my view the delivery of medical servicesis rendered lawfull on the rationale tha the doctor by reason of necessity in giving the aid and is not liable for so doingIt has statistically been asserted that a physician has implied consent to deliver medical servicesto the patient, but lawfull action is better explained as a privilege. The are three requirments A)The patien must be unconsious or without capacity to make a decision while no-one legally authorised to act as an agent for the patient is availaable B)Time must be of the essense C)Under such circumsrances, a reasonable person would consent and the probabilities are that the patient would consent I now leave it to anyone to enhanse further this topic.
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 01/12/2003 18:13
Orlath, I made an attempt to answer your quetion in the last mail "We view this as having left thviouslye body and therefore no longer part of our life force and once that has happened it would then be treated as any other foreign blood." but perhaps it is not clear enough. I accept that God through the Bible (which I believe is inspired by God)tells us to abstain from blood. From an indepth study of the many referances in the Bible to blood I learnt that it is viewed as the life source of all and therfore must be treated so. I believe the creator knows what is best for us and when he tells us to not do something it is for our benifit. The early Christians did not know the enherent dangers in blood transfusions but they (rightly)trusted in Gods word. So when he tells us to not Lie, cheat, steal, commit fornication, kill, get drunk and yes, abstain from blood. I have come to realise it is for our benifit to obey those injunctions. When mankind ignores or breaks these moral laws it is to society's detriment. It at times is expedient to break these moral principles and some times it is popular to do so. We try our best to uphold those moral laws even at great cost. But that is the choice we with free will make and we therefore take the consequences. I have chosen to do all in my power (not being perfect means at times I may fail in that endeavour) to obey the moral laws set out in the Bible as have all Jehovah's Witnesses.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 02/12/2003 10:26
(Orlath) Thanks Noel. I don't want to enter into a religious discussion as this is a medical forum but to be honest, I can see why killing, cheating, fornicating etc, would be acceptable standards for a community and I realise that the bible is open to everyone's interpretations (hence different sects) but I still cannot see why using your own pre-op stored blood, or a parent donating pre-screened blood for a child could have any implications for health or morality.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 02/12/2003 10:46
Stephen, the debate is not whether adults have the right to refuse blood transfusions but whether they can stop their children having them. If Noel wants to die as a consequence of refusing a transfusion I'm not going to stop him but the state has a right to stop him refusing medical aid to his children. Noel doesn’t “own” his children, they have rights, e.g. the state insists they are educated. I might add that Noel tramples on a most basic right when he brain washes his children into believing in the JW religion, but that’s another matter. There was a major court case in the USA when 2 children died after their Church of Christ Scientist parents did not get medical treatment because of their religion. About 3 months ago a religious sect in the USA killed a child while holding him tightly and praying over him in an attempt to cure him. Your point re “The right of a person to control his/her body is a concept that has long been recognised by common law” is not accurate as suicide is illegal.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 02/12/2003 11:18
Noel, “arms” were in use before Science. Science does not say its “infallible” only the Pope says that. The major cause of pollution is that there are too many people for the size of the planet. Many religions oppose contraception. Science does not cause pollution, people do. “To believe in evolution as William appears to would mean ruling out moral reasoning”. Is Noel serious? There are whole branches of philosophy devoted to Morality without God. Evolution is a fact. Therefore whether this does or does not rule our moral reasoning is beside the point. You cannot say that “in my opinion evolution cannot be true or we could not have morality”. Evolution cannot be made disappear because Noel feels the need for morality. I’m actually laughing as I write this…. There are not, “variants of evolutionary theory”. Noel uses the word “theory” and in quotes to try and fool you in thinking it mean unproven. This is a trick. Does Noel fell the same way about the “Theory” of Relativity, proven with thousands of experiments? If “Genises is in total harmony with the idea of the Big Bang” why do most fundamental Christians, including the leader of the largest political party in Northern Ireland believe that the world is 6,000 years old? I might add that the Big Bang is also a “theory”. The Big Bang and Evolution causes mega problems for religion because it shoves god out of the picture, at least back to 13,000,000,000 years ago. (PS Noel I’m surprised you can’t spell Genesis.) Orlath says, “I don't want to enter into a religious discussion as this is a medical forum”. The entire debate is whether a JW can refuse a medical treatment for their child BECAUSE of their religious beliefs. How can you debate that without a religious discussion? If you can prove that arguing a point from a religious interpretation of the bible is invalid, as it is because they all disagree with each other, then the JW position vanishes. Arguing as you are with Noel as if you accept that his interpretation of the bible might be correct is the wrong approach. By giving any validity to the bible you strengthen Noel's already very poor argument. The bible has no validity as no one has ever agreed on what is says. In fact it contradicts itself. Noel has to explain this fundamental problem with interpretation of the bible before he can use it as a source of truth. In fact the same can be said of religion in general. All the thousands of religions now and in the past have disagreed with each. Therefore we know that at least 99.999% of them are wrong.
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 02/12/2003 12:34
I would further comment that this issue is the right for a Parent to determine "Alternate treatment" for a dependent. We do not refuse treatment. Stephan, we do believe it is right for a Doctor to do all they can to save a patient and so as pointed out earlier we do not ask a doctor to do anything that his conscience will not allow. William, we do not brain wash our children, indeed we do not allow our children to become JW's until they are old enough to decide for them selves, in most JWs familys it is recognised that some children will and some wont become Witneses and that is how it work out in reality. In my experience those that don't is usually because they do not want to (or feel they cannot)live by the moral code required. We also actively encourage them to learn the beliefs of other religions and what evolutionists teach.
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 02/12/2003 12:47
William, Ops I misspelled Genesis, I guess that proves to you I must be really dumb!, I guess your point is proven. I am glad you are laughing as I find your belief in the theory of evolution also funny, Again you keep confusing what many religions say with what the bible says. The bible does not forbid contraception, it says nothing about it, so therefore we believe it is a matter of conscience. In studying the Bible for many years I have not found any contradictions in IT, yes there are many contradictions between church teachings and the Bible but not in the Bible itself, I think this is what many people get confused with.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 02/12/2003 13:28
Noel, do you still give your children the silly little JW book that says that evolution cannot be right as, \"how could a sheep evolve into a giraffe?\" :-) BTW I briefly worked with a JW in the early 70’s and he was adamant that the world would end by 1975. This wasn’t his opinion it was JW doctrine. I didn’t meet him again until about 1990 when I bumped into him going from door to door preaching. I pointed out that world hadn’t ended and he said that the JW’s had dropped that notion and that there had been a schism over it.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 02/12/2003 14:47
Noel, is there a contradiction between the following two paragraphs from the bible? Leviticus 3 17 " 'This is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, wherever you live: You must not eat any fat or any blood.' " Matthew 15 11What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' "
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 02/12/2003 15:11
Wiliam, Stick to the issue, what you are saying is not correct, it was never JW's "doctrine" that the world would end in 1975 and there certainly was no schism. If you want to discuss this in detail please email me directly. Your endeavour to ridicule our beliefs based on half truths and lack of real knowledge of what JW's believe does not help debate the point of this forum, the feature article on Jehovah's Witnesses position on Blood less medicine and non use of Blood transfusions. You obviously feel strongly about your views but I would ask you (if you dont want to directly communicate) to review the information on our web site (www.watchtower.org)to learn more clearly what we believe. I do not want to abuse this forum by going off into tangents.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 02/12/2003 16:26
Noel, I am sticking strictly to the issue. If you quote the bible as a source of truth and as part of your argument for refusing blood (in fact your entire argument as the other points you raised re alternatives & “informed choice” are red herrings) and I can prove the bible is wrong then you cannot continue to quote it. No one EXCEPT those who believe in the bible would quote it in the context of a discussion on medical procedures. JW’s interpreted the bible as saying that the world would end around 1975. When I mentioned 1975 it was from memory but when I looked up the web now I saw that 1975 was in fact a date specified by JW’s as the end of the world. If anyone wants to read up on this in detail see http://freeminds.org/history/1975.htm The quote below in which it specifically says, “From the most reliable investigations of Bible chronology” - The October 8, 1966 Awake! article "How Much Longer Will It Be?" "Hence, the fact that we are nearing the end of the first 6,000 years of man's existence is of great significance.Does God's rest day parallel the time man has been on earth since his creation? Apparently so. From the most reliable investigations of Bible chronology, harmonizing with many accepted dates of secular history, we find that Adam was created in the autumn of the year 4026 B.C.E. Sometime in that year Eve could well have been created, directly after which God's rest day commenced. In what year, then, would the first 6,000 years of man's existence and also the first 6,000 years of God's rest day come to an end? The year 1975. This is worthy of notice, particularly in view of the fact that the "last days" began in 1914, and that the physical facts of our day in fulfillment of prophecy mark this as the last generation of this wicked world. So we can expect the immediate future to be filled with thrilling events for those who rest their faith in God and his promises. It means that within relatively few years we will witness the fulfillment of the remaining prophecies that have to do with the "time of the end." " The May 1, 1968 Watchtower said on page 272: "The immediate future is certain to be filled with climactic events, for this old system is nearing its complete end. Within a few years at most the final parts of Bible prophecy relative to these "last days" will undergo fulfillment, resulting in the liberation of surviving mankind into Christ's glorious 1,000-year reign. What difficult days, but, at the same time, what grand days are just ahead!"
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 02/12/2003 16:56
William, the issue in reading the Bible and understanding it (as with most large documents) is to take the context into consideration. There is no contradiction between Lev 3v17 and Matthew 15v11. Leviticus 3 is talking specifically about an animal brought to the alter and sacrificed to God, it explicitly states in verse 16 "the Fat is for God "(to be burnt up completely), earlier it allowed the priest to keep some of the meat for his own use but not the Fat. (The reason for this is that the Fat of the meat was considered the best portion, so the underlying message was give your best to God). The context is clear, it is dealing with sacrificing on the alter. In Matthew 15v11 what Jesus said was in the context of an illustration on heart motivations, in verse 16 to 20 he explained this, concluding in verse 19 and 20 saying "For example out of the heart come wicked reasoning’s ...etc...(20)These are the things that defile a man; but to take a meal with unwashed hands does not defile a man". So the context always puts the passage in perspective. When one takes a verse out of context it can lead to appearing contradiction but in context it never does. Bear this in mind when some one quotes a scripture (or passage from any document) and uses that phrase out of context to justify their actions or beliefs, they are the ones contradicting the source material it does not necessarily mean the material is contradictory in itself. So there is no contradiction on a taking out of context, I hope this is helpful. We would take the same approach to all the referances to blood in the Bible, consider them in context and in relation to one another, this is what helps focus the mind on what the writer said rather then us trying to support preconcieved idea's.
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 03/12/2003 10:49
William quotes a Anti-Jehovah's Witnesses web site, but fails to include in his quote even their admission on their first paragraph "because the Society NEVER (capitals added by me) said flat-out that "the end" would come in 1975". Williams comments would have you believe we had said that. This was never a "teaching" of Jehovah's Witnesses, it was though a subject of study and debate, no more no less. I was a Witness then and yes much speculation cantered around 1975 in the context of Bible Chronology and some believed it was very significant BUT most didn’t, it was not a teaching that the end would come in 75. This discussion was part of a big and far ranging study on Bible chronology. When any organization produces a massive amount of study material there are bound occasionally to be times when it gets it wrong and some of the debate material was wrong. We do not claim infallibility. We do believe though that the Bible is divinely inspired, but not our literature or the editors and writers of articles. It reminds me of the first century Christians where sometimes one or more of the Apostles had to be corrected in their views or actions (they as individuals, including Peter were not infallible). Blood and it use is a clear Bible teaching. If you want to know what someone believes ask them, imagine asking the Pharisees (Jesus enemy’s) what did Jesus teach? You can imagine the distorted view you would get. I have no problem trying to address genuine questions people have about JW's, but to continue to spend time addressing side non specific forum topics I believe is bordering on abuse of this forum. As I said in an earlier response if anyone wishes to communicate about other non-forum issues or questions please email me directly.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 03/12/2003 12:13
I haven't time for a full reply at present but Noel also leaves out the full opening statement on that web site, "....but a white lie in that they now say all kinds of things that sweep the import of what they had said under the rug". I cannot be accused of not quoting as I gave the web address and anyone can read the full thing including all the other evidence that 1975 was believed to be the end of the world BASED on the JW interpretation of the bible.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 07/12/2003 23:52
I am again pressing the point that the JW belief that their interpretation of the bible says they should refuse blood transfusions cannot be acceptable to society because other interpretations they make from the bible are demonstrably wrong, e.g. repeatedly and erroneously predicting the end of the world & opposition to evolution as proven by science and the known history & pre-history of mankind. Noel says JW’s do not believe in Evolution, because they believe the bible contradicts it, just as they say it prohibits blood. It does appear though that JW’s believe that mankind has only been here for 6,000 years. That is ridiculous as there is much archaeological evidence for human settlements going back 10,000+ years. Is Noel suggesting that the 25,000 year old cave painting in France was done by apes? A recent book I read traced mankind’s history out of Africa 50,000 years ago by examining the DNA of existing human populations throughout the world. Every year that has passed since Charles Darwin, (undoubtedly one of the greatest Scientists that ever lived), published “The Origin of Species”, huge amounts of evidence in many different scientific disciplines has been discovered that validates Evolution and its timescale of billions of years. It’s interesting to see that the JW opposition to blood transfusions only began in 1945. At one stage the JW literature also forbad vaccination and organ transplant but they have changed their mind on that too. I spent an hour reading the web on the JW’s and the many controversies that surround them and their changing beliefs. There is no doubt that there is great denial among JW’s about the reality of what their religion has taught in the past. One page which is helpful on the Blood Transfusion issue is, “Is Blood FORBIDDEN Among Jehovah's Witnesses”, http://www.freeminds.org/doctrine/blood.htm Noel denied that there was a schism over the “end of the world” interpretation in 1975. In fact this was not the first time they predicted the end of the world. It was first supposed to end in 1914. Many JW’s left the organisation after the “disappointment” of 1975. The following web page has pictures of children that died as a result of JW prohibition on transfusions, http://www.ajwrb.org/index.shtml The horrible thing is that some pictures are taken from a JW publication and the children are put forward as “martyrs” to the cause, an interesting comparison with Muslims who martyr their children by turning them into human bombs on the basis of their religion. What would it be like to be the parent of a child that died because you thought that it was God’s will that you refuse a blood transfusion because of your religion’s interpretation of the bible and then some years later your church changed its mind like it has on its many predictions about the end of the world? Would you feel betrayed, angry, or maybe just what you would be – a dangerous fool. Footnote: Sorry for the length of this, but I found a funny rebuttal of Noel’s earlier statement that if evolution was true then there could be no morality…, “Anyone who has debated the existence of God with a Christian is sure to have been presented with some variant of the following proposition: "If God does not exist, then there is no reason to do x," where x is any kind of behavior that most of us think morality requires. For instance, a missionary that intercepted me en route to a bookstore last month informed me that if God did not exist, then there would be no reason for one to remain faithful to one's spouse or to care for one's children. Such assertions are meant to imply that atheism is a path to evil, and Christianity a path to good. However, they actually prove quite the opposite. Imagine that somehow, someone comes up with a conclusive disproof of the existence of God. What would happen to my missionary friend? He believes that if God does not exist, there is no reason to be faithful to his wife or to care for his children. So in the face of proof that God does not exist, this missionary would apparently give in to whatever lust and laziness he might feel, and thus wreck what should have been a close, loving family. How about an atheist like me? What would a conclusive disproof of the existence of God do to my moral stature? Considering that I don't believe in God to begin with, the answer is that a disproof of the existence of God would not cause me to change my moral views at all. But I think I can speak for most atheists when I say that cheating on one's spouse or abandoning one's children is not morally acceptable. As far as the atheist is concerned, the Christian assertion that "if God does not exist, then there is no reason to care for one's children" is false. The Christian may believe that proposition if he wants, but we atheists will have no part of such immorality. Although, judging from their assertions, Christians seem to believe that it is wrong to abandon one's children only if God exists, atheists believe it is wrong to abandon one's children regardless of whether or not God exists, and this gives the atheist a much stronger moral foundation than the Christian. A good atheist parent probably looks after her children because she loves them - love itself gives her every reason to not abandon them. But if the Christians really believe that the nonexistence of God leaves them no reason to not abandon their children - not even the reason of love - it follows that Christians do not love their children. But then again, what can one expect from a religion that teaches that the greatest manifestation of love is an entity that jealously tortures or destroys everyone who does not love, worship, and glorify it above everything and everyone else forever?”
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 08/12/2003 00:07
PS Noel, have you read Darwin's, The Origin Of Species? A wonderful book. Totally testable by observation, experiment and logical argument. Virtually all scientists believe it to be accurate. Compare this to the bible, all Christians disagree about what it says, in fact have killed each other in the millions because of it.
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 08/12/2003 16:34
Yes, I have read Darwins Origin of the Species, I did believe evolution was true at one time but as I seriously investigated the anomalies in the idea I came to the conclusion that what the Bible “actually” (as opposed to the “church” stories) teaches as regards creation is much more accurate where it touches on scientific matters. There are many scientists who disagree with Darwins theories, even many current day evolutionists, just as there are many religious people disagree with each others beliefs. But so what?, we are supposed to be debating the right for parents to chose alternate medical treatment. Our choice to refuse blood transfusions for our selves and our dependents is based yes, on what the Bible teaches as we understand and accept it, but that belief is not without evidence that what is taught in the Bible has always been for humans benefit, which is why we are not surprised to find more and more medical professionals not only prepared to operate with no blood but some preferring it as it has proven to lower mortality risks overall, and enhance post operative recovery. Also we are seeing as we learn more about blood how intricate it actually is and how difficult it is for man to cover all potential dangers it can transport.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 09/12/2003 10:44
I still cannot comprehend, not have I recieved an explanation for how using ones own pre-op stored blood in a potentially life treatening situation, or a parent using their screened blood to use for their own child could have damaging health implications
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 09/12/2003 10:46
I/M SURE IT SAYS SOMEWHERE IN THE BIBLE ''THOU SHALT NOT STEAL''. HOWEVER WOULD A PERSON BE MORRALLY WRONG TO STEAL FOOD TO FEED A STARVING CHILD?? WHICH IS THE LESSER EVIL LETTIGN A CHILD DIE BECASUE OF LACK OF SOMETHING THEY DADLY NEED WHICH CULD BE RELATIVELY EASILY GOTTEN OR THE KEEPING OF AN UNFOUNDED UNPROVEN ''RULE''
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 09/12/2003 12:36
Orlath, I made an attempt to answer your question in a previous mail "We view this (blood pre stored) as having left the body and therefore no longer part of our life force and once that has happened it would then be treated as any other foreign blood." but perhaps it is not clear enough. I accept that God through the Bible (which I believe is inspired by God)tells us to abstain from blood. From an indepth study of the many referances in the Bible to blood I learnt that it is viewed as the life source of all and therfore must be treated so. I believe the creator knows what is best for us and when he tells us to not do something it is for our benifit. The early Christians did not know the enherent dangers in blood transfusions but they (rightly)trusted in Gods word. So when he tells us to not Lie, cheat, steal, commit fornication, kill, get drunk and yes, abstain from blood. I have come to realise it is for our benifit to obey those injunctions. When mankind ignores or breaks these moral laws it is to society's detriment. It at times is expedient to break these moral principles and some times it is popular to do so. We try our best to uphold those moral laws even at great cost. But that is the choice we with free will make and we therefore take the consequences. I have chosen to do all in my power (not being perfect means at times I may fail in that endeavour) to obey the moral laws set out in the Bible as have all Jehovah's Witnesses. Now one may not agree with us upholding those principles in life treatening situations but once you start breaking principles you believe in where do you draw the Line. When individuals don't agree with our view we take the position that we need to just agree to differ.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 09/12/2003 12:53
(Orlath) Sorry Noel, I still cannot see how using one's OWN blood, or a parent giving their (screened) blood to a child could have damaging health implications. Certainly principles have a price and it is easy to debate what one would do in theory but when the price of logically weighing up the benefit of an emergency tranfusion with a dead child, I don't know how those parents can live with themselves.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 09/12/2003 13:48
Noel, you are being disingenuous at best and in my opinion dishonest (isn’t a lie always a sin?) when you compare the disagreement bible scholars have with each other and more so, they have with other religions, with the disagreements about the minutiae WITHIN evolution that scientists have. You said, “There are many scientists who disagree with Darwin’s theories”. If that is to imply that there are MANY Scientists who do not believe in evolution then that statement is an outright lie. I would say that you would have a great deal of difficulty finding more than a handful of Biologists in the entire world out of the millions that work in this field that do not believe in evolution. As someone has said, “the Nobel Prize awaits the discoverer of proof that evolution is wrong”. The only people who do not believe in evolution are people whose thinking has been warped by religion or those that do not understand it. When you say, “I seriously investigated the anomalies in evolution and came to the conclusion…”, you are actually saying that you, Noel May, have personally studied evolution and decided that the millions of scientists that have done research & published it to scrutiny from other scientists and devoted their lives to studying evolution are wrong and you are right. I think not. It has always amazed me that some people will fly in aeroplanes developed by scientists, even fly to the moon, use computers, TV’s, electricity, etc. developed by them using the Scientific Method but decide that while all these scientists are right the ones that do exactly the same science, use the same methodology, are educated & teach in the same universities but teach evolution are wrong because of what some religions interpret from the bible. So Noel agrees with all the scientists that do work in areas unrelated to comments in the bible, e.g. astronomy, physics, computers, and disagrees with the ones that publish work he thinks contradicts the bible. That means that there is an amazing coincidence that scientists working in fields that are not mentioned in the bible are correct but the ones that happen to work in areas where the bible comments are wrong. Why does Noel believe in the work of scientists that work in areas unrelated to the bible? If he doesn’t trust them in one area, why another? The JW’s state that the bible contradicts evolution. This is further proof that the bible is wrong. If the bible is wrong then it cannot be “inspired” by god and everything else in it is totally irrelevant and useless including a prohibition on blood transfusions. It is laughable to say that the bible is much more accurate about science than science itself. If parental choice (although I would argue someone whose mental reasoning is corrupted by the JW sect has limited choice) may damage a child in the opinion of a medical expert then the state is obliged to interfere. The child cannot make a choice and the parent is incapable. Let’s look at the simple and obvious truth. Religion has been around for tens of thousands of years. It started in a time when there was no education, no learning, no science, no writing, no maths, etc.. It tried to explain our existence and the world around us. It got it wrong. It would have been amazing if men in pre-history got it right. Even Noel would admit that the earlier religions & beliefs were wrong. The bible was written by ordinary men. It was not inspired by God. Recently science came along and proved enormously successful in explaining how the world actually works. While making these discoveries it showed that many of the statements in the bible were wrong which is exactly what you would expect. Today religion should be history. It’s not because of tradition & family upbringing. Universal education is relatively new and only now breaking away from the grip of the religious. In future religion will die away completely and be replaced by a rational and provable explanation of reality. The end is coming Noel but its not the pessimistic fire and brimstone end of the world as predicted many times by the JW religion but the end of ignorance, false gods and the martyring of defenceless children on the altar of superstition.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 13/12/2003 14:47
I'd just like to say a big THANK YOU to williamgrogan for giving me such an interesting, funny and informative read. I was brought upcatholic, married an atheist and didn't baptise my children despite a lot of pressure to do so and all I could say too myself while reading your responses were whew!! I am so relieved to have finally managed to free myself from all religious propaganda! cheers!!
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 09/02/2004 22:14
If as a doctor my first duty is to save lives and if a patient refuses to accept the blood or in the case of a child permisson is refused then as a doctor i would find this refusal very frustrating and i would not be able to debate the religious side of it at all.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 10/02/2004 08:55
I would have thought as a doctor, your first duty of care would be to save the life of a dying child, not give in to the unproven superstition of a parent who is willing to let that child die.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 10/02/2004 21:26
to the message posted10/2/04 please read my message again i think i made it plain that i would not give into unproven superstition i would have no time for this religious rubbish to the life of a child i know what it is like to lose a child and whether as a parent or as a doctor I would do anything to save the life of that child
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 11/02/2004 11:36
To Jehovah's Witnesses the issue is not "superstition" it is based on a clear injunction in the Bible as mentioned in previous emails. Of course for individuals that consider the Bible “superstition” this is no argument, but remember we always ask that ALTERNATE safer medical procedures be used for which we have abundant medical evidence of successful usage. We do not refuse medical treatment. We contend that parents must have the right to choose what TYPE of treatment they accept. If this is not the case then how do you deal with the similar choice that a mother giving birth faces when her life is in danger due to birth complications, who chooses parent or doctor or a court? I would contend that the parents (if in sound mind) are responsible to make that choice. With Blood transfusion we have the right to refuse such treatment in favour of alternatives. We always seek active medical treatment for our ill loved ones.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 12/02/2004 17:22
The state has decided that you do NOT have that right. What the state is saying (and funnily not withstanding that we still live in a Catholic/relgious state)is that you are not fit to make that decision. Pretty insulting to your point of view isn't it?
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 13/02/2004 08:54
Where the mothers life is in danger due to birth compkiucatiosn,the decision should and does lie with the mother. The doctor will always favour the mother.
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 13/02/2004 10:33
William is incorrect, the State has not decided as part of the nations laws that Blood transfusion must be administered as a treatment where doctors feel a childs life is treatened, when they or the hospital take the matter to court sometimes certain individual Judges do make a court order for a Doctor or hospital officer to have temporary legal authority to authorise it to happen but as many again (and the trend is more)rule in favor of the parents right to chose the type of treatment. We recognise that this is a very emotive issue and Judges are as prone as anyone else to chose to interpret the information presented one way or another. Fortunately the majority of doctors today feel they are able to treat in harmony with the parents wishes and do not resort to courts to get their way.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 13/02/2004 11:51
William is not incorrect. The Judges administer the law of the land. I am well aware there is no specific law that says, "JW's cannot decide to refuse blood transfusions to their children". The law does allow judges to overrule parents where they feel that the parents cannot or will not make what is the correct decision for the child, and so it should be. If a doctor allowed a child to die because his parents refused a blood transfusion he would in all likelihood be struck off. Anyone who studies evolution and then believes that it does not describe how the various species originated and still believes that a god (that they can’t prove exists) put them all here at the one time is not someone who I would trust to make an analysis of anything!
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 13/02/2004 14:26
It is not true that Doctors are likely to be struck off by treating a patient in harmony with the parents wishes. We do not refuse treatment and doctors very often treat "life threatening" blood loss situations /illnesses very successfully without blood. The notion mentioned that because you believe in GOD your decision making capability is faulty and can't be trusted is the height of nonsense and it demeans rational debate on this highly emotive and important topic. Remember the topic is not did God creat us or did we evolve from nothing, it is about "who has the right to determine the type of treatment administered to a child".
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 13/02/2004 17:40
I didn’t say that doctors could not treat life threatening illnesses without transfusions. Of course they can. What I did say is that a doctor would be struck off, and rightly so, if he did not do a blood transfusion where it was necessary to save the life of a child simply because of the religious beliefs of the child’s parents and the child died. This is somewhat interesting and similar to the debate in France where the French parliament has overwhelmingly voted in favour of a ban on the Muslim headscarf and other overt religious symbols despite the wishes of the parents. I’m sure even Noel would agree that the state cannot let ANY belief system of a parent override the welfare of that person’s children. Presumably Noel does not agree with female circumcision being allowed in Ireland? If some nut decided that he should sacrifice his eldest son to god as in the bible, Noel presumably would object. You would wouldn’t you? If in the opinion of a qualified doctor a blood transfusion is necessary to save the life of a child then the doctor must carry out that transfusion and if necessary seek a judges ruling which normally means making the child a ward of court. Noel knows that the lack of a transfusion has resulted in the death of children. The JW magazines boast how children have died as a result of “their faith”. They are held up as martyrs and an example to all for their adherence to their religion. Martyring you children to your illogical superstitious beliefs is one of the most despicable things imaginable. My point about evolution is relevant. The JW “view of reality” is totally daft and when this interferes with the safety of their children society must interfere. No one ever said species “evolved from nothing”. As science progresses the JW position on evolution becomes even more daft and unsustainable. As Noel says in a previous post at least he has given up on the 6,000 years old Earth theory that JW’s did subscribe to. Many if not most of the other fundamental Christian sects still do. Every week that passes sees more and more evidence that evolution is how all the species got here. Scientists are now making inroads into what came before the first cells and how life originated as complex chemical reactions. Physicists through String Theory are now getting close to understanding the Big Bang and why it occurred. They are uniting Relativity and Quantum Mechanics and producing a Theory of Everything that will link all the forces in nature and explain the structure of all Elementary Particles. Like all people who believe in daft things, JW’s manage to totally ignore any evidence, scientific research and proof that might interfere with their preconceived illogical beliefs.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 06/08/2004 07:42
The Irish Times has an article today, \"Court allows baby to have surgery\". For copyright reasons I cannot quote except for a small bit ... “A five-month-old baby girl is to undergo heart surgery in Dublin next week after the High Court yesterday extended an order overruling opposition on religious grounds from her mother to the treatment. …At first the baby\'s mother had agreed to the use of blood and blood products as part of the treatment. However, the court heard that following \"support\" from the Jehovah\'s Witnesses community, she had later withdrawn her consent.” Imagine having philosophical arguments with the prize the death of a 5 month old child? Does “support” mean pressure or maybe brain washing or maybe the threat of being ostracised?
 
  mary(SKT16542)  Posted: 06/08/2004 17:54
I have been reading a number of discussions on this site re. the Bible-based refusal of Jehovah's Witnesses to accept blood transfusions, (including a post from a correspondent who, although not a Witness, expressed her own desire to be treated without blood for health reasons),and I just wish to make the point that there seems to me to be some considerable irony in the fact that, on the day that we read of the High court order to force a blood transfusion on this child, the main news item is the heightened fear of many new cases of transfusion-related CJD. Is it beyond us to accept that perhaps-just perhaps-the Creator really DID know what he was talking about?
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 09/08/2004 08:26
Where the person is incapable of withholding consent in a life-saving procedure (an infant for exampe) and the legal guardian (mother in this case) is not responsible enough to do so, then the state (High court) must step in. As all blood is now screened, one is more likely to contract CJD from meat products than blood. Are JW's alaso vegetarians??
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 09/08/2004 09:08
Anonymous, asks if Witnesses are vegetarians, some are but most would not be as in the general population. As we all should know by now more people die from having blood transfusions then do those who refuse them (and seek appropriate alternative treatment) All the Tribunals related to this surely tells us something about the dangers. Before AIDS was diagnosed blood for transfusions was screened but not for AIDS (to the tragic loss of life for thousands of people who got infected blood) a then unknown disease, new disease's are unfortunately cropping up all the time and screening can only be retrospective. That is a risk that all face with all intrusive medical treatment (bad side effects). A comment was made by an earlier correspondent recently about pressure being brought on the unfortunate person recently in the news, no such pressure was or would be brought indeed the person was not known in Ireland as a Witness until she asked for assistance (she is a temporary immigrant).
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 09/08/2004 10:27
Of copurse more die from having transfusions than from refusing them. There are far more non-JW's in the world than JW's. We all know that JW's take the attitude that children who die of abuse (which is the form of neglect that denying your child medical treatment is.) are considered 'martyr's for their faith'.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 09/08/2004 10:53
Mary makes the point that maybe god knew something when he (according to the JW’s) proscribed blood transfusions but then is this only the JW god or is it the Catholic god? If indeed god included this warning to protect us how come only JW’s have interpreted it? Isn’t god a tiny bit unfair to the other 2 billion+ Christians, not to mention the other religions, that he didn’t make the point a bit clearer? The JW’s take the warning so serious they are prepared to endanger the lives of their children and in fact their publications actually boast of their children that “martyered” themselves (or more accurately were martyred by their parents) by refusing blood transfusions. As I see it there are two possibilities, either god did warn of the dangers but did so in a grossly immoral and ambiguous manner or there is no such warning from any god. I think the later is most likely.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 09/08/2004 11:42
As for refusal of blood transfusion being anythign to do with protecting children from cjd or HIV, this is nonsense. JW'sdon even allow pre-op stored blood to be used for elective proceedures. This would have NO risk and could only be used for benefit.
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 09/08/2004 12:40
Anonymous is correct in pointing out that there are far more non Witness in the world who have transfusions, I should have added “proportionately”. For example if we took the 6.5m + Witnesses and compared them to say Ireland as a population and review the last twenty years, we know clearly from the evidence of the Blood tribunal alone that many people have (and will die) from infected blood, both with Aids and Hepatitis C. CJD is yet to unfold. The number of Witness’s who have died in that period because of refusing Blood is far far less. We have seen a small number of legal cases where parents wanted to make sure they got (in their thought out view) the best treatment for their child. The Press in most of these cases sensationalise the process and often present only a partial account of the event. As regards Williams comments, the Bible also says clearly that one should not get drunk, or commit fornication or lie yet the VAST majority of people who also claim to be guided by the bible ignore these injunctions also. More over when Christ in the gospels told us to love our enemy and not to take up the sword most religions (the billion + William referred to ) ignore this also and not only go to war but bless the very weapons of war. So I don’t think the example of “religions” support of bible standards is a measure to compare what Witnesses adhere to. We as Witnesses do not seek martyrdom, all death is extremely sad and hurtful. We are though very conscious of the good example ones who despite massive pressure and sometimes great cost adhere to their convictions and beliefs and refuse to break any of the Bibles moral code.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 09/08/2004 12:56
So if you quote cjd and aids as vaild reasons for refusing transfusiuons on behalf of your children (who do not have the rioghtto decide for themselves) what justification, then can you give for refusing one's one pre-op stroed blood for elective procedures. This poses no risk and can only be of benefit?
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 09/08/2004 17:23
The pacifism of JW's is well known, but "would Christ who told us to love our enemy and not to take up the sword", also want us to allow the Nazi's to exterminate all the Jews? If the allies had not defeated the Nazi's and afterwards the communists most JW's would be also by now be exterminated as well as all the Jews in the world. This is the problem with all religions. If they decide something, no matter how daft, then the consequences can be catastrophic. When logic, evidence and rationality go out the window any deeply immoral behaviour can be condoned including the “martyring” of children and the flying of planes into skyscrapers. Fortunately we live in a scientifically based democracy and do not allow the erroneous philosophical beliefs of parents to cause the death of children.
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 09/08/2004 17:31
We as Witneses view abstenance from blood as a moral issue as set out in the bible. Please see the response given on this question earlier in the discussion track on 09/12/2003 and on 01/12/2003. The side effects just additionally demonstrate to us that the wisdom of the creator is far beyond what humans can often appriciate.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 10/08/2004 08:27
And how could your creator want little children (whom the creator has presumably also created) to die of what is medical neglect becuase parents are irresponsible enough to refuse to let surgeons use the childs own pre-op stored blood in the case of an elective procedure. I don't know how you could have it on your conscience to watch your own child die knowing your could do something as simple as give a transfusion and save their lives.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 10/08/2004 08:49
Noel says, “..demonstrate to us that the wisdom of the creator”, but *as interpreted only through their reading of the bible* by JW’s who represent 0.05% of the worlds population. One of the most amazing and illogical things about all religion is that they *all* think they are right. The fact that they all disagree with each other proves that at the very best most of them must be wrong. One of the major differences between science and religion is that science is always willing to accept change and needs proof to accept something, unlike religion. Noel is so sure that his religion is right and that the religion of the other 99.95% of the world’s population is wrong that he supports the martyring of children on that assumption.
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 10/08/2004 11:22
Anonymous asks how could God want little children to die, the answer is he doesn’t, no more then we who love our children want it either. What you fail to understand is that we seek “alternate treatment” which includes transfusions of non blood substitutes, which I personally believe is better and healthier overall anyhow. I do not believe that anyone can guarantee that any type of treatment in any critical life threatening situation will be successful, so we as parents must make the hard choices as to what we believe is best overall for the well being of our children. Witness’s make an informed choice not under pressure from anyone but having weighed up the consequences long before a crises hits.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 10/08/2004 11:36
But fopr a child not to have transfusions of their own pre-op stored blood? Can there be better than this when the need for a transfusion arises? How can this be logical?
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 10/08/2004 21:14
I would totally agree with Mick posted 27-08-04@ 02-49 How could anyone standbye and let this happen I know at first hand of having to watch someone die and to know there is nothing that anyone can do , but given a situation what some jehovah's believe and to put myself in that situation I could not and would not do it.But I think a lot of jehovahs do not agree with rule.
 
  Patricia(GMC11099)  Posted: 10/08/2004 21:59
I have been reading the exchanges above with a mixture of amusement and bemusement.....so, I shall just tell a little story. A man (very hungry) sees a lovely piece of yellow cheese in the pantry. He grabs it and bites off several large chunks, which he starts chewing. In a few minutes bubbles and foam start to come out of his mouth. But, he continues to chew (you see he grabbed a large bar of old-fashioned soap instead of cheese in the pantry!) and though his eyes are bulging at the horrible taste he manages to mumble: "I know there are bubbles coming out of my mouth, but, I am telling you it is CHEESE and I insist it is cheese". And despite the protests of family members he continues to chew, swallow and insist it is CHEESE." An informed choice? I wonder..........
 
  Patricia(GMC11099)  Posted: 10/08/2004 22:09
Let\'s forget the transfusions for a moment...... Now, this \"take no blood\" (not to kill?). Many years ago my Dad had a good friend who was a JW. Dad and friend would argue well into the night, and Dad was well able to hold his own ( a well-read man, with a thorough knowledge of the Bible as well). So Dad one day asked his JW friend: \"If you came into your house one day and found a psychopath about to murder your wife and young son, but, you had a gun within easy reach and a good chance of getting the killer before he got to kill your wife and son, what would you do? Would you stick to your \"do not take blood\" philosophy, or let the psycho murder your wife and child horribly before your eyes? The friend could not reply to Dad.
 
  mary(SKT16542)  Posted: 10/08/2004 23:36
I can't understand why the writer of the original article stated that this issue was such a "grey area", as though there had been few cases of Witnesses in Ireland refusing blood transfusions. That this is not the case is evidenced by the fact that every year, a large number of Witnesses are treated without the use of blood.This site is a medical one, so, while recognising that the stand taken in this matter by Jehovah's Witnesses is first and foremost a religious one, let's (please!) look at the medical issues. Transplant surgery is routinely , and successfully, performed, in this country, and the medical personnel, being aware of the isuues, are in general, very happy to make use of non-blood therapy. That these favourable outcomes so rarely make headlines is not surprising, but it's a point worth making that they are in the vast majority.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 11/08/2004 09:00
I don’t think Mary’s last point is relevant. The doctors make a medical (i.e. a scientific) decision to operate in a particular way. They do so because in their professional opinion that is the best solution with the best prospect of a successful conclusion to the operation. Arguing whether or not there are other solutions on the basis of the religious beliefs of someone’s parents against the wishes of the doctors is wrong. Noel makes similar invalid points. He tries to claim that he also opposes the use of transfusions because of other spurious reasons, e.g. HIV infection, but he is being dishonest. The *actual* reason he opposes transfusions is nothing whatsoever to do with medical arguments but entirely due to religious reasons. I never heard of any patient opposing transfusions on medical grounds. The paradox that Patricia throws up is typical of the paradoxes that all religions throw up. They occur because the religions are wrong and when a theory is wrong it throws up contradictions. If it is right it cannot. There isn’t a single paradox of this nature when you have a humanist or scientific view of reality. Get real, the problem is the religion. In my opinion, the JW view of reality is totally wrong *and as a consequence* they end up in this absurd paradox where they try to prevent life saving treatment.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 11/08/2004 09:18
I think Patricia's point about the psychopath is very valid (to take blood = the taking of life) Is it just human life which is meant or are all JW's also vegetarians. Don't know what Patricia meant with the posting about cheese tho??
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 11/08/2004 09:31
Patrica, asked "Now, this "take no blood" (not to kill?)" and then concluded that it referred to killing, it doesent. The referances in the Bible quoted earleir in this track and the basis for Witnesses not taking blood transfusions(note we do take other non blood transfusions )clearly refer to imbibing blood. It is a matter of an individuals conscience as to weather he will defend himself or his family in the situation outlined. I personally would defend my family to the best of my ability. This whole area is very clear for Witnesses so I do not undrstand why your Dad's friend could not clearly answer it. That personal "in ones home situation" is far differant from one training for war (to hate ones enimies). The "cheese" illustration used makes perfect sense and I as a refuser of blood transfusions feel it is somewhat like that as regards blood, when we see the vast mounting evidance (foaming at the mouth as it were) showing how dangerous blood is in treatment and how effective non blood medical treatment is.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 11/08/2004 09:49
Howe can you be sure thay 'takign of blood' did not refer to the drinking of blood - a common practice during sacrifices which whould've taekn place in those times. Also, you would defend your child from death by killing an intruder. But when you can defend your child from death by allowing (for example) the use of their own pre-op stored blood which poses no risk whoch doesn't involve taking life and is completely safe, you would refuse to do do. Don't you feel then that you would have the blood of that child on your hands because they died because you refused consent for their life to be saved. Are children baptised (or whatever the JW equivalent is) into that religion as babies? If not, then they are not JW's, so how can you make that decision for them?
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 17/09/2004 04:53
Firstly I should say to anyone reading this that most Q&A re the Bible on this subject have been covered and you should either read from the start or look up the referances sited. Otherwise this is going to go around and around. I'll try to be brief if I can. I have read through these comments and a few things stand out. For one thing some comments aren't very respectfull. Generally throwing around adjetives like "silly" or "supersticious" when referring to another's beliefs is not really condusive to logical and calm debate. Many of the things we now take for granted in science today may have likewise been said to be supersticious many years ago if you were to say it to someone but not be able to prove it (you may have even been locked up or burned at the stake) But we now know better. Who's to say that some years from now Noel's point of view on blood alternatives could prove to be valid. Would it not be better to show some respect to each other's viewpoint and beliefs while trying to understand. My second point is; I feel some in an effort to simply attack Noel's beliefs at every oppertunity have strayed from the point. This is a wider issue than one of JW's alone. Doctors study long and hard to help with the health of people. Where does that start and stop. Is it only the patient's physical health or their whole well being? Do they have any moral obligation to respect the patient's firm religious beliefs (even when they don't agree with those beliefs) It is not for Noel to convince us or a Doctor to BELIEVE what he believes. He merely has to convince the Doctor that these ARE his beliefs and he would like them respected. As far as I understand things JWs believe soon God will make the earth a paradise, removing the wicked and everyone living forever here. And if they do lose their life now (or their loved one's life) in death they will soon be resurected back to life again. The only one that can secure that everlasting life is God (not a Doctor). So they have a long term view of life. This may sound ridiculous to most but that's not the point - they BELIEVE it to be true and really feel they are doing the best for their family rather than taking the short term view. So to be unfaithful to God's command regarding blood just to sustain this (relatively short) life would be (to them) shortsited. Obviously, it must take a lot of faith for them to feel this way and it can't be a decision taken lightly. Neither could anyone hope to convince anyone else of this in 'tennis match' style comments to-ing and fro-ing on a bulitin board (no offence Noel) So, if you are a Doctor or studying to be one, that is the questioin before you; Should you respect those beliefs without believing in them? But before you take the simple and perhaps emotional response of refusing ask yourself this; Have I researched and honed my skills enough in the field of bloodless surgery or am I just being lazy here. Not just JWs but many more people may choose bloodless surgery in the future - not just on religious grounds either. Oh, and by the way William - nothing to do with religionn - but I personally would never take a blood transfusion regardless of any threatened outcome - I just happen to think it's vile to put someone else's blood in me and it makes me crawl at the thought, I also feel we know too little of the immune system and what part the blood plays in that. I could save myself today and die two years later from some other disease as a consequence - I would prefer alternative treatment. If that sounds wrong to you that's fine, I'm not trying to convince you. You can take blood that's your right. It's how I feel and I would like to think my views on what treatment I should receive (and what 'medicine' is put in my body) from a Doctor would be respected. And finally I agree with Noel; if you want to have a Bible discussion you should contact him personally. Let's keep the clutter off the real issue.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 17/09/2004 10:22
I don’t really care about using the bible as an argument at all. The reason is that it is obviously ambiguous as different religions interpret it differently. The proof of this is that the JWs are alone in their interpretation. Maybe only 2% of Christians believe in the JWs interpretation. There is one fundamental mistake in your long letter and that is that no one cares less whether or not the JW adults refuse blood transfusion, it is *their children* that we are discussing. No one “owns” their children. There are many widely accepted reasons that allow the state to take children from parents that intend harming them. Presumably you support this concept? Another fundamental concept is that religion is not an excuse and never will be to harm children. If that were the case you would have to support the brutal circumcision of girls because their parents think it’s correct for religious reasons. You comments about Science being wrong in the past is totally incorrect and a common myth. In fact the burning at the stake was done by the superstitious religious and often they did burn scientists. Science is never wrong or right. Science is a method of analysis that has proved enormously successful at understanding the Universe. You know that because you watch TV and fly in Airplanes. If you don’t like blood transfusions because they make you fell yucky, you should try putrefaction, which is what will happen if you die through the lack of a life saving blood transfusion.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 28/09/2004 10:42
Excellent piont Willaim, should doctors respect the beliefs of certain religions who think it's ok to mutillate little girls (FGM)? Afterall, using the word logivcal and religion on the same sentence makes no sense. Relgion is based on belief without proof - whivh is surely the exact opposite of logical.
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 28/09/2004 15:00
Not all religions beliefs are based on blind belief. Certainly not Jehovah's Witnesses. We definately believe we should have good evidance for anything we believe. Comparing a purposeful mutalition to Witness stand against blood transfusion is not logical for the simple reason stated several times earlier in this track, that is Jehovah's Witnesses activly seek transfusions of non blood substances as treatment we just wont take blood. There is massive amounts of evidance to show blood is very dangerous. We choose to seek alternative treatment, this cannot be likened to purposeful mutalation. We believe we seek what is the best treatment for our selves and our children. We ask doctors to respect this (as most do). As time goes on we are seeing more and more reasons to accept that the bibles admonition against taking in blood is the wisest all around advise. As parents we should take responsibility to chose what we believe is the best treatment for our familys.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 28/09/2004 15:43
But poarents who mutilate their children, genuinely believe they they, also, are doing their best for them. You say their's evidence to show how dangerous blood is but you haven't yet identified how using ones' own pre-op stored blood could possibly be dangerous?
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 30/09/2004 17:30
Noel says, "We definately believe we should have good evidance for anything we believe". :) Evidence for God then please? Thanks. For a laugh see www.400monkeys.com/God/ note uppercase G in God
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 09/10/2004 00:12
How can Noel May blatently Lie when he knows full well that the faithful and descreet slave published lie after lie to the extent that some innocent JWs even went blind because they refused corneal transplants because they carried out exhaustive studies in the Bible and they understood that these transplants were forbidden by God. Has Noel a touch of Alsimers has he forgotten the 1967 Theocratic Ministrie School publication by the Jws that says "there are approximately 90 months remaining of this wicked system of things" Does he deny that this was published?
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 11/10/2004 09:16
Faithful and discreet slaves, cornel transplants forbidden by the bible? What has to do with blood transfusions?
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 11/10/2004 19:09
The faithful and discreet slave is the JW leadership and it is this same leadership who interprets the bible for the ordinary jw. The reason I mentioned corneal transplants is that these were once forbidden by the JWs. And thats just the point the bible does not and never did forbid corneal transplants and blood transfusions but the Jws did and do.
 
  seamus(NPO19316)  Posted: 17/10/2004 19:51
i came here to discuss a very important topic and to share my view with people to try and help them to understand why i as a young man and one of jehovah's christian witnesses refuse to accept a blood transfusion. but it seems that this discussion has gone well of the beaten track. is this because people refuse to listen, have heard too much, dont care or cannot understand either im sure our belief regarding the faithful and discreet slave mentioned in the book of matthew has nothing to do with irish health.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 18/10/2004 11:38
Perhaps Seamus, you migjt help me understand on what basis a JW mightt claim that one's own pre-op stored blood (for eclectic surgery) might possibly prove to be a health risk?
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 18/10/2004 11:46
I think the point re corneal transplants is very relevant. It sounds like the leadership of the JW’s once interpreted the Bible to say that they were not allowed and then changed their mind, as they have with regards other aspects of the JW religion such as the impending end of the world (which they have incorrectly predicted on a number of occasions over the last 100 years). The point is very important because it gets back to the current JW teaching that risks the life of children based on the *current* JW teaching on blood transplants. The point has often been made, if they change their mind on that will the children that have been martyred with such fervour have died in vain? It also throws up the ambiguity of the Bible. JW’s claim the Bible is not ambiguous but not alone do all opposing Christian faiths disagree about what it says (gay priests, condoms, homosexuality, 6,000 years old Earth, Evolution v Creationism etc….. ad infinitum), so to the JW’s interpret it differently at different times, notwithstanding their Orwellian attempt to re-write their own history.
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 19/10/2004 16:15
Having been away for the last few weeks on business I am a little startled to return to the discussion on “parental rights to chose the type of medical treatment” to be told I am a “blatant liar”. This surely is over the top!. A liar is one who purposely tells a knowing untruth to mislead. Anonymous of 09/10/2004 makes statements that are NOT correct. I would like to think it is because he is “mistakenly” misquoting out of context or hearsay and not a liar seeking purposely to mislead. We believe that the end of “this wicked system “ will come soon but we as Jesus stated “Do not know the day or hour” but as others have stated this has nothing to do with this discussion directly. Transplants of any organ is a matter for the conscience of any individual Christian Witness and has always been so from the time they could be carried out without taking blood transfusions. As science and technology progresses we embrace it to the extent that it does not conflict with Gods commands in the Bible. Another participator to the discussion asked about why not store our own blood and use it at a later date. As clearly mentioned earlier in this track we view abstinence from Blood as a scriptural injunction. All references to use of blood in the bible shows once it is extracted it should not be used, this is a “moral issue” to us as significant as not participating in Idol worship, fornication etc., (see Acts 15: 28, 29). We respect Gods right to set standards for us and believe the standards he set in the Bible are for our overriding benefit. As the Creator, we do believe he knows what is best for his creation. It is when mankind ignore his guidance he gets into terrible trouble in all fields of activity (including medical). I believe the trend in medicine is away from blood use due to the growing recognized dangers. Each year that passes we learn of more dangers, this site is very regularly alerting us to tragedies that happen due to our medical establishments lack of understanding and preparedness to deal with newly realized dangers. I would conclude that we do not try to force our views on others but our experience in non blood medical treatment has benefited many witnesses and non witnesses and enhanced the medical community’s overall knowledge. For more detailed information on Bloodless medicine please view http://www.watchtower.org/library/hb/index.htm
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 19/10/2004 21:58
Well said William. They certainly do interpret the Bible as it suits them (the faithful and discreet slave), even to the point that they bought a house and put it in Abraham.Isacc and Jacobs names as they prophesied that they where coming back to earth in 1925. This house was somewhere in California and was called I think "Bethsarim". They were wrong here what about being wrong about Blood?
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 20/10/2004 09:49
Yes, JW's do interpret religion as they wish and then cahnge it as it suits them, as to the catholic church on homosexuality, married priests and abortion. So Noel, you agree then that the JW objection to using ones own pre-op stored blood has nothign whatsoever to do with medical concerns but simply with your own belief system which (by the very nature of all religions) is illogical. Surely you can see that many blood related infections from transfusions were the result of blood not being screened properly -medical mistakes, as regards HIV and vCJD for example. Just as many car accidents occur becuase of human error on the drivers part yet JW's aren't forbidden from driving cars I presume?
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 20/10/2004 11:33
All belief's (even athiest's) are based on an individuals "choice" and interpretation of information received. Fundemental truths though stand the test of time. Any person or organization who refuses to change when new "facts" are brought to thier attention are the "illogical" ones. I do not accept belief in God is illogical, indeed the opposite. Remember before Aids was clearly identified blood was considered safe, ditto with CJD and other life trethening contaminations. Who knows what else has yet to be discovered regarding blood transfusions that will damage? The Bibles injunction to "abstain" from Blood is I believe a protection from a wise and loving God. As regards the closing comment from Anonymous of 20/10/04 about driving, well there is no injunction in the Bible about driving so we would leave it up to an individual to risk it or not!!..
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 20/10/2004 14:33
Noel says, “All belief's … are based on an individuals 'choice’ and interpretation of information received.” But how does that explain that the vast majority of people believe in the religion of their parents and whatever the dominant religion is in their society? All the Hindu’s have Hindu children; the Catholic’s have Catholic children, the Protestants have Protestant children etc. Is it not an obvious an incontrovertible fact that people do NOT make a choice and do NOT depend on information but are brainwashed? Religion IS illogical. They ALL disagree with each other so the principal on which faith is based MUST be wrong is it produces some many conflicting opinions.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 20/10/2004 14:34
Surely if there's no proof of something then it is indeed illogical. Of course there were no cars in the bible days just as there were no blood transfusions - yet you presume that God would make a rule about one thing and not the other. It does not occur to you that the taking of blood may have referred to the ritual of drinking blood and may be an injunction not to use sacrifices?
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 20/10/2004 20:26
When people "chose" not to investigate the claims of the religion the were raised in that is the "choice" they make, all are confronted by ideas that challange what we were thought as children and either investigate them or "chose" not to. My beliefs now are far different then what I was thought as a child so on the basis of "learning" I chose to become one of Jehovah's Witnesses. I originally was a Catholic, then an agnostic and now a Witness. Anonymous 20/10 may not be aware that blood was used as medicine way back in Egypt at the time the Law was given to Moses and at the time of Jesus. See earlier comments in this track with referances to same. This track is now going over and over the same ground again. So I would ask participants to review the earlier comments before writing more questions that may already have been raised and responded to.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 20/10/2004 20:29
The Watchtower June 15 2000.29-31. Questions to Readers .The reply from Noels own organisation seems to differ from Noels answer is he becoming Apostate to his organisation? I dont wish to be agitating but the Truth is the Truth your organisation has been wrong in the past and dont you think that they could be wrong here.If there is any doubt the life of any human being but especially the life of a child must come first.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 20/10/2004 21:14
The Amish believe that any thing of this World (modern) I.E Motor cars etc.,are forbidden by God that how they interpret the Bible.But is that logigal?..
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 20/10/2004 21:26
Choic Noel says!. JWs have No choice they MUST adhere to the dictates of the watchtower sociaty without question. To question the organisation would be tantamount to disfellowship (excumunication).
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 21/10/2004 11:03
Noel implies that most people do not *choose* to question their religion which is why they stay in the religion of their parents. I agree. This raises some questions. Why do they not choose to study why they are religious, is it not because they are so brainwashed that they cannot? People find it enormously difficult to question the bedrock of their very mental existence. Whether or not they choose to investigate their religion is actually irrelevant. Does Noel not agree that people are, in the vast majority of cases, the religion they are because of an accident of birth and therefore “faith” and “truth” cannot possible come into it?
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 21/10/2004 11:12
Noel are you not suspcious of any organisatipon which doesn't accept questioning? It is only by questioning that our beliefs become stronger. I am just interested (and appalled) at the idea that if your child needed a life saving transfusion that you could provide (I am assuming here that you do not have HIV, vCJD or haemophilia), that you would prefer to let your own child die?
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 21/10/2004 14:57
I / We as Witnesses of course do not “prefer” to let a loved one die because of refusing a specific medical treatment. We (as stated earlier in this track) desire a “whole person” approach to medical treatment and seek the best treatment possible including transfusions of non blood substances were appropriate. Conscience we believe is a factor in all approaches to treatment. What though about the many thousands who have died because of getting blood transfusions, most of them would still be alive if they had got non blood treatment, why aren’t the ones who object to the Witness’s stand up in arms over this much much greater danger to children’s lives? Is it that because we as Witness are a minority and “different” are an easy target to get heated up about? (The article referred to by Anonymous 20/10/02 20:29 in the Watchtower of June 15 2000 is a excellent detailed response to a “Question” raised about this very topic and I fully agree with the answer). We are students of the Bible and by the nature of students ask a lot of questions and are eager to expand our understanding of truth and life. It is wrong to say that ones are disfellowshiped (excommunicated) from Jehovah’s Witnesses for asking questions. I do agree with the comment “that people are, in the vast majority of cases, the religion they are because of an accident of birth” that is not the case with Jehovah’s Witnesses as most convert and the ones who were raised in Witness families only commit (get baptised) when they are old or mature enough to do so after studying the bible for some considerable time, therefore “faith” and “truth” does come into it. Faith to us is not blind but is based on factual evidance and empirical knowledge.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 21/10/2004 15:35
I have no problem at all with grown-up JW's who are at an age of maturity making decisions not to have life saving transfusions. What I cannot understand is that they choose to impose that on their children which are not of an age where they can make an informed choice. Afterall, you said yourself that they don't become JW's intil they are old enough to make their own choices (tho' as with all choices I'm sure the parental /environmental influence looms large) yet you choose to impose the (sometimes fatal) consequences of your belief system upon a child, by nature not capable of making a decison, who you admit yourself is not of the same belief system.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 21/10/2004 23:39
The Watchtower Aug.1 1995 page 30.says......That there are "circumstances" when a Witness may have His own blood transfused back into Him, and viewed by the Watchtowers Governing Body as "UNOBJECTIONABLE". " The Centre for Bloodless Surgery utilises alternatives to Blood transfusions, including the reinfusion of a patiants own Blood -- a technique that some Witnesses may find unobjectionable under certain circumstances".
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 22/10/2004 00:06
Noel I think you are missing the point here in the article in the Watchtower June 15 2000. This article is an historic shift in the Jehovahs Witness blood policy and this article highlights very significant reforms in the J Ws teachings as it allows Jehovahs Witnesses to now take fractions of any of the primary components of Blood after conscientiously deciding themselves. Noel uses an arguement here that the banning of blood transfusions has saved J W lives ????? What about all the lives that have been lost prior to June 15 2000 Watchtowers change of policy. (tacking perhaps) Noel rambles on as expected and does not admit that they said the system of things would end in 1975 (90 months remaining bit) and why were all his felloww Brothers and Sisters Disfellowshiped when they COURAGEOUSLY QUESTIONED the Governing Body why it did not happen.Have You Noel Questioned the Leaders in Broklyn.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 22/10/2004 10:11
Noel told a porky. "There was no split", he said some months back. So while JW's argue amongst themselves about the interpretation of the bible the courts must decide on the lives of their children.
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 22/10/2004 10:35
In response to Anonymous 21/10/2004 15:35; I would like to point out that this is the heart of the debate, do parents have the right (and responsibility) to make an informed choice as to the medical treatment for their children. I would say we do and should (all the reasonings given earleir in this track). Remember it is a choice of differnet types of treatment. Both taking blood and not taking blood have consequences. The parent must weigh up the consequences and chose. I personally happen to believe that the Bibles injunction is for our overall benifit. Regards the other comments, Witnesses are not afraid to revist views in the light of technology advances where it may impact beliefs, indeed we embrace them when they are for our good. As regards the persons comment on "last days" they are either purposely misreading or are quoting hearsay regarding what we taught in that respect, but that is not relevent to this discussion.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 22/10/2004 11:27
Noel, I worked with a JW in Cork in the early 70's. He was adamant that the world was about to end and he specifically said that it would definitely end by 1975. He didn't make that up. The JW's told him this. He used to go door to door telling people this "fact". You know yourself many JW's even gave away their property because it was useless in view of the imminent end of the world. You were totally wrong then and you are still totally wrong. The reason; your entire belief system is based on the bible and that it was written by God, but there is not and never was a God. The universe and this world and the life on it came about by now well understood natural processes. This is why all these paradoxes, such as the conflict between necessary blood transfusions and your interpretation of the bible are thrown up, or the situation in the EU where one commissioner thinks Homosexuality is a “sin” even though it almost certainly has a genetic cause. The basic assumption that underpins everything you believe in is wrong and so your “world view” has collapsed.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 22/10/2004 13:18
Empirical means "based on observation,experiment or experience only, not Theoretical. Noel says his beliefs are based on this surely you can see by the Wacthtowers experiments with logic, on the blood issue and there recent shift in policy that they are admitting slowly but admirably that they are wrong on the blood issue.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 22/10/2004 14:21
Noel, you say "do parents have the right (and responsibility) to make an informed choice as to the medical treatment for their children. I would say we do and should". Would you also say that tribal people have the right to decide to genitally mutilate their children? Or what about parents who cruelly beat their children in the name of 'discipline' - do they also have the right to do that?
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 22/10/2004 14:53
Please lets stick to the topic rather then hearsay and anti Witness propaganda (which is often unfounded and mostly inaccurate.) I can see after almost a year of contributing to this track that the positions are polarised primarily on the lines of belief in God or no belief in God. That issue is completly seperate from this medical one. So if we leave God out of it the principle issue still remains, does a sound of mind parent have the right to determine the TYPE of medical treatment that they feel is best for their family. I believe they do and should take that responsibility. Remember the old saying Doctors Differ and Patients Die. Most doctors will correctly respect the wishes of parents when they choose one type of treatment over another, some that dont co-operate with the parents wishes often take that position because they themselves are not upto date on the alternative treatments or are in the very few cases quite arrogant in the exercise of the authority their position gives them.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 22/10/2004 17:47
Any thing that I have posted is and has been printed by the Watchtower socity and certainly is not hearsay or anti Witness. But is the vast publications of the W T society anti mainstream religion is it not?. But dare we touch a nerve and the attitude Noel takes is defensive and dismissive of honest observations that are plain for every one to see but not the ordinary everyday J W who is probably too scared to Question the Governing Body for fear of been ostraciased and shunned by members of family and friends .
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 22/10/2004 18:22
Responding to Anonymous 22/10/2004 17:47, Well I guess you just can't win! If I dont respond its claimed we dont have an answer if we do respond its being defensive, I give up! for any one who want's to understand why we take the position we do I suggest you read over the track from the begining. I think I presented our position without rancor (mostly) and certainly not defensivly. Good Health to All!!
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 22/10/2004 21:44
" it is up to the CONSCIENCE of each INDIVIDUAL whether to permit a blood transfusion or not". (Capitals mine for enphasis) Arthur Matthews of the Jehovahs Witnesses told Irishhealth.com Will the Jehovahs Witness whos CONSCIENCE allows him accept blood or permit blood to be given to one of his children be disfellowshiped? Has Noel thought about the Governing Body differing and JWs dying. Are not the Governing Body quite arrogent in the exercise of the authority their position gives them.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 26/10/2004 10:35
First I'd like to say I am baffled by the Jehovah's banning of blood transfusions, especially in the case of a child's life. HOWEVER I have to say that thoughout these comments Noel makes clear and concise arguments and shows no disrespect to anyone. Which cannot be said for some of the posts aimed at him. I do not for one moment agree with this belief but I appreciate the way he has put forward the argument and maybe understand it a bit more, even if i don't agree with it. For those of you being rude and offensive to his beliefs, I'm positive there are things in your life that are questionable and I doubt you could fiight your corner as elequently as noel has.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 26/10/2004 10:52
Noel shows no disrespect for anyone? What about the disrespect JW’s have for the right to life of their children? A right that has to be enforced by court order. Parents do not own their children. Their children have rights that the state must protect. No one is being rude to Noel but Noel is wrong. He refuses to accept as fact that the JW’s have consistently stated that their interpretation of the bible points to the imminent end of the world and having been wrong in this many times for over a century their interpenetration of the bible is obviously wrong as we are still here. If they are so obviously wrong in this rather important matter then they cannot claim their interpretation of the bible can be trusted. Parents do not have the right in Irish law and in most countries to allow their children to die based on their religious belief. This principal is correct and proper.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 26/10/2004 18:21
The Position Noel is taking is typical of the Elder J Ws that are unQUESTIONABLY loyal to the Organisation that cannot be Wrong, for they have NO WHERE else to go. Lets face it Noel Your organisation are false prophets and you know what Jehovah says about false prophets. If Noel would just look outside the Box for a few moments and take stock about his blind teachings. Even the corperate world admit when they are wrong to the extent that the largest soft drink ,fast food companys etc. are following the tabacco Organisations and are buying Billion $$$$$ insurance policys for future Lawsuits, have the JW organisation bought such cover?, if not they should consider it. Your Brother in Jehovahs Service.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 27/10/2004 10:41
Split? What split? :)
 
  claudia(UFR19930)  Posted: 30/10/2004 09:41
I grew up as a jehovas wittness for most of my life. I am currently not attending the religion. However eventough today I do not attend the religion I stay true to that belife. As a little girl I learned that the bible tought that you blood was you soul, and that when you die you soul dies with you. Therefore no matter what you do your soul die and it is a sin to accepet blood. Which in reality is that when you are uncousions you cant eat or drink blood so the give to you through a transfussion. To god alghmighty that itself is a sin. I was prpblablt five years old when I learned this and still to this day I still firmly belive it. When I had my child just recently I was required a "C-section" and was ask that if I would take blood in any emergency emerged . Of course I declined it, because even tough I am not a johova's wittness I knew that that would be sentencing my child automatically to death based on my belives. I hope that people can somehow understant what being a Jehovah's wittness is about. IT ABOUT FAITH!
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 01/11/2004 09:28
Witnesses DO NOT believe that what a parent chooses to do or not to do has any spiritual consequences for their children (other then the example set) God judges each one according to ones own actions. As for the comments about, dates etc., over the past hundred plus years many studies have been made into understanding some of the deep prophecy’s in the bible and a small number of the speculative conclusions were wrong. We acknowledge this in the course of reviews, but some of the comments have been taken way out of context. But these things are relatively minor side issues compared to clear biblical injunctions against stealing, drunkenness, fornication and yes, blood. We as witnesses stick to and fully support Jesus words "No one knows the day or the hour", prophecy though does give many indications as to the period of time when God will say enough is enough for mismanagement of this earth. We as Witnesses do believe that God will in due course resurrect all those who have died, that is our firm hope for the future of all our loved ones who have died in the past for what ever reason.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 01/11/2004 09:45
Claudia, how can you say that your blood is your soul?? Blood is a substance used by the body to transport what the body needs. The soul/conscience is not a physical thing. You view / superstition is not backed up by any piece of medical evidence. If your baby needed a transfusion and you refused consent, wouild you not then be condemning your child to death?
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 01/11/2004 11:08
I must say that this has got interesting again. For the very first time after a year of being asked, Noel has admitted that JW’s have interpreted the bible incorrectly with regards the end of the world. This is in keeping with all the different interpretations by many different people over the last two thousand years. He excuses this by saying that this is a minor matter in comparison to the much more important matter of a blood transfusion. I beg to differ. The end of the world is far more important than a blood transfusion. The point again is, if JW’s have incorrectly interpreted the bible vis a vis blood transfusions then they incorrectly kill their children. Is murder not also a grievous sin? Coming up with the excuse that you misunderstood the contents of a book would hardly do as an excuse. There are plenty of other areas that JW’s hold strong views that are shown to be completely wrong, Evolution is a major one. No educated person disagrees with Evolution EXCEPT on religious grounds and even then they are only fundamentalists, the sort of people that argue that the Grand Canyon was created in a week. In case anyone has doubts about this let me be clear, the vast majority (99%+) of biologists believe firmly and can prove that evolution is how life on Earth today got here. There is NO discussion in science about this. It’s accepted as a fact. As every year passes more and more evidence is gathered that Evolution is correct. So much so, that the Catholic Church acknowledged Evolution, “as playing a part in God’s creation”, about five years ago. This was after also incorrectly refusing to accept it for over 150 years to the point of even banning Evolution from Biology syllabuses when I did Biology for the Leaving Cert in the 70’s. JW’s will also come to accept Evolution in a few years because the evidence will become overwhelming. Scientists are getting to the point where they can mathematically prove it. I would like to ask Claudia what she means by FAITH. To me it’s just another word that must be defined. Remember FAITH also means female circumcision, denial of women’s rights, denial of proven scientific facts etc. This is very important because if Claudia is wrong about WHY she believes in the JW creed then everything that comes from this is automatically wrong including her refusal of blood transfusions. What does FAITH mean?
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 01/11/2004 17:23
I must say that i find this a very interesting discussion, although it seems to me that the "subject" supposabely under discussion has been lost in certain peoples disdain for the religous beliefs of JW's. I myself am not a JW, however i do acknowledge that,broadly speaking, they are very moral and good people. For those of you that are struggling to understand there beliefs on blood transfusions - research it, rather then blindly attack it. I acknowledge that JW teach good morals to there children, and want the best for there children. And when they refuse for there children to recieve a blood transfusion, and when they refuse a blood tranfusion themselves, they do not see it as destroying life, they see it as working there way to an eternal life, and in todays medical world where many blood substitutions are in fact available, the argument that the refusal of blood tranfusion may destroy life becomes invalid. because the matter of religion has become the centre of this debate, i think it is fair to say that if JW's are wrong in there teachings and beliefs, they will be the people to be most pitied, but if they are right, then they will earn something which they have worked very hard for, and which the majority of us would certainly be envious about. so, dont condemn something, until you have looked into it, and at least have valid arguments against it.
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 01/11/2004 19:03
With Reference to Williams comments, Read Geneses 1 verse 1 “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” No time line or amount of time. If one keeps repeating a false statement (William keeps repeating that the Bible says the earth was created in 6 days) it only can reinforce persons views who will not check the facts (and ditto with the evolution theory). The Bible does not ever say the Earth was created in 6 days. Even when referring to the days of creation on the Earth itself (perhaps billions of years after the Earth was created) it is clear when carefully reading it that the days are “periods of time” for example the first two days referred to in Geneses was before any 24 hour period (night and day as we would know it) came about. I would agree with Williams statement that the end of the world is more serious then the individual issue to take blood transfusion or not but again because one my get a speculation about a future event wrong does not mean that everything one has learned is wrong. We do not claim to be infallible at all but with honest effort in study one can learn clearly basic moral principles and they have held fast through much soul searching. As regards the “Soul” comments, the Bible refers to the “whole living person” as a “Living Soul” and it speaks about the life blood of a person as sustaining that soul or living person. The Bible does not teach that a Soul is some thing apart from the living body , it says “The Soul that is sinning it itself will die” and as we all sin we all die. Therefore the old saying, the call for help, “SOS” or Save Our Souls” is correct. This brings me back to the desire we have that Doctors should treat the “whole person” or the living soul, you and me in our totality.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 02/11/2004 10:56
I didn’t say Noel believed that the world was 6,000 years old. Many of those that oppose Evolution do. Noel now says that JW’s don’t claim to be infallible. Not surprising when they have been proven wrong. Let us get the major point clear here, JW’s refuse blood because they *interpret* the bible to say to refuse blood. The bible is interpreted by some to mean that Mary was a virgin others that she was not, that Jesus was the son of God and others that he was a prophet (Jews & Muslims), that the world is 6,000 years old (Presbyterians in NI, fundamentalists in the USA), that Evolution is wrong (most Protestant sects and the Catholics up to 5 years ago as well as JW’s) that we should not use modern technology (Amish) that contraception that can help prevent AIDS is morally wrong (Catholics again) that Mass must be in Latin (Tridentine Catholics) and the bible IS the basis of Islam where flying airplanes into skyscrapers and murdering thousands is done in the name of Allah. There is also divisions over time; slavery, tolerance of homosexuality, torture, death penalty for non-believers, that the world is flat and the centre of the Universe etc. It also means JW’s think the world is about to end every few decades and still will try and stop their children getting blood transfusions. Apparently there are 34,000 separate Christian religious groups in the world. Talk about a split! I would call that a mega-split. They all interpret the bible differently and they are all Christians. They all think they are right. They all cannot be. The *obvious* answer is that NONE of them are right. What sort of a writer who in his day job is God writes a book that is so ambiguous? God didn’t write the bible, man did and did a bad job. Its full of scientific inaccuracies, contains total contradictions, has the outdated and primitive morality of 2000 years ago that today we find repugnant. It has not a single formula, scientific breakthrough, or statement ahead of its time and has been wrong in predicting the end of the world. We know the bible is unbelievably inaccurate partly because today we know more about the history of the biblical areas, geography and science then the men who wrote the bible. The rather primitive people who wrote the bible wrote it on the basis of what they knew and not at the behest of an all-knowing god. All those that believe in the bible are making the same mistake – it’s mainly superstitious nonsense, plain and simple and therefore cannot be used to justify murder and that is why the state cannot allow JW’s or any other religious group to use *their interpretation of the bible* to allow their children to die.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 02/11/2004 12:41
Noel stop defending the undefensible read what Your Branch office official said at the begining of this track (article) "It is up to the concience of the Individual" whether to take i.e components,etc of blood. Noel knows full that hemophiliacs take Factor 8 which is a by product of BLOOD to SURVIVE and they have full approvel of their leadertship. The Bible also said "he that is faithful in least things will be faithful in most things". So now we have JWs takeing small amounts of blood ( Factor 8) ,does this mean they can do a Bill Clinton and have a small amount of fornication?
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 02/11/2004 13:58
It's true Noel, if the state were to allow every screwball sect and crackpot cult out there to dictate how their children (not property) were to be treated, they would be giving consent to muder by omission. You'd have Amish not allowing their diabetic children to have insulin pumps becuase it's technology, you'd have certain sects mutilating their adolescent girls and parents getting away with beating their children in the name of discipline along with funamentalists or all sorts denyign their children (and in some instances their wives) access to medical care.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 02/11/2004 14:47
In response to "Anonymous Posted: 02/11/2004 13:58", I agree that the state shouldnt allow every "every screwball sect and crackpot cult out there to dictate how their children (not property) were to be treated". however most of these other sects which you seem to be comparing JW's to, do not have sound basis. True, it could be argued that the bible is not a sound basis, but it has been well documented throughout the ages, unlike the grounds for what other religious sects believe in. JW's follow rules documented in the bible, which is the oldest preserved book in existence. In addition to this, the interpretation of the bible which they follow makes most sense, in the regard that it is followed word for word and no false assumptions are made, such as assumptions made by the catholic religion where they claim to follow the bible, but believe in the trinity which is mentioned nowhere in the bible. There are numerous places in the bible where the sacredness and meaning of blood is mentioned.Of course, as william mentioned, ambiguity is an inherint feature of natural language, but at the same time it is universally understood, and i think that the bible decreases that ambiguity by referencing topics many times. William said that the bible is "full of scientific inaccuracies, contains total contradictions". I think that if william examined the bible in detail, he would see that this is not the case. In light if this, I would like to ask william if he can justify this claim, and give us an example of a contradiction from the bible. Remember the science of evolution is itself a theory, containing many gaps which have not been answered to this day. Ever hear of the "missing link". !!! Again people seem to be overlooking the fact that there are blood substitions available.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 02/11/2004 15:49
Where in the bible then, are the words "blood transfusion"?
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 02/11/2004 16:37
Obviously the words "blood transfusion" are not mentioned in the bible !!! however the following is mentioned : "Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for YOU. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to YOU. 4 Only flesh with its soul—its blood—YOU must not eat."(Gen. 9:3, 4) For the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood by the soul in it. Consequently I said to the sons of Israel: “YOU must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh, because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off.”( Lev. 17:14) For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU, except these necessary things, 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!” (Acts 15:28, 29) You should look back at "noel (noelmay) Posted: 27/11/2003 15:51" for an explanation.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 02/11/2004 16:59
You say "Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for YOU". Then you say "Only flesh with its soul—its blood—YOU must not eat". Surely animals also have blood, therefore do animals have souls?? You are contradicting yourself again.
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 02/11/2004 17:37
Interesting question, Yes the Bible speaks of all living thigs a Souls, this is no contradiction as it is consistant throughout stating this. What causes confusion as it seems to with William also is "church" teaching as opposed to what the Bible irtself actually says. In this case church teaching (as distinct from what the Bible itself says)often makes the Soul out to be apart from the body, this is not what the Bible says. It speakes many times of the soul as the living breathing being (both animal and human). But these questions are taking us far away from the issue this track was supposed to be adressing.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 02/11/2004 18:35
firstly, the bible says it, not me. I am not a JW but I do understand the basis for there beliefs, and i think that there is justification in these references for there beliefs in blood transfusions. but to respond to your comments, i do believe that animals have souls, there blood is there soul. i cant see where you find contradiction in what is said in the bible. Basically it means - eat the flesh of an animal("Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for YOU") , but make sure that the animal is bled first. JW's do not eat black pudding for example, nor do i for the same reason. ("Only flesh with its soul—its blood—YOU must not eat".)
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 02/11/2004 20:41
There is a number of serious logical flaws in Anon 14:47 (Sounds like an excerpt from the bible). So the “other” sects don’t have a sound basis? So sound is logic where unproven, illogical beliefs held by less than 0.1% of the worlds population result in the death of your child. Wow! Show me UNsound. Well documented! What does that mean? The Amish could claim the same not to mention the Cat worshiping Egyptians. After all they worshiped the Cat before the Christians appeared and that’s *well documented*. The bible is not even “a” book. It’s not the oldest either. Much of the bible appears in the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) which funnily enough contain much of the New Testament but was written several centuries BEFORE the events described in the bible occurred. The bible writers just copied the Dead Sea Scrolls and dated them in their own time. They obviously didn’t realise that 2,000 years later we would find the DSS in caves. A large portion of the bible and indeed Christianity is based on previous religions, Mithraicism (virgin birth), Zoroasterism (one god, Satan etc), Pagan (25th of December Christ’s birthday was a pagan Sun God’s birthday) and there is even a \"quote\" from Jesus in the bible that is on an even more ancient Greek monument. In fact the blood prohibition is almost certainly a reaction to pagan worship & blood sacrifice as are much of the bible edicts. If you want to see contradictions in the bible ask any one of the 34,000 different sects what it says. “Ambiguity is an inherent feature of natural language”, no it is not. Where did that notion come from? It IS an inherent feature of a book written by dozens of primitive humans over a thousand years ago over many decades. Furthermore, surely a God who can do anything could write an un-ambiguous book? Could he not have included just one tiny little law unknown to those primitives, say E=MC2? You misunderstand the meaning of the word “theory”. Here’s a definition, “A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.” Gravity is also a “theory” (e.g. Newton’s Theory of Gravity), have you ever seen it violated? Presumably you are happy that you will be able to work to work tomorrow without floating off into heaven? Theory doesn’t mean “guess” or “possibility” or “maybe”. There is and never was any such thing as a “missing link”, sorry urban myth. Evolution is accepted as a fact by virtually all million or so Biologists in the world. However, it is not accepted as a fact by uneducated southern Baptists in the USA. I know who I would believe first.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 03/11/2004 10:29
YOU say you take the bible literally word for word, but the bible does not mention blood transfusions, yet you ban them. hebible doesn't mention flyign in planes do you ban that also. It surely is injurious to health too - DVT, plane crashes etc.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 03/11/2004 10:31
Surely not eating blood (afterall we don't need back pudding to survive, generally speaking) is quite different, from denying your child a blood transfusion, causing their death.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 03/11/2004 10:44
Think about what you're saying Noel, if I as a heamophiliac, recieve factor 8 blood products, which are combined of blood products from say, 11 different people, do I also then, by your logic, have parts of the souls of 11 different people floating around in my body - so would I then be punished for what whatever sins were attached to that particualr bit of their soul when they gave blood, along with my own sins. Also, if I give blood, and therefore give part of my soul, do my sins also travel out of my body with that half pint of blood. Then there's bone marrow - responsible in part from replacing red blood cells, what about people who donate or accept donations of bone marrow, are they giving away, or accepting part of that which "grows" the soul? And have you considered women who menstruate every month, does part of their soul, escape out of their body evey month? If you stop to think about it, does it not go beyond even illogical, into the realms of fantasy?
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 03/11/2004 17:59
In an attempt to try to get this "medical" debate back on track ( as it seems moreso an attack on religous beliefs of jehovahs witnesses), I want to present you with a small scenario: An infant contracted CJD from a blood transfusion. One year later the infants mother finds out that her second infant must undergo an operation which may entail a blood transfusion also. Does this woman, as a parent, have the right to choose whether her infant should accept blood, or opt for a blood alternative, which she sees as the safer option, considering her previous experience with blood tranfusions.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 03/11/2004 18:49
This is NOT a medical debate. JW’s do not oppose transfusions on medical grounds, (not withstanding Noel’s pointless attempts to discredit transfusions by insinuating that JW’s know more about medicine than doctors & scientists) they oppose transfusions purely on religious grounds. To be precise they oppose transfusions because their religion has them convinced that the bible is to be taken literally and is the word of God. The fact that 33,999 other Christian sects and 2 billion other Christians disagree with this interpretation is nothing to religion where dogma is all and evidence, facts and logic are irrelevant. I write this in the knowledge that I now have to put up with Bush running the USA for another 4 years. I believe during his next 4 years Gay rights, women’s rights and freedom from religious interference in politics will take the back seat. As regards your scenario, as far as I know there isn’t a single case of CJD from a transfusion. Your soap opera scene boils down to whether or not an unqualified person decides on life saving medical treatment for *someone else* that may result in the loss of their life. The answer is obvious, do what the doctors tell you. They know far more than someone whose only qualification is that they got pregnant. If not the answer for the doctors is to go to court to save the child’s life. As has been said before JW’s can do what they want to themselves, it’s their children that are the innocents.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 03/11/2004 23:34
If you have witnessed a death from cjd and that death was linked to a blood transfusion then you would never ever allow anything that may cause such horror to happen again and thus you would say 'NO' without doubt to any transfusions.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 04/11/2004 09:13
I have no objection whatever to safe non-blood alternatives provided they are as good as using a blood transfusion, what I do, however, object to, is parents assumign they have the rightto let their child die rahter than accepting a life-saving transfusion where no non-blood substitute is available or suitable.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 04/11/2004 10:44
The point made on 03/11/2004 23:34 is totally illogical. If it is true then this is also true, “if you ever saw the body of a dead child after a car accident, you would never travel in a car again” or “if you ever saw a drowned body you would never swim again” or ”if you ever saw a person dead as a result of operation that went wrong you would never submit to an operation”. One of the major known reasons for people making faulty decisions is the inability to weigh up risks. People smoke (50% chance of dying) and campaign against telephone masts or incinerators (0.0001%? chance of cancer). The chances of living in certain circumstances where an operation is essential but during it a blood transfusion is necessary, balanced against the risk of contracting AIDS or CJD or even dying during the operation is such that you are thousands of times better off getting the operation and having the blood transfusion than not. I don’t know the figures for Ireland but I would guess that tens of thousands of people (including my father) are alive today that otherwise would be dead if they had not had operations and blood transfusions. How many are dead as a consequence? A few dozen.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 04/11/2004 21:43
I have read some of the post on this thread I would like to give all a short little but true story, some years ago my wife was expecting our fourth child and like every parent we were over the moon with joy but the joy was short lived as the we were thold to expect the worse when the baby was born. We were thold that we might have anything from one hour to a day to be with her.Our baby lived for five weeks and we enjoyed every minute with her.The reason I am telling this story when we sat down with medical people pleading to try and save our baby we as a family were prepared to do anything that was asked of us,we were thold that there was no way that the hosp could and would not help to keep our baby alive If it was a question of giving our baby a supply of new blood yes we would have said go ahead but this was not the problem I am not going to say what was the cause, Only just to say to Noel I would hope that no one would be in the position that we found in but I gave a long time hating God for what happened, with the passing of time I have changed that thinking about God, what I am saying to you Noel is if I was a jw at that time I would have thold the lot of you to get stuffed I would have gladly given anything to save our baby, in writing this post I did not do it for any sympathy we have excepted what happened and we allso know however bad our story is there are family's out there suffering a lot more.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 05/11/2004 10:01
Anon 04/11/2004 21:43 makes a basic point. If he was faced with the choice of giving his child a blood transfusion he would, and presumably would do so even if he was a JW. This of course does not mean anything. People do things for many reasons. One reason JW’s refuse blood is that they are brainwashed into believing this is a VERY BAD THING. If Anon was similarly brainwashed he would have behaved the same. Anon has been brainwashed but in a different set of myths, that’s why he hated something that doesn’t exist - God. He should be aware and worried that because he is brainwashed (because he believes in God) then he clearly is someone who can be brainwashed. A summary of what Anon said is, “I’m not brainwashed into believing the JW myths but my own set of myths.” Anon can be glad he is brainwashed into a set of myths that today is relatively benign unlike the unfortunate JW parents whose warped view of reality would allow them to see their child die because of their brainwashing. Anon had a paradox, how could a loving God allow such suffering, how could he allow my child to die before she had any chance of life? The answer is extremely simple, there is no paradox because there is no God. Children have always died, that’s nature, they still die but because of the enormous advances in medical science such as vaccination, keyhole surgery, early intervention, advanced drugs etc. they die far less often. I too have children but so far we have had no such calamities, I can only sympathise with anyone who has.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 05/11/2004 11:08
To the post on 5/11/04, (10.01). Everybody who believes in God is brainwashed? You're just getting insulting now. Aside from various religions and beliefs that you (or I) disagree with, for some people, such a belief is extremely important. What about in Alcoholics Anonymous where people are encouraged to believe in a 'higher power'. Are you going to say to recovering alcoholics who have succeeded on this programme, that they're brainwashed and shouldn't be bothering with that belief. You don't agree with the JWs, fair enough, but don't dismiss other people who choose to have an open mind on God, Allah, Buddha etc...
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 05/11/2004 18:23
Well all I can say on the question of brainwashing is that when I reflect on the state my mind was in before I studied the bible, it needed a good washing! But lets be serious, it is unreasonable to say that because people hold a belief you do not accept they must be brain washed. It is just using derogatory language to try to put down some ones beliefs that you just don't (or wont even try to)understand. We are all "conditioned" by the information we take in and I for one would encourage all not to be closed minded about examining alternative ideas we might learn something benificial. I would like to respond to some of the earleir comments about the Bible itself but must rush now, so another time. Have a healthy and safe weekend all.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 08/11/2004 08:53
Maybe Anon: 05/11/2004 10:01 has a point. There is no scientific evidence for God and no proof of the existence of a God/Allah, call it what you will. Therefore for one to belive in God, one must be brainwashed by a particular belief system. Afterall, ever heard the saying 'don't open your mind so much that your brain falls out'.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 09/11/2004 01:22
I reject that my statements are derogatory or insulting, they can’t be they are simply facts that are totally valid in light of the subject under discussion. If you challenge strongly held beliefs you are often accused of insulting people. Why is that? A scientist would never say he’s insulted by a colleague who disagreed with him. Religious people simple cannot grasp the notion that their opinions are based on them being brainwashed. They cannot think objectively, its one of the side effects of the brainwashing. If virtually all the children of the various religions around the world believe passionately in the same religion as their parents, even to the point of dying for these contradictory beliefs, then there must be a reason or it would be the most amazing coincidence of all time. If all these religions disagree with each other then at least most *must* be wrong so the reason people believe in them *cannot* be based on evidence or logic or fact. It must be based on something else. All religions “teach” their children continuously about their own religion as if it is a fact from childhood. It is obvious then that the reason these children, and later on as adults, believe in their particular religion and its beliefs, such as blood transfusions are bad or it’s OK to fly into skyscrapers is because of the activities of the parents. I believe that in the not too distant future this will come to be seen as child abuse and made illegal. Again I repeat that parents do not own their children and are not entitled to brainwash them into believing in their own particular superstitions, some of which are quite dangerous. The fact that all religions disagree AND the children still believe in them has to be based on brainwashing. By brainwashing I mean inculcating strong beliefs in someone who is powerless to resist, children in this case. It’s ironic that children die because of the beliefs of their parents who came by their own beliefs mainly because of brainwashing that they themselves underwent in childhood. There are other reasons that people get brainwashed which often occurs when people change religion. Noel hints at why he became a JW when he said that before he was a JW his brain needed a good washing and by co-incidence so does the other writer who refers to AA members. When many people suffer serious crises in their lives they become religious. Alcoholics, drug addicts and even murders serving life sentences in prison. The current president of America was by his own admission an alcoholic and some suggest took cocaine. Then he found Jesus & also decided that stem cell research was wrong, that Evolution was not how we got here and that it is reasonable to teach children in Science classes that the Grand Canyon was created in a week. God doesn’t spring into existence just because someone becomes an alcoholic and joins an organisation that brainwashes him into believing in a “higher authority” as the first writer claims. Nor does the fact that someone suffers an alcohol induced nervous breakdown prove that all the Biologists in the world are complete ejits. No religious person has ever in any thread I have been involved in tried to explain why the vast bulk of people believe in the religion of their parents. Come on admit it, you were brainwashed. All you have to do is think about this and you will know that I am telling you the truth and therefore I am not insulting you. It's not even your fault. You literally had no choice in the matter.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 09/11/2004 19:06
Many people who are brought up to believe certain religions, change there beliefs when they are older to reason themselves. Therefore I dont see being thought a certain religion is a form of brainwashing. Also, its becoming quite common for people who believe in evolution to turn to religion, i think basically because they are not satisfied with the evidence that supports evolution. By applying there own (not forced) reasoning they have come to believe in an intelligent creator. Personally, I am not particularly satisfied with the \"proof\" that supports evolution. Maybe its just my lack of knowledge in the area(which I am hoping to enhance), but i have not yet found the answer to the following: If we are a result of evolution, then why for example have giraffes not been found who have half the neck size that they have now? surely if it took billions of years for there necks to become what they are now, it should be possible to find some in there intermediate process of evolving. Why is it that we cant find (or at least i havent found any evidence) that there are no animals in there evolution process now. surely even the cell activity of organisms should have shown change over the past number of years if evolution is true. Even if something as small(yet complex) as the human eye is a result of evolution, does it mean that there were people at some stage in history walking around without an eyelid!!! and if you say every part of the human eye evolved at the same time, how does it all fit together so perfectly? it doesnt seem to be random in the slightest. These are just a few of the things i have been thinking about which are causing me to question evolution. So, evolution to me remains a theory, no it hasnt been disproved yet , but its still missing a number of critical elements. Here are some examples where theories or laws were shown to have errors: 1. Newtons laws mathematical formulas that accurately predicted the relationships between force, mass and acceleration were discovered by Newton. These formulas precisely predicted the movement of everything from pendulums to apples to planets. Over time, Newton\'s theories advanced in status until they became referred to as Newton\'s Laws. However, in the early 20th century, Einstein developed new equations which predicted that an object\'s mass is not constant. As its speed approached that of light, its mass increases and dimensions decrease. Subsequent experiments, and observation of naturally occurring phenomena, have validated this theory. 2. Bacterial cause of ulcers In the past, doctors had been treating ulcers with stress relief programs, medication to lower stomach acid, and diet. But ulcers often persisted in spite of the best care. Patients often had to accept their condition as permanent. Two Australian physicians were able to demonstrate that many ulcers are not caused by spicy food, excess stomach acid or stress; they were created by a particular bacterium called H.pylori. One of the researchers actually infected himself with H.pylori, developed ulcers, and then cured himself with antibiotics. 3 The present course of treatment calls for doses of two medications: one antibiotic that kills the bacteria, and one that blocks acid. This cures ulcers in over 80% of patients. Although the research was first published in 1983, it was not until 1994 that the U.S. National Institutes of Health endorsed the new treatment. Here, we have an instance where medical science went down the wrong path for many decades. The scientific method played a major role in convincing the medical fraternity to accept a bacterial cause to ulcers.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 10/11/2004 21:54
Why has Noel May not commented on Anon 22/10/04 21:44. Anon 26/10/04 18:21. Anon 02/11/04 12:41. Has his " head washing " deluded him to the extent that he is ignoring the TRUTH?. There is a signifigant number of J Ws that secretly do not belive the "Blood Issue" teachings that is forced upon the every day good J W, who ,lets face it are largely uneducated working class decent people who need direction in there lives. Ask any new J W (Last Ten Years of Joining) any Question Re There History, They wont know the answer but Noel does. Noel does not teach the things that was taught to him prior to 1975 to his bible students of today. Because they use the scripture interpretation of "The Light is Getting Brighter and Brighter" this is how they explain away when they were wrong.The Guys in J W. H Q. In New York do the Tacking or should I say script writing? Noel what has happened to the "This Generation will not Pass away until this occurs". Where is this teaching gone , Noel what will YOU do if Your leaders come right out and say they are wrong on the "Blood Issue" will you believe them? How will you feel about yourself if you have counselled some Brother Or Sister to abstain from Blood and they where Wrong,that will be a tough one.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 10/11/2004 22:44
The *vast* majority of people believe in the same religion as their parents, *very few* change their beliefs. When you say “many people change their religion”, you actually mean the opposite. As a percentage very few do. I think you mean some, not many in relative terms. Very few Protestants become Catholics (other than forced to do so to get married), Hindus rarely switch to Shinto. If religious belief was based on divine inspiration or a communication with God or evidence or logic would many people from different *wrong* religions not adopt whatever is the correct religion? How come this does not happen? I know why, religion is not based on anything other than brainwashing. What support do you have for this statement, “it’s becoming quite common for people who believe in evolution to turn to religion”. Again do you mean a few have? Certainly an extremely tiny number of Biologists have turned to believe in Creationism. Scientists are the least religious of all people and in particular Physicists. Darwin lost his religion when he discovered Evolution & he originally studied Theology. He delayed publishing Evolution because he knew it would upset his wife. It did. It also seriously upset all religions because in one fell swoop it destroyed the entire concept that God made man. You say you are not satisfied with the proof of Evolution and then say you have a “lack of knowledge” of it. The fossil record is full of the ancestors of different animals showing gradual changes such as the brain capacity as a percentage of body mass of our own ancestors so your Giraffe story is irrelevant (funny, the JW’s main anti-Evolution book uses the Giraffe as an example but laughing suggests that a sheep couldn’t evolve into a Giraffe as “proof” that Evolution is incorrect). We obviously cannot find intermediate fossils of every creature in every stage of its evolution. I cannot teach anyone Evolution on a thread so I suggest you do as you plan to do and study the subject before you debate its lack of proof which is actually based by your own admission on *your* lack of knowledge. Your misunderstanding of the evolution of the eye which occurred at least 40 different times throughout the ages is also based on your lack of knowledge. It did evolve slowly without jumps from no eye lid to eye lid but again I cannot explain that in a thread. There are plenty of books that will explain this to you in detail. Try Richard Dawkins. Are we to assume you have a lack of knowledge of Newtonian Mechanics and Relativity as well? Newton’s various theories are still extremely powerful and still form the basis of most calculations in mechanics (your car odometer ignores Einstein’s Theory of Relativity) but Einstein did develop a more powerful theory that superseded Newton’s “Laws” in so far as it is are far more accurate but this accuracy is of the order of 1/30,000th when compared to say the calculation of the orbit of Mercury. Even Relativity is incomplete and future discoveries will refine it too. I am still awaiting someone to address the point. If all religions disagree and the vast majority of people believe in the religion “teachings” of their parents is it not as a result of brainwashing. What other mechanism is at work if not this?
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 15/11/2004 00:23
anonymous 10/11/04 @ 21:54 poses some very question's to Noel indeed to all jw's maybe Noel might come back on this one.
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 15/11/2004 14:08
Anon 10/11/2004 21:54 asked why I have not responded to some of the many points made, well firstly I am not interested in commenting on swipes at Jehovah's Witness's as an organization it really distracts from the topic at hand, I made the comment on 1/11/04 "because one my get a speculation about a future event wrong does not mean that everything one has learned is wrong. We do not claim to be infallible at all but with honest effort in bible study one can learn clearly basic moral principles and they have held fast through much soul searching", that is our position and anyone who is a Witness has ample access to many reference books on the History of Witnesses, most of us would have one or more of these history's in our library's. Secondly I agree fully with the comments made in the main article that this track is based on "that it is up to the conscience of individuals to take blood transfusions or not" Our conscience we believe should be guided and educated by Bible principles. So if one decides to break one of those principles, stealing, fornication, taking blood, participating in war, lying etc., one would be violating bible principles even if a persons "conscience" allowed it. So in effect one would be saying I disagree with the Bibles teaching on this subject, if that is the case they are free to go their own way but should no longer claim to be committed to the belief system they are rejecting. Many people have "consciences" that are so permissive that they have really no moral foundation or would dramatically conflict with the moral standards set out in the Bible. I would like to comment on Williams evolution views in the context of this discussion but must dash right now, so I will come back to that another time.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 15/11/2004 14:58
It is a very basic concept that anything built on sand falls down. I find it totally pointless discussing the nuances of bible interpretation because the bible was written by ignorant people thousands of years ago. People ignorant of medicine, science, astronomy & genetics cannot tell us anything at all about what we should believe and how we should behave nearly 2,000 years later. We know the bible was written by man for reasons stated above. We know it is ambiguous and contradictory because 34,000 different Christian sects tell us so. No semantics from Noel can alter this fact. Therefore any argument or opinion that is based on the bible, such as a prohibition on blood transfusions, condoms or that Homosexuality (almost certainly a genetic pre-disposition) is a “sin” is useless. Human morality is based, like absolutely everything in nature on evolution. We can prove this. Noel cannot prove anything whatsoever about God, the bible or his own religion. When it prophesises something testable, i.e. the end of the world, it got it wrong. That failure would put an end to any scientific theory. It also proves the JW claim to have correctly interpreted god in the bible as wrong. It’s nothing to do with JW’s being infallible. You say your interpretation of the bible is correct, you interpret it to say the world will end, it didn’t, you and your theory are wrong. QED. Now you should logically become a Humanist like me.
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 15/11/2004 17:21
Wow, lets not then discuss naunces but why some one could (and I believe should believe what the Bible says) It was not written by ignorent people, the principles and ideas expressed in it hold good today as much as then. For those who have actually read the Bible they would know this is the case. Williams comments on evolution remind me so much of my own views some time ago before I really examined what the Bible actually said (as opposed to what I learned about religion in school) and compared it to the actual evidence. When I was first presented with what the Bible said about creation I had many hurdles to leap. The first big hurdle I had to face though was the seeming “evidence” so frequently quoted about evolution. If this evolutionary theory was true it meant that the Bible was wrong from the very start. As Genesis starts off with the statement about God “creating”, I began to look at the evidence and came to the conclusion that the weight of reason and logic came down on the side of there being an intelligent creator. Now at the time this did not suit my life style, because accepting evolution meant that there really was no one to answer to except ourselves and therefore morality was a side issue and took second place to expedience. My studies brought me to the conclusion that God has revealed himself to mankind in two outstanding ways. The principal way is through the Bible, which makes known his truth and his purposes for mankind and the last 20+ years have over and over bourn out the benefits of applying bible principles in life. The other way is through creation. By observing the wonders of nature around us, we can come to appreciate that there must be a Creator-God whose “personality” is reflected in his works of nature. During recent centuries, scientists have given much time to studying the works of creation (laws of nature). What have some concluded?. Well let me share a few quotes from a few well known scientists. One of the pioneers in the field of electricity, British physicist Lord Kelvin, declared: "I believe the more thoroughly science is studied the further does it take us from anything compared to atheism." Albert Einstein, said: "It is enough for me to . . . reflect upon the marvelous structure of the universe, which we can dimly perceive, and to try humbly to comprehend even an infinitesimal part of the intelligence manifest in nature." The Nobel prize winner Arthur Holly Compton said: "An orderly unfolding universe testifies to the truth of the most majestic statement ever uttered—'In the beginning God.'" He was quoting the opening words of the Bible “In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth”. More personally, consider some very basic things we “just know”, we all live in a house of some sort, probably you did not build the house yourself, or know who did. However, the fact that you do not know the builder would not prevent you from accepting the truth that some intelligent person built it. To reason that the house built itself would appear very foolish and you would just never accept that! Since the universe, and everything in it, required infinitely greater intelligence for its construction, is it not reasonable to conclude that there must be an Intelligent Creator? Note Einstein’s comment about “intelligence manifest in nature”. Evolution says basically that it all happened by accident, and no “intelligence” is behind it, yet no evolutionist would ever accept that their house just “happened” and yet the basic atom that makes up all things is a far more complex and intelligent structure then any house!. The glorious wonders that surround us—the flowers, the birds, the animals, the marvelous creation called mankind, the miracles of life and of birth—these all testify to the invisible Master Intellect that produced them. This is what the bible says in Romans 1:20, if you have a Bible look it up and read it. Where there is intellect, there is mind. Where there is mind, there is a person. The supreme intellect is that of the Supreme Person, the Creator of all things living, we give that one the title God (in the Bible he gives his personal name as Jehovah). Also during my education when evolution was discussed in biology it was taught very clearly that as many of the claimed transitory species were not at that point found in the fossil record they were referred to as “missing links”. They remain missing to this day despite the great advances in scientific methods to assist geologists and archaeologists. I believe this is for a very good reason, they never existed! One previous contributor mentioned the eyes, so take that as an example again, where are the species with the emerging partial eyes? (or ears or nose for that matter), how would an “unintelligent” species “know” that it would need to develop eyes.. and not just one?. The eyes alone are such a complex and amazing organ that we in the 21st century are only beginning to comprehend the exquisite design inherent in sight. One of my R&D projects in computing a few years ago was in Machine Vision and it taught us how vast the computing power needed to just follow and decipher simple objects, never mind seeing in 3D and in colour and following and interpreting constant changes every second in the field of vision. These fetes of vision we often just take for granted, yet the most powerful computers devised and yes "designed" by man cannot do a fraction of what the eye does. Who therefore designed the eye? We see great variety in nature, so some say this is evidence of evolution, because we see much variety within “family kinds” and that they adapt to their environment but consider what the Bible says when it talks about creation. It tells us that God created all living things “ackording to their kinds” so we have the cat family, the cattle family, the human family the monkey family, the horse family etc.,. They don’t interbreed, a man can’t impregnate a monkey, nor can a horse impregnate a cow. Each “kind” has its limits (for example when an ass and a horse are interbred we get a sterile mule). This conforms to what the Bible said about God creating “according to their kinds”, yet this allows for what we see in nature great variety within each biological “kind”. So to the Bible itself, as it is the only ancient religious book that clearly teaches us about an intelligent creator, starting in Geneses is the obvious place to begin with the question “is the Bible really inspired by God, the Creator”. I came to the conclusion that it is for several reasons. Firstly, it is the only source to explain the reason why we are here (an expression of Gods love to share life). It is not contradictory as many say it is, people continually mix up what a religion who claim to base their beliefs on the Bible teach and what the Bible actually teaches. Let me illustrate this in one small way. Jesus stated in Matthew that his disciples would “not lift up sword against another” and that we were “to love our enemies”. Yet most of the religions that profess to be Christian not only allow their adherents go to war but actually have their priests bless the weapons of war and pray to God for victory. Now because most do not live or accept what Jesus taught in the Bible about this matter does not make the Bible wrong or contradicory, it makes those who ignore it wrong and means they misrepresent his clear teaching in the Bible on this matter. There is no contradiction in the Bible it is the ones who teach “church” doctrine that are often contradicting the Bible not itself. One earlier contributor spoke deridingly of the Bible and referred to the Dead Sea scrolls as if they cast doubt on the bibles accuracy. Nothing could be further from the truth. Note the following. Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest manuscripts of the Hebrew Scriptures were from about the ninth and tenth centuries C.E. The question would then be rightly asked “could these manuscripts truly be relied upon as faithful transmissions of the Bible”, since the writing of the Hebrew Scriptures was completed well over one thousand years earlier? Professor Julio Trebolle Barrera, a member of the international team of editors of the Dead Sea Scrolls, states: “The Isaiah Scroll [from Qumran] provides irrefutable proof that the transmission of the biblical text through a period of more than one thousand years by the hands of Jewish copyists has been extremely faithful and careful.” The scroll that Barrera refers to contains the complete book of Isaiah. To date, among over 200 Biblical manuscripts found at Qumran, portions have been identified of almost every book of the Hebrew Scriptures. Unlike the Isaiah Scroll, most are represented only by fragments, containing less than one tenth of any given book. The Bible books that were most popular at Qumran were Psalms (36 copies), Deuteronomy (29 copies), and Isaiah (21 copies). These are also the books most frequently quoted in the Christian Greek Scriptures. So of course you would expect some passages to be the same as those found, one was say the Psalm and in the new testament they were quoting the same Psalm. Very significantly we got from the Dead Sea Scroll Library clear proof that the transmission of the Bible over the first thousand years was faithful to the original writings. All the other (many thousands) scrolls found of the Bible from ancient times further bear this out. This is despite the massive endeavor during the middle ages to keep the Bible hidden from the ordinary people. So what does all of this have to do with not taking Blood transfusions you may well ask. The premise from several participants in this track is that taking direction from the Bible is tantamount to blind belief, we would therefore say that is not the case, as we have many good and logical reasons to believe that the Bible is inspired of God and is a reliable guide from our maker to his creation and when he tells us to “abstain for blood” I believe it is for good reason and I have learned from my own experience to come to trust the wisdom and guidance on all moral issues expounded on in the Bible.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 15/11/2004 18:21
I didn’t just say the men who wrote the bible were ignorant, I specifically said they were ignorant of science. For example, it was believed when the bible was written that Homosexuality was a sin, it still is by religious people but now we know it’s genetic. As some Homosexuals have printed on posters they carried at demonstrations against the injustices heaped on them by the religious right, “God made me Gay”, so how could it be wrong? No one could possibly think Homosexuality is wrong if it occurs because of natural causes. In fact the whole notion of “sin” such as theft comes under scrutiny when you realise that the majority of thieves come from severely disadvantaged backgrounds. The majority of criminals in prison are illiterate. Does this mean that they are sinners or have they come to steal because of their appalling upbringing? I think it’s obvious. I have personally met religious fundamentalists, who believing the bible as Noel does, still think the Sun orbits the Earth and that the Earth is at the centre of the Universe just as the Popes did up to relatively recently. Christians are always way behind scientific advance but they eventually accept that science is right. The Catholic Church was 145 years behind Darwin. Imagine being wrong for 145 years and then admitting it and then saying that you interpret the bible as a source of truth and carry on with absurd claims such as Homosexuality is a sin or condoms that prevent unwanted pregnancies and AIDS are evil. It is beyond my comprehension how any intelligent person can believe in religion when it keeps being proved wrong and admitting as such century after century for 400 years now. I will answer Noel’s other points tomorrow. I might add that to understand evolution one must study it to some extent. Anyone amazed about \"the miracle of life\" or evolution can read a few booksin evolution, get to understand it and then realise that Noel and his ilk are wrong, has been proved wrong and are regarded as wrong by 99+ % of all research biologists. Can a million highly trained modern scientists be totally wrong about the entire laws underpinning their science?
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 16/11/2004 00:50
Noels response is typical, he can not defend the undefensible. He has been programed to answer this way and I feel sorry for him and his like minded JWs. I certainly am not SWIPING at Noels organisation I am only Quoting and stateing what has been published in JW publications. Every thing I have put in this track has every thing to do with the issue of whether or not one should take or permit a Blood transfusion to save a life. Noel replies..1/11/04 "because we may get a SPECULATION (capitals mine for enphasis) about a future event wrong does not mean that everthing one has learned is wrong, well what about the following;- The Jahovahs Witness Organisation once banned VACCINATION. " As vaccination is a direct injection of animal matter in the blood stream,vaccination is a direct violation of the law of Jehovah God.(The Golden Age 1935 April 2 p.465).One of many direct quotes from an old JW publication. Vaccinations were banned for 21 years from 1931 to 1952 the same Bible verses were used which they presently use to JUSTIFY the blood transfusion ban notably Genesis 9:4 and Leviticus 17:10-14. As recent as 1993 the Watchtower Society (J Ws) made the following statement about vaccinations; "Previous articles in this journal and its companion The Watchtower, have presented a CONSISTENT position: (capitals mine for enphasis)It would be up to the Bible-trained conscience of the individual Christian as to whether he would accept this treatment for himself and his family." (Awake 1993 August 8 p.25). Does that sound familier? The JWs also imposed a ban on organ transplants for 13 YEARS from 1967 to 1980, claiming that organ transplants were unbiblical and cannibalistic. The same Bible verses from Genesis were cited for that too.(The Watchtower 1967 Nov.15 pp.702-704) This view was reversed in 1980.(The Watchtower 1980 March 15 p.31) Nobody knows how many JWs went BLIND by refusing cornea transplants. The J W Leadership gave no apology for its shift in position. And they call this CONSISTENT. Noel says " one can go his own free way if he does not accept the biblical beliefs surely he must mean the Watchtower way because the Bible does not and did not ban vacinnations and organ and blood transfusions.If Noel read the bible without the aid of man made publications that have been blatently wrong in the past I am sure he will be a free man, can Noel not see for himself that he and his fellow witnesses have been mislead and yes you are not been led by the Bible but are you been led maybe by your Leadership.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 16/11/2004 01:33
Noel says "I believe it is for GOOD reason and I have LEARNED from my own EXPERIENCE to come to TRUST the WISDOM and GUIDENCE on all moral issues expounded on in the Bible" of this I have no doubt whatsoever, But I think you or any other witness should look OUTSIDE the BOX for a moment because if you were asked to believe the reasoning behind your Organisational beliefs in the Buisness world you would be failures. Noel Quotes Einstein, Lord Kelvin, Arthur Holly Compton to support his arguement convieniently, but Noel believes these men where part of Satans visible eartly organisation here on Earth.So why quote Satanic men. Wrong on the End of the World.. Wrong on Vaccinations...Wrong on Organ Transplants... Wrong on Blood Maybe? But if there is a MAYBE give your children the BENEFIT of the DOUBT
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 16/11/2004 09:50
Noel, you still haven't explained why you belive tat abstainign from blood refers to blood transfusions (which were not yet invented at the time) rather than taking part in blood sacrfices, which were quite a common ritual during that era.
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 16/11/2004 16:09
I would point ANON 16/11/04 9:50 to the comments earlier in this track; 27/11/03: 28/11/03 and 1/12/03 which is how I tried to answer the question. As for the comment from ANON that "my response is typical", I would hope that it is typical of a Jehovah's Witness, I would also repeat from earlier the following..."When any organization produces a massive amount of study material there are bound occasionally to be times when it gets it wrong and some of the debate material was wrong. We do not claim infallibility. We do believe though that the Bible is divinely inspired, but not our literature or the editors and writers of articles. It reminds me of the first century Christians where sometimes one or more of the Apostles had to be corrected in their views or actions (they as individuals, including Peter were not infallible). Blood and its use is a clear Bible teaching. If you want to know what someone believes ask them, imagine asking the Pharisees (Jesus enemy’s) what did Jesus teach? You can imagine the distorted view you would get. I have no problem trying to address genuine questions people have about JW's, Transplants of any organ is a matter for the conscience of any individual Christian Witness and has always been so from the time they could be carried out without taking blood transfusions. As science and technology progresses we embrace it to the extent that it does not conflict with Gods commands in the Bible. As clearly mentioned earlier in this track we view abstinence from Blood as a scriptural injunction. All references to use of blood in the bible shows once it is extracted it should not be used, this is a “moral issue” to us as significant as not participating in Idol worship, fornication etc., (see Acts 15: 28, 29). We respect Gods right to set standards for us and believe the standards he set in the Bible are for our overriding benefit. As the Creator, we do believe he knows what is best for his creation. It is when mankind ignore his guidance he gets into terrible trouble in all fields of activity (including medical). I believe the trend in medicine is away from blood use due to the growing recognized dangers. Each year that passes we learn of more dangers, this site is very regularly alerting us to tragedies that happen due to our medical establishments lack of understanding and preparedness to deal with newly realized dangers. I would conclude that we do not try to force our views on others but our experience in non blood medical treatment has benefited many witnesses and non witnesses and enhanced the medical community’s overall knowledge. For more detailed information on Bloodless medicine please view http://www.watchtower.org/library/hb/index.htm
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 16/11/2004 17:32
But what is your logic behind refusing life saving transfusions for your children? Do you really belive that blood is part of a persons soul?
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 16/11/2004 19:36
I dont understand why people keep on asking the same questions over and over again!! It must become very agitating for those who the question is directed at. Can people who have just joined this debate please read through earlier messages, before repeating questions already asked and answered.
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 16/11/2004 20:36
WE DO NOT REFUSE LIFE SAVING TRANSFUSIONS FOR OUR CHILDREN! We accept all transfusions of non blood substances, we seek all the best available treatments that do not involve blood transfusions. Now as regards the question on the soul, The Bible teaches that the "soul" is you as a "living" breathing person and that the life source is in the blood. See extract from 1/11/04 and see 2/11/04.. "As regards the “Soul” comments, the Bible refers to the “whole living person” as a “Living Soul” and it speaks about the life blood of a person as sustaining that soul or living person. The Bible does not teach that a Soul is some thing apart from the living body , it says “The Soul that is sinning it itself will die” and as we all sin we all die. Therefore the old saying, the call for help, “SOS” or Save Our Souls” is correct. This brings me back to the desire we have that Doctors should treat the “whole person” or the living soul, you and me in our totality". As regards the comments from ANON 16/11/04 00:50. Yes we have made a relativly small number of mistakes in our journey to fully understanding some of the applications of Bible principles to modern day life and the ethical position they would indicate when deploying modern technology BUT we are as seekers of truth willing to adjust our views when evidence comes to light to show a clearer way forward. As stated we are not perfect but we do our upmost to adhere to the clear injunctions and moral principles (abstaining from blood being one)in the Bible which we firmly believe is the inspired word of God.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 16/11/2004 20:45
" we do not claim infallibility" Noels says. Well lets look at some of the things his leaders have said;- "nothing is interpreted but the iterpretation comes from God and is then published" The Watchtower 1943 July 1 p.p.202-203. "Angels deliver what is published". Preparation 1933 p.p.36-37,64. The Watchtower publishes " No Mans opinion".The Watchtower 1931 Nov.1 p327 1936 March 15 p 85. "To it (this organization)alone...the Bible is not a sealed book" the Watchtower society is the only organization on earth that understands the things of God. WT 1973 July 1p.402. "The leaders are SPIRIT DIRECTED "(WT 1988 March 1 p.10 and "Gods channel" WT 1969 Jan.15 p.51.1960 July 15 p.p.439.442. C T Russell founder of the Jehovah Witness Organization called himself "Gods Mouthpiece" (WT 1906 July 15 p.229) claimed that compared to reading His books Bible reading is "a waste of time" (WT 1910 Sept.15 p.298 and that His books "harmonize" every statement in the Bible. Divine Plan of The Ages 1886 p.348. Now if Noel is a Typical witness and believes this is Gods Directed True Church, what would any sane and logical person deduce if they where to follow the unbelievable lies that emenates from this Walter Mitty organization to make Noel and his fellow witnesses to see any differently and make them see that there arguement is really non existant on the BLOOD issue as it is quite lame. If I had a choice and I knew the above to be true My Children Can Have The benefit of the doubt any day. "Blood and its use is a clear Bible teaching" Says Noel and his leadership, I say they are unique as it is only clear to the JWs. Rather Noel would have been better saying "Blood and its use is a clear Watchtower teaching". Noel avoids answering the previous questions posed to him earlier,he says transplants are a matter of conscience well how can one use there conscience when there Leadership banned them what choice did the ordinary JW have Excommunication?..To make such choices means to lose loved ones and friends as the Jehovahs Witnesses are taught to SHUN any one who dares to Question the Leadership. Noel continues to quote the Bible to support his arguements but convieniently ignores the bible when it condemns his arguement by this I mean Scripture that warns about "Wolves in Sheeps clothing" and False Prophets. Noel mentions earlier that he was a Catholic and he left this faith because obviously he believed they where wrong for example the Catholics used to teach about Limbo. Purgatory ect..and like the Jehovahs Witnesses they taught the end of the world, Banned Vaccinations,Transplants, ect. Hey who really knows what will these Organizations change next? In the case of the J Ws the Blood issue perhaps?, they are nearly there I think. Jehovahs Witnesses are allowed Blood components FULL stop but why won't the Leadership just come out and PUBLISH it? Noel again quotes the Bible to strengthen his arguement Acts 15:28-29 and says its a moral issue to abstein from Blood, but as I asked earlier if Jehovahs Witnesses can take Blood components (i.e.Factor 8 as is the case for Haemophiliacs) or if you like small amounts of Blood, how does that make scriptural sense?...It doesnt. Surely we cannot use this scripture to condone a little fornication and a little bit of idol worship I think not.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 16/11/2004 22:18
Noel what then is free will or freedom of choice? If a robber holds a gun to my head and tells me to give him my money,do I have free will when making my decision? I don\'t really want to give him my money, but also I don\'t want to die. Not much of a free choice is it? Likewise the Jehovahs Witnesses holds the same power over its members......In the case of accepting certain blood products, the choice is either die or be disfellowshiped (excommunicated) for following ones CONSCIENCE. My money is not been stolen, my peace of mind is. If Noel could please explain as I am especially interested as I am sure any who is following this track also is could you please elaborate on which part of the Bible says what parts of Blood you can and cannot accept? Some JWs are unaware that the Leadership permits its members to accept all Blood products produced from fractionating red cells, white cells, platelets and plasma, this would include but is not limited to, the following Albumin,all Clotting Factors, all Immunoglobulins, Fibrinogen,EPO, Interferons,Interleukins and other Cellular Fractions. To all free thinking JWs ask your self this Question? Why did Jehovah Sacrifice His Only Son Jesus? for our sins did He not? He does NOT expect us to sacrifice ours.....by refusing Blood transfusions.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 25/11/2004 22:58
In response to Noel Mays reply 16-11-04. Quote "YES we have made a relatively SMALL NUMBER of MISTAKES in our journey to fully understanding some of the applications of Bible principles to modern day life and the ETHICAL position they would indicate when deploying modern technology. But we are as SEEKERS of TRUTH WILLING to ADJUST our Views when EVIDENCE comes to light to show a CLEARER WAY forward". (capitals mine for enphasis). Well Noel I hope you will hede your OWN advice, because you cannot afford to make MISTAKES no matter how SMALL they maybe, with peoples lives, are you being ETHICAL with your own position as one of Jehovahs Witnesses? I have NO doubth that YOU are a TRUE SEEKER of TRUTH and YOU are willing to ADJUST YOUR VIEWS when EVIDENCE comes to light to show a ClEARER WAY FORWARD.
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 26/11/2004 16:39
Anon of 16/11/04 20:45 Is repeating OUT of CONTEXT quotes and I assum is quoting them second hand from anti-Jehovah's Witness publications. We publish millions of pieces of information every year and I have no doubt you could pull anything you want out of context especially if you go back over one hundred years to find strings of words that might conflict as ANON has. I, who am a Witness have stated clearly what we believe and why we believe it,I would ask any honost hearted person to consider the facts not hearsay or misquotes. We in our literature have published many articles on why blood fractions are a matter of individual witness conscience as to whether they would take them or not but whole blood we believe falls squarly into the catagary of the prohibition in the Bible to abstain from Blood, as stated over and over again in this track.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 26/11/2004 20:48
Noel again side steps the questions that have been posed to him, citing OUT of CONTEXT quotes and anti-Jehovahs Witness publications. How convient, has Noel considered for one moment that I may be a Jehovahs Witness in Good standing who is TERRIFIED that he/she may lose their family and friends as this has been the case experienced recently , and the individual branded APOSTATE. Or I may have become INACTIVE as the JWs put it. Has Noel checked the publications that have been mentioned, the publications speak for themselves and they are not out of context. You say you have stated clearly what and why you as a Jehovahs Witness believe what you believe but that does not make it be (truth) RIGHT. Noal again I ask you what scripture supports what PARTS of BLOOD I can and cannot take? I will ask you outright for the benefit of those people who may be following this track did your organisation BAN at one time Vaccinations ,Organ Transplants just like they do Blood transfusions today?.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 26/11/2004 20:55
The Nazis believed they where right so much they Murdered millions of Jews and thousands of Jehovahs Witnesses but because they believed in something did not make them RIGHT. So Noel please look OUTSIDE the BOX.
 
  Cierra(ICL21141)  Posted: 27/11/2004 22:30
As a formeer jehovahs witness i think that if a child is in need of a blood trqansfusion it shall be up to the doctors whether his/her parents are making the correct decision whether or not to give the child the transfusion.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 01/12/2004 11:23
Noel and the JW's often use the Giraffe as a negative example of evolution. Here is a link to a good article that explains the evolution of the Giraffe http://www1.uop.edu/~e-buhals/GIRAFFE2.htm. Noel says that he studied Evolution and then decided that it was not true, but if he studied evolution why did he not know how the eye evolved? Either he didn't study evolution or has been disengenuous in putting forward his "the eye couldn't have evolved" theory.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 02/12/2004 15:22
to me that article is completely lacking!! it does not shed light on any evidence that giraffes actually evolved from these fossil giraffids which "were stout in structure with shorter necks". These fossils which were found could be from a completely different animal. This paper presents yet another theory, abundant with very courageous assertions.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 02/12/2004 17:09
William and Anon 2/12/04 Please let us not be side tracked the issue here is Jehovahs Witnesses and Blood Transfusions
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 02/12/2004 17:24
I wasn't seeking "to prove" how Giraffes evolved. I was seeking to show how they could. JW's claim there is no way they could evolve long necks. They specifically use Giraffes in their silly blue anti-evolution book. Rigerous proof will only come though some advanced DNA investigiation or some future yet to be discovered branch of science.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 02/12/2004 17:59
It's not side tracking. Noel has admitted that JW's have been wrong in the past but will not admit it is a big enough wrong to udermine his position on blood transfusions. He does think, he clearly says it, that evolution would totally undermine not alone his religion but all religions. I agree with him. It does. If I can force him to accept evolution then he has to become a secularist as he says that is the implication. Evolution=no morality=no god=no bible as word of god=blood transfusions are OK. I have a lot of patience. Evolution has been accepted by the Catholics and eventually it will undermine them, so too the JWs. We either evolved or god put us here. You can't have it both ways.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 06/12/2004 13:49
i think you will find with most, if not all of the theorys which support evolution, that they also do not "prove" evolution, they do the same thing as William, and merely try "to show how"!!! Even in places where many fossils have been found, there is no "rigorous proof" to show that the animals we know today evolved from such animals. Just as William said that jehovah witnesses have been wrong in the past, so have scientists(even read william article reference on giraffes)!! so it seems hypocritical for William to constantly point out that jehovah witnesses were wrong about something in the past, when scientists, especially evolutionists, have been wrong on a number of occasions. so equally it can be argued no Evolution= morality= god = bible as word of god=blood transfusions are not OK.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 07/12/2004 00:13
Proof is not an absolute, except, nearly so, in some maths theories. All scientists accept that all they can do is prove something to a degree that means it is accepted. No scientific theory was ever proven to the extent that it was accepted and then turned out to be wrong. What has happened is that an accepted theory was later refined to a higher degree of accuracy or did not work in circumstances outside the original “proven” areas. Evolution is proven in so far as it is accepted by virtually all researchers in biology. No other theory exists in Science to explain how we got here except evolution. The evidence that we got here via evolution is enormous and covers many scientific disciplines and the work of millions of scientists. There is evidence from thousands of fossils gathered from all over the world that span billions of years and thousands of species. There is evidence from Physics where the vast age of the Earth allows evolution time for to occur and which supplies the dating mechanism for fossils. There is evidence from Chemistry. There is evidence from the study of living animals. There is evidence from Geography and plate tectonics which explain how species evolved when the land they were on separated from the original land mass where their last common species existed. And most amazing of all was the discovery of DNA in 1954 by Crick & Watson. The discovery of genes made of DNA led to the discovery of the mechanism that underlies evolution. And finally current research in the genome of animals shows “mathematically” the relationship between us and our common cousins, the apes. Only people who do not understand evolution or are brainwashed into accepting religion question evolution.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 07/12/2004 11:16
To claim that all researchers in biology "understand" evolution seems hypocritical in that there is no general consensus on how it actually happened."When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: "It happened." Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd." (Conway Morris, Simon [palaeontologist, Department of Earth Sciences, Cambridge University, UK], "Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold," Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7, 2000, p.11).
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 07/12/2004 14:57
As it so happens I had diner with Conway Morris once. I am reading his current book. He is a very controversial individual. Quoting a single scientist is a bit pointless. There are always odd men out in a field of millions. The quote you used means nothing other than an off hand comment which Simon makes a lot of. The mechanism underlying evolution is well understood and agreed. Evolution should be thought of as a Science in itself rather than a theory within a science.
 
  Diane(RCO21767)  Posted: 11/12/2004 02:52
I'm one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I hesitate to comment here, because I've been reading the ongoing argument and feel that it has gotten out of hand. But as a Witness I want to share a point that I've not seen mentioned. I read a comment that stated something to the effect of 'so now Witnesses can take transfusions of blood fractions, so what's next a fraction of fornication?' The choice to use blood fractions is a relatively new one, so far it is considered a matter of personal choice, however, the Watchtower of June 15, 2004 has some very deep information,for those who DO trust the Bible and want to maintain a good relationship with Jehovah. It has two study articles concerning blood as well as a "Questions from Readers" article about blood. Those who have a sincere desire to understand Witnesses Bible-based view will benefit from this issue of the Watchtower. Also the quote at the beginning of this discussion that Witnesses could decide for themselves whether or not to have a transfusion is incorrect. Our organization tells us never to have a transfusion of whole blood or the four primary components, at the risk of damaging our personal relationship with Jehovah, not the organization or anyone else. Someone early on in this discussion kept asking why we couldn't store our own blood for use later. These articles in the June 15, 2004 Watchtower make this issue more clear. While Jehovah's laws and standards always provide protection for us if we follow them, He also has reasons for putting such laws in place. I hope any who are sincerely interested will find this particular issue of Watchtower helpful. Please see www.watchtower.org for information, or you can always contact Jehovah's Witnesses in your local area for a personal discussion which will be free of biased and incorrect input.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 11/12/2004 18:13
Here's a press release from the European Molecular Biology Laboratory that confirms that not alone can they explain how the human eye evolved but that they now have proof. see http://www.embl.org/aboutus/news/press/2004/press28oct04.html Maybe Noel will now admit that the eye could have evolved.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 13/12/2004 10:41
I take it Diane “… feels that the discussion has gotten out of hand” because some of us do not trust the bible because it is so contradictory (34,000 different Christian sects alone not to mention thousands of other religions now and in the past), that we know that the bible is wrong in so far as the Earth is not at the centre of the Universe as originally claimed by Christians (to the point of execution of scientists), that we now know through Science how the Universe came about, how the stars and planets formed and even how life evolved and finally that the reason people believe in particular religions is a mixture of historical accident, superstition, poor education, the brainwashing of children, the refusal to accept proven scientific facts and that JW’s in particular have incorrectly claimed such things as the end of the world. Is that what you mean by “.. feel that it has gotten out of hand”, i.e. that your *entire* set of beliefs, including refusal to allow your children life saving blood transfusions, is based on nothing more than illogical superstition?
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 13/12/2004 18:41
Well done Diane, for having the courage to comment at least.Because there are thousands of sisters like you who would like to comment but cannot for Fear of being ostracised. But, just like Noel you defend your Organisation blindly just look at your own comment! ".....issue of the Watchtower helpful." Your arguement is Watchtower interpretation and is not Biblical. And as you rightly say this is relatively NEW... Interpretation! What about all those CHILDREN who Died or Suffered prior to this "New Light". Diane PLEASE listen to yourself "Those who have a sincere desire to understand Witnesses Bible based view will benefit from this issue of the Watchtower". Have you really read the previous comments?, what about the Watchtower puplications on Vaccinations,Transplants and there totally unmovable position taken till recently on Blood?. How then did Witnesses benefit when the Organisation taught the Ban on the above. This does not excuse their Guilty position that they hold and have held in the past. You are right again your ORGANISATION tells you not to have a blood transfusion or the four primery components of blood for fear of damaging your relationship with Jehovah. But what about the JWs who need Factor 8 to survive?, are these Bros.and Sisters compromising their faith in Jehovah I think not.Remember this Jehovah does not keep CHANGING His mind .
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 14/12/2004 09:43
There is no Jehovah to "..keep CHANGING His mind" which is why you people and all religious people keep disagreeing and splitting into 34,001 different sects all interpreting the bible differently. Diane and other JW's need to re-consider the ALL their beliefs and not just the latest JW set of beliefs.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 17/12/2004 17:49
William you will not help these Kind Loving people( JWs the majority of them anyway )with your arguments or view points on evolution. Wheather you are right or not it is hard enough for the JWs to believe that they have been Duped by their leadership, so could you please have empathy for them. Thanks. Anon 13/12/04 18:41
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 20/12/2004 09:17
How could anyone empathise with someone blind and foolish enough to believe that 'their God' wants them to die?!!
 
  ann(EFD22109)  Posted: 29/12/2004 23:18
I stumbled upon this discussion while searching for information on the latest research out of the Univ. of Manchester on three essential oils that will kill on contact both e.coli and the deadly MRSA super bug. This is amazing new research on substances that science has ignored for centuries because it is not financially profitable. William got one thing right - mankind does tend to worship within the religion of their fathers. The trouble it that the religion of their fathers for the past century has been science and modern medicine. We bow down and worship them in all that we do today. We watch their sermons non-stop on our television sets from sun up to sun down. I have often said that America should change the statement on their currency from "In God We Trust" to "In Docs We Trust". We reap the rewards as well with properly prescribed prescription drugs being the third leading cause of death in this country, just barely behind cancer and heart attacks. In fact we lose as many every week to these drugs being "properly prescribed" as we lost in the 9/11 attack. That figure does not even begin to account for all of the deaths from medical mistakes, etc. A few are beginning to awaken to the horror of this mass drugging as the FDA has come under such scrutiny of late - something LONG overdue. It is a good lesson on how ANYTHING is for sale in America. Although I have not yet had the opportunity to see it, I LOVE the title of a movie that is getting rave reviews in this country. It is a movie including many scientists, like me, who are fed up with the stupidity and arrogance in modern medicine and science. The title: "What the Bleep Do We Know?" Most of the so called "science" available to the public is that science bought and paid for by those who intend to profit and profit in a very BIG way by it all. The truth is that as much as I disagree with JWs on their beliefs, this is one belief I very much agree with them on. In fact when they come to my door I encourage them to go teach my neighbors of my own faith the error of their ways when it comes to blood transfusions - even allowing the blood suckers to come into the church to gather the blood donations. My religious, as well as scientific opinion, is that blood transfusions along with organ donations are absolutely barbaric. Few scientists will tell the truth behind these practices. I have a close friend, a nurse, who has told me for years how appalled she is by what is allowed to pass as acceptable in the blood donation clinic where she works. If you think you are getting "safe" and "clean" blood, THINK AGAIN! I have no doubt that the day will come that we will finally realize in horror all the harm that we are doing to the body by injecting the DNA, hormones, toxins, etc. via blood to another human. For example, one woman I worked with, who had contracted a fatal blood disorder from Prozac and was undergoing daily blood transfusions to prolong her death, came to me with concerns. When I said to her, "With emotions coming from hormones which are carried by the blood, you must not have a clue who you really are or how you feel about anything." She replied that this is exactly what she was experiencing and had just tried to explain to her doctor who seemed clueless to her experience. An honest scientist will answer the question about transfusions with "What The Bleep Do We Know?" We are by far not as smart as we think we are. In all of these issues I will always stand by God, Our Father in Heaven, who easily knows more than all of these scientists together and certainly cares more than any of them do. The scriptures are only guidelines He has given us on how to make life a joyful and painless experience. Translated that means that certainly there are MANY alternatives to transfusions and surgery.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 02/01/2005 13:16
Ann’s sentence, “properly prescribed prescription drugs being the third leading cause of death in this country”, is a well known myth. This figure is bandied about by anti-modern medicine campaigners. The figure actually includes all those that died while on medicine and not just those that were killed by the medicine. This “statistic” has been totally discredited. People on drugs are obviously ill and many will die eventually despite modern medicine. In fact most people who die are on some medicine or another *because* they are sick. The entire trust of Ann’s wildly ranging rant is that modern medicine is a con. Again this is part of a worldwide conspiracy theory mainly pushed by the alternative medicine business which seeks to con people out of their money by claiming that modern medicine is bad and alternative medicine, which is totally ineffective and has been proven so, is good. Ann’s opening sentence indicates that she is part of this alternative medicine world when she refers to magic “essential” oils that cure infection and that has been ignored by mainstream medicine. The Complementary Alternative Medicine (CAM/CON) market is now a sizeable percentage of the mainstream medicine budget so CAM people claiming all the bad things about money, profit and big business is total hypocrisy. The fastest growing business in “medicine”, which turns over tens of millions of Euros in Ireland alone, is CAM. Reiki Healers who have done a quick correspondence course and charge €50 a “treatment” are milking money from gullible, ill and very silly people. Pharmacies selling water and sugar (which is all it can be under EU legislation) and calling it Homeopathic “Medicine” also rip people off. Ann admits that she is religious (which is common among CAM supporters), maybe she will tell us what religion she belongs to and how if she claims to be a scientist that she can reconcile her superstitious religious beliefs with the principals of the Scientific Method? Thousands of people are alive in Ireland today only because they had operations that required blood transfusions, including my father. Ann’s anecdote about the colleague who had the transfusions being confused about “who she is” is complete and utter nonsense but does fit in with the JW’s superstition that the blood is the source of the “life force”. The notion that you are no longer yourself after a blood transfusion is an idea better suited to primitive tribes who ate the hearts of their vanquished enemies to gain their strength & bravery.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 02/01/2005 18:20
Noel has either being silenced by his Organisation or He sees He and his fellow JWs are being misled by his Organisation or maybe he is on holiday we will give him the benefit of the doubt and say he is on holiday as his non participation in this discussion is obvious the last 5 to 6 weeks. Or maybe he accepts that his organisations teachings on blood are wrong.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 04/01/2005 09:34
Noel, I think you are very quick to dismiss complemantary treatments - which have helped thousands in thiscountry and worldwide, however, regarding Anne's posting - perhaps she has a point regarding certain hormones in blood affecting our mood. Afterall in doctor will admit that that the huge surge of hormones produced in pregnancy affects a womans mood.
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 05/01/2005 19:13
I am back.... Anon of 02/01/2005 asks if I have been “silenced” (what nonsense) or on holidays, neither, I have been away most of last month on business. I am pleased to be able to make further comment on the debate. I thank those who have added their “voice” to the issue, I certainly want to encourage a greater understanding of our position as Witnesses. A great deal has tried to be made about us changing our minds on some (what I consider) non core issues, as I said before with the advances being made over the last 50 years in medical treatment it would have been pretty narrow minded of us to ignore medical advances that moved some of the "medical treatment without blood issue" into new areas. Therefore in considering these new avenues of treatment with minor blood fractions it was decided that it moved the decision from very clear to marginal for some Witnesses and as has been stated this area was then left up to an individuals conscience and not a congregational matter. It is still a personal decision one would have to make concerning using components of blood fractions. All of Jehovah’s Witnesses are individuals who make a sincere choice to be so, none are coerced. We are by and large individualists who don’t mind standing up for what we believe to be true despite adverse comments from media and the public at large. Each year many individuals become Witnesses and (unfortunately) many leave being Witnesses, I know none personally (although I know many who have left or have been put out due to failure to accept scriptural moral standards) who have left because of our beliefs on how sacred blood is. On the matter that William raised about "evolution and the eye" I read on the web site he referenced with interest the press release he referred to and it is theorising that it is (I quote)"Quite possibly, the human eye has originated from light-sensitive cells in the brain. Only later in evolution would such brain cells have relocated into an eye and gained the potential to confer vision.(Wittbrodt)" …said Kristin Tessmar-Raible "When I saw this vertebrate-type molecule active in the cells of the Playtnereis brain – it was clear that these cells and the vertebrate rods and cones shared a molecular fingerprint.” (Interesting) but she then says “This was concrete evidence of common evolutionary origin. We had finally solved one of the big mysteries in human eye evolution." ALL THAT THIS "PRESS RELEASE" SHOWS IS THAT THERE IS A MOLECULER FINGERPRINT SHARED BETWEEN LIGHT SENSITIVE BRAIN CELLS AND EYE CONES. Anything else is pure speculation. This press release is another demonstration of avid evolutionists making one and one make 101 and leaping to speculative conclusions. As a person who believes in a Creator I would very much expect to see much similarity between cell structures (shared molecular fingerprint), the Bible declares that all earthly creatures were made from the same source. So I could well also say from what they discovered that this “shared molecular fingerprint had finally solved one of the big mysteries of creation and demonstrates a single guiding creative intelligence”!. So take your pick! Also please note that when I referred to the marvels of the eye previously I was asking where the ancient fossils were of intermediate eyes (partial), the article William referred us to talked about “living fossils” and there was nothing partial about their vision. To ANON of 04/01/2005 I certainly appricate and sometimes use alternate / complemantary treatments, perhaps I am missing some point that you picked up on.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 06/01/2005 10:07
So Noel, is it also now left up to individuals conscience whether or not to indulge in 'minor fractions' of fornications or are you admittign afterall, that the bible is fallible.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 06/01/2005 10:09
Hi Noel, my comment - 04/01/2005, was directed at William rather than you. Many thought you were offline line for the Christmas holidays. Apologies for any confusion.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 06/01/2005 10:24
Noel says, “All of Jehovah’s Witnesses are individuals who make a sincere choice to be so, none are coerced”. Is being kicked out of the “gang” for disagreeing not coercion? Is Noel seriously suggesting that his children and the children of other religions were not coerced into believing in their particular creed? My father forced us to say the Rosary nightly at one stage. How can an eight year old oppose their parent’s wishes on attending “religious instruction” aka brainwashing sessions. How can an Irish child tell his parents that he no longer wants to go to mass? I stopped attending church when I was 15 but I certainly carried on pretending I was going or I would have been in deep do do. Society & teachers also coerce individuals. Strong individuals can oppose this coercion but others cannot. When I married in a registry office 25 years ago most of our relations refused to come because they were put under pressure, indeed a Catholic priest recently called for a boycott by “Christians” of registry office marriages. Is that not coercion? Over the years most of these relations have apologised to me, including my father-in-law who is a devout Catholic. I might add, in case anyone reading this feels sorry for me, that at the time I couldn’t care less. But that’s me. I’m sure my wife was upset. I will address Noel’s point re evolution of the eye in the next post. Maybe some JW’s might add details of the insidious coercion that occurs when one challenges the JW creed
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 06/01/2005 15:06
The web site referred to by Anon “truebiblecode” has nothing to do with Jehovah’s Witnesses, it seems to me to be an individual who was one but who now has his own personal agenda to promote. The views on that site are NOT those of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The only Jehovah’s Witness site is www.watchtower.org . On that site there are many articles and discussions about non blood medical treatment, and is a fine resource for any who wish to know what Witnesses really believe about Blood use. Williams point about “coerced” has some merit but I think he is really referring to peer pressure and there is no doubt that can and often is a factor in decisions anyone makes. For any of us to say we are completely immune from that would be very rare. So to explain and expand on my earlier comment about this let me point out the following, before one can become a baptized Witness you would have had to study the Bible and related questions for some time, often years. Then when the individual feels they want to get baptized they approach the elders in the congregation and several of them interview the person and go through quite a detailed questioning on Bible teachings to be sure the individual knows full well what they are committing to. Fairly regularly an individual will be asked to study more before they get baptized. So no one is ever “coerced” into getting baptized as a Witness. For those who are raised in Witness families there is of course a family peer pressure to become a Witness but I would say the majority of Witness families who have children would have one or more who decide for what ever reasons not to get baptized as Witnesses. That is thier choice, and they are still loved as members of that family. We do though, see it as a important commitment that a person freely and voluntarily makes when they get baptized, if later on a person decides to leave being a Witness that is their choice and it saddens us. Anon of 06/01 10:07 commented on “conscience”. We fully accept that each individual has a conscience and that there are some matters that are up to the individual to decide on, this is in full harmony with what the Bible teaches on conscience. One major discussion on this is in 1 Corinthians chapters 8 and 10 in the new testament where it talks about some things that are lawful but because of our conscience we may not do certain things as taking that action could damage others. Also in chapter 8 it discusses how some have weak and some have strong conscience, it acknowledges that some would find certain borderline matters acceptable and others would not. The Bible does not try to cover every conceivable nuance that a person may face in his life, it states clear principles and where some issues are unclear it encourages an individual to exercise their Bible trained conscience on the matter and make the choice without censure from the congregation on those matters.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 06/01/2005 15:58
Noel, are you denying that the JW / Watchtower organidation has \"changed God\'s mind\" on transfusions and flip-floped it \'conscience\' on a number of other issues from transplants to vaccinations?
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 06/01/2005 17:21
How on earth could we as mere imperfect humans "change Gods mind" of course not. Gods mind is revealed (as far as we Witnesses are concerned) only in the Bible and in his creation. Not one thing in the Bible has changed (it has indeed stood the test of time), but we as humans continue to learn from nature and the scientific discoveries made by mans inventive mind, so sometimes we need to change our opinions on matters in the light of new discoveries. That is so regarding medical treatments as much as anything else. A case in point is transplants, up to relatively recent decades doctors refused to perform them without massive blood transfusions being administered or available to administer. Now in recent times for many advanced transplants such as Heart, Liver etc., it not only is possible but has been done with very high rates of success without blood transfusions. So some time ago this matter of transplants was seen as not covered directly by the biblical command to abstain from blood (since it could now be carried out without blood transfusions), so it was felt it was only right that for those whose conscience permitted it, they should feel free to have or not have a transplant.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 06/01/2005 21:23
Welcome back Noel and I am delighted that you have not been "Silenced",so maybe you might answer ANON. 16/11/04 20:45. ANON 16/11/04 22:18.ANON.25/11/04 22:58.ANON 26/11/04.20:48.ANON.26/11/04.20:55 As the questions posed are rather serious? You say "I certainly want to encourage a greater understanding of our position as Witnesses. A great deal has tried to be made about us changing our minds on some ( what I consider) non core issues......it would be pretty narrow minded of us to ignore.." Banning Vaccinations, Transplants are NON CORE ISSUES how NARROW MINDED CAN YOU BE TO IGNORE THAT THIS WAS ONCE PREACHED BY THE Jehovahs Witnesses. Now to be fair to Noel lets look at what Noel is taught and is expected to believe WITHOUT QUESTION for if He does Question his leadership He will be viewed APOSTATE and SHUNED and Will LOSE His FAMILY and FRIENDS. And the following is a reason why Noel CANNOT answer TRUTHFULLY:- Those who question the Watchtower Society are treated with disdain as the Watchtower treat them as "opposers"and are treated in a SPECIAL way. Qualified to be Ministers (1967 edition) p 197. The Society actually teaches Jehovahs Witnesses to cover-up or lie about certain facts.They call this tactic--Theocratic War Strategy. The Watchtower instructs Jehovahs Witnesses that,"As a soldier of Christ he is in theocratic warfare and he must exercise added caution when dealing with Gods foes. Thus the Scriptures show that for the purpose of protecting the interest of Gods cause,it is proper to hide the truth from Gods enemies". (Watchtower June 1,1960,p352.) So here we find the Watchtower practisicing its belief that it is proper to deceive people. But Noel will say that this is not really lying.Did you know that Noel and the Watchtower has a different definition of "lying" than most of us? In their book, "Aid to Bible Understanding",under the word "LIE",we read,"Lying generally involves saying something false to a person who is ENTITLED (caps mine)to know the truth....-(Aid to Bible Understanding 1971,p.1060) Of course, it is the Watchtower leaders including Noel that decide WHO deserves to know the TRUTHS. Do you deserve to know the Truth.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 06/01/2005 23:05
I have only read Noels Post 22:55 he is now contradicting himself and his organisation. Noels atempted cover-up of the TOTAL BAN ON TRANSPLANTS that his Organisation IMPOSED on its adherents is in my opinion wrong,(see my earlier post approx.21:15).
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 07/01/2005 09:19
Noel, are you aware that there is a group, with thousands of members accross many countries, representing the Associated Jehovah\'s Winesses for Reform on blood. Perhaps you and the watchtower should take that into account.
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 07/01/2005 14:16
Anon of 06/01/05 21:23 Has once again demonstrated a leaning toward taking statements out of context or of just quoting what anti Jw's have printed. I happen to have a Watchtower library going back to 1960 and looked up the Watchtower he referenced (WT June 1 1960 p352) only one sentence was pulled out of the article ,"As a soldier of Christ he is in theocratic warfare and he must exercise added caution when dealing with Gods foes. Thus the Scriptures show that for the purpose of protecting the interest of Gods cause, it is proper to hide the truth from Gods enemies". And says we are instructed to lie. NOTHING could be further from the truth. When you read the whole article you will see very clearly we are always encouraged to speak the truth. ANON left out the very next paragraph.. “This would come under the term “war strategy,” as explained in The Watchtower, February 1, 1956, and is in keeping with Jesus’ counsel that when among wolves we must be as “cautious as serpents.” Should circumstances require a Christian to take the witness stand and swear to tell the truth, then, if he speaks at all, he must utter the truth. When faced with the alternative of speaking and betraying his brothers or not speaking and being held in contempt of court, the mature Christian will put the welfare of his brothers ahead of his own, remembering Jesus’ words: “No one has greater love than this, that someone should surrender his [life] in behalf of his friends.”—Matt. 10:16; John 15:13.” The context of this was at the time (50’s and early 60’s) in many country’s (especially in communist and totalitarian country’s) Jehovah’s Witnesses were being arrested and sent to prison for preaching the Bible. When questioned we would refuse to betray our brothers and sisters locations. It seems to be a characteristic of anti JW’s to quote passages of our literature out of context. I referred to this previously so I would not like to continue to spend time on answering questions based on attacks on Jehovah’s Witness from misquoted or "half truth" statements such as above. All this does is focus on non medical matters. I would like to repeat we as Witnesses make a personal commitment to the teachings of the Bible as held true by Jehovah’s Witnesses. We do so voluntarily in good mind after long research and study. As far as I am concerned I responded to Anon’s 16/11/04 points in my responses of 26/11/04, 05/1/05 and 06/01/05. This is a medical site dealing with medical ethics and treatment of patients, not I would hope a forum for spreading misconceptions about any group (but especially Jehovah’s Witnesses).
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 07/01/2005 14:34
Noel, are you aware that there is also a watchtower information service website which offers the other side of the debate on blood (as well as many other non-related JW issues).
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 07/01/2005 14:40
I think Noel is right, the intention of this forum is not to provide a means to attack JW's. If people wish to have religous debates i suggest that you do it elsewhere, by possibly contacting JW's and asking them if such claims are true. This is no place for it. The discussion is gone completely out of hand.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 07/01/2005 15:19
Noel The Publications speak for themselves and have not been taken out of context again you "speak in tongues" for you read from a "different hymn sheet" so to speak, to suit yourself when your cornered. Ok so lets move on to medical MATTERS as you say, AGAIN I ask you, did your organisation BAN at one time VACCINATIONS and TRANSPLANTS? and what scripture are you using that says what BLOOD FRACTIONS can and cannot be taken? And if you have a library going back to 1960 you can look back at the FALSE PROPHECY "there are 90 months remaing of this wicked system of things" which your organisation TAUGHT in 1967.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 07/01/2005 15:55
Noel, you have hit the nail on the head, so to speak "This is a medical site dealing with medical ethics and treatment of patients" rahter than a forum for religious debate. You argument regardign blood is on relgious grounds with no scientific proof not on medical grounds and is therefore fallacy. What more needs to be said.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 07/01/2005 16:07
With all due respect to Anon of 07/01/2005 14:40, this is a religious discussion. The JW’s claim that based on their religious beliefs that blood transfusions are wrong and so wrong that they will let their children die rather than get one. That is most certainly the subject under discussion. Some of the previous posters are pointing out that the JW’s HAVE changed their teaching and that therefore there interpretation of the bible is fickle. Noel counters this by saying that where they were wrong in the past it was in trivial matters. Personally I think discussing the correct interpretation of the bible is pointless as the very fact that 34,000 different Christian sects all disagree with one another *proves* that the bible is ambigious. Everyone last one of those 34,000 sects think their interpretation of the bible is right and the other 33,999 are wrong. So sure they are that they are right that they will allow their children to die to prove it.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 07/01/2005 16:13
In reply to Anon.07/01/05.14:40. My intention is not to attack but to make people who are JWs and who are studying with the JWs to think about this organisation and its past history.
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 07/01/2005 17:59
To ANON of 07/01/2005 16:13 If your intention is not to attack Jehovah’s Witnesses why make the statement in your 06/01/05 comment, “The Society actually teaches Jehovahs Witnesses to cover-up or lie about certain facts.” This is when you obviously did not read the article you quoted from to supposedly justify this outrageous and untrue statement. Also so I can complete my response to you in what article are you saying we stated "there are 90 months remaing of this wicked system of things which your organisation TAUGHT in 1967” I cant find it. William, is actually right about this being a religious issue as it is for ethical reasons we base our decision to refuse blood transfusions. Again I would say we trust the wise counsel given in the Bible to be in our best interest and we are definitely seeing a move towards non blood transfusion treatment as medical science and experience advances.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 10/01/2005 10:54
The reason we are moving towards the use of less blood in transfusions is because of technical advances such as keyhole surgery. It is possible that the number of children that will die in future because of the JW stand will diminish, but that’s no thanks to God. This entire argument could be made as to whether or not the JW’s were correct about blood transfusions say 20 years ago when technology was not as advanced as today. Then the JW’s were equally wrong in allowing their children die because of a refusal to accept blood. The bible has NOT been proved right because reducing the use of blood has benefits; such as needing less volunteers, reducing cost, reducing the risk of infection, reducing cost etc, we know that. Anyway that interpretation of the Bible is only held by a tiny fraction of the world’s religions that claim their origin in the bible. Noel actually contradicts himself in the last post where he admits that for JWs this is a religious issue and then he tries to claim the bible is some sort of a medical manual. If the bible advises people not to transfuse blood because it’s dangerous, why didn’t it mention cigarettes?
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 10/01/2005 14:55
Noel,I STAND BY MY COMMENTS.Your "Aid to Bible understanding" book speaks for itself. If my memmory serves me right it was printed in "the theocratic ministrie school news" a bi monthly news letter publication which was studied weekly. Noel why have you not answered my other questions on TRANSPLANTS and VACCINATIONS.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 10/01/2005 15:52
William in 1967 cigarettes were baned in the JWs organisation on scriptural grounds when medical grounds far out weighed any thing else and it was discovered cigarettes were bad for your health
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 10/01/2005 17:03
So tell me, where in the bibleto is ban smoking and what about air-travel, does it ban that too??
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 10/01/2005 18:53
Cigarettes may have been banned by JW's BUT on scientific grounds. Did God not know that smoking was dangerous as Noel claims as that's why he banned transfusions because he forsaw AIDS, Hep. B etc.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 10/01/2005 22:56
Noel heres that article:- "Just think, brothers, there are only about ninety months left before 6000 years of mans existence on earth is compleated...The majority of people living today will probably be alive when Armageddon breaks out, and there are no resurrection hopes for those who are destroyed then. So, now more than ever, it is vital not to ignore that spirit of wanting to do more." (Kingdom Ministry, March 1968,p 4) No doubt Noal will come back and state I am takeing this out of context well heres further proof that I am not takeing any thing out of context for those JWs and others who are following this track can see for themselves "Particularly is this TRUE because the great sign of the "LAST DAYS" has been in the course of fulfillment since the begining of the "TIME OF THE END" in 1914....EIGHT YEARS REMAIN to account for a full 6,000 years of the seventh day. Eight years from the autumn of 1967 would bring us to the autumn of 1975, fully 6,000 years into Gods seventh day, his rest day. The IMMEDIATE FUTURE is certain to be filled with climatic events, for this OLD SYSTEM is NEARING its COMPLEAT END. Within a FEW years at MOST the Final parts of Bible prophecy relative to these "last days" will UNDER FULFILLMENT, resulting in the liberation of surviving mankind into Christs glorious 1,000 year reign!" (Watchtower May 1 1968 271-3) "True, there have been those in times past who predicted an 'end' to the world, even announcing a SPECIFIC DATES. Yet NOTHING HAPPENED. The 'end' did not COME.They were GUILTY of false prophesying. Why? What was missing? Missing from such people were Gods truths and the EVIDENCE that He was guiding them. ..But what about today? Today we have the EVIDENCE required, ALL OF IT. And it is OVERWHELMING! All the many, many parts of the great SIGN of the last days are HERE, together with VERIFYING Bible chronology." (Awake Oct 8 1968 p23) (Caps Mine for enphasis)
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 11/01/2005 09:58
Noel, I thought you said that you believed that the world was billions of years old in a previous post? This article seems to indicate that you (JW's that is) think the world is only 6,000 years old. There are cities being excavated at present that are 12,000 years old. Some cave paintings go back 35,000 years. (PS JW's don't believe that Radiocarbon Dating works.)
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 11/01/2005 11:15
To be fair to Noel they also caution "No one can say with certainty what any particular year will bring". The cautionary clearly being lost in the tumult.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 11/01/2005 11:37
Now for those following this track can you imagine or would you or even could you refuse a LIFE SAVEING BLOOD TRANSFUSSION for one of your children because an organisation like the JWs or The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society Inc. of Pennsylvania ( Its Company Name)tells you to because thats how they INTERPRET the Bible?
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 11/01/2005 12:53
Obviously people do follow their teachings as children have died. We are trying to prove where there logic is wrong. We tried proving (and suceeded) that they have changed their minds before so therefore their interpretation can wrong and can be changted but Noel says that was too trivial a change to count. I am now trying to get Noel to admit we evolved so there cannot be a god, as Noel has agreed that this would be the case.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 11/01/2005 14:15
I have been reading this topic and would like to give my opinion. On the point that one person made that most children stay in the religion their parents are, this is true. However, my parents never forced me to stay one of Jehovah's Witnesses they encouraged me to chose the right way of life for me and when I was 15 i chose the dedicate my life to God through baptism. This was a choice i made and have never looked back. Also about smoking, we wouldn't smoke because we would be willingly taking in a substance that is harmful to our bodies, it is the same with drugs. After growing up with having to deal with bullies in school because you don't go to religion or celebrate Christmas you would think that adults of this world would see that it is a persons choice on how they live their life. I may not agree with many things of the Catholics but I wouldn't degrade or belittle anyone who choses that course of life. I could get picky and say how the bible condones homosexuality yet in some churches they are allowing gay marraiges in the church and every one thinks its great. we merely chose to live by God's standards a lot stricter than other people and we are ridiculed for this. Just one question, What is this teaching our children?
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 11/01/2005 15:43
No, your parents never forced you to stay a JW but if your live was in danger for need of a blood transfusion, they may have forced doctors or the courts to let you die.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 11/01/2005 15:59
To Anon 14:15. The fact that you choose to remain in an organisation does not make that organisations teachings right. Thats like saying the Hitler Youth Movement was right, for it was right for that movement at that time was it not???? My advice to you is re-read this track and check out what is being said and stop being MISLED.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 11/01/2005 16:12
To Anon 14:15. Look at www.bbc.co.uk/panorama and search " suffer little children" and then comment about your organisation.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 11/01/2005 17:17
So you accept that most people have in the historical past and do today stay in the religion of their parents. Religions varying from Paganism, Sun Worship, Worship of Cats, their ancestors (Shinto), Mithraism, Christianity and all the other disparate “beliefs” there are. You then say “you choose” to stay in the religion of your parents. Can you not see that you didn’t CHOOSE, that you couldn’t, because you were brainwashed into “choosing” the same religion as your parents, and still are brainwashed? If you choose and the Catholics also choose and both of you “choose” differently BUT BY COINCIDENCE in the religion of your parents then either you choose correctly or the Catholics did, but one of you must be wrong as the two religions disagree over nearly everything. No matter which one of you is right they still didn’t choose or it would be the most amazing co-incidence, wouldn’t it? If you are in the correct religion and everyone else is in the wrong religion and yet you all “choose” the religion of your parents then JW’s “choose” correctly and all the others didn’t, EVEN though the outcome was exactly the same, i.e. still stuck in the same set of beliefs as their parents. This point is so blindingly obvious it’s even hard to explain. PS There is no God so he can’t have standards. Homosexuality in men is almost certainly genetic so cannot be a sin, unless God made people as Homosexuals which is another paradox as that would mean he made people who were genetically disposed towards sinning. Incidentally all these paradoxes are caused by your illogical beliefs. They don’t actually occur otherwise.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 12/01/2005 10:20
Well said William your reasoning is ATONISHING!
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 12/01/2005 11:20
Anonymous Posted: 11/01/2005 16:12 I couldn't find anything of interest. Find the relevant page again and copy the URL and post it.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 12/01/2005 12:15
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/2114320.stm William This Is It
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 12/01/2005 15:17
With all due respect, what has the panorama programme got to do with Jehovah's and blood transfusions. This is an area to discuss that issue not to attack the religion. Stick to the topic.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 12/01/2005 15:41
The organisation of JWs are rather insular which can be gleaned from the comments of Anon 11/01/05 14:15 and the programme reveals how "Secretive" and Deceptive this organisation is, so it has everthing to do with the Blood issue.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 12/01/2005 15:42
The transcript of that Panorama program is awful but not surprising. The sexual abuse of children seems to be endemic in many, maybe all, religious organisations. Another paradox for Christians is why would an all loving god allow his church leaders to abuse children and then hide it? I certainly believe that to allow a child to die by withholding a blood transfusion should be treated as murder. I have already said that the brainwashing of children is a form of abuse of their intellect and in many cases the destruction of their personality, intellectual freedom and their right to start life with a free mind. A recent poster makes that clear when she is incapable of even understanding that she has been brainwashed. Any “belief” system that is fundamentally wrong MUST produce bad things. The Panorama program is just another example of why cults are so dangerous.
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 12/01/2005 19:14
ANON of 10/01/05 22:56 has done it yet again he stated in his comment of the 07/01 15:19, [you can look back at the FALSE PROPHECY "there are 90 months remaing of this wicked system of things"] this is his statement which I challenged as not actually in our literature. He now comes back and quotes something entirely different and says there it is, he quotes a article "Just think, brothers, there are only about ninety months left before 6000 years of mans existence on earth is compleated...” this as any reader can see is quite different. So I wish ANON would not misquote what we say, as it just confuses the issue under discussion and misleads (I would hope unintentionally). We understand from Bible chronology that man was created 6,000 years in the mid 1975 this does not equate to say that this worlds political system would end in the mid 70’s. Nor did we ever require anyone to believe a Witness teaching that it would. William we do believe the earth is possibly billions of years old, we believe that mans existence on the earth is a bit over 6,000 years. This conforms to mans recorded history. What commentators refer to as pre history is just that and dating it enters the realm of speculation. We believe and there is massive evidence to support that about 4500 years ago a huge cataclysm happened on the earth and dramatically effected the radio active build up in living (it likely increased after that event) things thus effecting the methodology used today to date ancient artifacts. The Bible refers to that event as the Flood. People keep saying we let of children die, again I say this is NOT so, we seek the best treatment for our children. Answer me who is going to take to task those who killed people (many thousands including many children) by giving them Blood transfusions?. No one of course, because people freely chose to accept that type of treatment, now if some one freely accepts a treatment that kills their child should they be viewed as having committed murder as some would like to view Witnesses?
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 12/01/2005 21:26
Anon of 11/01/2005 16:12 referred to a Panorama program about Child Abuse and how Jehovah's Witnesses handle it in the congregations. The truth is it is handled very well in the most difficult and awful circumstances in my experience. Our policy is if a person is found to be a child abuser then they can never become a Elder in a congregation and if they move to another congregation the Elders in that congregation are informed of the case. I have been an Elder of Jehovah's Witnesses for over 20 years and in the several congregations I have been associated with have (very unfortunately) occasionally come across child abuse, the standing instructions we have to deal with this is very clear, the relatives of the child who are not abusers are encouraged to refer to the authorities, and if they wont elders are obliged if the see the child is in danger to do so. The difficult issue arises when a single allegation occurs and it is denied and relatives don't feel they should act. In each case where I have been involved, 4 in total, one person was directly reported to the police the day after it came to light and that person got a prison sentence and was expelled from the congregation, in two other cases social welfare were brought in and as the accusations could not be proven have fizzled out, in the 4th case the girl who brought the accusation after some time admitted that she wrongly accused the person. In all cases the best possible help was provided that humanly could be. So my experience is at odds with the accusations leveled by ex witnesses in the Panorama program.(by the way an elder is only a person who has certain scriptural qualifications and desires to perform the voluntary work associated with teaching and helping in the congregations, it is not a full time or paid office). Does this mean that these tragic situations are always handled correctly by elders, unfortunately not, sometimes individuals either don't act or act inappropriately. But I can say this with hand on heart that the direction we get is to put the child’s welfare first and mark any that have demonstrated a propensity towards child abuse. It is a vile and evil practice and is NOT tolerated in the congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 13/01/2005 12:44
A flood, no matter how bad, could not affect radioactivity in the slightest. Almost nothing affects the radioactivity of a substance except events occurring at temperatures of millions of degrees. This cannot happen on earth except in Nuclear Reactors. Radioactivity would not even be affected at the core of the earth where it is 10,000 degrees, it’s too cool there. Part of the reason some people believe and most people believed up until the mid 19th century that the world was only 6,000 years old WAS because that is all they knew of recorded history THEN. That is not any evidence that that was all the age of the earth was. In other words it’s understandable that those people were mistaken, it’s all they knew then. This is why Christians made the mistake of thinking that the world was only 6,000 years old. JW’s now seem to have a variation on this, that while the world has clearly been shown to be billions of years old from many different scientific disciplines they think now that man was created only 6,000 years ago. We have now, through the work of many different professions, proof that mankind existed on earth much longer than this. Cave paintings in Europe that are 35,000 years old and even older in Australia, fossils, tools that are millions of years old (they are buried in rocks that formed millions of years ago), archaeological evidence that there were cities, not alone villages, 13,000 years ago. In fact the latest research pushes back the age of the first cities further than was even believed up to recently as more evidence is unearthed. Not alone is there not a biologist alive that thinks man is 6,000 years old, there isn’t an archaeologist alive that thinks this. The basis of the Bible flood myth is almost certainly based on local flooding just like the recent Tsunami in SE Asia. To ancient people that Tsunami would have looked like the end of the world. When Noel says that radiocarbon dating is wrong, he has to. Otherwise he’s wrong. But what evidence has Noel that radiocarbon dating and all they other dating techniques are wrong? What Noel is saying again is that trained professionals are wrong, just like doctors, and JW’s are right. Noel no doubt flies in aeroplanes & uses computers made by professional engineers and scientists but denies the work of other scientists using exactly the same scientific method because it upsets his religious viewpoint. This is like the co-incidence/paradox of the children of a particular religion being of that religion; with Noel and other fundamentalist religious people science is wonderful and they use the benefits of it daily EXCEPT when it contradicts their beliefs, none of which has any evidence other than one book full of fuzzy ambiguity and contradictions written concerning one of the thousands of religions of the world some hundreds of years ago. Furthermore there is not even any consensus among Christians that the JW interpretation is correct. When the JW’s starting attacking these dating techniques they were much simpler than today. We now have decades of experience, corroboratory evidence and science to back up not just carbon dating but dating using a myriad of other materials. One of the major differences between Science and Religion is that Science is progressive. As each week passes more scientists discover more evidence that man evolved and evolved over millions of years. NOTHING has been discovered in 150 years of research by millions of scientists in dozens of disciplines in every country in the world that causes any problem with this accepted theory which totally underpins Biology. Noel IS intelligent enough to study evolution and understand it. But his brain can no longer function in a manner that allows him; that is the disaster that is religion, the destruction of the individual’s ability to think.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 13/01/2005 15:04
I have to say i am astounded by the way that this topic has gone. It has gone from a innocent topic of Jehovah's Witnesses refusing blood transfusions to a arguement on who is right and who is wrong. I'm sorry but William you obviously don't read the bible because if you did you would know that the flood was a global thing that happened and also if there is no God then you are saying that the Catholic faith is a lie also. On the note of the panorama program. I am in no way going to degrade any other religion but hasn't there been alot of cases of child sex abuse in certain religions which were covered up for years and have only just emerged. I dont know what religion (if any) you are William but it would be appreciated alot if you didn't degrade and belittle Jehovah's Witnesses because of their belief.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 13/01/2005 20:14
“.. an innocent topic of JW’s refusing transfusions”. Are you serious? Innocence is hardly associated with an action that results and has resulted in the death of children. Why would I read the bible? There are thousands of contradictory religious writings available, why read that particular one? Even if I did its pointless as the 34,000 different Christian religious sects can’t agree what’s in it and most of those are bible experts and can recite it, as I’m sure Noel can, maybe even yourself. Even memorising the bible doesn’t matter a whit if at the end you think all the biologists, archaeologists, physicists, doctors & a myriad of other highly trained professionals in the world are stark raving mad. I would have thought that it’s obvious I’m not religious. I once met a man at a demonstration against a music festival in Memphis who insisted that the Sun went around the Earth, “you can see it does”, he said. Should I not belittle his beliefs either? The belief that the Sun goes around the Earth or that the Earth is flat is as daft as saying that mankind was put on the Earth 6,000 years ago or as a famous scientist said, “to believe that the earth was created complete with dinosaur bones, grand canyons etc is as illogical as saying that I was created 5 minutes ago with holes in my socks.”.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 13/01/2005 22:27
In response to Noels imput 12/01/05 19:14. Anon of 10/01/05 22:56 has done it Yet again! Please re-read the track as I mentioned Anon 10/01/05 14:55 "if my memory serves me right" I appoligise if I misquoted but I certainly remembered that this was TAUGHT by Jehovahs Witnesses so much so that I searched for this article from my library and I CERTAINLY DID NOT MISQUOTE or mis-understand the message that this article portrayed at the time of its publication I was just like the millions of other Jehovahs Witnesses at the time, taken in by the EUPHORIA of the message For is it not, this message that the Jehovahs Witnesses teach today? I beg to differ Noel the Jehovahs Witnesses TAUGHT this and you cannot deny it heres more proof "Jesus was obviously speaking about those who were old enough to witness with understanding what took place when the "last days" began. Jesus was saying that some of those persons who were ALIVE at the appearance of the "sign of the last days" would still be ALIVE when God brought this system to its end.. Even if we presume that youngsters 15 years of age would be perceptive enough to realize the import of what happened in 1914, it would still make the youngest of "this generation" 70 years old today. So the great majority of the generation to which Jesus was referring has already passed away in death. The remaining ones are approaching old age. And remember, Jesus said that the end of this wicked world would come before that generation passed away in death" (Awake Oct 8 1968 13-4) [So the end of the wicked world is very close... 1975 at the latest by which time those 15 year olds will be 76, older than any Biblically defined generation] . No Noel any reader can see that your organisation is wrong just like your organisation is wrong on the BLOOD issue. The organisation of Jehovahs Witnesses it would appear are changing their stance on BLOOD TRANSFUSION to the effect that The Watchtower June 15, 2000 the governing body announced, that members may now accept "fractions of any of the primary components " , OF BLOOD. Previously, Witnesses who accepted a transfusion of BLOOD fraction other than those found in plasma faced possible expulsion and enforced shunning by church members. One of the approved products that a JW can be transfused with if required is Hemopure a highly purified oxegen-carrying hemoglobin solution made from fractionated bovine (cow) BLOOD manufactured by Biopure Corporation. This approval as any reader can see, of hemoglobin marks a notable change as mentioned earlier in the Watchtower organisations policy is readily seen from its own published statements: "Is it wrong to sustain life admistering a transfusion of blood or plasma or red cells or others of the component parts of the blood? Yes....The prohibition includes "any blood at all" (Leviticus 3:17) Blood,Medicine and the Law of God,1961,pp13,14 "......various tonics and tablets sold by druggists show on their labels that they contain blood fractions such as hemoglobin. So it is neccessary for one to be alert....if they are to keep themselves ' without spot from the world'. Jas 1:27." The Watchtower, Sept 15 1961,p557. Again Noel I ask you did the organisation of Jehovahs witnesses BAN Vaccinations and Transplants, a simple YES or NO will suffice. And for the record I stand by my previous comments.
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 13/01/2005 23:13
William, I am surprised that you were not aware that that when I referred to “the radio active build up in living (it likely increased after that event) things thus effecting the methodology used today to date ancient artifacts” that this was with Carbon-14, most relatively recent dated fossils are dated using this method. Note what one encyclopedia says about Carbon 14. “There are a number of other dating techniques that have short ranges and are so used for historical or archaelogical studies. One of the best-known is the carbon-14 (C14) radiometric technique. Carbon-14 is a radioactive isotope of carbon-12, with a half-life of 5,730 years (very short compared with other methods). In other radiometric dating methods (such as Potassium-argon or K-Ar dating), the heavy parent isotopes were synthesized in the explosions of massive stars that scattered materials through the Galaxy, to be formed into planets and other stars. The parent isotopes have been decaying since that time, and so any parent isotope with a short half-life should be extinct by now.” This is perhaps what you were refering to. Now note.. “Carbon-14 is an exception. It is continuously created through collisions of neutrons generated by cosmic rays with nitrogen in the upper atmosphere. The carbon-14 ends up as a trace component in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). An organism acquires carbon from carbon dioxide during its lifetime. Plants acquire it through respiration and photosynthesis, and animals acquire it from consumption of plants and other animals. When the organism dies, the carbon-14 begins to decay, and the proportion of carbon-14 left when the remains of the organism are examined provides an indication of the date of its death. Carbon-14 radiometric dating has a range of about 50,000 years. The rate of creation of carbon-14 appears to be roughly constant, as cross-checks of carbon-14 dating with other dating methods show it gives consistent results. However, local eruptions of volcanoes or other events that give off large amounts of carbon dioxide can reduce local concentrations of carbon-14 and give inaccurate dates. The releases of carbon dioxide into the biosphere as a consequence of industrialization have also depressed the proportion of carbon-14 by a few percent; conversely, the amount of carbon-14 was increased by above-ground nuclear bomb tests that were conducted into the early 1960s.” Carbon 14 is clearly affected by atmospheric changes. The Bible shows in Genesis that before the flood the Earth was surrounded by a vast water canopy, this is what the bible says fell on the Earth with cataclysmic results, this caused massive shifts in the earths crust and many mountain ranges were crushed up above their previous level and as the related vallys deepened the waters receeded from covering the entire earth. The evidance of this is the many sea creature fossils found on the top of many of todays mountains. The dating of most fossils that are embedded in sedementary rock, lava etc., is done by Radiometric dating other then carbon-14, and those methods date the rocks that surround the fossils not the fossils themselves, it is the rocks that have the many hundreds of millions of years age, not necessarily the remnants of the living things embedded as fossils. This long age conforms to the statement in Genises 1.1 “In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth” that beginning was billions of years ago and that statement, that there was a physical universe “beginning” most scientists accept as true. Many of them believe that a intelligent being was the originator. For those interested, the 6,000 years of mans existance on the earth is calculated from the genelogical information in the Bible, look up Luke Chapter 3, there you will see listed all the ancestors of Jesus Christ (75) going right back to Adam. That information combined with historical referances show that man was created just over 6,000 years ago now. Once man was created the Bible says that sometime after that “God saw that it was good” and rested. Each of the time periods (creativedays) prior to the time period (“day”) when man was created was many thousands of years. So the Bible would set out the following: billions of years ago God through his Dynamic Energy (Isa 43) created the physical universe and set its growth in motion. God at some point in the past (many many thousands of years ago) then turned his attention to preparing the Earth for life as we know it. In each of the successive periods of time mentioned as “creative days” in Genesis, the Earths athmosphere was cleared, water based life was created, land based life and flyng creatures were then created and finally man. That is actually what the Bible sets out and as far as my studies have shown me that is pretty much the order that we find things happened, what we argue about is the dating of it and the origin of life. I look up at the stars at night and thank God I am alive to enjoy such beauty. That is why I state over and over again I trust the wisdom and counsel given in Gods word the Bible. Including instruction on principles that govern even medical treatment. If anyone wants to learn more about what the Bible actuall says about creation ask the next Witness who calls to you door.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 14/01/2005 09:45
There are certain sects who believe it's ok to fly into planes and chop peoples' hands off. Should I not belittle their beliefs also?
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 14/01/2005 11:39
on the question about organ transplants, no they are not banned. they are a matter of conscience.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 14/01/2005 17:23
TO Anon 14/01/05 11:39. The Question was were they Banned at one time please read the earlier tracts and yes we know they are a matter of conscience now but they were once banned full stop, just like Blood was as you can see from earlier tracks.
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 14/01/2005 17:48
To ANON of 13/01/05 22:27, I pointed to the following tracks to answer your question on our once not accepting transplants and some blood based vaccinations, please read again. “Not one thing in the Bible has changed (it has indeed stood the test of time), but we as humans continue to learn from nature and the scientific discoveries made by mans inventive mind, so sometimes we need to change our opinions on matters in the light of new discoveries. That is so regarding medical treatments as much as anything else. A case in point is transplants, up to relatively recent decades doctors refused to perform them without massive blood transfusions being administered or available to administer. Now in recent times for many advanced transplants such as Heart, Liver etc., it not only is possible but has been done with very high rates of success without blood transfusions. So some time ago this matter of transplants was seen as not covered directly by the biblical command to abstain from blood (since it could now be carried out without blood transfusions), so it was felt it was only right that for those whose conscience permitted it, they should feel free to have or not have a transplant.” (From my comment on 06/01/05 ) “A great deal has tried to be made about us changing our minds on some (what I consider) non core issues, as I said before with the advances being made over the last 50 years in medical treatment it would have been pretty narrow minded of us to ignore medical advances that moved some of the "medical treatment without blood issue" into new areas. Therefore in considering these new avenues of treatment with minor blood fractions it was decided that it moved the decision from very clear to marginal for some Witnesses and as has been stated this area was then left up to an individuals conscience and not a congregational matter. It is still a personal decision one would have to make concerning using components of blood fractions.” (from my comment on 05/01/05) “Transplants of any organ is a matter for the conscience of any individual Christian Witness and has always been so from the time they could be carried out without taking blood transfusions. As science and technology progresses we embrace it to the extent that it does not conflict with Gods commands in the Bible. As clearly mentioned earlier in this track we view abstinence from Blood as a scriptural injunction. All references to use of blood in the bible shows once it is extracted it should not be used, this is a “moral issue” to us as significant as not participating in Idol worship, fornication etc., (see Acts 15: 28, 29). We respect Gods right to set standards for us and believe the standards he set in the Bible are for our overriding benefit. As the Creator, we do believe he knows what is best for his creation. It is when mankind ignore his guidance he gets into terrible trouble in all fields of activity (including medical). I believe the trend in medicine is away from blood use due to the growing recognized dangers. Each year that passes we learn of more dangers, this site is very regularly alerting us to tragedies that happen due to our medical establishments lack of understanding and preparedness to deal with newly realized dangers.” (from my comments on 16/11/04). As regards the comments in reference to witnesses reading to much into Watchtower comments on biblical genealogy and the last days (which obviously you or someone you know did from your personal comment “[So the end of the wicked world is very close... 1975 at the latest by which time those 15 year olds will be 76, older than any Biblically defined generation]” and yes some articles did encourage that overzealous view, that was not a fundamental teaching of Witnesses as abstaining from blood transfusion is. Some people extrapolated more then they should have and allowed their desire for a new system override what Jesus said “no man knows the day or hour” this is a fundamental teaching of Witnesses. The editors of the Watchtower apologized for not reining in such speculation. To ANON of 14/01/05 09:45 I would say you should not belittle anyone’s faith, if you feel they are wrong you would be better explaining the reasons why you believe they are wrong and try to persuade them to change their wrong ways or as in this track beliefs.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 14/01/2005 18:02
Now for the benefit of any one remotely interested that is following this track whether you are in the medical profession or not this is what the JWs are being taught how to react to those who question their views. The Watchtower, June 1, 1960 Issue, Pages 351-352: "We must tell the truth to one who is entitled to know, but if one is not so entitled we may be evasive. [...] As a soldier of Christ he is in theocratic warfare and he must exercise added caution when dealing with God's foes. Thus the Scriptures show that for the purpose of protecting the interests of God's cause, it is proper to hide the truth from God's enemies. " Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 2 (Published in 1988), Pages 244-245: Lying generally involves saying something false to a person who is entitled to know the truth [...] While malicious lying is definitely condemned in the Bible, this does not mean that a person is under obligation to divulge truthful information to people who are not entitled to it. Jesus Christ counseled: "Do not give what is holy to dogs, neither throw your pearls before swine, that they may never trample them under their feet and turn around and rip you open." (Mt 7:6) That is why Jesus on certain occasions refrained from giving full information or direct answers to certain questions when doing so could have brought unnecessary harm. (Mt 15:1-6; 21:23 -27; Joh 7:3-10) Evidently the course of Abraham, Isaac, Rahab, and Elisha in misdirecting or in withholding full facts from non worshipers of Jehovah must be viewed in the same light. “ So we can see from above what type of response we can expect from the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York Inc. (Another of Their Corporate Entity’s) The life of any child must come first when faced with a medical decision, particularly when a Blood transfusion may be involved and in light of the above if I was faced with that decision I think you know what my decision would be.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 16/01/2005 03:36
First I would like to start out by saying I am not debating with anyone I am stating facts. In our law today we are responsible for our childrens actions until they are 18 , we are also responsible for medical decisions on there part, THE END. Regardless of how we choose it is our choice we are responsible for there life by bible standards and the law of this system. Further the idea that people flying planes into buildings and choppings others hands off because of there beliefs is far from the topic of witnesses not excepting blood. The Bible is the oldest book in history and is historically factual. Others who do believe in the things you mention go off books that were made by man hundreds of years after the bible and not inspired of god, they only mimic the bible with perverse interpretation. As far as The Darwinian theory of evolution, William stated that JW's beliefs are not as old as the evolution theory set forth by Darwin, but that was not the point, what about the bible , its seems alot of people on this board keep ignoring that fact, WE ARE GOING OFF THE BIBLE, and no matter if it is the NWT, I can find anything I believe in the King James as well. People act like it is ok to pick and choose what you would like to believe out of the bible. WE FOLLOW EVERYTHING OUT OF THE BIBLE. And not allowing our child , or ourselves is not murder. For those who believe in the bible I say this ,(and to NO OTHER) , Acts 15: 19-20 states"19 Hence my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God, 20 but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood." For those who believe in the bible this is a comand that can be found in any bible. And as we see today it still rings true and is applicable to our day. There are diseases that are transmitted through the blood and many of these disease were spread through blood before they knew how to test, and there could still be more that they are spreading before they figure out to start testing for it. For those who believe in the Resurrection , why weep for a child if they are dying , why not remain loyal to God and see your child live forever in paradise. For those who believe in heaven , why weep for your child who you think you will see in heaven again? Again I say I AM SPEAKING TO PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE. I do not wish to argue with Darwinians. And as far as evolution is concerned Does evolution prove there is no God? No. Many people, from evolutionary biologists to important religious figures like Pope John Paul II, contend that the time-tested theory of evolution does not refute the presence of God. They acknowledge that evolution is the description of a process that governs the development of life on Earth. Like other scientific theories, including Copernican theory, atomic theory, and the germ theory of disease, evolution deals only with objects, events, and processes in the material world. Science has nothing to say one way or the other about the existence of God or about people's spiritual beliefs. If you would like to read this and more about evolution you can go to http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html#Q01 This is the public broadcasting system site I am not affiliated with it . I just posted so the ones who would like to argue can go read this site instead . Again this is all I have to say and do not wish to argue.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 18/01/2005 13:12
I have given much thought over the past few days to the Jehovahs Witness ban on Blood transfusions and how I could properly and easily explain in lay mans terms this “prohibition” on Blood transfusions by the Jehovahs Witness organisation. Did you know that since the June 2000 Watchtower and particularly the more recent June 15th.2004 Watchtower that Jehovahs Witnesses can take nearly 97% of whole Blood but not as whole Blood, by this I mean as long as it is broken down into the primary components of Blood or it is fractionated then it is OK for the JWs to take Blood without repercussion of disfellowshiping or disassociation which leads to ostracising and shunning by family and friends. But the majority of JWs don’t realise this and they should check with their HLC (hospital liaison committee) if you are faced with a decision on the Blood issue. Now lets just look how stupid and silly this “prohibition” is. It is like saying to some one :- IT IS WRONG TO STEAL THAT SHINY NEW CAR ! .And then go and reason with that person that it is :- NOT STEALING THAT SHINY NEW CAR IF YOU DISMANTLE IT AND THEN TAKE IT. This is exactly what the Watchtower organisation expects it members to believe
 
  cindy(EGO22866)  Posted: 18/01/2005 17:52
This comes from the June 15th 2004 Watchtower and it says "Do Jehovah’s Witnesses accept any medical products derived from blood? The fundamental answer is that Jehovah’s Witnesses do not accept blood. We firmly believe that God’s law on blood is not open to reform to fit shifting opinions. Still, new issues arise because blood can now be processed into four primary components and fractions of those components. In deciding whether to accept such, a Christian should look beyond possible medical benefits and risks. His concern should be what the Bible says and the potential effect on his relationship with Almighty God. The key issues are quite simple. As an aid to seeing why that is so, consider some Biblical, historical, and medical background. Jehovah God told our common ancestor Noah that blood must be treated as something special. (Genesis 9:3, 4) Later, God’s laws to Israel reflected the sacredness of blood: “As for any man of the house of Israel or some alien resident . . . who eats any sort of blood, I shall certainly set my face against the soul that is eating the blood.” By rejecting God’s law, an Israelite could contaminate others; thus, God added: “I shall indeed cut him off from among his people.” (Leviticus 17:10) Later, at a meeting in Jerusalem, the apostles and older men decreed that we must ‘abstain from blood.’ Doing so is as vital as abstaining from sexual immorality and idolatry.—Acts 15:28, 29. What would “abstaining” have meant back then? Christians did not consume blood, whether fresh or coagulated; nor did they eat meat from an unbled animal. Also ruled out would be foods to which blood was added, such as blood sausage. Taking in blood in any of those ways would violate God’s law.—1 Samuel 14:32, 33. Most people in ancient times would not have been troubled over the consuming of blood, as we can see from the writings of Tertullian (second and third centuries C.E.). Responding to false charges that Christians consumed blood, Tertullian mentioned tribes that sealed treaties by tasting blood. He also noted that “when a show is given in the arena, [some] with greedy thirst have caught the fresh blood of the guilty . . . as a cure for their epilepsy.” Those practices (even if some Romans did them for health reasons) were wrong for Christians: “We do not include even animals’ blood in our natural diet,” wrote Tertullian. The Romans used food containing blood as a test of the integrity of real Christians. Tertullian added: “Now, I ask you, what sort of a thing is it, that when you are confident [that Christians] will turn with horror from animals’ blood, you should suppose them greedy for human blood?” Today, few people would think that the laws of Almighty God are at issue if a physician suggested their taking blood. While Jehovah’s Witnesses certainly want to keep living, we are committed to obey Jehovah’s law on blood. What does this mean in the light of current medical practice? As transfusions of whole blood became common after World War II, Jehovah’s Witnesses saw that this was contrary to God’s law—and we still believe that. Yet, medicine has changed over time. Today, most transfusions are not of whole blood but of one of its primary components: (1) red cells; (2) white cells; (3) platelets; (4) plasma (serum), the fluid part. Depending on the condition of the patient, physicians might prescribe red cells, white cells, platelets, or plasma. Transfusing these major components allows a single unit of blood to be divided among more patients. Jehovah’s Witnesses hold that accepting whole blood or any of those four primary components violates God’s law. Significantly, keeping to this Bible-based position has protected them from many risks, including such diseases as hepatitis and AIDS that can be contracted from blood. However, since blood can be processed beyond those primary components, questions arise about fractions derived from the primary blood components. How are such fractions used, and what should a Christian consider when deciding on them? Blood is complex. Even the plasma—which is 90 percent water—carries scores of hormones, inorganic salts, enzymes, and nutrients, including minerals and sugar. Plasma also carries such proteins as albumin, clotting factors, and antibodies to fight diseases. Technicians isolate and use many plasma proteins. For example, clotting factor VIII has been given to hemophiliacs, who bleed easily. Or if someone is exposed to certain diseases, doctors might prescribe injections of gamma globulin, extracted from the blood plasma of people who already had immunity. Other plasma proteins are used medically, but the above mentioned illustrate how a primary blood component (plasma) may be processed to obtain fractions. Just as blood plasma can be a source of various fractions, the other primary components (red cells, white cells, platelets) can be processed to isolate smaller parts. For example, white blood cells may be a source of interferons and interleukins, used to treat some viral infections and cancers. Platelets can be processed to extract a wound-healing factor. And other medicines are coming along that involve (at least initially) extracts from blood components. Such therapies are not transfusions of those primary components; they usually involve parts or fractions thereof. Should Christians accept these fractions in medical treatment? We cannot say. The Bible does not give details, so a Christian must make his own conscientious decision before God. Some would refuse anything derived from blood (even fractions intended to provide temporary passive immunity). That is how they understand God’s command to ‘abstain from blood.’ They reason that his law to Israel required that blood removed from a creature be ‘poured out on the ground.’ (Deuteronomy 12:22-24) Why is that relevant? Well, to prepare gamma globulin, blood-based clotting factors, and so on, requires that blood be collected and processed. Hence, some Christians reject such products, just as they reject transfusions of whole blood or of its four primary components. Their sincere, conscientious stand should be respected. Other Christians decide differently. They too refuse transfusions of whole blood, red cells, white cells, platelets, or plasma. Yet, they might allow a physician to treat them with a fraction extracted from the primary components. Even here there may be differences. One Christian may accept a gamma globulin injection, but he may or may not agree to an injection containing something extracted from red or white cells. Overall, though, what might lead some Christians to conclude that they could accept blood fractions? “Questions From Readers” in The Watchtower of June 1, 1990, noted that plasma proteins (fractions) move from a pregnant woman’s blood to the separate blood system of her fetus. Thus a mother passes immunoglobulins to her child, providing valuable immunity. Separately, as a fetus’ red cells complete their normal life span, their oxygen-carrying portion is processed. Some of it becomes bilirubin, which crosses the placenta to the mother and is eliminated with her body wastes. Some Christians may conclude that since blood fractions can pass to another person in this natural setting, they could accept a blood fraction derived from blood plasma or cells. Does the fact that opinions and conscientious decisions may differ mean that the issue is inconsequential? No. It is serious. Yet, there is a basic simplicity. The above material shows that Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse transfusions of both whole blood and its primary blood components. The Bible directs Christians to ‘abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from fornication.’ (Acts 15:29) Beyond that, when it comes to fractions of any of the primary components, each Christian, after careful and prayerful meditation, must conscientiously decide for himself. Many people would be willing to accept any therapy that seems to offer immediate benefit, even a therapy having known health risks, as is true of blood products. The sincere Christian endeavors to have a broader, more balanced view that involves more than just the physical aspects. Jehovah’s Witnesses appreciate efforts to provide quality medical care, and they weigh the risk/benefit ratio of any treatment. However, when it comes to products derived from blood, they carefully weigh what God says and their personal relationship with our Life-Giver.—Psalm 36:9. What a blessing for a Christian to have such confidence as the psalmist who wrote: “Jehovah God is a sun and a shield; favor and glory are what he gives. Jehovah himself will not hold back anything good from those walking in faultlessness. O Jehovah . . . , happy is the man that is trusting in you”!—Psalm 84:11, 12. [Footnote] See “Questions From Readers” in The Watchtower of June 15, 1978, and October 1, 1994. Pharmaceutical firms have developed recombinant products that are not taken from blood and that may be prescribed in place of some blood fractions used in the past." [Box on page 30] SUGGESTED QUESTIONS FOR THE DOCTOR If you face surgery or a treatment that might involve a blood product, ask: Do all the medical personnel involved know that, as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, I direct that no blood transfusions (whole blood, red cells, white cells, platelets, or blood plasma) be given to me under any circumstances? If any medicine to be prescribed may be made from blood plasma, red or white cells, or platelets, ask: Has the medicine been made from one of the four primary blood components? If so, would you explain its makeup? How much of this blood-derived medicine might be administered, and in what way? If my conscience permits me to accept this fraction, what medical risks are there? If my conscience moves me to decline this fraction, what other therapy might be used? After I have considered this matter further, when may I inform you of my decision? This is exactly what it says and they are not "hiding anything" . The matter is left up to our conscience. As with sterilization, that bible views your procreative powers as a gift and special , the society does not promote it , but it is up to your conscience. Likewise with blood they do not promote taking fractions ,but it is up to your conscience.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 19/01/2005 00:56
In response to Noels imput 14/01/05 17:48. Noel you are right “Not one thing in the Bible has changed….” So here we see “theocratic warfare” at its best for Noel is not revealing what we who are following this track are “NOT ENTILED” to know for he says “A case in point is transplants, up to relatively recent decades doctors refused to perform them without massive blood transfusions being administered or available to administer.” Now here is the Watchtower reason why Transplants were once banned. Jehovah's Witnesses received important new medical instructions in the November 15, 1967, issue of THE WATCHTOWER. An article in the "Questions from Readers" section on pages 702-704 presented a new ruling handed down from Brooklyn headquarters to the effect that "sustaining ones life by means of the body or part of the body of another human...would be cannibalism, a practice abhorrent to all civilized people" and condemned by God. The article explained that organ transplants were "simply a shortcut" to cannibalistically chewing and eating human flesh. This pronouncement, in effect, banned organ transplant operations for Jehovah's Witnesses. No longer could a JW with failing kidneys accept a kidney transplant to keep him or her alive; nor could one losing vision receive a cornea transplant. Bone marrow, skin, or anything else taken from another person could no longer be received in a medical procedure. The transplant issue immediately took its place alongside the blood issue as a life-or-death matter for Witnesses hospitalised for illnesses or accidents. However, the Watchtower Society's ban on organ transplants lasted only a bit under thirteen years. In 1980 it was quietly repealed. The March 15, 1980, WATCHTOWER said, on page 31, "there is no Biblical command pointedly forbidding the taking in of other human tissue." Recent Watchtower Society publications applaud transplants as procedures that have "helped" people. (AWAKE! August 22, 1989, page 6) While transplants may now be a matter of conscience this was not always the case as we can see from the above, like wise when the JWs expected that the end of the world would come in 1975 and as Noel says and admits “and yes some articles did encourage that overzealous view, that was not a fundamental teaching of Witnesses as abstaining from blood transfusion is. Some people extrapolated more then they should have and allowed their desire for a new system override what Jesus said “no man knows the day or hour” this is a fundamental teaching of Witnesses. The editors of the Watchtower apologized for not reining in such speculation. This is not the case as the leadership the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses where well aware of the following instances as was mentioned much earlier in this track by a participant: - "How Are You Using Your Life?" Yes, since the summer of 1973 there have been new peaks in pioneers every month. Now there are 20,394 regular and special pioneers in the United States, an all-time peak. That is 5,190 more than there were in February 1973! A 34-percent increase! Does that not warm our hearts? Reports are heard of brothers selling their homes and property and planning to finish out the rest of their days in this old system in the pioneer service. Certainly this is a fine way to spend the short time remaining before the wicked world's end. 1 John 2:17." (Kingdom Ministry May 1974) "Do not pursue higher education ... There is very little time left! Make pioneer service, the full-time ministry with the possibility of Bethel or missionary service, your goal." (The Watchtower, 1969 March 1, p. 171) "Today there is a great crowd of people who are confident that a destruction of even greater magnitude is now imminent. The evidence is that Jesus' prophecy will shortly have a major fulfilment upon this entire system of things. This has been a major factor in influencing many couples to decide not to have children at this time. They have chosen to remain childless so that they would be less encumbered to carry out the instructions of Jesus Christ to preach the good news of God's kingdom earth wide before the end of this system comes. Matt. 24:14." (Awake! 11/8, 1974, p 11) While Noel may say, “ that was not a fundamental teaching of Witnesses as abstaining from blood is” The leadership condoned what the “people extrapolated” by their publication of the above materials and how could you blame them for where they not taught the following: - “The Watchtower is a magazine without equal on earth because God is the author.”(W>T>April 15,1943 p127) Now remember Noels earlier quote “Not one thing in the Bible has changed….” I shall let the readers decide! Could Noel please direct the readers of this track to where "The editors of the Watchtower apologized for not reining in such speculation"? (A pioneer is a term used for a full or partime JW minister)
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 19/01/2005 10:43
Cindy says 23 times in one post that “God said”, “the law of God”, “the bible says” or JW’s believe. Therefore it’s clear that the entire rationale behind her argument, other than one exception that I mention below, depends on there being a god and if so that he wrote or inspired the bible and is not the god of the other thousands of religions (e.g. there could be a god and yet he didn’t write the bible but the Koran). Why does Cindy believe there is a God & that he’s her God? Her cracking logic & intellect used to analyse the bible must have an equal logically reason for making that initial assumption because I’m sure everyone will agree that without God her argument against blood transfusions totally collapses. (The other, invalid argument that Noel has used before and I think clearly refuted in this thread, that blood transfusions cause unacceptable risk is non-factual and unscientific. Doctors and Scientists clearly believe from evidence, statistics, research and experience that transfusions are more than worth the risk and have in the past saved the lives of far far more people than they have killed.) [There is one other conundrum in her post: if one prays to God for guidance on those matters that are not explained in the bible and need the use of one’s conscience (whatever that is) and these are “serious matters” how can Cindy explain how different JW’s might end up with different answers?]
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 19/01/2005 11:14
Conscience, William, is the reasoning ability to tell right from wrong.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 19/01/2005 11:17
In Response to cindy(EGO22866) In the June 15th 2004 issue of the Watchtower, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society featured two articles on the use of blood products by Jehovah's Witnesses. The first article is titled "Rightly value your gift of life" and reiterated the long-held tradition of the scriptural interpretation to support the religious doctrine to prohibit medical use of blood products. The second article is titled "Be guided by the living God", which details the rules regarding which blood products are "unacceptable" and which are a matter of personal decision. This issue of the magazine also included the reprint of the previous landmark article published on June 15th 2000 titled "Questions from readers: Do Jehovah's Witnesses accept any minor fractions of blood?", confirming the then new policy permitting any fraction of a "primary component" of the blood. The circumstances under which this new policy was promulgated in 2000 clearly showed that it was the preparation for allowing Jehovah's Witnesses to receive full benefit from the newly developed hemoglobin-based blood substitutes. While the two articles of June 2004 showed no substantial changes in the policy promulgated in June 2000, there are several interesting points which are worth discussing. First, the second article now depicts a new chart showing a clear horizontal line dividing the "unacceptable" and the "Christian to decide". The latter category include fractions from red cells, from white cells, from platelets, and from plasma. While there is nothing new in this chart compared to the "Questions from readers" article of June 2000, this chart now explicitly indicates the "fractions of red cells" as an acceptable fraction. This is an important emphasis, because until recently there have been no "fractions of red cells" which can be used medically. With the emerging technology of hemoglobin-based blood substitute in late 1990's, the Watchtower Society quickly paved the wide road for Jehovah's Witnesses to receive this "minor" fraction of the red cells, which in reality comprise 97% of the red blood cells. The other interesting point is the explanation for the refusal of the "primary component". After the lengthy biblical discussion and meticulous justification for refusing to "take in" blood for medical reasons, the article quickly concludes this: The 2001 textbook Emergency Care under "Composition of the Blood," stated: "The blood is made up of several components: plasma, red and white blood cells, and platelets." Thus, in line with medical facts, Witnesses refuse transfusions of whole blood or of any of its four primary components. (page 22) In essence, the article states that the reason for refusing "four primary components" is that it is "in line with medical facts" which is stated in "Emergency Care." While everybody agrees that there is no biblical reason to define the "four primary components" that must be refused, most readers would have expected that such a classification is based on well-established and sound "medical facts." Very interestingly, the book this article cites here is not an authoritative medical textbook. It is a textbook used by the students of the emergency medical technician courses. Why did the Watchtower Society not cite a more authoritative medical textbook or scientific source to base this critically important classification? The simple reason is that such a classification is not at all scientific, but it is simply a tradition in medicine. To use a parallel analogy, our food is traditionally classified into "major components" such as protein, carbohydrate, fat, minerals, etc. Is this classification the only classification considered as a medical fact? Of course not. This is only one of many ways to classify our food. We can also use such a classification as grains, meat, vegetable, fish, etc. This is another way to classify our food, which is equally valid. These classifications are just traditional and convenient tools to understand the various components of our food. Depending on the method of classification, what is considered a "primary component" is different. The same is true for the classification of the blood components. In case of the classification of the blood components, there are many different ways to classify. It is true that the classification that blood banks most frequently use is the four components this Watchtower article states. However, medical textbooks use many different classifications. Often times, the blood is separated into "two major components", red blood cells (45%) and plasma (55%), because other smaller components such as platelets are usually taken as a fraction from one of those major fractions. Another classification which is frequently used in textbooks of anatomy and physiology is based on chemical composition. With this classification, the major and primary components of the blood are water (80%), hemoglobin (15%), albumin (2-3%), and globulin (1-2%). While the Watchtower Society adopted the classification of red cells, white cells, platelet, and plasma, as the "primary components" and specified those to be refused, what would happen if the Society adopted a different classification which is equally valid with "medical facts"? For example what would happen if the classification of hemoglobin, albumin, globulin as the primary components were adopted? This classification would have prohibited the use of hemoglobin-based blood substitutes and albumin as a plasma expander, which are now permitted to be used for Witnesses. What does this difference tell us? It tells us that what is "unacceptable" in the Watchtower doctrine has nothing to do with the biblical doctrine cited in the article. It only depends on what classification of the blood components the Watchtower Society adopted among several different classifications available in medical literature. Under one classification of the components (red, white cells, platelets and plasma), most of the currently available blood products in medical practice are in the category of "Christian to decide", or the matter of conscientious decision. This is because the current technology no longer uses those crude fractions in pharmaceutical products. On the other hand, under the other classification based on chemical components (hemoglobin, albumin, globulin, besides water), most of the currently available products become unacceptable, because this classification is more consistent with the current biochemical technology for producing blood-based pharmaceutical products. Under this alternative classification, however, the use of platelets may be acceptable because it is not considered a primary or major component under this classification. In other words, if the Watchtower Society had adopted the chemical classification of the primary components of the blood, which is more consistent with the current biotechnology, hemoglobin, albumin, and globulin, are all prohibited, but platelets and perhaps white blood cells may have been permitted. Which classification of the blood components the Watchtower Society adopts makes such a huge difference in terms of what is acceptable and what is unacceptable, and thus who can survive and who must die from catastrophic blood loss. This difference has nothing to do with the biblical doctrine, or not even with the current medical science. It only hinges upon the Watchtower Society's decision regarding which classification of the blood components they adopt. The cold reality of Jehovah's Witnesses is that their life-and-death decisions are after all not directly based on any of the biblical arguments these articles discuss, because such biblical doctrines have no relevance to the classification of the blood components. And it is this classification that determines all the "unacceptable" components and thus the life-and-death decisions. It is ironical that the rules promulgated in this article titled "Be guided by the living God" are simply guided by the human decisions and old tradition. Should they adopt an alternative classification, which is more in line with the current medical technology, life and death of Jehovah's Witnesses would have been totally different. Dr. Muramoto is a staff neurologist, lead physician, and a member of the Regional Ethics Council, Kaiser Permanente Northwest Division, Portland, Oregon. His views and opinions are his own and do not reflect those of Kaiser Permanente and Northwest Permanente P.C.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 19/01/2005 13:02
Conscience doesn't seem to work too well then does it?
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 19/01/2005 13:27
To Cindy , you are right when you cite the Watchtower (and so are the editors)"We cannot say. The Bible does not give details,...". So when faced with a life threatening situation that may require Blood transfusion consider what has be said in previous tracks.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 19/01/2005 14:03
That Wiliam would depend on your standards
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 19/01/2005 14:43
Posters to this thread have clearly said that “conscience” should be used to decide if they can have various blood products as transfusions. This clearly implies that even after prayer to god that they will come up with different answers. On the other hand I don’t use “conscience” or a direct line to God to decide what’s good & bad I use evidence, logic and reasoning. I know which produces a more accurate answer. My “standards” would not result in the death of an innocent child. The heavy duty god inspired conscience of a JW would. I’ll keep to my standards, thanks for much. PS Some post by Dr. Muramoto? It reminds me of the Hitch Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy when the book says, “and that wraps it up for God folks!”
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 19/01/2005 16:19
As William noted about Dr Muramoto analysis of the Watchtowers articles on blood, it makes a mockery of what the Watchtower expects its adherents to believe in. But congragulations to the Watchtower on the gradual relaxation on its IRON FISTED stance that they administered to its followers till now. No doubt we will have posts from die hard Witnesses to the effect "Nothing has Changed" and they will be right for they need an organisation to control and direct their lives, for the adverage JW feels there is no where for them to go other than the organisation, and for "them nothing has changed".
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 19/01/2005 16:59
ANON 19/01/2005 00:56 continues to misquote passages from our magazines and often out of context (now I feel with mischievous intent) for example "Do not pursue higher education ... There is very little time left! Make pioneer service, the full-time ministry with the possibility of Bethel or missionary service, your goal." (The Watchtower, 1969 March 1, p. 171) That is not a exact quote (“Do not pursue higher education.." this statement is not made in the article) from the article and the context is changed by the misquote also. If you are going to quote a passage from our literature please do so fully and not spin it to suit a anti witness bias. Also we did not teach what ANON claims “when the JWs expected that the end of the world would come in 1975” I for one and the vast majority of Witnesses I knew then did not expect that. So using half truths to try to discredit our reasoning on what the Bible teaches on blood use only serves to sow misconceptions and unwarranted animosity. Lets stick to the subject at hand, Witnesses refusal to take Blood transfusions. As regards the statement made by ANON 18/01/05 that 97% of whole blood is taken if one accepts a factionary extract of a primary blood component, this is patently ludicrous. Those fractions are minute particles of extracts, and what Cindy said is the key point for us “Likewise with blood they do not promote taking fractions, but it is up to your conscience.”
 
  cindy(EGO22866)  Posted: 19/01/2005 19:13
William , like I said in an earlier post I am not arguing with those who do not believe in the bible , there was a post before mine that stated that the watchtower approved of using 97% of blood , and I posted the article word for word. So people could come to there own conclusions and not rely on the word of those who are mistaken , I have read that entire watchtower and NOWHERE does it say the watchtower approves of using 97% of blood. That is it. Again I say to WILLIAM . I am not arguing with someone who does not believe in god, because YES I do. You ask why I believe in god. Well , I believe the bible was written long ago and inspired of god, saying that , at Isaiah 40:22 it says"22 There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers, the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze, who spreads them out like a tent in which to dwell, 23 the One who is reducing high officials to nothing, who has made the very judges of the earth as a mere unreality." How could they have known way back then that the earcth was circle, most thought the earth was flat, but bible council clearly set that straight, and at Job 26:7" 7 He is stretching out the north over the empty place, Hanging the earth upon nothing;" How way back then could they have know the earth was hanging upon nothing? And take into account the strict hygienic standards set forth by the bible to the israelites. You can see these at , throughout Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Again William I am not speaking to you because as you have stated you do not believe in God, and as I stated I do not believe in Evolution. And as for the Watchtower, they DO NOT PROMOTE the use of fractions , they leave that to your conscience. And conscience means many different things to different people. Like it might not hurt ones conscience to play violent video games or listen to violent/dirty music, but to others it does hurt there conscience. We are not slaves to the watchtower, they help us by giving us information to help us with those decisions . They are the faithful and discreet slave, as mentioned by Jesus in Matthew. My conscience does not allow me to take any parts of blood, and that is MY decision. My conscience does not allow me to watch certain TV shows and listen to certain music, and that is MY decision. Again it is all about conscience, and ones relationship with Jehovah God.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 20/01/2005 11:11
Cindy, you have to argue with those who do not believe in the bible because we and others are making your children wards of court when necessary to save their lives and you are trying to stop us by arguing that you have a right to kill them by withdrawing life saving treatment. I personally believe that brainwashing children, as most religious people do, is a crime of child abuse. It destroys their intellect and their ability to think logically and from basic principals. Myself and others will try to stop you doing this in the future. To some extent this is already happening in some countries which insist on a secular education. You say you believe in God and the Bible for the following reasons. That the bible says the earth is a circle. Wrong, it isn’t, it’s a SPHERE. A circle is 2 dimensions, a sphere 3. A circle only makes sense if the Earth is flat, it isn’t. Down through history, virtually every Christian religion interpreted the bible as saying that the Earth was flat & was at the centre of the Universe. Now that science has shown that the Earth is a sphere and not at the centre of the universe you try to make out that’s what the bible said all along. Won’t work, the Christians in the 16th & 17th century burned those and locked up others who contradicted “the bible’s view on the cosmos”, e.g. Galileo. The Earth does not “hang upon nothing”. The Earth doesn’t hang at all. You must be thinking of looking at models of the Earth hanging by strings. If it “hangs” what is it hanging by? If you are claiming God inspired the bible and put matters into it that men did not know then why didn’t he say that the Earth was a sphere and went around the Sun? The hygiene standards do make some sense but they were discovered by men and then codified into the religion they invented. There is absolutely no point whatsoever arguing about what the bible says as 34,000 different religious sects disagree on what it says. You lot of bible experts cannot even agree amongst yourselves.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 20/01/2005 13:39
I beg the readers pardon, I did not mean to infer the Watchtower printed "97%" but the message is the same because the fractions that are permitted by "conscience” amounts to this, see Dr Muramotos analysis of the articles above. ”Those fractions are minute particles of extracts,” says Noel, but are not these minute fractions of particles derived from whole blood Vis a Vis you can take 97% of blood can you not? Now Noel you know exactly what I meant by the analogy I posted on the 18/01/05 13:12. For the Watchtower has now left it up to “conscience” to take these fractions and does not say weather you can or cannot take them all together, so you are right the Watchtower teaching is “patently ludicrous”. The Watchtower and its representatives can play with words all they like but not with children’s lives, and this is why we should speak out because “WHEN” the Watchtower ultimately change their stance on Blood how will “One” live with themselves if they have been faced with this issue in the past. And if present day Witnesses are honest with their consciences they will admit that what was taught in 1989 by the Watchtower on the Blood issue is not what is being taught today on the blood issue particularly on the particle /fractions of blood that makes up haemoglobin which is now up to our “conscience” weather we take it or not. But what about those Brothers and Sisters, and particularly our children who had NO choice to take this LIFE saving “fraction” prior to the June 2000 issue of the Watchtower? On my post of 19/01/05 16:59 I am accused of misquoting out of context, again I stand by my comments as this is what was taught at the time for I speak from experience as I too have been associated with the Watchtower for nearly 50 years and for the benefit of the readers of this track read the earlier tracks about “theocratic warfare” tactics that Jehovah’s Witnesses are taught to engage in with “opposers” as I and people like William and others who question the Watchtowers “patently ludicrous” dictates are viewed, as we are not ENTITLED to the TRUTH
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 20/01/2005 14:02
Cindy if they are, as you say the Watchtower, the "faithful and discreet slave, why do they keep changing their minds? When Jesus questioned the Pharisees on the Sabbath about breaking the law of the Sabbath He asked "which one of you would not pull the animal from the water on the Sabbath"? Was he not indicating that even the life of an animal was more important than the law?????
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 20/01/2005 15:37
I think that point made by William about the earth being a sphere and not a circle is extremely valid and would like to see it addressed by Cindy, Noel or another witness. At the same time however, William persistantly argues 34000 different religous sects disagree on what the bible says, where this is not the case. Take for example, the catholic religion. Many catholic beliefs are based on man-made doctrines which are not consistent with the bibles teachings. for instance, the catholic church firmly asserts that contraception is a mortal sin. no place in the bible is that suggested. the trinity is another example, whereby the father son and holy ghost are described as the one god, which clearly defy's the bibles teachings. born again christians will fight and kill for there country, where the bible cleary indicates that killing is wrong. What i have heard from JW's is that they solely follow the bibles teachings, which is quite unique in itself. The question is not whether they are interpreting the bible correctly, but whether the bible itself is true, and such arguments made by cindy, clearly suggest that the bible itself is severely flawed.
 
  cindy(EGO22866)  Posted: 20/01/2005 19:05
William you say in a round about that my argument is invalid because "there is no god". I say to you that your argument about evolution is clearly invalid because evolution did not happen like you think. So there I think your,wrong you think I am wrong. OK. Further, I am not brainwashing my children and no witness is, say what you want about other religions , because I cannot speak for them . Mine are told the truth , I do not lie to my children like most parents, IE: santa, easter bunny, and so on. Further my children have been raised in the truth ,but have plenty of family members who are not witnesses. They know about the world , and other religions. My children pray to Jehovah God, they look forward to the day when everyone is resurrected in paradise. And for those who keep saying that JWs are a cult and brainwash people. Come on . Its like this, lets say I read the entire bible, and 2 friends of mine read the entire bible , and the 1st friend trys to tell me that it says DON'T except blood, and the 2nd friend says that it says DO except blood. I can see who is telling the truth . And other religions are not. There are many religions , but witnesses are the only one hated in the world ,hmmm sounds familiar, John 15:17"17 “These things I command YOU, that YOU love one another. 18 If the world hates YOU, YOU know that it has hated me before it hated YOU. 19 If YOU were part of the world, the world would be fond of what is its own. Now because YOU are no part of the world, but I have chosen YOU out of the world, on this account the world hates YOU. " That is it I have nothing more to offer ones who are unreceptive and just want to pick little bits and harp on them. I say to William, you do what you have to do for your children , and I will do for mine what I think is best . You being a Darwinian you would not understand , because you have clearly stated you do not believe in god. Luckily I have good doctors( who are not JWs) who respect my familys views, and understand that in the event that I or my family memebers need blood we will be using a volume expanders , such as dextran, saline solution, Ringer's lactate solution, and hetastarch.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 21/01/2005 14:00
What planet are you living on Cindy? In view of what has been said in previous tracks about Banning VACCINATIONS, TRANSPLANTS and Blood now I ask you what chance would YOUR CHILDREN have had if these Bans had applied to them? Stop being brainwashed and wake up just look what you have said "but witnesses are the only one hated in the world". What about the Jews or more recently Muslims by Christians and visa versa. Read your own words "I think" well I hope you do especially if you are (and I sincerely hope not) faced with the Blood issue which I gather from your comments that you have not, and Cindy was there a particular reason you did not mention haemoglobin because prior to June 2000 Watchtower you could not have given this "fraction" to your children whether your conscience allowed you too or not, because up to then it was forbidden. Now ask your self this question...How do all those Witness Mothers who followed the Truth of the Watchtower prior to June 2000 and let their Children Die feel today about this "New Light", or more importantly how would you feel???? Did you know that Witnesses once celebrated Christmas, Easter, Birthdays and joined armies (and still do in some countries) and until recently were members of United Nations ( The Scarlet Harlot).
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 21/01/2005 19:45
If such accusations are made, such as those by Anon 21/01/2005 14:00, about Witnesses celebrating bdays, easter, christmas etc, a reference should be made to where such information was accumulated from. There are so many anti JW websites which tell lies about JW's in an attempt to turn people against them! a person would be very naive to believe everything they read on the web. Now, on another issue, the issue of brainwashing, i think its absolutely absurd to think that witnesses are brainwashed. I know of many people who were raised by JW parents, but decided not to be baptised ! On the other hand, i also know of some who joined the JW's, and all these people were adults. i know for a fact that they DO NOT BRAINWASH, they teach what they think is right. Most people in this country would have attended a catholic primary school, so they may relate to my next example. From the age of 5 i was thought religion in school, made my communion and confirmation without really knowing the signifigance of it. However, i do not percieve myself as being brainwashed, as once one becomes an adult, they usually have the ability to think for themselves, as i, and many of my generation have, and left the catholic religion behind. Now, while all this religous teaching was going on in schools, so were science classes, where we were taught the basics of evolution etc. and our history books were full of vivid pictures of ape like men. These pictures were no more scientific then the man on the moon, yet we were forced to percieve these images as our ancestors. This is where the brainwashing went on !! I think in many cases, rather than people being brainwashed, they feel obligated to follow the religous teachings of there parents, but that to me is a matter of courage.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 21/01/2005 20:30
Cindy, you totally ignored the points I made that refuted your 3 points that you claimed proved there was a god. You made 3 specific claims and I refuted them. Can you please address my points? Is the Earth a circle or a sphere, what does it “hang” from? You say, “My children pray to Jehovah God, they look forward to the day when everyone is resurrected in paradise”. What an amazing co-incidence that you also happen to believe EXACTLY the same thing and the Japanese, ancient Egyptians, modern Parisians etc and THEIR children don’t. Why is this would you say? Are you 100% sure you didn’t brainwash them? How come they don’t believe the Emperor of Rome is a God as the children of the Romans did? Come on Cindy, brain in gear time. Don't you JW's believe in ALWAYS telling the truth?
 
  Melba(VPH23207)  Posted: 22/01/2005 07:00
Will, I believe you are missing the point completely about the scripture that mentions " circle" of the earth "hanging upon nothing". Obviously, the Bible is not a science book, but that simple concept made it easy for people to grasp what the earth was like out there in the universe, since everyone who lived millenia ago had no concept of what we all know now as gravity. Here is another example of the "wisdom" of the Bible that you've probably not even considered. Many of the laws that the Isrealites recieved from Jehovah through Moses gave restrictions, some dietary such as not eating pork and other meat from animals deemed unclean, others dealt with the issue of sanitation (Leviticus 11, Deut 23v11-13). There was no knowledge of the existence of germs, or of the dangerous microorganisms that exist in meat that has not been properly prepared, even there was ignorance regarding the amount of flybourne diseases that result from uncovered waste; however, the isrealites adhered to those restrictions so they could remain physically and spiritually clean. Nowadays, we in the twenty-first century know all about the health side of those restrictions. Which brings me to this conclusion: one should not ignore the wisdom behind God's laws, and we shouldn't act as if we know all sides of an issue ( including blood transfusions). Jehovah's Witnesses are merely acknowledging that God's wisdom concerning all matters is more advanced than that of any human, no matter how scientifically advanced we claim to be. On that thought, I saw an interesting article in Irish health about what more and more people are beginning to find out about the negative side of products from the blood bank. Copy+paste http://www.irishhealth.com/index.html?level=4&id=2323 Comments?
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 24/01/2005 11:22
Melba, I most certainly “am not missing the point completely”, your are. You say, “obviously the bible is not a science book..” but this is the very point Cindy was making. She specifically said that the bible contained scientific fact that the people then could not have known and this was one of her proofs that god existed. Indeed it would indeed be evidence if it were true. If the bible had E=mc2 then I would be impressed. In fact if the bible had explained the theory of evolution I would be seriously impressed but its theory for the formation of life on Earth is total rubbish and has long been disproved. Only seriously fundamental Christians believe in Creationism. Obviously if you say that you can allow children to die on the basis that the bible says so and that the bible was written by god and that there is a god you must prove there is a god & that he wrote the bible otherwise we can’t let you kill your children. “The simple concept” argument is wrong. The earth is a *sphere* and not a circle or a square or a cube or a straight line. God could have said, “Earth’s a ball and goes around the Sun”, he didn’t and the reason this mistake was made is that the bible was written by men who didn’t know how the universe was structured or began and they got it wrong. Simple isn’t it? The Earth doesn’t hang from anything. God was wrong or else there is no god. The rest of your post is easily answered. Ancient people knew that rotten food poisoned you which is why they threw dead animals into their enemies wells. They simply codified these in the bible. Some things that they codified were wrong some were right. There are “side issues” to everything. All surgical procedures carry a risk. Very roughly 1/1000 die under anaesthetics but that “side issue” doesn’t mean one shouldn’t have anaesthetics. Millions of people’s lives were saved and continue to be saved by transfusions. You believe that yourself as those children that died because their parents refused transfusions are hailed by the JW religion as martyrs. How could they be martyrs if they hadn't died because they refused blood tranfusions. Now that Cindy’s first attempts at proving God have been clearly shown to be wrong can we have some evidence there is a god or even a reason why one should believe there is. Noel’s only attempt was, “there is no morality without God”. This limp philosophical argument is regarded as rubbish by Philosophers and has been refuted by them and more recently by Biologists who can explain morality by referring to evolution and the effects of the survival of individual genes. [This is complicated but can be studied in science books if you really want to know the truth. In a nutshell I will protect those that have the same genes as me because genes that make us do that survive & propagate and other genes (lets call them immoral genes) die off.]
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 24/01/2005 15:51
In reply to Anon 21/01/05 19:45 you strike me as a person who is studying with the JWs or have studied with the witnesses. And your attitude would seem to be rather naive to say the least for your only concern seems to be “bdays, easter Christmas etc,” Does non of the Life threatening doctrine mentioned earlier in this track that is and WAS taught by the Watchtower concern you????? Who told you there were” anti JW websites which tell lies about JW’s in an attempt to turn people against them!” ?????? The Watchtower told you, did it not? For here we read an article in the Watchtower May 1 2000 warning its readers about the internet and other media sources under the heading “A World Overpowered by Satan”. While the Watchtower is correct about some of the filth that comes from the internet it ignores that far more benefit comes from the internet". So in view of that here’s some proof that JWs once celebrated these pagan holidays “Even though Christmas is not the real anniversary of our Lord's birth, but more properly the annunciation day or the date of his human begetting (Luke 1:28), nevertheless, since the celebration of our Lord's birth is not a matter of divine appointment or injunction, but merely a tribute of respect to him, it is not necessary for us to quibble particularly about the date. We may as well join with the civilized world in celebrating the grand event on the day which the majority celebrate - Christmas day." Watchtower Dec.1 1904 p.364. A Watchtower Society publication of 1907 that is entitled, "Daily Heavenly Manna and Birthday Record." Look at what the Society said in 1907, "Our first edition of 'Manna,' 20,000, met with far better success than we dared hope for; and we have been greatly encouraged by the kind words of its many friends far and near. Some call it their 'Heavenly Breakfast Food' and tell that they feast upon its lessons as regularly as the sun rises… Some use them as birthday presents and holiday gifts… In this edition we have added the Autograph and Birthday record feature… To see the autographs of our friends daily is a pleasure, and to be reminded of their birthday is a great convenience. The book will last a life-time, and can be used year after year, for the sacred message never grows old…" To prove just how much God accepts this remembrance in the space provided for February 16 the owner of this copy has written, "'Praise ye the Lord!' Charles T Russell 1852 Alleghany." Yes even Russell a “faithful and discreet slave” enjoyed Birthdays. Cindy, what would you have done for your children if you where alive when the Watchtower once taught this? - "Thinking people would rather have smallpox than vaccination, because the latter sows seeds of syphilis, cancers, eczema, erysipelas, scrofula, consumption, even leprosy and many other loathsome affections. Hence the practice of vaccinations is a crime, an outrage, and a delusion". Golden Age Jan 5 1929 p 502. Now in all fairness Cindy, One is tempted to ask how many faithful Witnesses died due to the "New Light" of 1929. The Society has changed its stance since then, but one must still wonder why God would let his "appointed leaders,” publish such a ghastly error. So people should not believe what appears to be TRUTH when it is not TRUE and particularly when the welfare of innocent children is at stake.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 24/01/2005 18:25
To finish my earliar post of 15:51 you would surely have to be BRAIN WASHED to have believed what the Watchtower taught to be "manna" from heaven would'nt you? Yet Witnesses at that time believed that, now ask yourself WHY did they believe it? out of FEAR perhaps, fear of what you may ask? well just like today a fear of loss exists among JWs and it is not a fear of losing ones place in Paradise ( by the way I belive in Paradise) but the fear of losing ones family and friends, because as you know if you QUESTION the Watchtower ("faithful discreet slave) you are risking your present position and friends. A typical elder reply to some one who asks questions is to "wait on Jehovah" or are you studying the Watchtower not are you studying the Bible.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 25/01/2005 19:54
In response to Noels post 19/01/05 16:59 where he cites that I may have “mischievous intent” well I have no other intent other than to expose the Watchtower Society for what it truly is and that’s a destroyer of families and of individuals “conscience”. Well again, for the benefit of this tracks readers here we have Noel at his “theocratic warfare” tactics and if Noel thinks I am misquoting here’s a few more “misquotes” from the Watchtower. "Many schools now have student counselors who encourage one to pursue higher education after high school, to pursue a career with a future in this system of things. Do not be influenced by them. Do not let them ‘brainwash’ you with the Devil's propaganda..." - WT 3/15/69 p171 "It would hardly be consistent for such a youth, of his own choice, to pursue extensive secular studies beyond what is required by the law and by his parents." WT 9/1/75 p 543 “Also we did not teach what ANON claims “when the JWs expected that the end of the world would come in 1975” I for one and the vast majority of Witnesses I knew then did not expect that. So using half truths to try to discredit our reasoning on what the Bible teaches on blood use only serves to sow misconceptions and unwarranted animosity.” Noel even if they are HALF TRUTHS as you say that they are it makes what the Watchtower is saying NOT to be TRUE does it not? It should be noted that the Watchtower as one of the world’s largest publishers has the power to change its publications to suit geographical and regional issues of A publication. Noel continues in his post “ Likewise with blood they do not promote taking fractions, but it is up to your conscience” and Noel is right it is up to the JWs conscience to take these Now permitted fractions but prior to June 2000 Watchtower if your conscience permitted you to take these fractions of blood you would have been disfellowshiped (excommunicated). Now some one once said, “ Those who do not THINK for Themselves do NOT THINK at all”.
 
  Melba(VPH23207)  Posted: 26/01/2005 08:41
"If the bible had E=mc2 then I would be impressed." And because it didn't, You refuse to believe it was explained (or could be) that simply. Of, course, you didn't create the earth. "In fact if the bible had explained the theory of evolution I would be seriously impressed but its theory for the formation of life on Earth is total rubbish and has long been disproved." Funny how you constantly bash others for showing that science again and again agrees with the Biblical accounts, but you refuse to look in the mirror and face the fact that evolution is and will always be a THEORY (that's right, I said the "T" word). And BTW, even though I quoted the New world translation in mentioning Isaiah 40:22, you should also realize that the hebrew word for "circle" can also denote something having a ball shape. Thus, other English translations of that same scripture have rendered that word as "ball", "globe". This only shows that the Bible was ahead of its time in saying that the earth was round when many of the Isrealites' contemporaries believed in a flat earth. If you want the exact term with which to refer to the shape of the earth, it is a SPHEROID, not a perfect sphere. "Only seriously fundamental Christians believe in Creationism." Who told you the lie that all Christians believe in Creationism? Based on your comment, you don't seem to know the difference in between Creationism and the Bible's account of the creation (there is a difference). Creationists believe that the earth was created in 7 literal, 24hr days---an idea that disagrees with the Biblical account. How do we know? The first few "days" occurred before the creation of the sun and the moon (which happened on the "fourth day"), upon which men base their measurements of actual time. Allow me to elaborate on my previous comment to which you responded. I meant that even though the Bible never made claims on being a science book, it actually agrees with science on some aspects. The fact that the Bible says "God created the heavens and the earth" does not make it unscientific. In fact, If you haven't already noticed the account of Genesis, go and look for yourself at the processes described in the biblical account in chapter 1. The order of the appearance of living things on the earth agrees with the sequence of how scientists believe life got here: the earth, which originally was a virtually uninhabitable watery wasteland, was convirted into a planet with optimal conditiones for life. Light and air were added. Of all the living things that came first on the earth were plants, then animals came onto the scene, then humans. Colleges and universities are still teaching that basic sequence of how living creatures appeared on the earth in Biology 101. Plus, the fact there are similarities in the designs of the many diverse creatures on the earth can attest to the thing all of them have as the common denominator---a common Designer---instead of completely ruling out creation or the existence of a Creator. "All surgical procedures carry a risk." That's the truth. However, you make the statement that,"Very roughly 1/1000 die under anaesthetics but that “side issue” doesn’t mean one shouldn’t have anaesthetics". True, but that in itself does not take away the patient's right to refuse the anaesthetics just because the doctor says he needed it either. Parents of Jehovah's Witnesses are not refusing all treatment; they just don't want blood transfusions. They rightfully exercise their freedom to choose another treatment. How do we know about these alternative treatments? Not only through the Christian congregation, but via our own medical research. Plus, our organization has a Hospital Liason Committee that aids in educating doctors on procedures that in many cases preclude the use of a blood transfusion. For example, many cases require that loss of blood be diminished. Nearly every hospital has a cell saver which is highly equipped in routing lost blood back into the body in a continuous flow. Plus, many doctors due to advancing technology are able to use less invasive forms of surgery, cutting down the risk of further bloss loss. These are just two examples of the many options that we have instead of choosing a blood transfusion. "Millions of people’s lives were saved and continue to be saved by transfusions." That statement remains to be in question, because the numbers are rising in the amount of innocent people who are contracting Hepatitis, AIDS, or even "little" diseases like the one the pope got (the cytomegalovirus) Ten years from now there could a few more disease that we didn't even know about. "You believe that yourself as those children that died because their parents refused transfusions are hailed by the JW religion as martyrs." Now that I have the opportunity, let me tell you what I believe. John 8:32 says "You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." When we learned Bible it freed us from the chains of human tradition. It freed us from the teachings of false religion. As a result of that freedom from false religion, it freed us from fear of man and what opposers threaten to do to us(Matt 5:11,12); it even freed us from the fear of dying (John 5:28,29), whatever the cause. So, why should we turn on our faith when times are tough? My God has the power to raise dead ones and end death forever. Like you yourself said, not one doctor can guarantee 100% that a patient will fair well. That medical pro cannot guanrantee life; he wouldn't even dare, knowing full well that he couldn't back that up. Not even the government will guarantee that either. So, as witnesses of Jehovah we base our faith on a firm foundation, that of the blood of Jesus Christ, which was poured out on behalf of us so that we could have life eternal(Hebrews 9:24-26). I have full confidence in God's promises for the future and I am sure that those little ones will be resurrected. That goes without saying that blood transfusions have something in common with ceasarian procedures-- too many are being administered unneccessarily. Too many doctors are willing to just use a pint of blood instead of doing something more effective like stopping the bleeding.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 26/01/2005 11:58
In part response to Melba post 26/01/05 08:41. Melba uses the New World Translation (NWT) for proof of her argument. Look at what one of the worlds leading Bible scholars said of this translation of the Bible that is published by the Watchtower. Dr. Julius Mantey, author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, calls the NWT "a shocking mistranslation...Obsolete and incorrect...It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god...I have never read any New Testament so badly translated as The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of The Greek Scriptures.... it is a distortion of the New Testament. The translators used what J.B. Rotherham had translated in 1893, in modern speech, and changed the readings in scores of passages to state what Jehovah's Witnesses believe and teach. That is a distortion not a translation." (Julius Mantey, Depth Exploration in The New Testament (N.Y.: Vantage Pres, 1980), pp.136-137) the translators of the NWT are "diabolical deceivers." (Julius Mantey in discussion with Walter Martin) If the people that followed Jim Jones in Guyana and David Corash at Waco exercised THEIR rights they would be alive today. Melba who is and what qualifications have the Hospital Liaison Committee have? Have they the same qualifications of the editors of the previous bans on ORGAN transplants and VACCINATIONS??? “Nearly every hospital has a cell saver which is highly equipped in routing lost blood back into the body in a continuous flow.” Melba says has Melba forgotten that this practice WAS once BANNED??? Now I think Melba you are quoting scripture out of context to bolster the Watchtower “interpretation”. ”So, as witnesses of Jehovah we base our faith on a “firm foundation”….” How can you possibly base your faith on the foundation that has been laid previously by the Watchtower that evidence has been presented earlier in this track for ANY readers to substantiate for themselves? Just like you sister I too have full confidence in Jehovah who is my NEVER CHANGING creator.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 28/01/2005 09:25
Melba, a circle IS two dimensional or to put it another way flat. The reason the bible gets this wrong is it was written by “many of the Isrealites' contemporaries (who) believed in a flat earth”. This is evidence that the bible was written by man. Man who did not know the shape of the Earth. The same point applies to Creationism. They came up with that silly story because they knew no better. Through science we know that life evolved and this does contradict the bible and shows clearly that it wasn’t written by an omnipotent god. You say Evolution is a theory but virtually all professional biologists believe it to be a proven theory or a fact. There is NO OTHER theory in science to account for life on this planet. You must think all these biologists are very stupid people but mysteriously the scientists that build aeroplanes, computers and nuclear power stations are very clever. Funny that. Is it that all the stupid scientists become biologists? All biology works on the basis that life evolved. Every aspect of this science is based on that fact. What is the Earth hanging from? There isn’t s single thing in the bible that wasn’t known to ordinary men at the time it was written. The Moon wasn’t made before the Earth, in fact it’s now known that the Moon was made when another large body collided with the Earth after it had formed. The Moon is made from the Earth’s material. The Sun and the Earth formed at the same time out of a ball of dust and gasses. The Sun did not form before the Earth. This ball of dust & gas was partly created in a PREVIOUS stellar system which blew up as a supernova. In other words the majority of the elements that make up your body were made in a previous Sun that has long since exploded. This is not in keeping with the bible’s explanation of the creation of the earth and all that is on it and is one of reasons we know that the bible was just written by men.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 09/02/2005 16:33
Noel posted the following on the 05/01/05 19:13 \"I am back.... Anon of 02/01/2005 asks if I have been “silenced” (what nonsense) or on holidays, neither, I have been away most of last month on business. I am pleased to be able to make further comment on the debate. I thank those who have added their “voice” to the issue, I certainly want to encourage a greater understanding of our position as Witnesses. A great deal has tried to be made about us changing our minds on some (what I consider) non core issues,\". Well Noel have you and your fellow Brothers and Sisters been silenced? For it is now 4 weeks since you have made a post to this track, and as you say you want to \"encourage\" a greater understanding of your position as a Jehovahs Witness.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 15/02/2005 11:23
I am back.... Anon of 02/01/2005 asks if I have been “silenced” (what nonsense) or on holidays, neither, I have been away most of last month on business. I am pleased to be able to make further comment on the debate. I thank those who have added their “voice” to the issue, I certainly want to encourage a greater understanding of our position as Witnesses. A great deal has tried to be made about us changing our minds on some (what I consider) non core issues.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 15/02/2005 12:42
Hello Noel, welcome back. Melba and Cindy seem to have done a runner though. I suspect many JW's rarely get to talk to people who can point out the absurdity of some of their positions. Maybe the shock was too much.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 15/02/2005 18:14
I have been participating in this discussion as Anonymous since 09/10/04 00:12 and anything that I have posted to this track can be substantiated. For personnel and family reasons and for the love that I have for Noel(noelmay) and the other JWs that have participated I cannot identify my self. The reason being is that I have been associated with the Jehovah’s Witnesses for near on 50 years, I have witnessed their disfellowshipings (excommunications) and their shunning and their blatant policy changes on Watchtower doctrine over the years and in particular changes on Blood. This organisations foundations are based on the dictates of the Governing Body and they CANNOT be QUESTIONED. This can be seen from earlier postings that I have made about their Bans on Vaccinations and Organ Transplants for if you Questioned these Bans and thousands did, and they where disfellowshiped or silenced for doing so. The very lack of participation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses to this track for the past month or so is the sure sign of the silence that has been imposed on them when they are challenged by someone “in the know” or maybe someone who has had the courage to question. If anyone would like to contact me I will post an Email address here if requested. At this point I would like to thank Irish health and its editors for allowing me the opportunity to use this facility and congratulate them on their excellent web site.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 16/02/2005 10:21
This posting was entered in error ....Anon of 02/01/2005 It is an excerp of a previous posting by noel(noelmay) that was made on 05/01/05 19:13 is'nt it ironic that Noel says "nonsense" to his being SILENCED ????.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 16/02/2005 13:07
What split? :) What this tells us is that religious dogma is no reason to let a child die, which is why the courts don't allow it.
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 16/02/2005 19:42
I have not been silanced, just got a bit tired answering mostly the same questions with slight varients over and over again. I was reading over the responses from contributors and boy am I both amused and perplexed at many of the comments. I as a Witness make the decisions I do for my self and my family on the best knowledge I have to hand at the point in time of the decison. I would think that all rational people would act likewise. Some of the comments here about what was written many years ago continue to misunderstand that knowledge and understanding increases and "evolves" (William will like this expression) over time. Those who love truth do not fear changing views when further enlightenment comes along. Those who can't face the truth in (or about)their lives try to make out that changing anything is bad. Jesus himself made it clear that understanding of aspects of truth would be progressive but the vast body of the basic truth's contained in the Bible are clear and unchangeable. Only those touching on "grey" areas where actions and decisions are a matter of individual conscience and are impacted by technological developments have we seen a shifting of views, I believe this is good and honest and helpful.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 17/02/2005 10:37
Noel, what a load of WAFFLE!.And because of this Changing "evolving" overtime the Watchtower society lets People Die. Noel you should look closer to home at your own circumstances and as I said earlier look outside the box and do not be afraid to admit you are wrong and the WT have been wrong on many core issues in the past. Noel says "just got a bit tired answering" but Noel thats the point as you have not ANSWERED any Questions posed to you have you?. Well heres a question for you! Why up till recently was the Watchtower Society members of the United Nations (the wildbeast)? Now Noel before you give me the WT explanation do some independent research on the matter. And by the way JEHOVAH does Not CHANGE HIS mind on ANYTHING.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 17/02/2005 11:05
But the blood issue was never a matter of individual conscience for JW's until recently.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 17/02/2005 11:17
Yeah! and I'm waiting for Melba or Cindy to explain what the world is hanging from as the bible apparently says. I read a statement the other day. I'm not saying its correct but if it is it's interesting. "*All* working professional biologists in the world at university believe in evolution". All being the important word.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 17/02/2005 11:50
Conscience, forsure, thats been stymied by the Watchtower for if one uses ones \"conscience\" and it is not in agreement with Watchtower policy you would be disfellowshiped would\'nt you Noel?What about those Brothers and Sisters who used their \"conscience\" prior to the Watchtower June 15 2000 article on Blood who where disfellowshiped just because they used their \"conscience\" was that fair where they reinstated and did they recieve an apology from the Watchtower for meerly using their \"conscience\" and Noel you continue to defend these actions how can this be justified?
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 21/02/2005 21:00
it is completely logical that a person should be disfellowshipped if their conscience "is not in agreement with watchtower policy".For a person to be a Jehovahs Witness, they must believe everything that JW's believe, otherwise, what would be the point in being one to begin with.Because conscience and beliefs are dependant on eachother, how could one say that they did something as a matter of conscience, if it completely goes against what they believe. So if someone is disfellowshipped for this reason, i do not see it as wrong, as so many christian religions have been contaminated in the past by allowing people who didnt truely believe to practice, and in time to change the fundamentals of the religion altogether. i am not a JW, but i think this is a very logical move. Take the catholic religion and its ban on contraception. i know of many people who use contraception and still class themselves as catholic.Because more and more catholics use contraception, it begins to look like, "its okay", because everyone else is doing it.Hence the fundamentals of the religion are very much lost, and those calling themselves catholic are really not catholic atall.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 22/02/2005 12:20
Then explain why the Popes opposed the teaching of Evolution for 150 years until recently when the present Pope agreed that Evolution was a fact. Were the previous Popes wrong or is the present one? Which of these Peopes "contaiminated" the Catholic religion. Religion is wrong, that's why these paradoxes crop up. It isn't inspired by God bit made up by men. Men who are wrong from time to time.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 23/02/2005 13:47
"We definately believe we should have good evidance for anything we believe". Noel said on his post of 28/09/2004 15:00 Now how could any rational thinking person believe the "good evidence" that was taught by the Watchtower in its past history such as the bans on Vaccinations,Transplants and its recent change of policy on Blood and its primary components. This evidence that the Watchtowers adherants believed at the time is now not "TRUTH" but as a Jehovahs Witness this "TRUTH" must be believed as TRUE. How can "Good Evidence" now not be Good or TRUE especially when peoples lives are at stake? This does not make any logical sense. Noal posted the following on the 19/10/2004 16:15 "Transplants of any organ is a matter for the conscience of any individual Christian Witness and has always been so from the time they could be carried out without taking blood transfusions". This is simply not TRUE as Noel is misleading the readers of this track, Organ Transplants were Banned by the Watchtower leadership fullstop, with or without the use of Blood or blood products. In response to Anon 21/02/05 21:00 the line of thought you seem to have is similar to been a member of a golf club! If you want to remain a member "obey the rules" this is not being realistic especially when peoples lives and well being is at risk.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 27/02/2005 17:31
It seems that the point has been lost...the JW want to be treated..do want there children and love ones to live..and thur a relations with Dr's that are and are not JW there has been found other methods just as or in some cases better treatment then a blood transfusion...It seems to me..and this is only my opioin that most of you just want to judge and not really reading what has been stated over and over...That JW do accept many forms of treatment when the issue of Blood transfusion has come up..In the USA there are hospital now that are doing surgeries without blood because they have found out that patients sometimes do better and they are not JW..there just medical personal..I think we all need to respect others and understand that if an issue of blood comes up with JW that they are doing everything possible to save there love one.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 28/02/2005 10:20
You claim that JE have found better treatments and doctors who will perform operations without blood. This is obviously ridiculous and has been trashed out at length here. If what you say is true then 99% of the doctors in the world must be idiots for carrying on using transfusions. The ONLY evidence that can be put forward for this is that is what the JW’s interpret the bible as recommending the non use of blood. There is of course no scientific evidence for your position or else surgeons would have stopped using transfusions. Transfusions are kept at a minimum for all sorts of valid medical reasons but there are plenty of operations where transfusions and often large transfusions are necessary to save the child’s life. A little while back I made the point that JW’s accept that their children have died because of their belief in this matter as they “boast” about them dying as martyrs.
 
  ivanna(KTJ25111)  Posted: 28/02/2005 14:41
Sir, you seem to be so hostile..but non the less i will help you to empower yourself by learning...I am in the USA if you look up St. Vicent Hospital in Jacksonville Fl you will learn of the what did you call them.."obviously ridiculous" I work in this hospital and I have been a witness to this event. So Sir. Knowledge is the key here empower yourself with it.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 28/02/2005 16:17
I’m not as hostile as parents who because they have unsupportable and eccentric beliefs let their children die, (sorry try to let them die, in Ireland we have strong laws to prevent parents allowing their children to die through neglect or their superstitious beliefs. I don’t know what the exact position is in Florida. It is obviously ridiculous to claim that the vast majority of the world\'s surgeons are carrying out 100\'s of thousands of blood transfusions yearly that are un-necessary because JW\'s say so.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 28/02/2005 20:33
In response to Anonymous Posted 27/02/05 17:31 and Ivanna (KTJ25111) Posted 28/02/05 14:41 your post is not very clear, but I feel that you are missing the point at issue here and that is the JWs changing policies on Blood transfusions and Blood fractions and components etc, etc. Please read the earlier posts and look at what the JWs once taught. Not only in Florida is “Bloodless Medicine” practised but also in many other parts of the U S and other countries through out the World and yes in some cases this medicine has proven to be better than with the use of Blood. We are only trying to point out that the Watchtowers teaching on Blood is not based on any sound basis and just like the previous prohibitions on Vaccinations and Transplants the Watchtower changed its mind, they will certainly change their minds on the Blood issue because of litigation that is beginning to be served on their ELDERS who are advising the congregants amongst them to refuse Blood. Now the JWs who find a surgeon who will perform surgery with “Bloodless Medicine” should count themselves very fortunate. Look at this scenario……… Imagine the Ban on Transplants existed today where would one find a surgeon to perform “TransplantLESS Medicine” Yes I know its ridiculous, just like the Bans on Vaccinations and Transplants where ridiculous. It is now becoming more apparent that the Ban on Blood Transfusions is ridiculous. I do agree that the ordinary JW wants their children to live and thrive as any parent would but they are being misled and time will tell. I encourage all JWs who are reading these posts to do some research into the Watchtowers history because someday you may be faced with a Blood situation and a decision you may later regret. So as you say Ivanna “Knowledge is the key here empower yourself with it”.
 
  ivanna(KTJ25111)  Posted: 28/02/2005 21:12
Sir do you belief the same of Chritian Scientis? Who do not take any medical measures at all..or is your hositlity only towards the JW?..Any how you must have not understood my point either, i did not say that 100% of the surgeries were being done with out blood transfusions..I was only speaking on the issue of the repect that these Dr's have for JW beliefs I have yet to hear one of my Dr's call it what did you call it"supestitious, and eccentric". Here in the USA we do have respect for everyone regarless of race and religion, We see everone that is loosing a love one the same. I have yet to see on of JW feeling grand and as you say happy because there going to make there child a martyrs..they like you and they to suffer in heart felt pain over there love one situation. Again I say to you empower your self and seek knowlage on the situation with blood transfusion and JW or I might also like to say Christian Scienties.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 01/03/2005 10:48
Ivanna why should scientific people and those who rspect scientific belife have respect for a superstition (ys a superstition) which has nor sound basis in fact. This applies to J.W.'s just as it applies to tribal people who mutilate their chiuldren in the name of tradition and weird eccentric's who let their children die (the highest form of child abuse and in essnece murder) rather than take them to a doctor - i.e. Christian "Scientists".
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 01/03/2005 11:21
Of course I and the courts in Ireland would have exactly the same opinion of the actions of Christian Scientists as JW’s. In fact I would include devil worshipers, Pagans, new age types and all those whose superstitions would injure or kill their children. To say “here is the US we have respect for everyone regardless of race and religion” is laughable. I was in Memphis a few weeks ago and racialism is endemic in the US. Religions do not even respect other religions never mind atheism. Until 1946 black musicians couldn’t even sing or play on radio in the USA. I was actually interviewed on the radio station that first broadcast black music recently. The same presenter is still doing the show. In Ireland the leading religion, Catholicism, up until recently banned the teaching of Evolution in schools, forced non Catholics to stay married when they wanted to get divorced, banned contraceptives and still force pregnant Irish women to travel to the UK for abortions. This is the same religion whose priests have been abusing children and at the highest level covering up the wholesale abuse of children for decades. One leading religious fundamentalist here in Ireland regularly refers to the Catholic Pope as “The Anti-Christ”. Christians & Muslims have murdered millions in the name of religion. I respect people but I do not respect religious beliefs as they are very dangerous, totally daft and intellectually inexcusable for intelligent, educated and well read people in this day and age. We have known now for hundreds of years that the world is a naturally occurring phenomenon and not created or maintained by gods. Religious belief & dogma is literally the antithesis of knowledge. I heard recently that JW’s don’t even encourage their children to go to university. Reading many of these posts it’s clear that many of those writing in on behalf of the JW religion are poorly educated and badly read. The continuous use of “there” instead of “their” in dozens of posts indicates this. A Muslim “scholar” is someone who has simply memorized the Koran.
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 01/03/2005 18:16
My, My, My, I smile as we are accused of being ‘absurd, waffling, silenced, irrational, misleading, a likely murderer, uneducated and ignorant” all in a couple of weeks and why? because we do not hold to the prevailing view that blood transfusions should be given to all at the discretion of a doctor. Or is there more to it, is it that we do not believe in evolution?, or disrespect a wonderful bible based education received though the good offices of the Watchtower Society. The Watchtower Society do not, I repeat do not, let people die, each of us as intelligent rational adults take responsibility for our own decisions and that of our dependants. Some comments on points made in the past few weeks in this track: Religion is contradictory - when not based on the Bible. We have not changed our belief on the Bible teaching regarding abstaining from blood, we have reviewed in the past years fractions or extracts from blood components (since they became available due to technological developments) and the conclusion that was arrived at was to leave a decision on taking them up to an individuals conscience. I know of no one ever who has been disfellowshipped from the congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses for exercising their conscience in the matter of blood fractions. I see the logic in trusting in what the Bible says even though it may not be popular. Most of the major religions of this world are moved by popular sentiment (perhaps that is why the Pope agreed to go along with the teaching of the theory of evolution), but popular sentiment has proven over and over again to be wrong as I believe evolution to be wrong. Life just plainly does not come from non living matter and science has proved over and over again that that is the case. There is NO scientific evidence to the contrary. When the Bible touches on scientific or medical matters it has always proven in time to be accurate, William asked about the phrase “the world hanging from”? the scripture says “it hangs on nothing at all” this statement in the Bible made almost 3,000 years ago was at a time when most peoples were believing the earth was held up by some giant animal or god. So the Bibles comment was accurate. Also when it told the ancient Israelites to quarantine ones who had symptoms of leprosy and other ills. No doubt that was viewed by many for a long time as “superstition” but in time the Bible was proved to be a wise guide even in these matters. We need some humility to accept that there is more to life then we as humans can fully understand and the wonder of nature / life should impel us to look to a higher intelligent source for the answers. We believe the Bible gives those answers and really trustworthy moral guidance.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 01/03/2005 18:46
I am utterly insulted by Williams assertion that people are poorly educated just because they use "there" instead of "their". As a computer scientist, a very well educated computer scientist, I commonly make this mistake when writing papers, I also have a tendancy to use "then" instead of "than". However before I submit a paper, these are all things I check, as I am aware of my mistakes. I have seen such mistakes many times, when correcting students exams, and when reviewing papers written by other researchers. Claiming that JW's are poorly educated people is ridiculous. I know many JW's who went to university, and who have become lecturers. In fact, I was at a software engineering conference in Japan last year, where I met three JW's. Last week I was introduced to a lecturer in computer engineering who is a JW. Throughout this discussion William has struck me as a completely ignorant, self-absorbed person. If you dont agree with someones beliefs, surely you could at least be civil. Because JW's beliefs are so strong, I myself would rather find out the basis for their beliefs, why this basis is so important to them, and do a bit of research before i start making such accusations. In fact, I very recently started studying with JW's and am very impressed by their knowledge of the bible. Of course, there are those who dont believe in the bible, or who assert that the bible is just full of stories and myths. I suggest you have a good look at it, and I think you may begin to realise exactly what I am coming to realise now, that the accuracy and consistency of it is amazing. Dont condemn it until you have actually seen it. Some of the kindest people I have ever met are JW's. They dont deserve your false accusations William.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 02/03/2005 23:42
“My, My, My, I smile as we are accused of being ‘absurd, waffling, silenced, irrational, misleading, a likely murderer, uneducated and ignorant” all in a couple of weeks and why? because we do not hold to the prevailing view that blood transfusions should be given to all at the discretion of a doctor. Noels post 01/03/05 18:16 says. Well all I can say in exasperation is My,My,My.. Noel says “bible based” education received through the good offices of the Watchtower society. I say and the vast majority of the rational thinking Christian World says, that the Watchtower based interpretation of their New World Translation of the Bible, which is a Watchtower publication and has been altered to suit their distorted interpretation of the scriptures. This publication and others like it have been used to substantiate the past changing teachings of the Watchtower society mentioned earlier in these posts such as “BIBLE BASED”Bans on TRANSPLANTS and VACCINATIONS which are now NO longer BANED by the Watchtower. People DIED over these BANS that where imposed by this organisation. Did I miss something here? Did Jehovah make an Addendum to the Bible that the rational thinking Christian is not aware off? Now Noel has not addressed any of the earlier questions posed to him but before I ask any more questions, and for the benefit of those following these posts, the foot soldier JWs go from door to door preaching the “good news” as they see it through Watchtower eyes firmly believing that the recipients of their “good news” if the do not listen to their message they are going to be destroyed at Armageddon and all because they cannot see with “blinkered” eyes the message that is being preached by these gullible innocent people who I agree are in most cases decent Christian people who lead respectable lives. Noel again practises his “Theocratic Warfare” in this post very well for he fails to address and ignores the earlier posts and questions that where posed to him and Waffles on and on. Someone said “To sin by silence when we should protest makes cowards of us all” and “ when the shameless confront the spineless the shameless win”. Why will the Watchtower not show “humility “ and admit its past mistakes? They can only answer that one! I asked earlier “what planet are you on” in an earlier post to a contributor. I have to ask the same question to Noel for the Watchtower have disfellowshiped some members for the most trivial of things such as a member having a simple meal with a member who just simply left the Watchtower, and they have disfellowshiped smokers and alcoholics rather than help them and all at the discretion of the leadership of the Watchtower society. There are thousands and thousands of former JWs who have been disfellowshiped for just using their conscience and Noel knows it or maybe he mistakenly calls it APOSTACY.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 03/03/2005 09:08
I’ll answer the last two posts in one reply. Legally it IS murder to allow a child to die when you can save his or her life. To oppose Evolution when virtually all or maybe all university trained Biologists believe it to be a fact IS absurd. It is an absurd position or all these above average intelligence and highly educated people are total idiots and base their entire Science and life’s work on a lie. It is as absurd as insisting that planes don’t fly or that as one fundamentalist told me “the Sun goes around the Earth”. There is such a thing as an absurd point of view. Opposing Evolution which has enormous scientific evidence to support it is one of them. Noel has already made a few pathetic attempts to contradict evolution and I have refuted them all. When we go to any professional we take his advice or what’s the point? If a surgeon needs to save a life by using a transfusion he is morally & legally obliged to do so. It is a fact that the superstitions of the parents cannot override the right of the child to live. A child is not owned by its parents. I think in this thread we have clearly shown that superstition is not an excuse for child abuse. I have no respect for the teachings of the Pope but he certainly has not issued his statement supporting Evolution because of “popular sentiment”. The majority of the world’s Catholics do not believe in Evolution, in fact most of them know nothing about it. He can hardly be accused of changing church teachings because of “popular sentiment”, in fact he opposes such things as married priests when the majority of Catholics want this change and have wanted it for decades. Noel’s comments that starts as, “Life just plainly does not come from non living matter …” and ends “There is NO scientific evidence to the contrary” is meaningless. There is not even an accepted definition of what is meant by “life”. To a religious person it is a magical thing to a Scientist it is a System that can be explained. Science has proven since the 50’s that the building blocks of life, Amino Acids that make up the RNA & DNA DO come from a mixture of chemicals and arise by simple electro chemical reactions. In fact these building blocks have been found in deep space using telescopes. To a large extent life is an emergent phenomenon from non living chemicals. Life IS nothing but chemicals. All the structures, tissues, components, information, brain etc your body is composed of IS chemicals and chemical reactions and nothing else. Sobering thought but that is the FACT of the matter. No soul exists. ALL the activities of the body and how it evolved from simple chemicals can be explained by scientific laws and principals. Not every last step is understood today in 2005 but every year that passes fills in the knowledge base that is Science. Science is advancing at a phenomenal speed while all religion is moribund, dead, useless, disruptive, non predictive, contradictory, and very dangerous as the inhabitants of New York can testify. Scientists are now beginning to construct living viruses by using the above mentioned building blocks, soon they will construct cells and ultimately full living creatures. This information needs to be studied and Noel and all religious sects have an advantage over Scientists and educated people when dealing with those not educated in Chemistry, Biology, Evolution, Microbiology and especially Biochemistry. They can make absurd statements that contradict Science without being in turn contradicted by those that simply do not understand how life works at the microscopic level. I would ask anyone reading this thread that is not fully informed of the above sciences to ask themselves truthfully, how can you think that life cannot arise from chemicals if you don’t know the science that explains it? I heard a doctor say the other day on the radio that what we understood to be leprosy in the bible wasn’t, it was some other disease. Noel can’t even get that right. The Earth does not hang…period. There is no moral guidance in the bible whatsoever because it was written by relatively primitive men thousands of years ago based on the superstitions of other religions even older. War mongering, human sacrificing, anti-women, xenophobic, homophobic, sex, sin and punishment obsessed, uneducated by modern standards primitive men of their time. The use of “there” v “their” was just one example of the many mistakes that indicate that many of those posting on behalf of the JWs are poorly educated. There are many other grammatical errors. I too occasionally make that mistake, it is when it is consistent that it indicates that the individual does not know the difference and therefore is probably badly read and certainly badly educated. I remember when another fundamentalist Christian sect led by the Rev Jim Jones who, inspired by the bible, led 1,000 people to their death in a suicide pact in the 70's, that most were very poor and uneducated black people from the US. People from the lowest section of society. It’s from here that all sects prey on their victims. Being “nice” is not indicative of being right. By all accounts Newton was “not nice”, he most certainly was right. I do not think it is “nice” to brainwash defenceless children, I think it’s a crime. Even in his reply the IT person indicates that he is now only becoming a JW and that he was therefore educated prior to joining, hardly evidence that those brought up as JWs are properly educated. Furthermore let me ask this anonymous poster a simple question, why is he now “studying” with the JW’s. Has there been a recent major trauma in his life? Because this is why a great many people get sucked into sects in the first place, even Noel alluded to that being the reason he joined up. Noel has a major traumatic event in his life and his unfortunate children get brainwashed. It should be outlawed as a recognised form of child abuse.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 03/03/2005 13:11
William I would like to answer the question you posed: \"why is he now “studying” with the JW’s. Has there been a recent major trauma in his life?\" The answer is NO, THERE HAS NOT BEEN A RECENT TRAUMA IN MY LIFE. I was raised as a Catholic but was never satisfied by the teachings of the catholic church because 1. If you ever sit through mass and actually listen to what is being said, you realize how hypocritical the teachings of the catholic church are, 2. \"have faith\" is a common phrase used by the church without any explanation of why one should \"have faith\" 3. I was once told that \"God works in mysterious ways\". The latter reason turned my head toward science, which certainly should not work in \"mysterious ways\"! Then, a person very close to me started studying with the JW\'s. I was very worried about him, and started to read more into evolution, to prove to him that he was being \"sucked in\". However I became very unsatisfied with the THEORY of evolution, in particular when I realized that the probability of the evolution of life shows it to be IMPOSSIBLE! What I have learned from JW\'s seems much more concrete and probable than what I have learned from speaking with advocates of evolution, and reading book after book on the THEORY. There are many sources that show the probability of evolution happening, heres just a light reading article to begin with http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/science/SC1W0202.pdf
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 03/03/2005 15:11
If you were “raised as a Catholic” then you were brainwashed into believing in god in the first place. If you were unhappy with religion you should have dropped it completely and not got deeper into even sillier superstitions. You shout very loudly that there has been no trauma in your life, so loudly that I am suspicious. However as you post anonymously there is no way that I can know for sure. Of course I know that Catholicism is hypocritical like all religions. The article on the probability of evolution you quote written by a Dr Ankerberg is nonsense as one would expect from someone styling himself the founder of the “Ankerberg Theological Research Institute”. The good “Dr” is a Doctor of Theology gained in the “Trinity Evangelical Divinity School”, whatever that is, and he is writing on Mathematical Probability and Biological Evolution! What a laugh! He has no training that I can see in either of these disciplines and you quote him as an expert! The article is literally facile and pathetic. Furthermore it can only be described as a load of clichés and generalisations with absolutely no mathematical content at all. His only formula is “Frog + time (instantaneous) > Prince = nursery tale” clearly indicates his “paper” is on par with the silly book the JW’s printed “disproving” evolution where they actually stated that a sheep could not evolve into a giraffe. Probability is a much misunderstood aspect of maths and many people cannot grasp even the fundamentals. There is actually no way at present of calculating the probability of evolution in any given set of circumstances as we do not know enough about all the steps necessary. So the probability cannot be calculated at present given any initial starting conditions - QED. Even if we did know all the steps the probability of something that has happened, as Evolution has on Earth is 1 or certainty. To put it another way, the probability of life arising on Earth is 1 because it has. We DO know that Amino Acids will spontaneously form in a mixture of the sort of chemicals that exist on Titan for example. So the probability of this happening is certain. We can see these chemicals in space and have made them on Earth. As I have said before I cannot teach people evolution on this thread and I don’t intend to try. Read books by Richard Dawkins and others.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 03/03/2005 16:12
Anonymous 03/03/05 13:11 Says he is studying the bible with the Jehovahs Witnesses and he is a "very well educated computer scientist" well then, are you still going to continue studying with them after reading what has been previously said in earliar posts to this track? If your answer is yes well then a lot has to be said for "educated scientists" and good fortune to you.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 03/03/2005 17:20
I have seen nothing in the earlier posts that would prevent me from studying with the JW's. I admit that JW's have strong beliefs, that most people would not agree with. However, their beliefs are based on something much more solid than the arguments made by those who oppose JW's on this forum. Accepting common perceptions and views which are not well founded would be a much more foolish action. At the same time, I do not blindly accept what JW's tell me, hence the word "studying". Again, Anonymous 03/03/2005 16:12, seems to be somebody who has not even taken a proper look into why JW's beliefs are as such. This seems to be the only area that people are more than will to judge without doing any of their own research.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 03/03/2005 17:42
"This seems to be the only area that people are more than will to judge without doing any of their own research"... eh? hundreds of thousands of trained biologists have done several million man years of actual scientific research and proved Evolution which the JW's claim the bible disproves. As Noel says, if Evolution is right then the JW's are wrong. What "research" are the JW Biologists (if there is such a person) doing?
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 03/03/2005 23:03
If Anon.03/03/05 17:10 only knew, as I have said earlier in my posts. I have been associated with JWs for nearly FIFTY years (50) and you say you see nothing wrong with a religion that once Banned Vaccines and Transplants and made Dozens of FALSE predictions and are Proven FALSE PROPHETS and you see NOTHING WRONG what sort of \"educated scientist\" as you call yourself are you? Maybe it is perhaps, that you deserve to be duped or maybe you need direction in your life, well the JWs are great for directing people who need their type of direction. If you accept their direction and then reject it they will shun you, ostracise you from your friends and family. There are grandparents who cannot see their grandchildren there are brothers and sisters who are treated similarly by their siblings who are Jehovah’s Witnesses and all because they see things different now, than they used to see things when they were Jehovah’s Witnesses. You cannot leave this organisation with any respect or dignity, as you will be labelled APOSTATE. You will be told that some one like me is a troublemaker or has been disfellowshiped for “conduct unbecoming “ and in some instances the “conduct unbecoming” is speculated about “nudge nudge wink wink” and gossiped about, your character will be besmirched and taken, for I speak from experience. You say “their beliefs are based on something much more solid” What is “solid” about buying a mansion in San Diego and deeding it to Abraham Isaac and Jacob in preparation for their earthly return in the early to mid 1920s. Now if you or any one is following this track with any common sense and they are “studying” check out what has been previously posted earlier in this track. The JWs will encourage those who are studying with them to check out their present religion I encourage you to check out theirs before your sorry. The Watchtower society is guilty of the destruction of the true meaning of using ones “conscience” because the have stolen individual “choice” and shackled its members with “Watchtower based conscience” and decisions that are only acceptable to the Watchtower leadership. To those who are studying with the Watchtower do some independent research about recent events that have occurred these can be researched with the major news organisations such as CBS news, CNN the BBC. For those who have been following these posts since early October 2004 any thing I have posted can be substantiated and proven. The Blood issue is a thorn I suspect in the Watchtowers side and the present day leadership are trapped because of their iron fisted stance on this issue, but because of pressures from outside government sources and indeed pressures from within the Watchtowers ranks and the latest publicity of a celebrity member and his family that has “Thriller” details that may or may not be exposed the Blood issue teachings may be further relaxed. For future clarity and because I do not want to identify myself as I explained in earlier posts I will sign off in future posts with the following Pseudonym. Qwerty.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 04/03/2005 13:57
William, I have read "the selfish gene" and "climbing mount improbable" by Richard Dawkins, and he himself admits that all of this happened by highly improbable, what can be treated as impossible accidents. Furthermore, of the experiments carried out by biologists in attempt to create the amino acids essential for life, I have not come across any experiment which actually created all of those amino acids. Also, the conditions used in these experiments were manipulated by scientists, who are conscience beings. Surely even if such a highly improbable accident were to occur it would have to have a conscience being behind it. And as for William saying that the world does not hang, he is correct, but the words in the bible does not state "it hangs" alone, that is taking it out of context. it states "it hangs on nothing atall", which simply means that it does not hang on a string or anything else, basically "nothing atall". If I were to hold a ball in my hand, and you asked me what is it hanging on, I would say it is hanging on nothing, or, put another was, it isnt hanging. Langauage has changed dramatically since the writing of those words, but by applying common sense, the statement is actually very straight forward.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 04/03/2005 16:29
I will repeat again, discussing the improbability of something that HAS happened is pointless. Even if the appearance of advanced life is improbable it DID occur otherwise I won’t be sitting here discussing it with you. This same argument can be applied if you argue what is the probability in the entirety of human history that we happen to be alive when the first probe landed on Titan? 1,000,000 to 1? For that matter that we are alive now and not dead. 99+% of everyone who ever lived IS dead, aren’t we very lucky? No, wrong logic. The consensus now among scientists is that life WILL arise where the conditions are suitable. That life is inevitable. We may soon have proof of this if life of any description is found on Mars, Titan or the moons of Jupiter. One argument for this is that we now know and only know for a short few years that life arose on Earth very very soon after it cooled down from its beginning and the end of the initial bombardment. Life is not a fluke it is an inevitability and the universe is probably teeming with life. The “hanging Earth” is a daft argument. God could have described accurately in the bible the exact structure of the solar system. He didn’t because he doesn’t exist, the book was written by men and you are just trying to twist the words to try and fit them with the facts. This also applies to the pathetic attempt to describe a “day” as being thousands or millions of years long to account for the now known age of the Earth. No bible “scholar” argued this 500 years ago.
 
  Johnson(OAX25576)  Posted: 08/03/2005 17:40
I have read with keen interest the submissions of all parties that have contributed to this discussion. I must first of all congratulate Noel for calmly responding to the issues raised by others especially William, inspite of his outright provocative statements. I must hasten to state that whatever William accuses christians of, he is equally guilty of the same thing. His mind is so wrapped up in his belief of Evolution that it blinds him to whatsoever anyone would say to contradict him. It is a pity really; like one writer said, those who believe in Evolution today would not want to agree with any teaching that humbles them and would make them lead different lives.
 
  Johnson(OAX25576)  Posted: 08/03/2005 17:43
The scientific magazine Discover put the situation this way: “Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism.”1 Francis Hitching, an evolutionist and author of the book The Neck of the Giraffe, stated: “For all its acceptance in the scientific world as the great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble.” After an important conference of some 150 specialists in evolution held in Chicago, Illinois, a report concluded: “[Evolution] is undergoing its broadest and deepest revolution in nearly 50 years. . . . Exactly how evolution happened is now a matter of great controversy among biologists. . . . No clear resolution of the controversies was in sight.” Paleontologist Niles Eldredge, a prominent evolutionist, said: “The doubt that has infiltrated the previous, smugly confident certitude of evolutionary biology’s last twenty years has inflamed passions.” He spoke of the “lack of total agreement even within the warring camps,” and added, “things really are in an uproar these days . . . Sometimes it seems as though there are as many variations on each [evolutionary] theme as there are individual biologists.” A London Times writer, Christopher Booker (who accepts evolution), said this about it: “It was a beautifully simple and attractive theory. The only trouble was that, as Darwin was himself at least partly aware, it was full of colossal holes.” Regarding Darwin’s Origin of Species, he observed: “We have here the supreme irony that a book which has become famous for explaining the origin of species in fact does nothing of the kind.”—Italics added. Booker also stated: “A century after Darwin’s death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place—and in recent years this has led to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question. . . . a state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of [evolutionary] sect urging some new modification.” He concluded: “As to how and why it really happened, we have not the slightest idea and probably never shall.” The facts speak for itself
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 09/03/2005 11:22
I really have to laugh at time at some of the people who are quoted on these threads. I often wonder do those doing the quoting even take a few minutes to look up some information about those they put forward as experts. Francis Hitching has no scientific credentials, so I don’t know why anyone can quote what he says on a scientific matter. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hitching.html One quote from this link, “Research on Hitching turned up the following: Hitching is basically a sensational TV script writer and has no scientific credentials. In The Neck of the Giraffe he claimed to be a member of the Royal Archaeological Institute, but an inquiry to that institute said he was not. He implied in the "Acknowledgements" of The Neck of the Giraffe that palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould had helped in the writing of the book, but upon inquiry Gould said he did not know him and had no information about him. Hitching also implied that his book had been endorsed by Richard Dawkins, but upon inquiry Dawkins stated: "I know nothing at all about Francis Hitching. If you are uncovering the fact that he is a charlatan, good for you. His book, The Neck of the Giraffe, is one of the silliest and most ignorant I have read for years." Finally, peppering your post with selected quotes from a variety of individuals is utterly irrelevant. Science doesn’t progress on the basis of the opinions of journalists such as Christopher Booker and various silly statements by diverse people do not amount to "facts" as you claim.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 09/03/2005 15:51
In reply to Johnson (0AX25576) "I must first of all congratulate Noel for calmly responding to the issues raised by others". Noel has been conditioned to react in this way by the Watchtower organisation and to avoid confrontation at all costs. Noels "calmly responding" has been just that for he has not responded to any questions that have been posed to him, His lack of regular participation over the last few months is another tactic of the "theocratic warfare" that is taught to all Jehovah’s Witness’s when they are confronted about past and present day doctrine. Qwerty.
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 09/03/2005 21:20
What a shame that qwerty does not review my responses to the questions posed previously. If he has then I think what qwerty is saying is, he does not believe my answers to the questions. Well that’s a pity, but my goal in responding was to explain why I believe what I do, it would be great to think that all would accept it as I have benefited from it greatly and I believe all would, but I do not expect that many will. I will get over it, so qwerty get over it and get on with your life. My “lack of regular participation” is because I run several company’s and travel a lot and have a very full family and spiritual life so do not have the time recently to participate as much as previously. By the way, of my four children of university age three have degrees and all were brought up as Witnesses. Two of them have chosen to remain Witnesses and two of them have not (I hope they will one day change their minds). All are exercising their free choice, this is very typical of all the Witnesses I know. So this nonsense about “brainwashed” children, just does not hold any water. William I would advise not to rely to much on the credentials of people so as to be swayed to believe them, just look at the state of the world and it’s run by the so called best brains man has, with the highest qualifications, what a mess. There is a lot to be said for common sense, it’s a bit like the story of the king with no cloths, only the child who had no preconceived (behavior) ideas got the truth of the situation. All my reading of evolutionary claims has left me totally unconvinced when applying logic to the arguments put forth. Only what Genesis says about the staged progressive introduction of all the different kinds living things we have discovered in the fossil record makes sense to me. So right from the very start of this track I have said I believe we can rely on the guidance from the Bible (any translation) in all aspects of our lives to get the best out of it as our Creator intended. This includes the injunction to uphold the sanctity of blood. So as a parent I feel strongly that I have a responsibility to exercise my right to choose the treatment that I believe is in the best interest of my children. Remember this discussion?, I thought that this was what this track was all about.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 09/03/2005 23:09
Pope John Paul II has observed that forcing someone to violate his conscience "is the most painful blow inflicted to human dignity. In a certain sense, it is worse than inflicting physical death, or killing." This is a direct quote lifted from the official web site of the Watchtower, for here we see the Watchtower quoting one of Satan’s agents here on earth to strengthen their argument on the Blood issue and distorting the true meaning of using ones “conscience”, for the only permitted use of ones “conscience” is the Watchtower “trained” conscience or mind if you like. The above quote is so hypocritical of the Watchtower society that it is simply pathetic and should be treated with disdain. This organisation continually berates and mocks mainstream Christianity and here it uses a direct quotation used by the Pope to bolster its own argument on Blood transfusions. While the Pope is correct when he speaks of violating peoples “conscience” and human dignity and how we should deeply respect each other’s conscience and human dignity the Watchtower society and its members hold no regard for neither,Qwerty.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 10/03/2005 12:48
So two of Noel’s children have remained JW’s? If they were not successfully brainwashed what is the chances that 2 out of his 4 children would be JW’s? Only, what 1/1000, Irish are JW’s. The chances of two of his four children being JW’s would be far far less than 50/50. Noel’s two JW children WERE successfully brainwashed, I’m glad the other two overcame it as I overcame my brainwashing into the Catholic religious sect. Credentials are simply evidence of a level of understanding and expertise in a subject. Would you not demand credentials of an airline pilot? If so then saying that the vast majority of qualified biologists believe in Evolution is a powerful argument for it’s validity especially when the only people opposing Evolution are those of a fundamental religious persuasion who do not oppose Evolution on scientific grounds but because they interpret a book as claiming that god created all life and species. This track is about proving that a parent does not have the right to allow their child to die based on their unproven superstitions. You will only agree with me when I prove that you and all religious people are wrong. Evolution=>No god=> blood transfusions OK. Other people on this tread have taken a different tack, which is that JW’s and all religions change their mind. The JW religion was only invented 150 years ago in the first place. Though laughingly JW’s calim all true Christians were really JW’s. That’s as bad as Bertie claiming to be a Socialist all along
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 10/03/2005 14:24
Noel your past responses to questions posed to you about the teachings of the Watchtower society have been disquised to hide the real truth that this organisation are false prophets and you yourself have admitted this in previous posts and you being an elder of this organisation for over twenty years I could not have expected a different response from you. Its unfortunate that two of your children left this organisation by saying this I mean its unfortunate for the remaining two children for they must now view their siblings that have left with suspicion and caution and they cannot socialise with one another. Their life long friends that where made growing up with other Witness children must now cease; they are to be now shunned by their peers. What a tragedy, now Noel will you go through the rest of your life hoping that your two children will return to the organisation or die before Armageddon comes, because this is what you believe today that all living human beings alive when Armageddon strikes will be destroyed including those who have left the Watchtower organisation. Noel you totally miss the point for that is what I have done “got on with my life” because my life is no longer being controlled by a “hermetically sealed” organisation and my life is no longer “policed” by the Watchtower society because now I have “free choice” and more importantly “FREE CONSCIENCE”. At this point I would have to congratulate your two children that have chosen to leave the organisation, for they are so brave for to leave this organisation is risking the loss of your whole family and I am sure their decision was not taken lightly, because as I have said in an earlier post the Watchtower society are a DESTROYER of family’s. For Noels information I accidentally stumbled across this web site and I was amazed at the stance that Noel was taking and the reason I decided to participate in this forum and I am glad I did is as I quoted earlier “when the shameless meet the spineless the shameless win” and for one thing I am not spineless when the LIFE of a human being is at stake and particularly the life of innocent children who have no “voice” to the dictates of the Watchtower. For those of you who have followed these tracts you will notice that Noel has not answered any question that was posed to him directly. Heres one, this is the exact verse taken from the Watchtowers own Bible Leviticus 3. 16 And the priest must make them smoke upon the altar as food, an offering made by fire for a restful odor. All the fat belongs to Jehovah. 17 “‘It is a statute to time indefinite for YOUR generations, in all YOUR dwelling places: YOU must not eat any fat or any blood at all.’” Now Noel explain that one or to put it simply is eating Fat forbidden? Here we can see how the Watchtower misinterprets the Bible to control its adherents and Hey this may be “new light” and they are going to ban the eating of Fat.Qwerty.
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 10/03/2005 18:37
William you and Qwerty have really distorted idea's of how and what we as Jehovah's Witnesses do and how we act within our family's. William coming at it from the view that any beleif in God must be brainwashed into a person and Qwerty from a hatred of Jehovah's Witnesses. Both my children who decided not to be witnesses tell any who ask them it is because they feel they can not up hold the moral requirements at this point of their life. This is nothing to do with our stand on blood. Many people who have studied the Bible with Witnesses know we view many of the prevailing permissive attitudes regarding adultry, lies, drunkenness, drug misuse etc., as not permitted by those who would become witnesses and if ones practice immorality they cannot become or remain witnesses. Now I am not saying that is why qwerty or William are so against Witnesses but when people argue against conscience and say they want to be free to decide all things themselves it is usually that they do not want to be answerable to anyone for their actions, neither God nor man. Qwerty makes a comment about a scripture in Leviticus 3 : {‘It is a statute to time indefinite for YOUR generations, in all YOUR dwelling places: YOU must not eat any fat or any blood at all.’” Now Noel explain that one or to put it simply is eating Fat forbidden? And he says „Here we can see how the Watchtower misinterprets the Bible to control its adherents and Hey this may be “new light” and they are going to ban the eating of Fat.Qwerty.} Are you qwerty purposly misquoting our beliefs with the hope to confuse some? Or are you interested in learning the answers? This scripture was mentioned by William and I responded to it on the 02/12/2003 I commented „There is no contradiction between Lev 3v17 and Matthew 15v11. Leviticus 3 is talking specifically about an animal brought to the alter and sacrificed to God, it explicitly states in verse 16 "the Fat is for God "(to be burnt up completely), earlier it allowed the priest to keep some of the meat for his own use but not the Fat. (The reason for this is that the Fat of the meat was considered the best portion, so the underlying message was give your best to God). The context is clear, it is dealing with sacrificing on the alter. In Matthew 15v11 what Jesus said was in the context of an illustration on heart motivations, in verse 16 to 20 he explained this, concluding in verse 19 and 20 saying "For example out of the heart come wicked reasoning’s ...etc...(20)These are the things that defile a man; but to take a meal with unwashed hands does not defile a man". So the context always puts the passage in perspective. When one takes a verse out of context it can lead to appearing contradiction but in context it never does. So to explicitly answer the question posed above, Leviticus was referring to the fat of the animal being sacrificed to God not to eating fat in general, additionally when the Christians in the first century reviewed at the first major counsel they had just what from the Jewish law was to be binding on Christians going forward they included in the answer in ACTS chapter 15 "fornication, blood, etc.", they said nothing about all the many other parts of the law such as circumcision and indeed special sacrifices (including fat) or special days. So none of the special sacrificial parts of jewish worship were binding on Christians.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 11/03/2005 10:12
Noel, do we a favour and do not mix me in with any JW on this thread. Most seem religious and therefore I do not regard them as on my side. They are on your side as all religious people must be. I’m as opposed to Muslims who allow blood transfusions but insist women wear headscarves and Catholics who try to ban contraceptives as I am your lot. You have this nihilistic and pessimistic view of reality that many religious people have. You *have* to believe that we are all sinners. As one magazine publisher said in the US, “The problem with the religious right is that they take sex too seriously”. I have an optimistic view of reality that totally contradicts yours. I see society progressing from a time when most people were virtually slaves to the democratic freedoms of today. I see society as been fairer to the disadvantaged. I see the law and the people as beginning to understand why the poor commit crime, get hooked on drink and drugs and it’s nothing to do with “sin”, it’s to do with poverty and disadvantage. I see spaceships land on Titan and science progress to understanding the universe. We live in a great time and not a time of sin as you believe because of your superstitious dogma. Basing ones morality in 2005 on books, e.g. Bible, Koran, Book of Mormon etc, some written many hundreds of years ago, does produce ridiculous situations. The first point is that people today are not obliged to run their lives based on the totally erroneous view of reality people had hundreds and even thousands of years ago. People who thought that the world was flat and man was at the centre of it all. Obvious examples are the rights of women. The Bible and the Koran see women as “owned” by men and subservient to men. Only a fool today holds that opinion. Very few today, and I defy you to argue your case logically, think sex before marriage between loving couples is wrong. You call it the sin of fornication. Homosexuality is not regarded as immoral except by those blinded by their religious indoctrination. In fact the law of this land will rightly and morally penalise those who discriminate against Homosexuals, including religious zealots as they correctly,and with great moral authority, prevent the JWs from killing their kids based on their interpretation of the bible. I as a thinking secular humanist feel far more morally superior to anyone who slavishly and cowardly bases their morality on a 1,500 year old book and I certainly feel far more moral than any Muslim who talks of holy war against the infidels. I’m quite confident that within a few years the origin of homosexuality will be uncovered and I think it’s very likely that it will have a genetic basis. How then will you twist the bibles words to explain that? “God made me a homosexual” is a great placard. “The fat of the meat is the best part”? Are you serious? Eating fat is very dangerous for your health, didn’t god know that? It would be very interesting to talk to your children re their beliefs and see exactly where they are coming from. My 3 children are not religious and think religion is pathetic, but then that’s what most adults who have not been brainwashed think of Santa Claus, Leprechauns, Ghosts, Fairies, Angels and Gods. Bring your children on and lets see them argue with mine.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 11/03/2005 15:17
In response to Noels Post 10/03/05 18:37 your tone it would appear to be quite venomous have I touched a nerve? So let me put one thing straight I HAVE NO HATRED FOR JEHOVAHS WITNESSES as you say, for I would not be wasting my time here on this forum if that where the case, as I said earlier in previous posts I have nothing but LOVE for Jehovah’s Witnesses including you Noel. What you obviously are “misinterpreting” is my total animosity for the Watchtower society and its leadership. This leadership lied and lied about its past they are proven false prophets and Noel you know what Jehovah says about false prophets. Interpret the scripture as you want to see it through “blinkered” eyes for you (JWs) are in the minority in your understanding of this scripture. So Noel do you expect your fellow congregants to ostracise your two children and will you do likewise? Maybe the Watchtower will change its mind later on because this may not be “Non Core Issue” as you call their changes and just because they destroyed your FAMILY in the mean time that’s OK its “Non Core Issue.Qwerty
 
  G(DWU22601)  Posted: 15/03/2005 13:52
This thread has gone from a medical question to an all out slagging match of Jehovah's Witnesses. They have their beliefs and we should respect that. Ok, if you don't want to get involved with them, but that is no reason to make them out as bad people. They are sticking to their commands of the bible - which if you read your bible are exactly what we all should be following - if we did there would not be so many problems around.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 15/03/2005 14:14
Why should we respect the beliefs of those guilty of child neglect and in instances where children die as a result of not recieving transfusions - child abuse? And why should we all be reading the bible anyway? Isn't that a lack of respect for not believers, jews, mormons, muslims, hindus, taoists, buddists and pagans??
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 15/03/2005 14:57
I don\'t call the neglegent death of a child through the refusal to allow a transfusion, \"not so many problems\". Anyway why should anyone read the bible or pay the slightest bit of attention to it, or is it just because you said so?
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 15/03/2005 15:34
I completely agree with G, but G should realize that when such a fragile topic is being discussed especially relating to the welfare of children, there are going to be some very strong opinions expressed. Broadly speaking, i see three types of people who are involved in this discussion forum, those who completely believe in the bible (jehovah witnesses), those who are religious and claim to follow the bible but will not risk the welfare of their children, just in case the bible is not true, and those who reject christianity completely. For the latter type, it is only natural that their argument will be based around disproving the bible, and some very strong arguments have been made. All these people seem to love children dearly, and although many seem to be attacking jehovah witnesses beliefs, would you not do the same if you thought that people were putting their childrens lives at risk for a bunch of silly beliefs? I personnally do not think their beleifs are silly, i think they are well founded and guided, however not many people think like me, so i do understand where they are coming from.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 15/03/2005 16:56
If you understand where they are coming from perhaps you could enlighten the rest of us as to what belief system guides you to commit the highest from of child abuse - letting a child die when a simple transfusion coould save their lives.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 15/03/2005 17:20
With all due respect, the post of Anon 15/03/2005 15:34 is full of logical errors. JW’s cannot be described as “completely believing in the bible”. They believe in it no more than any Christian group, they just have a particular interpretation. All Christian groups swear blind that they believe in the bible. Other people do not use transfusion “in case the bible is untrue”, they interpret it differently as not saying that transfusions are wrong. If you think “beliefs” are well grounded, could you tell us what ground they are grounded on? There isn’t a shred of evidence that supports the bible or any religion and finally my arguments are “not based on dis-proving the bible”, but rather on demanding that others prove their positions so that they can be allowed let their children die and upon me proving that the universe is a naturally occurring place that contains no magic.
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 17/03/2005 12:59
There certainly is a clear separation of the basis for the arguments in this debate. My thoughts on the one William promotes and asks regarding the Bible is as follows: In many years studying the Bible and answering critics questions the following have proven to me to be true. a) The Bible when it discusses historical events over a period of many thousands of years is accurate. b) The Bible when it touches on scientific / natural phenomena is accurate c) The Bible when it provides moral guidance is and has proven accurate. In this regard the statement made by Jesus comes to mind “ we reap what we sow” and the consequences for ignoring the Bibles moral standards have come home to roost in our times as never before. d) The many hundreds of prophecies in the Bible have demonstrated to those who study it, that the information source concerning these events is way beyond man’s guess work. e) When the Bible touches on medical matters it also has proven correct and reliable. To take each one of these subjects and indeed many more and delve into the details is much broader discussion than the scope of this forum is suitable for. We do not ask anyone to believe in the Bible blindly but to examine it fairly with an open and rational view. The conclusion I and millions of others have come to is that it is indeed the inspired work of God. Now millions of others reject those conclusions and that is there prerogative. To then say that those who do believe it on the basis of serious study are brainwashed and ignorant and should not be allowed to take responsibility for the life and death decisions they make is to me bordering on totalitarianism. One principle that the Bible expounds is that all humans have free will and are accountable for their actions and for the result of their actions. As Witnesses we are prepared to stand up and take responsibility and indeed the consequences for our actions. We have seen proven in our own experiences that the benefits of being guided by the Bible in all matters far outweigh not doing so.
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 17/03/2005 13:19
Some participants say it is child abuse to refuse a blood transfusion and thus allow a child to die. This is not how Jehovah’s Witnesses see it at all, there is no such thing as a simple Blood transfusion that can save a persons life. There is nothing simple about Blood or its administration. It was this view that led to so many thousands of Irish people getting unnecessarily transfused and ending up with HIV, Aids, Hepatitis C etc, all death dealing diseases. Now if you gave (agreed to give) your child blood transfusion and they got killed as a result of it and specifically it, would you be a Child Abuser? A person in this case would no doubt claim that they trusted the advise given, but did they examine the downside and the alternatives, if not, are they guilty of child abuse for not taking the best care they could of their child’s welfare? No one would consider that at all. Jehovah’s Witnesses (as repeated often in this track) do not refuse treatment, we accept all transfusions except blood. We vigorously seek the best medical treatment available in harmony with our conscience and deeply studied information relating to the whole subject.
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 17/03/2005 13:33
In response to Qwerty the so called leadership you refer in Jehovahs Witnesses are men just like me fellow Jehovahs Witnesses, so hatred of one is tantamount to hatred of the other. All the exaggerated accusations leveled against Jehovahs Witnesses by you so far have been documented and responded to in different publications of Witnesses. To call misunderstandings of some Bible prophecy’s commented on almost 100 years ago “lies” is nonsense and smacks of willfully trying to distort the true picture, in each case as more information came to light, adjustments and clarification were made in these (yes non core) area’s. A liar is some one who purposely sets out to deceive. That is absolutely not the case with Jehovah’s Witnesses, indeed where we have found we had not a correct understanding we published the fact and moved forward with the increased knowledge openly and truthfully.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 18/03/2005 12:18
Noel you say that after many years “studying” the bible, whatever that means, you know it to be true. How then do you explain that after many years “studying” the Koran, the Muslims scholars are *so* convinced that *it* is true they commit horrendous crimes on the back of this certainty? Is it not a fact, that you and the Muslims and all the other religious haven’t a shred of evidence or logic to support your positions? Using the word study is in fact nonsense. Several hundred thousand biologists have spent their lives *actually* studying and researching evolution using the well established Scientific Method. They can provide over 150 years now of evidence, published peer reviewed papers, fossils, DNA, dating techniques and interface with all other branches of science and they say Evolution is how we got here, to a man (and woman)! So who are we to believe? One of the 34,000 arguing and fighting Christian sects, the also split Muslims, the Hindu’s and all the other religions or these scientists? You spent some time pointing out what a liar is. Can you *honestly* tell me you think all these scientists are totally wrong? Really? Noel, are you ACTUALLY capable of rational thought? (I do not say this as an insult. I am totally serious.)
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 20/03/2005 17:04
Noel, wise up. The leadership of your organisation claim to be of the “anointed” class and are an elite group that are looked upon as “gods” or earthly “idols” by the mainstream JWs just like “you” obviously do. So Noel are you of the “anointed”? All the exaggerated accusations??? Which ones? Noel if you can overlook the past false prophesies of these men and their cohorts well then you are welcome to live the “lie” that is the mainstream dogma of this, in my opinion, hypocritical organisation. Let me remind the followers of these posts that the Watchtower society have taught and it must have and has to be believed by the mainstream JWs as being “the truth” the following. 1. They Banned Vaccinations. 2 They Banned Transplants, teaching that the later was cannibalism .By the way they used the same scriptures they use today on their ban on Blood transfusions. 3.They bought a house in San Diego and deeded it to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as they prophesied they where coming back to earth in the mid 1920s. 4.They prophesied the end of this system would come in 1975. 5.They denounced the United Nations since its formation, to be found out recently that they held full NGO (non government organisation) membership, what hypocrisy. Noel you have NOT answered ANYTHING that I have posed to you in my previous posts “yes non core areas” you say, what about destroying your Family is that a “non core area” do you encourage your two remaining children to shun your two children who cannot live up to as you say “they can not up hold the moral requirements at this point of their life” for this is what your organisation teaches today does it not Noel? The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society Inc. because that is all it is..Inc. a limited liability company that has no regard for its member’s welfare as its past and present history proves. You published the fact you where wrong on the above, WHERE? Now for anyone who has a rational mind following this, how could anyone rational believe an organisation that professes to be Gods organisation here on earth that has made all of the above mistakes and hundreds more in Jehovah’s name be the one and only True religion as the JWs claim to be? Qwerty
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 21/03/2005 13:21
Some of my posts are being edited Noel so my point is not as forceful as I would like it to be but again for the benefit of those who have joined these posts read the earliar posts on the tactics used by JWs when confronted by non believers for they are "manipulators" supream with their "theocratic warfare".Qwerty
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 30/03/2005 18:51
In response to Noels post 17/03/05 12:59 and 13:19 “Some participants say it is child abuse to refuse a blood transfusion and thus allow a child to die. This is not how Jehovah’s Witnesses see it at all, there is no such thing as a simple Blood transfusion that can save a persons life. There is nothing simple about Blood or its administration” Noel then goes on and uses the HIV, Aids Hep.C argument conveniently, to again bolster their inexplicable and incomprehensible ban on Blood Transfusions. Noels or the Watchtowers logic is totally daft and laughable. If this logic is to be believed, lets look at “all death dealing”(using Noels words) former beliefs of the Jehovah’s Witness organisation that surely must have killed Hundreds if not Thousands of believing Jehovah’s Witnesses at the time and may I add transplants were banned until 1980 25 years ago. Could not giving your children Vaccination and in the case of serious burn injuries a SKIN Transplant be considered child abuse I think the Rational Mind will answer in the affirmative. But if you where a Watchtower slave you would have been expected to administer NEIGHTER of the afore mentioned. “Jehovah’s Witnesses (as repeated often in this track) do not refuse treatment,” said Noel. I say and their history says they have and they do “refuse treatment”. Then Noel unbelievably says the following “We vigorously seek the best treatment in harmony with our conscience and deeply studied information relating to the whole subject” I am sure the Witnesses 25 years ago done the same and it was just “non core “ issues as Noel says but the innocent Watchtower believers just got sicker and sicker and in some cases DIED. Noel the “studying the Bible” as you call it should really be “studying the Watchtower” should it not? As this is how your studying is carried out in a bi monthly publication with the answers already published as a footnote (answers are by the Watchtower in all study publications). Noel be honest all your study materials gives the “Watchtowers” answers and you cannot disagree with them. The conclusion you and millions of others have come to is that it is indeed the inspired work of God (The Bible) but if you where a Mormon you would be saying the exact same thing only about the Book of Mormon as there are Millions of Mormons who will say exactly as you do. Noel takes offence because a contributor to these posts implies that Noels organisation is “bordering on totalitarianism” here is the Concise Oxford Dictionary 10th editions definition of “Totalitarian …of or relating to a centralized and dictatorial system of government requiring complete subservience to the state.·n. A person advocating such a system.” I have to agree with this contributor, as this is what the Watchtower society expects of its members a subservient unquestioning loyalty and Noel is the person advocating this theology. This organisation is in fact Orwellian in its teachings. Again Noels “theocratic warfare” is running on full speed. Well Noel I hope you will one day stand up for what is truly the “Truth” because the day is coming that the Watchtower will be held accountable for its false teachings and false prophesies. Qwerty
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 31/03/2005 10:19
It’s amazing how many different ways this tread has shown the JW’s to be wrong. Several contributors have made points that are all separately argued. Let me summarise; JW’s change their minds on beliefs that once led to the death of JW’s therefore they cannot be correctly interpreting the bible at all times, the JW’s are only one of 34,000 differing interpretations of the bible and they all disagree therefore *at least* 33,999 Christian sects must be wrong, all religions claim to be 100% correct and in direct communication via their leaders with God or Gods BUT they also all disagree with one another so all bar one *at least* must be wrong, medical science still uses transfusions on the clear understanding backed by comprehensive research and medical audit that it saves lives overall, JW’s claim evolution is not how we got here and virtually all the biologists in the world totally disagree, the JW’s have predicted the end of the world almost from the inception of the sect and continuously got it wrong, I personally know this because a friend of mine was adamant in the early 70’s that the world would end by 1975 at the very latest, the government and courts disagree with the JW’s and claim that the rights of the child are more important than the beliefs of the JW’s, morally 99% of the Irish population totally disagree with the JW’s on transfusions, the JW sect and it’s members in the US have been caught in child abuse cases and worse in many ways of covering it up, JW’s agree that the genital mutilation of girls by African religions is wrong but and by this accept that the religious beliefs of parents is not paramount which contradicts their own position, JW’s have absolutely no evidence, never mind proof, that the bible was written by god or that there is a god on the other hand science has clearly shown that the entire universe & the life on earth came about without any god or magic, JW’s believe that homosexuality is evil but it occurs due to genetic “accident” and therefore cannot be blamed on the individual, the JW’s are pacifists yet in WWII that would have resulted in the annihilation of Europe’s Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and indeed eventually the JW’s themselves, the JW religion is clearly not based on the bible but on the interpretation of the bible by the JW elite, where is the morality of shunning your children because they disagree with your own interpretation of reality?, religion is obviously deeply flawed as it has most definitely resulted in the brutal deaths of billions of people over historical time, many ex JW’s and maybe currently serving JW’s obviously disagree with Noel so they even disagree amongst themselves, the JW movement actually split in two after the world didn’t end in 1975, meat must be drained of blood to be kosher but it cannot be completely drained so that draining at best is only symbolic, JW’s don’t lie apparently but their twisted trickery in trying to argue against evolution in their publications is obviously deceitful (e.g. biologists never claimed a sheep evolved into a giraffe), all the world's physicists and chemists disagree with the JW’s interpretation of reality as they effectively do of all religion, the bible is full of contradictions, the JW and all religious belief throws up paradoxes but science doesn’t, the reason religion throws up this paradoxes and contradictions is of course obvious – its completely wrong, why can’t JW’s use their own stored blood if it contains your own “soul”?, the bible is clearly out of date with current thinking on many matters such as the notion of sin versus social disadvantage, other than the bible proscription where is the logic that sex between unmarried adults is immoral?, the bible contains many beliefs that are plagiarised from previous pagan religions such as Mithraicism, there are stories in the Dead Sea Scrolls that pre-date the bible but that in the bible claim to have occurred later than the DSS, JW’s constantly argue with those not well educated in a dishonest manner, e.g. saying that evolution is only a “theory” when they know they are misusing the word “theory”, it is obvious that religious people are brainwashed as they cannot change their minds when presented with evidence that they are wrong, e.g. the Popes in Galileo’s time & their belief that the Earth was at the centre of the Universe, JW’s and Evolution, those like the Presbyterians that think they world is 6,000 years old etc, many people Do join sects when under serious emotional pressure such as results from alcoholism although very very few people change from one religion to another, JW’s quote Einstein as believing in God yet he was wrong about Quantum Mechanics so quoting Einstein proves nothing. The above is a summary of half the posts on this topic to about November 2004.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 01/04/2005 19:23
Qwerty, you claim that you were a JW. Do you still believe in the bible, and do you believe that the bible is the inspired word of God? If so, I don't understand how you can make such an argument, as the bible cleary tells us the "abstain.....from blood". It is a very clear statement. Many people may not like this teaching, but thats what it says! William says that there are 34,000 Christian sects in the world and that they all believe in different interpretations of the bible. These sects William speaks about are sects based on man made doctrines , some of which have no basis in bible teachings. For example, mormons and born again christians would quite readily go to war and kill eachother, as allegiance to their country outwieghs bible teachings. So that decision to go to war is not based on an interpretation of the bible, which they will quite readily admit. The catholic church have accepted evolution, which means that they do not believe in Genesis. However Genesis forms the foundation for the rest of the bible, for Christianity, the whole reason why Christ died for us is because of Adam and Eve's sin against God. So without Genesis, Christianity is meaningless. Also, many people follow religions blindly, without knowing the answers to some very crucial questions, and when these people are not satisfied with the answers they recieve, they simply turn away from religion completely. JW's always have an answer, they have dissected the bible thoroughly and thus can give proof for their answers in the bible. They do not rely on man made doctrines which have no relevance to bible teachings. The watchtower magazines are merely used as a study aid which highlight important pieces of information in the bible. Even if a person read the bible in detail, without these magazines, its teachings are very clear. Those who dont believe the bible is the inspired word of God, best of luck to you, but I do hope that at some stage you will come to the realization that the bible gives a much more sensible explanation of why we are here, as well as many other things, than the theory of evolution could ever give. I have no doubt that many of you will respond to this statement with outrage and even contempt, and speak about failings of the watchtower in the past. Keep in mind that people are never perfect, even Einstein got it wrong. But on the matter of blood transfusions, it is very clear in the bible what should be done.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 02/04/2005 12:43
In response to Anon.01/04.2005 19:23. I never claimed any thing other than I have been associated with JWs for nearly 50 years. You assume I have “left” this organisation. Do I still believe in the Bible or do I still believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God? To be HONEST I do not know, but that is beside the point. The Bible clearly tells us also to abstain from eating Fat but as you know this is interpreted differently by other religions and sects. “It is a very clear statement” you say can you not see it is only clear to JWs as this is what they interpret it to mean. Now you are either a Jehovah’s Witness or you are studying with them have you read or checked what has been posted earlier in these posts? Scripture does not change but the Watchtower have changed their position many times over their interpretation on their ban on Blood and Bloods bi products. Please look at the history of the Watchtower and its changing position on joining armies and war, for you just have to look at their recent membership of the UN. The vast majority of present day JWs did not realise and still do not realise that the Watchtower have been members till recently. That’s right JWs always have an answer for the uneducated, and I do not mean any disrespect by saying this. “They do not rely on man made doctrines which have no relevance to bible teachings” you say, well then where did the ban on VACCINATIONS and TRANSPLANTS come from? They did not come from the Bible but at the time of these bans the Watchtower used the Bible to administer these bans (read earlier posts). If you where Haemophiliac and needed to take Factor V111,1X well you could not, as these treatments where BANED from 1975 to 1978 here’s proof “Certain clotting factors derived from blood are now in wide use for the treatment of haemophilia…Of course, true Christians do not use this potentially dangerous treatment, heeding the Bibles command to ‘abstain from blood’” Awake 22/Feb/1975 p30. Yes for here we see “JWs always have an answer,” as you say. Now all I can say to you and any one who is or is studying with the JWs. The Mormons, Sevenday Adventists,Scientologists, Hare Krishna and even Evolutionists have “answers” for those people who need to hear what they need to hear but this does not make it right or “truth” as JWs like to call it. Try and read the Bible without the Watchtower publications and see how you will be looked upon as a JW, you will be looked upon with suspicion. Do the false Prophecies of the Watchtower not concern you? Well they should, look up the Bible and see what Jehovah said about false prophets. The Watchtower is guilty of false prophecy for well over 100 years and will be held accountable. Also Autologous Blood Transfusions where banned from 1959 to 1995 this treatment is now permitted, who or where in the Bible changed this?Qwerty
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 03/04/2005 18:16
Funny, my friend who is a JW, used to be a Mormon. He joined the Mormon’s and then the JW’s after a serious emotional shock, which is why many people are swept up by sects, even AA is accused of this. Any JW’s reading this might look into their own life history and ask themselves honestly did they join up after some trauma in their lives. So the 33,999 other Christian sects are based on “man made doctrines” but a large part of this discussion has centred on JW’s being forced to accept the teachings of the Watchtower, an obviously man made publication or risk being kicked out and shunned by their families. This “man made” interpretation by your own admission has been wrong in the past for that very reason, it is man made. The world didn’t end in 1975. So you are saying that on one hand that JW’s beliefs are not based on mad made doctrine and on the other hand that this very man made doctrine has been wrong, because as you say “…. people are never perfect”. Another paradox science does not have. We know that people are not perfect. Mormons and Catholics do believe that they can go to war by interpreting the bible differently from JW’s, that’s the point I am making. In fact the Catholic Church is similar to JW’s in so far as their elite, the bishops and cardinals and the pope read the bible, interpret it and then tell the “faithful” what to believe or they’ll burn in hell – ouch! Actually you do raise an interesting point, you claim and I agree with you that, “many people follow religions blindly”. Clearly so do you. Einstein never proved anything that was later on shown to be wrong. In fact because he was a genius his opposition to Quantum Mechanics actually threw up what appeared to be a paradox, the brilliant Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox which took nearly 40 years to solve. It was solved and went on to become another proof that QM was correct. I believe that Physics will throw up a serious Theory of Everything in the coming decades that will make Evolution look like a minor setback to religion. Noel, bring on your kids and I’ll try and get mine. It would be interesting to see what children reared as JW’s and those not raised in any religion would have to say to each other.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 04/04/2005 10:46
I've read many websites on Evolution but this is the best summary of the evidence that I have come across. http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/evoevidence.html It will take quite a few minutes to read and digest but I defy any rational person to deny that it's a very powerful summation of the evidence for Evolution. Remember JW's say that if Evolution is true then there is no God and therefore transfusions are OK.
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 04/04/2005 12:25
Qwerty obviously does not at all read my responses with any open mindedness for I have answered all his points. So there is no point repeating them again and again. What qwerty seems to be saying is that he does not believe the answers, well so be it.
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 04/04/2005 12:51
Williams recommendation to review the evolutionist web site is interesting but when examine it and apply logic and common sense to it from one who believes the evidence in nature supports intelligent creation we can well draw other (then Williams) conclusions, for example the very first argument made concerns “The Twin Nested Hierarchy” The concept of the twin nested hierarchy is a reflection of the fact that the tree of descent produced by classifying organisms on the basis of physical similarities is the same tree we obtain when we classify organisms on the basis of their genes. This is evidence for creation because: The branching nested tree that all organisms fall into is the exact pattern predicted by an intelligent creation model employing common design. The fact that they can be organized into such a pattern points very strongly to the intelligent design of all living things from common designer; by contrast, if evolution was true, there would be no good reason why such a pattern should exist as evolution presupposes blind chance. With One intelligent designer you would predict and expect that organisms would have a lot of similarity in basic structure. Each of the other “reasoning’s” used can and are if looked at with a intelligent Creator in mind make perfectly good sense when compared to what is recorded in Geneses chapter 1 and 2. There it speaks of many “kinds” of life created at different times and with great scope for differentiation within the kinds. This is actually what we see in nature and it is beautiful and purposeful as intended by the great intelligent creator the bible names as Jehovah.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 04/04/2005 13:56
“The Twin Nested Hierarchy” MUST occur if evolution happened; it most definitely NEED not occur if ID was how we all got here. With ID anything would be possible, in fact God could have made us of homogenous magic goo if he existed and wished to do so. Very often we have had to reclassify species because now evolution/genetics gives us a more accurate definition of a species. “Blind chance” has nothing to do with evolution. What Noel refers to is nothing to do with chance, blind or otherwise. The engine of evolution is where a mutation occurs (and even ID proponents do not deny gene mutation) but confers and advantage on the organism, it gets passed on to the organisms descendants otherwise if it is a disadvantage the mutated gene dies out. The sum total of these mutations over eons is the evolution of new species ALL of which have genes that can be traced back to a SINGLE originator. Did God create life in a time/tree sequence that is obvious from Evolution? For example, why have chimps 95% of the same genes we have? Why have Gorillas less, mice less again etc.. Why is there a very accurate correlation between the branching of species back into the past, including extinct species, species relationships with one another and the genes they have? Why would related species have many genes that are exactly the same and unrelated species not have as many and often have a different solution to the same problem? Noel says, “With One intelligent designer you would predict and expect that organisms would have a lot of similarity in basic structure”. Oh no you don’t. If God existed and had created life he could have made every last species created with an entirely different structure. Furthermore why the 40 different types of eyes AND why are they in groups of related species? Why all the “mistakes”? Why the junk DNA? Why the exact mutations in redundant genes that are the same in different but related species? Why redundant genes in the first place? The answer to all these questions is clear in Evolution. If God did create life then he made it look like it evolved. Now why would he do that? There are dozens of other paragraphs in the link. Is this the best Noel can do?
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 04/04/2005 15:44
Open mindedness surely means CLARITY does it not? Noel I am open-minded are YOU? Or it would appear your mind and thoughts have become clouded with fear of repercussion from the Watchtower society. Noel you have answered NONE of my questions other than the Watchtower typical veiled double meaning unashamed responses .Now for the benefit of those following these tracks here are some of the questions posed to the Watchtower Society and Noel May as their representative. 1. Are the Watchtower false Prophets? 2. Did the Watchtower ban Vaccinations? 3.Did the Watchtower ban Transplants? Was the Watchtower a full NGO member of the United Nations (The Wild Beast) till recently? 5 Does the Watchtower teach its current members including your two remaining children to shun those Jehovah’s Witness’s who have left including your two children who have also left Noel? More importantly will you Noel teach your remaining two children to shun their siblings? Noel, answer the above with a simple Yes or No that will be very much appreciated. Qwerty
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 04/04/2005 22:17
The discussion has been interesting. Can evolution explain why people have such strong religious beliefs? 2 questions for william and noel: (1) how would you explain why the world is in such as mess (eg destruction of our environment, increase in terrorism, child abuse and so on)? (2)what do you think is the future of the human race and of the planet?
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 05/04/2005 09:58
Evolution is an enormous body of knowledge. The Human Genome has only just been decoded at the first level of understanding. It will take decades to decide what every last of the 30,000 or so genes does. Genes and their expression are amazing in their complexity. A gene can be copied by accident and then can mutate from one function to an entirely different one and all the time the actual outcome of the action of the gene can have nothing whatsoever to do with the chemical nature or structure of the gene. I find this hard to explain but the chemistry of the gene for blue eyes says nothing about blue, it’s just that the action of the gene through many complex interconnections with other genes and the development of the foetus the person ends up with blue eyes. The brain of everyone one of us is different and these differences are mainly caused by gene differences, the gene lottery that happens at conception when your parents genes are shuffled to give you a new combination. When the brain is being formed it is quite possible that the brain in some people contains traits that mean that when exposed to religious indoctrination as a child that the person will accept the beliefs and that other genes create a trait the opposite to scepticism, gullibility. When I was 10 or so my uncle called me “the why boy”, my mother was forever calling me “doubting Thomas” from a young age so I seem to have traits such as curiosity, scepticism and maybe as I was selected by aptitude tests to become a computer programmer, logical ability. The funny thing is some people have strong beliefs about everything, I do. So it’s not just religious people that have strong beliefs. There are obviously genes that create brains that create individuals with strong beliefs. Myself and Noel probably share this gene. :) The world isn’t in a mess. You just said that. By the vast majority of indicators the world and the people in it are in far better condition than anytime in human history. Salmon now swim the Thames. The air quality is actually improving. I remember seeing the smog clearly in Dublin in the 80’s as you drove in the Naas Dual Carriageway. It’s now gone. Maybe religious people are more pessimistic because that negative view of reality is common among religious organisations. The Pope made a big deal of his suffering and that suffering was the human condition. Vincent Browne recently wrote an excellent article on this recently and condemned it as a nihilistic attitude. Who suffers nowadays? We live longer than ever, our children don’t die as often as they did or suffer from horrible mutilating childhood illnesses, we have pain killers, operations to fix our bodies, we are mainly well fed, we sleep in warm houses, we are not been eaten by wild animals and Europe has been free of war for 60 years now. Child abuse has not increased and in this generation we are for the first time tackling it. It was swept under the carpet by the Irish Catholic Church for decades, it was always happening it’s just now in this more enlightened age we are punishing those who do it. I am very optimistic as to the future of humanity. If we can survive another few decades we will start living on other planets and then spread out throughout the solar system and in centuries to come spread to other star systems, we have already with the first generation instruments to attempt to do so, discovered over 120 new planets orbiting other stars. Our descendants will live on planets orbiting these stars in years to come. As people become more educated in science and the liberal view of reality spreads, religious belief will fade away and become an historical curiosity. This has clearly begun with a collapse in religious belief in the UK, France and now Ireland. The JW type doom mongers have been wrong about the imminent coming of a punishing god since their inception, they will be wrong up to the time they fade away like the thousands of other religions before them.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 05/04/2005 12:04
Ys, the future is bright - with the exception of massively increasing pollution. I wonder tho' about your theory of religions fading away when islam is growing not only because they have large families due to a belief that contraception is wrong (as many catholics do - tho' I've never seen it mentioned in a bible) but also through conversion and non-muslims marrying muslims and afterward converting.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 05/04/2005 12:59
Its not just me saying that world is in a mess; \"The UN-backed Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Synthesis Report found that nearly two-thirds of Earth\'s life-supporting ecosystems, including clean water, pure air, and stable climate, are being degraded by unsustainable use.\" \"Over 1,300 governmental and private-sector contributors from 95 countries collaborated to create the landmark study. For four years they examined the planet\'s many habitats and species and the systems that bind them together.\"\"The report paints a rather bleak picture for biodiversity throughout much of the natural world. Perhaps 10 to 30 percent of Earth\'s mammal, bird, and amphibian species are facing extinction.\" William said \"if we can survive the next few decades\".Yes, \"if\" because the planet and human race are under threat. And I disagree that \"nobody suffers nowadays\". \"Some 38 million Africans are threatened by starvation this year from a food crisis that relief workers predict could last for generations because of AIDS.\" -CBS News
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 05/04/2005 13:20
Why do you think pollution is increasing? Throughout Europe and in particular the EU pollution is dramatically reducing and people now are re-cycling. Do you not agree that the air in Dublin and the water quality in rivers is better than it was? The river Lee in Cork used to smell so badly that we had a whole verse in “The Boy’s of Fair Hill”…. “The smell from Patrick’s Bridge was wicked, how does Father Mathew stick it?” It’s now OK. Part of the reason people think pollution is getting worse is the non stop campaigning from special interest groups who only survive and get donations by putting forward gloom & doom stories. Islam is growing because Islam is mainly based in badly educated, poor, closed, totalitarian societies. When they become democratic and get richer and better educated Islam will also fade away. As far as I know Islam does not ban contraceptives.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 05/04/2005 14:55
William, I think the world is in a mess, and its not because of the gloom and doom "stories", its because of the gloom and doom FACTS. A report put forward by the UN shows that the world water crisis is getting worse, due to population growth, pollution and expected climate change and political inertia. "Water supplies are falling while the demand is dramatically growing at an unsustainable rate," said UNESCO Director-General Koichiro Matsuura. "Over the next 20 years, the average supply of water worldwide per person is expected to drop by a third." I was watching CNN the other night, and they claim that the goal put forward by the UN to reduce by one half the proportion of people who lack reliable access to clean water by the year 2015, will fail! So, while Williams argument is centered around Dublin and Cork, this does not generlize to the rest of the world. Actually, it doesnt even generalize to the rest of Ireland. Just two years ago in Shannon, the smell coming from the estuary was sufficating. After months of investigations, it was found that a company called Sifa ltd. in Shannon Industrial state was the cause of this pollution. While better medical treatment is available to people now, it doesnt change the fact that diseases such as HIV and cancer are on the increase, even in Ireland. A report from the national cancer registry Ireland, stated that the number of cancer cases is increasing by about 2% per year. And Ireland is one of the "better" countries. Also, crime is on the increase, and that is very clear to see. So while Europe may be improving some of these matters, pollution needs to be looked at on a broader scale to see the extent of the danger our planet is in. Although we are quite lucky in Europe that we have been war-free for a long time now, just look outide the boarders! The world is in a mess.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 05/04/2005 15:12
William, you only need look at the report referenced above from Anon posted at 12:59 to know what we mean about polution. Actualy the religion of Islam is also on the rise here - both thru immigration and among the Irish population, which might confound your theory. Unless of course you think Ireland is badly educated, poor closed and intolerant??
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 05/04/2005 15:35
Part of the Aids problem in Africa is poverty and ignorance and certainly not helped by religious organisations like the Catholic Church trying to stop people using condoms. Africa is a mess because of historical problems but they are mainly in the past, we are talking about the future. South Africa is coming around and when Mugabe is finally ousted I think Africa has a future. I can show you statistics where things are improving and you can show me statistics where things are getting worse but overall things are getting better. The success that the billion people of Cork, Dublin, Europe and the US have will spread to other parts of the world. The Eastern block countries had massive problems of pollution and poverty under totalitarian communism, a form of religion, but that will now stop and reverse. Water is a problem, but a problem that man is quite capable of solving. However the JW’s attitude is we are all wasting our time as God is about to land in a helicopter and destroy us all for our sins. Mankind has progressed enormously in the past few hundred years and this indicates that we are more than capable of solving all our problems and without gods, prayer or magic. Cancer treatments are improving and if there is a rise in cancer it’s related to the fact that cancer is an old person’s disease and because people are living longer more people are living to get cancer. This of course is an example of where your negative statistic can be correctly interpreted as an improvement in living conditions. Women smoking has caused a big increase in female lung cancer. But we are solving the smoking problem, every year less people smoke. Crime is not on the increase. A major cause of crime and crime statistics is related to the insane “war on drugs”. Legalise drugs and crime figures will collapse. This is an area that religion contributes too by demonising drug users as sinners rather than the correct “liberal” approach which is to treat them as what they are, socially disadvantaged people. How can anyone living in Ireland in 2005 think things are getting worse? You obviously didn’t live in Limerick in the 1940’s.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 05/04/2005 16:37
(my last post was at 12:59)There is no argument that the planet is being destroyed. What is more it is being destroyed at an increasing rate. It would be interesting to see if Noel can explain why things are the way they are. If there is a God, why are things getting worse. If we are evolving, why is the current crop of evolved/advanced humans destroying his own home?
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 05/04/2005 17:11
William, you state that totalitarian communism was a form of religion. Nothing could be further from the truth. It was the exact opposite of religion and diametrically opposed to all form of organised religions. You say that to legalise rungs and he crime rate will go down. This is he greatest nonsense I have heard to date. It is like saying that to legalise murder, child abuse, rape, burglarly and theft and crime will disappear almost completely. Have you any idea how insane that ideology is?
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 05/04/2005 17:11
I’m sorry but I totally disagree “that the planet is being destroyed”. All life interacts with its planet and changes it. Life actually is the cause of all the Oxygen in the atmosphere, creates and maintains the soil and all the biosphere. If there was no life on Earth then Earth would be like Mars or Titan. Since life evolved 4 billion years ago it has being “destroying the planet” in the sense that it chews it up, chemically alters it and spits out the remains. Oxygen is the waste produced by photosynthesis. I could go on but you get my drift. We are part of Life and we are entitled to chew up the planet as well. As we are part of nature, then what we do is part of nature. A bird’s nest is as much a part of nature as a car or a Mars Rover. Things are not getting worse. You make a common mistake when you suggested that we are an advanced form of evolution. All creatures have evolved to fill their niche and strictly speaking no creatures is more evolved than any other.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 05/04/2005 17:43
Noel believes that Satan is the rular of the present day world system of things and that is why we have Watchtower diatribe expoounding fear into its adherents.Qwerty
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 05/04/2005 18:35
Religions like the JW’s and most extreme religious sects are very similar to Communism or fanatical anti-fur protestors or the fanatical anti-nuclear types etc. Their behaviour has all the same aspects as a religion. Mind control, brainwashing, censorship, lies, a holy book, a charismatic leader for life, shunning, punishment, non stop education classes and re-education, one truth (one true church – one party), no dissent, violent hatred of anyone not agreeing completely with their position etc. A journalist who wrote against religion recently in an newspaper told me that he gets lots of anonymous hate mail. As he said to me, “no one hates like a Christian”. Do I have to go on? An underlying problem with them all is that they have theories about reality that have not been proven and are and were pure speculation. Communism and for that matter socialism rely on a Philosophical position that is unproven and unscientific. I have no time for most of Philosophy and interesting enough it underlines much of Catholic teaching, which I have no time for either. The Bible is to Christians as Mao’s Little Red Book or Marx’s “The Communist Manifesto” is to Communists or Hitler’s Mein Kampf is to Fascists. In fact I read an article this morning that made the point that much of the way the Polish Pope behaved was related to his upbringing in a totalitarian regime. The author made comparisons with his opposition to dissent even to the point of refusing to even allow a discussion on women priests. He also opposed the Free Market & Capitalism. In fact the Pope is opposed to personal freedom as he has decided the truth and everyone must obey his teachings. You compare drug use as a crime with 5 other crimes, but the huge difference is that drug use hurts no one accept the person taking the drugs so it’s not a crime, it’s a medical problem and should be treated as such. If I want to smoke cannabis are you seriously saying that you are entitled to put me in jail because of it? On what basis do you make this claim? Many things that were serious crimes now are not, Homosexuality is an obvious one, another is suicide in Ireland or abortion in the UK or alcohol prohibition in the US. Where there is no victim there is no crime. As far as I’m concerned if someone is stupid enough to snort Coke and get addicted then we treat him as having a medical problem and not jail him with a bunch of other junkies. Prohibition in the US gave rise to the Mafia and US society is still paying the price. We will pay the price for years to come because of the useless prohibition on drugs. They US didn’t win the war on booze and it won’t win the war on drugs either. Look who wants to hang ‘em and flog ‘em, the religious right. Do you think that’s a coincidence? Try and think out of the box.
 
  Donal(PYR26781)  Posted: 05/04/2005 20:13
so we are entitled to "chew up the planet". well thats what the human race is doing. soon we could have chewed it up so much that it will be uninhabitable. are we the "fittest" batch of humans? did nature "select" us? what "niche" do we fill? where does the morality that you mentioned some time ago come from?
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 06/04/2005 07:55
William, we are guardians of the planet and its rich natural heritage - quite the opposite of a liense to chewit up. And you could hardly say that a nuclear power station, some of which have destroyed huge tracts of land are part of nature. As for evolving - are you implying that humankind is not more evolved than an amoeba??
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 06/04/2005 09:14
So drug takers harm nobody?? Takers become pushers toi eed their addiction, they hrm their families, those they push it on the families of those they push it on and entire communities are ravaged by the scourge of drugs through out this country.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 06/04/2005 11:35
Did either of you actually read my post? This planet would be a sterile, boring rock if it wasn’t for life. We ARE entitled to “chew up the planet” and process it into other materials such as cars. How can you say that we will make it uninhabitable? Where in the US and the EU have we made it uninhabitable? Can you deny that in 2005 in most of the advanced nations of the world where man lives we have less pollution than in 1905? Only in a tiny tract of land in and around Chernobyl is it not advisable to live in, not “a huge tract”. Chernobyl was caused by a corrupt failed political system, Totalitarian Communism and not by any failure of science. I just finished what is regarded as the definitive book on the Chernobyl accident called “Chernobyl Record” and the lead Russian investigator said as much. Yes nature did select our set of genes. The niche any animal occupies is the niche it evolved to occupy, so whales evolved to roam the seas and eat plankton, birds the air and because we have a very powerful brain we occupy nearly everywhere. This brain induced flexibility also allows us to occupy even space. My point is that science has a positive view of reality and the future but religions such as the JW's MUST have a negative view as that is why they exist, they say that we must not enjoy ourselves too much especially via sex, we cannot imagine having sex as this is impure, we are all sinners, must relish in suffering, will die, and must be flogged and punished. I on the other hand believe life is to be lived to the full, there are few sinners, there are few sins, there is no evil, no devil, science is the only way to objective truth, and that some day we will progress to the point that suffering for all will be reduced to a minimum, people will lead long and fulfilling lives and we will colonise the stars. Mine is a happy belief system. Children don’t need to get martyred for me.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 06/04/2005 13:19
You say there is no evil? Murder is not evil, violence is not evil? If that's your belief, I am surprised your vision of the future is so bright. These things are grave evils.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 06/04/2005 13:25
Drug takers harm nobody except themselves. Taking Heroin is actually less dangerous than smoking. Ecstasy in itself is not that dangerous as hundreds of thousands of clubbers in Ireland will testify, overdosing is or injecting bad Ecstasy is. Bad Ecstasy is a direct result of it being driven underground and being illegal. To feed their habit BECAUSE DRUGS ARE ILLEGAL and very EXPENSIVE users become pushers. Cannabis can be grown from a few cent’s worth of seeds so costs nothing. When the police publish a statement saying “€100,000 of Cannabis Sized” the real meaning is that a few Euros worth of drugs were sized and the difference between that and the €100,000 is the illegality element. If drugs were legal then there would be no pushers because there would be no profit, therefore no crime. Users wouldn’t mug little old dears to rob their handbags because they wouldn’t need money to buy the drugs whose price has been inflated due to the fact that it’s illegal. Simple isn’t it? The harm they do their families is partly related to the fact that it is currently a crime and they end up in prison. Someone smoking cannabis that they grow themselves does not harm their families, how do they? Explain exactly how a drug user in a society where drugs are not illegal but treated as a medical problem can harm his or her family? Furthermore there are and always will be dysfunctional families whether there are drugs or not. Alcohol, a legal drug, is far more damaging to families than Cannabis. Furthermore Aids is not caused by drug use, it’s caused by sharing needles and that can be solved very easily if drug use was not illegal and the users were given needles. If the Irish government took an intelligent and rational approach to the drug problem it could be solved in a few years, as it is they are taking a moralistic attitude promoted by the religious and by their religious upbringing & brainwashing related to sin and for decades now the problem has got worse. Can you imagine tackling Cancer by calling the cops? Think about this; the “war on drugs” has utterly failed, is it not intelligent to try a new radical approach?
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 06/04/2005 13:38
If you had ever seen photos of heroin addicts (remember it takes more and more each time to get the same efect and it is a highly illegal substance) ou would know the harm hey do to themsleves and those who love them. By the way, I never said it was a sin nor that addicts should be punished / jailed.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 06/04/2005 14:10
I mean “Evil” in the religious sense. Most things happen for a reason, the religious such as JW’s think that bad things happen partly because of the existence of Satan and the existence of “Evil”. There is no Satan or “Evil”. People murder for all sorts of reasons, some we accept such as war or self defence (unless you are a JW) and some we do not accept such as during a robbery. But if you analyse the reasons people murder for say robbery you find a strong correlation between social disadvantage and such crimes. Often murderers and in fact the vast majority of those in prison are illiterate. Is illiteracy a sin? Why is there a correlation? People who murder are often mad and not bad. Some are retarded. People from the toughest part of Ireland steal more cars than people from the better off areas so are they sinners or are they disadvantaged and victims themselves. This is a difficult subject and needs to be tackled with some imagination. The solutions to these problems are being prevented by the dogmatic unthinking religious position of the majority of the Irish population who see things in black and white, such as thieves are sinners and need to be punished and not that the problems of inner city ghettos need to be resolved.
 
  Donal(PYR26781)  Posted: 06/04/2005 19:30
how did evolution produce morality? eg your own belief in the existence of sin, and the desire to see suffering diminish.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 07/04/2005 08:49
William, that in my opinion is neo-liberal nonense. Growing up in the 50's many of my peers did not have cars in their family, but they did not steal them. There was very little spare money for most of us but we did not steal to get it. There wasn't much in the way of amusement but we didn't resort to drugs (yes, the were available). For many young poeple there wasn't a very high standard of education and many left school at a young age but that didn't make them criminals.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 07/04/2005 08:52
Donal, evolution did not produce morality in the religious sense. Sin was an investion of mankind - perhaps the puritans or janesanists were responsible. I would like to think that the desire to see suffering diminish is a human quality which we all possess in more or less quantities.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 07/04/2005 09:39
I’m glad you agree with me, and not with the current laws, that drug users should not be jailed. Heroin addicts do themselves damage as do smokers (50% of them die from it) and drinkers but they are not illegal. It’s a medical problem and if treated that way crime would decrease dramatically. I think this is self evident. Morality did evolve except it’s not called morality. I can’t explain detailed evolutionary theory on this thread, read some books by Richard Dawkins. A summary would be, genes evolved that conferred on individuals a desire to help their relations, who after all carry many of the same genes they do and the underlying force in evolution is the genes not the individual. You can see this expressed as the love of a mother for her child or a father for his mate. What’s really happening is that genes that made us like this were more likely to survive. Logically this extends out in reducing levels to close relations and then to the tribe. As Dawkins put it, the best way in prehistoric times to store excess food you had was in the stomach of your fellow tribe members. In other words when you had excess you gave them some and they repaid you when they had some and you didn’t, this was before fridges :). That’s the beginning of morality or altruism. Genes that induced traits of “fair play” would mean that an individual was less likely to hurt another human and so on. Genes have been proven to be the basis for all our traits such as meanness, generosity, curiosity etc.. All this is linked to Game Theory btw. If I speak neo-liberal nonsense (why neo?) then can you explain why there is a VERY strong correlation between car stealing & drug addiction and bad education, disadvantage, illiteracy and poverty? Funnily enough the invention of religion and all its aspects must be an evolutionary thing as well. Traits such as “bending the knee” and “follow the leader” probably helped tribes bond better and defeat other tribes and Dawkins has suggested that “memes” are an equivalent to genes. Memes would be “good ideas” that spread, mutate and live in the human brain. In summary there is no problem whatsoever in accepting that evolution shaped the software hardwired into our brains to develop what we now call morality. [I think I’m going to treat all Anon’s in future as the same person for simplicity and let the Anon’s figure out who I am referring to.]
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 07/04/2005 10:10
Heroin adiccts aqlong with smokers and excess drinkrs also do others - familiies and communitoies great harm.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 07/04/2005 10:13
Wiliam, can YOU explain why in the 50's an era of social deprivation where for many there was poverty and poor educaton, this did not result in car stealing, crime sprees and drug taking.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 07/04/2005 13:26
Alcoholism was a major problem in the 50’s which you seem to conveniently ignore. Maybe the people of the 50’s were more docile. We had just come out from under 700 years of British rule. The people of the 50’s were very subservient as I can see in my parents. They did what they were told, particularly by the Church. There were very few freethinkers in Ireland in the 50’s. My father didn’t talk to his brother for 10 years because he left the priesthood and married, he refused to go to my wedding because I got married in a registry office, a friend of mine has just seen her daughter after 30 years because when she had her she was forced like 10’s of thousands of other young girls to put her up for adoption. At least she didn't end up in one of those slavery places. The Church spent the 40’s 50’s and 60’s abusing and hiding the abuse of children. The people of today are punishing them for it. Today people are far more independent and most of the people of poor areas of Ireland don’t take any more bullsh1t from the Catholic Church.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 11/04/2005 10:39
Well it is over a week and we cannot get a simple Yes or No from Noel May or any other representative of the Watchtower organisation to the questions posed to them. Surely this is further proof that the “Truth” is really being hidden from the “innocent” adherents of this slavish organisation and this is why organisations like the Watchtower must be exposed to the abuse of its members rights and in particular its rights on accepting blood and blood products without repercussion to its members from its leaders. Qwerty.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 12/04/2005 19:30
Anonymous on the 05/04/2005 14:55 said crime was increasing well it isn't and that official. Irish Times today... "IRELAND Latest data shows 7% reduction in serious crimes. The latest quarterly crime statistics from the Garda Síochána show a 7 per cent decrease in serious crime over the past 12 months, confirming a downward trend in recent years." It's so much more rewarding to be an optimist.. :)
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 14/04/2005 10:15
On 01/04/05 19:23 Anon. posted the following: - “as the bible clearly tells us to "abstain..... From blood". It is a very clear statement. Many people may not like this teaching, but that’s what it says!”. Lets analyse what has been said here as it is a clear CONTRADICTION of what the Watchtower expects its adherents to believe in, for they CLEARLY do NOT “abstain” from Blood as they permit fractionated blood particles of which factor 111V and 1X are manufactured from and they now accept Vaccines of which some of these are also made from derivatives of whole blood. The majority of the Jehovah’s Witness membership do not realise this, for if they did they would surely see the contradiction for to “abstain” means just that period, does it not? Now, if and when the mainstream JW membership realise that they have been duped here in Ireland we can expect tumultuous litigations just like we see happening in the US. This is probably why the Watchtower leadership have relaxed their position on this issue in 1995 and 2000. They will continue to argue that NOTHING has changed but by examining their history we can “clearly” see that they have changed. Not only do Millions of Jehovah’s Witnesses deplete the worlds blood banks by accepting bloods bi products they do not contribute to the worlds supply of blood by being forbidden to donate their blood to replenish what they have used. What hypocrisy. Qwerty
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 15/04/2005 16:13
Some good questions raised by Anonymous of 05/04/2005 16:37 and also Anonymous 04/04/2005 22:17 “explain why things are the way they are. If there is a God, why are things getting worse.?” And This is the question that started me many years ago researching the answer in the bible (and other sources). Of all, only the Bible gave me a satisfying answer. I can only sum it up here as many scriptural references would need to be read to get the full answer. What I learned from the Bible is that when God created mankind he gave them the gift of free will but clearly pointed out to them to pitfalls of taking certain actions especially of ignoring the advice and laws (both of nature and moral) set down by the creator. So mankind faced an issue of who had the right to rule and make laws, the creator or the created. Mankind unfortunately chose to ignore the creators directions on how to manage this earth and their own lives. God gave man a period of time to determine if man’s rule was going to be as good as or better then Gods without God interfering with man’s rule of the Earth. He predicted that if man chose to ignore his direction it would end up man destroying the Earth if he did not step in and prevent it. In the last book of the Bible it clearly foretold that God would step in at the time when man was destroying the Earth (note: before man reaches the point of no return) and take over ruling the earth. For those that wanted to live by the standards that the creator set God provided the Bible as guidance and for their direction and also to assure them that the future is bright for mankind, Jesus spoke of this as the “Good News” of the Kingdom (Gods Administration over the Earth), where he spoke of the time when gods will would be done on Earth as in Heaven and as Revelation promises, there would be no more sickness or evil things to afflict those who want to live under Gods rule. So far from us being doom and gloom we look forward to the future with a very positive attitude. In the mean time we have to do all in our power to adhere to the creators standards of personal conduct and care for our environment. Despite QWERTY’s nonsense about my not responding, many of us have otherwise busy lives and do not have the time to keep repeating answers over and over. On the questions qwerty raised that mostly I have previously answered (please review previous contributions for fuller explanations) I would respond as follows (my answer in brackets); Are the Watchtower false Prophets? [NO] 2. Did the Watchtower ban Vaccinations? [NO in general, yes if they were made from blood] 3. Did the Watchtower ban Transplants? [Yes, until they could be carried out without blood transfusions, NO now] 4. Was the Watchtower a full NGO member of the United Nations (The Wild Beast) till recently?[No idea and could not care less] 5. Does the Watchtower teach its current members including your two remaining children to shun those Jehovah’s Witness’s who have left including your two children who have also left Noel? [NO] More importantly will you Noel teach your remaining two children to shun their siblings? [NO] Williams point about evolution vs Intelligent design “If God existed and had created life he could have made every last species created with an entirely different structure” well yes he could have but that would not display order and consistent design, the bible speaks of God as a God of order not of disorder. Also my own experience a computer systems designer for many years demonstrates to me the clear logic of re-use of well proven methods and logic circuits. When we produce code for different applications we try to design code as much as possible for re-use as for subroutines that is logical. So if we do that why wouldn’t the creator? This is what Intelligent Design is all about.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 18/04/2005 10:07
My point re “same structure.. in all species” was that if evolution was why we are here then we would *have to* be all related and with the same structure and we are & have. If Charles Darwin was right, then a mechanism had to be found that “powered” evolution, it was 100 years later, genes, DNA & the mutations of genes. Is Noel seriously suggesting that a God would have to use “..well proven methods and logic circuits”? A God who can create a universe has to use previously proven sub routines because otherwise he would make a mistake? Noel, of all the points you have made this must be that most daft. I repeat again God *could have* made all life on Earth in any way he wished, why did he make life so that it looks like it evolved to ALL the world's Biologists? Was he trying to fool us? Please explain why there are the same mutations/errors in non-coding junk DNA between related species and why the number of these mutations is proportional to the time the species separated from each other. It is possible Noel gave Evolution a cursory glance through religious tinted spectacles some decades ago but I strongly suggest he re-examine it today when the evidence for it is now overwhelming & bordering on mathematical proof.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 18/04/2005 10:22
Noel, are you now implying that illnesses and \"afflictions\" result in not living under God\'s rule?
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 19/04/2005 09:05
In response to Noels post 15/04/05 16:13 I say let the followers of these posts decide for themselves if the Watchtower are false prophets or not, here are some of the false prophecies proclaimed by the Watchtower as they are to numerous to mention here I will only show you some of the earliest and the latest ones in the history of this devious organisation dating from the 1880s to the more recent 1960s and 70s. Ditto also to Vaccinations and transplants. \"Christ came in the character of a Bridegroom in 1874.... at the beginning of the Gospel harvest.\" (Watchtower, Oct 1879, p. 4) \"In this chapter we present the Bible evidence proving that the full end of the times of the gentiles, i.e., the full end of their lease of dominion, will be reached in A.D. 1914; and that the date will be the farthest limit of the rule of imperfect men. And be it observed, that if this is shown to be a fact firmly established by the Scriptures, it will prove; Firstly, that at that date the Kingdom of God, for which our Lord taught us to pray, saying, Thy Kingdom come, will obtain full, universal control, and that it will then be set up, or firmly established, in the earth, on the ruins of present institutions.\" (The Time Is At Hand, 1888, p. 76, 77 1902. \"In view of this strong Bible evidence concerning the Times of the Gentiles, we consider it an established truth that the final end of the kingdoms of this world, and the full establishment of the kingdom of God, will be accomplished by the end of A.D. 1914.\" (The Time Is At Hand, 1902 edition, p. 99) 1922 \"We have no doubt whatever in regard to the chronology relating to the dates of 1874, 1914, 1918, and 1925. It was on this line of reckoning that the dates 1874, 1914, and 1918 were located; and the Lord has placed the stamp of his seal upon 1914 and 1918 beyond any possibility of erasure. What further evidence do we need? Using this same measuring line.... it is an easy matter to locate 1925, probably in the fall, for the beginning of the antitypical jubilee. There can be no more question about 1925 than there was about 1914.\" (Watchtower, p. 150, May 15, 1922) 4440 Braeburn Rd, San Diego, Calif. Last week he deeded No 4440 Braeburn Road, and adjacent two car garage and a pair of automobiles to King David, Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthae, Samuel and sundry other mighties of ancient Palestine. Positive is he that they are shortly to reappear on earth, Said he: \'I have purposely landscaped the place with palm and olive trees so that these princes of the universe will feel at home.. (Time Magazine, March 31, 1930) 1984. Some of that \"generation (of 1914)\" could survive until the end of the century. But there are many indications that \"the end\" is much closer than that! (The Watchtower, March 1, 1984 pp. 18-19) 1968 \"I know enough of what is going on to assure you that, in fifteen years from today, this world is going to be too dangerous to live in.\" (Truth That Leads To Eternal Life, p 9, 1968 edition, Quoting USA Secretary of State Dean Acheson in 1960, [1981 edition deleted \"in fifteen years from today\" ie. in 1975]) The Watchtower then blamed its members of reading a meaning into what it was actually proclaiming and takes no responsibility for its actions whatsoever. Noel maybe the year 2034 is the new date that will be “prophesied” for the future for your organisation has certainly run out of “time” as its history proves to the rational thinking person has it not? Noels answer to the Watchtowers banning of Vaccinations is [NO in general, yes if they were made from blood] Well JWs take Vaccinations today that are made from blood so what is different about taking the vaccinations today to when they were banned by the Watchtower? Transplants were banned full stop. No mention of, without blood anywhere. Here’s further proof of Noels theocratic warfare at its best: - When there is a diseased or defective organ, the usual way health is restored is by taking in nutrients. The body uses the food eaten to repair or heal the organ, gradually replacing the cells. When men of science conclude that this normal process will no longer work and they suggest removing the organ and replacing it directly with an organ from another human, this is simply a shortcut. Those who submit to such operations are thus living off the flesh of another human. That is cannibalistic. However, in allowing man to eat animal flesh Jehovah God did not grant permission for humans to try to perpetuate their lives by cannibalistically taking into their bodies human flesh, whether chewed or in the form of whole organs or body parts taken from others.\" (The Watchtower, Nov. 15, 1967, p. 702) Please Note No Mention of Blood. Noels answer to question 4 is less than disingenuous for He should care for Noels organisation teaches its followers to be NO PART of THIS WORLD so why is it ok for the Watchtower society to be members of an organisation that it teaches it members to despise? Noel here is a reminder of what the Watchtower teaches it followers to do if some one leaves the organisation… \"Regarding them,\" [the JWs use this to relate to \"apostates\"] \"the psalmist said: \"Do I not hate those who are intensely hating you, O Jehovah, and do I not feel a loathing for those revolting against you? With a complete hatred I do hate them. They have become to me real enemies.\" (Psalm 139:21, 22) It was because they intensely hated Jehovah that David looked on them with abhorrence. Apostates are included among those who show their hatred of Jehovah by revolting against him. Apostasy is, in reality, a rebellion against Jehovah. Some apostates profess to know and serve God, but they reject teachings or requirements set out in his Word.\" [in other words, they reject the teachings of the Watchtower Society!] \"Others claim to believe the Bible, but they reject Jehovah\'s organization and actively try to hinder its work. When they deliberately choose such badness after knowing what is right, when the bad becomes so ingrained that it is an inseparable part of their makeup, then a Christian must hate (in the Biblical sense of the word) those who have inseparably attached themselves to the badness. True Christians share Jehovah\'s feelings toward such apostates; they are not curious about apostate ideas. On the contrary, they \"feel a loathing\" toward those who have made themselves God\'s enemies, but they leave it to Jehovah to execute vengeance. --Job 13:16; Romans 12:19; 2 John 9, 10.\" (WT Oct 1, 1993) Now Noel are you becoming APOSTATE by not carrying out this directive? This includes your Children, Noel. I have to ask Noel a question here is there a “rule” for Noel May that does not apply to him that applies to the remainder of the other JWs and if there is could he explain? It is clear from the above extract from a Watchtower publication that Shunning is taught and practised by JWs. Again I repeat the JWs including Noel are taught “theocratic warfare” (see earlier posts) to disguise their past history and because the readers of these posts are not entitled to the “Truth”.Qwerty
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 19/04/2005 09:56
My post of 19/04/05 9:05 The quote in Time magazine March 1930 was made by the then Watchtower president Rutherford. Qwerty
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 19/04/2005 21:43
For years the publication the Awake magazine as part of its mission statement prophesied that this Generation would not pass away until Armageddon would strike. 1.If you are a young person, you also need to face the fact that you will never grow old in this present system of things. ... all evidence in fulfilment of Bible prophecy indicates that this corrupt system is due to end in a few years. ....as a young person you will never fulfil any career that this system offers. If you are in high school and thinking about a college education, it means at least four, perhaps even six or eight more years to graduate into a specialized career. But where will this system of things be by that time? It will be well on the way toward its finish, if not actually gone! Awake 25 May 1969 pg15. 2. The apostle Paul was spearheading the Christian missionary activity. He was also laying a foundation for a work that would be completed in our 20th century. Watchtower 1 Jan 1989 pg12. (This quote was later changed in the Watchtower bound volume to: He was also laying a foundation for a work that would be completed in our day.) All the literature the Watchtower published before 1995 spoke of the “generation” that was 10-15 years old or born during 1914 would not pass away before Armageddon would occur. Then this organisation changed the meaning of the word “generation” to suit its failed prophecy to mean a contemporary “generation”. “Rather than provide a rule for measuring time, the term “generation” as used by Jesus refers to a contemporary people of a certain historical period.....”Watchtower 1 Nov 1995 pg17. But to repeat what I said in an earlier post “ when the shameless meet the spineless the shameless win” and the Watchtower organisation is shameless and if we do not stand up for what is humanely right and moral this organisation, in my opinion, will continue to prey on and delude the weak and vulnerable. Qwerty
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 19/04/2005 23:07
William, mathematical proof for evolution? Harold Morowitz, a Yale University physicist, has calculated that the chances of getting the simplest living bacterium by random changes is 1 in 1 followed by 100,000,000,000 zeros.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 19/04/2005 23:13
mankinds efforts at running the earth are proving to be disastrous. i am surprised that evolutionists think that everything is going to work out grand when things are clearly getting worse. your beliefs Noel have a certain logic to them.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 20/04/2005 09:34
Well said Qwerty. As I said before in 1972/3 I worked with a JW and he was adament that the world would end by 1975 at the very latest and he didn't lick that opinion off the ground. I get the impression that you are religious or believe in God yourself. Is that true?
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 20/04/2005 10:14
As far as I can see your quote is actually incorrect and was associated with the chances of left handed molecules in proteins. Anyway that type of calculation which is often used by Intelligent Designers may be strictly correct but would also apply to the statement, “what is the chances of getting a 747 constructed after a tornado blew through a scrap yard”. Evolution doesn’t say that “a living bacterium” appeared by chance or random changes, so what’s your point? What you are doing is known as a straw man argument. You say that Evolutionists said something they didn’t and then you demolish it. The first bacterium evolved themselves from more primitive forms including something that probably looked like a virus. Evolutionists never said bacterium appeared by chance. Viruses evolved from complex chemical compounds which in turn evolved from simpler chemicals such as Amino Acids. Chance calculations also go out the window when chemical catalysts are taken into account. Catalysts speed up chemical reactions by millions of times. There is no abrupt step in Evolution that needs its odds calculated. The first replicating molecule could even have come to Earth in a comet, so the whole universe could be involved. We don’t know yet. However what we do know is that chemicals do form complex molecules and it isn’t by chance or random. If you mix certain chemicals with heat input (the sun, lightening) then you definitely will get other more complex chemicals. It has been done in labs since the 50’s. A replicating long string compound can “create” an arms race terminating in self replicating molecules of virus size. At some point these viruses gained a cell wall and became something similar to a bacterium. As of yet we don’t know how the cell wall first developed but there are theories.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 20/04/2005 11:29
Generalisations contribute little to these discussions. If God is running the Earth then his disasters make man’s ones look puny. What about the recent Tsunami that killed 300,000? Was that God cocking up? At least mankind through its scientists are trying to develop early warning systems. Noel’s position doesn’t depend on logic one whit. Noel makes an assumption that he cannot prove or even provide any evidence for, that the bible is the word of a god and everything else he believes follows from that.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 21/04/2005 16:01
Noel has said that God isn't running the earth, so the disasters are our own. Back to evolution, if formations don't happen "by chance or random" as you say, do they must happen by design? who is the designer? That's my point...chance or design? Mathematicians say that chances were extremely slim that something as complex as life or even the building blocks of life could come about by chance. What exactly is the point of human life according to evolutionist thought?
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 21/04/2005 21:01
The natural disasters like all occurrences on Earth are just that natural. Life evolved naturally and disasters happen naturally. No god to start them or stop them. If God doesn’t run the Earth why do most Christians pray to him for help? If he doesn’t interfere what’s the point? What’s a “formation”? If something doesn’t happen because of chance it is illogical to say “they must happen by design”. There is no design or designer. Complex structures can and do build up over long periods of time with no gods interfering. Who designed the beautiful rings of Saturn? Mathematicians do not say anything of the sort you imply. Where is this obsession with chance? Life did nor evolve “by chance”. My previous post answered your point about the odds of a bacterium happening by chance. Read it again. What do you mean by “what is the point of human life”? To understand reality you need to ask the right questions.
 
  Donal(PYR26781)  Posted: 22/04/2005 20:46
if you read your previous post you will find your own reference to formations. I have read your post carefully and I disagree with your point of view. even amino acids are very complex, either they were put together or they formed accidentally, by chance. Either there is design or there is no design. if there is no design there is accident. thats logic. perhaps the reality is that evolutionists don't like to use the word chance because it sounds like an inadequate explanation for the origin of life. no explanation is neccessary to the question "what is the point of life?"
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 22/04/2005 22:46
Thanks William, that’s right your work colleague did not lick that off the ground he was indoctrinated by the Watchtower organisation and I suspect that 2034 is the "NEW" year as subtle hints may be suggesting this year. No I am no longer religious or if you like judgemental as JWs are. Whether I believe in God or not I will have to take the fifth! But some say I am spiritual what ever that means. For now, I can only tell you I will never again be duped as I once was. The majority of JWs including Noel are loving and kind hearted people who are deluded and if you like, afraid for the future for they can see no LIFE beyond the Watchtower organisation. They need direction and order in their everyday lives and they cannot see life without this direction (The Watchtowers) for how else can you explain this unquestioning loyalty? Anything that I have posted here since my first post on 9/10/04 00:12 has been from Watchtower publications yet I would be classified APOSTATE by the JWs and the Watchtower organisation. I have not posted any materials from any other sources other than news organisations so who then are the REAL APOSTATES let the readers of these posts decide.Qwerty
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 22/04/2005 22:58
It might surprise you to learn that some of the most major opponents of evolutionism have consistently been mathematicians, simply because mathematicians understand the odds involved in evolution. In fact there were a series of famous symposia at which a number of the world's best mathematicians tried to explain the nature of reality to leading evolutionists and the later are still in states of shock and denial over it: http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/20hist12.htm "The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of Evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence." Sir Fred Hoyle Nature, Nov 12, 1981, p. 148 Robert Naeye, a writer for Astronomy magazine and an evolutionist, wrote that life on earth is the result of “a long sequence of improbable events [that] transpired in just the right way to bring forth our existence, as if we had won a million-dollar lottery a million times in a row.” That line of reasoning can probably be applied to every single creature that exists today. The odds are stacked against it. Yet, we are expected to believe that by chance evolution also produced a male and a female at the same time in order for the new species to be perpetuated. To compound the odds, we also have to believe that the male and the female not only evolved at the same time but also in the same place! No meeting, no procreation!
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 23/04/2005 10:53
If anyone wants to read up on the early evolution of RNA, DNA & simple cells, this is a good link. Maybe difficult for non technical people but you might still get the general idea. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=cooper.section.90
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 24/04/2005 16:37
The first point I’ll make to Anon 22/04/2005 22:58 is that there is no opposition to Evolution in any Scientific circles. ID types like to spread the lie that there is or that there is a lot of disagreement. Untrue. Evolution is now so accepted by scientists that it in turn it is being used to make predictions, like all tested and accepted Scientific Theories. We know life evolved so stating that it couldn’t “mathematically” is meaningless. The odds of something happening that has happened are 1 or certainty. Another silly position that ID proponents, CAM artists and religious types often use is to quote a scientist saying he doesn’t accept something or other in ANOTHER discipline. Unless a scientist is trained or works in a particular field his opinion is worth little more than an educated layman. There is a famous story about this that is worth repeating. Immanuel Velikovsky's wrote a book called “Worlds in Collision”. It was rubbish and scientists dismissed it as nonsense. However there was a story told where a Biologist and a Physicist were talking about the book and the Biologist said that the Biology in the book was rubbish but the Physics was sound, “funny”, said the Physicist “but I thought that the Biology was sound and the Physics was rubbish”. Some of your statements and quotes are totally untrue. “A primeval soup” simple means the atmosphere & oceans that existed on Earth 4.5 billion years ago. This consisted of various elements, water, carbon dioxide and a plethora of carbon compounds, such as exists on Titan today. Donal, in the 50’s experiments were done and since replicated, that showed that complex Amino Acids DO form when this mixture is frozen and or lightening passes through it. So to say that Amino Acids are too complex to form naturally is simply wrong. It is raining down these compounds on Titan today. We have shown in labs how it can happen. Furthermore Amino Acids have been detected in space! I’ll state it again, there are more than the two possibilities that you claim, chance (tornado in a scrap yard), built by intelligent being (watch) *OR* Evolution. Chemical evolution allows simple chemicals such as Carbon & H2O to form more complex chemicals, these chemicals in turn through interaction with catalysts and in the presence of pressure, frozen water, lightening, the Sun and so forth form even longer chained molecules. This is a fact and happens all the time in nature. RNA has an unusual characteristic in so far as it can form long chains that zip open and replicate. RNA and DNA are only chemical compounds. There are not strictly speaking “alive” but they do grow, split and reproduce. They are very very tiny and zillions of these molecules can exist in an ocean and over long periods of time any RNA/DNA molecule can IF IT IS FITTER mop up all the other chemicals and other pieces of RNA/DNA. That is the start of life. A simple virus only contains a few thousand “sets” of these molecules. A virus isn’t considered alive either as it is only a complex chemical compound but it has as 100,000 plus atoms. A virus within a chemical “wall” which again is a simple repetition of a compound is a cell. I cannot teach you Biology or Biochemistry in a thread, go read up on the subject if you wish to know how it all works. Have either of you even read the link above that explains cells etc? Once the simple cells got going they evolved over nearly 1,000,000,000 years all over the world into the next type of cell, the cell that more sophisticated creatures are made from. That cell then evolved over another 2,000,000,000 years into land creatures and then over the next 500,000,000 years into us. With zillions of RNA molecules in the sea, occasionally one changed slightly and if that change meant it survived and duplicated more than its competitors then it dominated until another mutation created an even more fit/more successful compound. That's how sophisticated complex life built up, step by step. As for the evolution of sex, your point is daft. Read up on the evolution of sex if you want to understand it. Your point is about as silly as the question, “which came first the chicken or the egg?”. To UNDERSTAND evolution you must study it, it is a huge branch of knowledge and you cannot hope to understand it WITHOUT studying it. If you think that mathematicians in some way oppose evolution then why do ALL the worlds biologists fully accept it? Your link points to a religious website that also claims that the world is 6000 years old. Do you also believe that? If you don’t then how do you reconcile your quoted website holding the notion that they claim is scientific that the word is 1,000,000 *times* younger than it actually is? Even Noel admits that’s rubbish. One example from the drivel that is on that website will refute all the other points. “For example, the change of one amino acid out of 287 in hemoglobin causes sickle-cell anemia. A glutamic acid unit has been changed to a valine unit—and, as a result, 25% of those suffering with this anemia die.” The reason this mutation survived was because it confers immunity to Malaria. In other words the reason some people carry this mutation today is that when Malaria struck a tribe in the past those without this mutation ALL died whereas only 25% of the others did.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 25/04/2005 22:21
William, I respect your beliefs. You obviously have put a lot of thought into them. I don't agree with some of your statements, just as I don't agree with everything that I read on the net! including the website that I referred to. I certainly don't believe that the earth is only 6000 yrs old. However I must say that it is incorrect to imply that evolution is accepted as a fact by all in scientific circles. That is not acknowledging the stance that many scientists really do take. I have heard about Stanley Miller's "Genesis" experiment. It had a major flaw in that he presumed that the then atmosphere had only a small amount of free oxygen in it. Miller himself admitted that no direct evidence had been found which supported this assumption. If much free oxygen had been in the atmosphere it would have inhibited the formation of amino acids. Besides, to go from amino acids to DNA is a step that scientists have not been able to replicate, as far as I know. As is said in th e website you quoted, scientists can only "speculate". Perhaps many scientists have embraced this new faith due to their disappointment or disgust with religion.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 25/04/2005 23:02
In case you think I'm having you on.... Read the full story here ... http://www.ascribe.org/cgi-bin/behold.pl?ascribeid=20050425.121826&time=12%2046%20PDT&year=2005&public=1. This is what is called the primordial soup....
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 26/04/2005 17:35
Respecting or not peoples “beliefs” is not relevant. Evolution is how we got here or it isn’t. Oxygen CANNOT occur in an atmosphere unless it’s replenished as it is highly reactive. Even if there was oxygen in the atmosphere it would have reacted with other materials including any iron and disappeared. Therefore we can say with confidence that there was no oxygen. There is no free oxygen on any planet in the Solar System except the Earth and virtually all of Earth’s oxygen is generated by life. DNA is made from Amino Acids. To say Scientists can only speculate is nonsense. Religious people can only speculate as they can never by their own admission have any proof. Scientists gather evidence, create hypotheses, test them along with other scientists, make predictions, test those and if they all stand up for a few decades start to accept the theories within any known limits. That’s why science is so strong. It’s based on proof and not people’s opinions. I repeat again, there is NO disagreement among at least 99.99% of all biologists, many of whom specialise in the maths and statistics end of the subject, that we evolved. Have you not considered the very obvious answer, you know almost nothing and understand nothing about Evolution and that is why you doubt it? I say this with all due respect…..
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 27/04/2005 09:24
Just to put that argument that there was no “primeval soup” to bed once and for all, see http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7308 This is from New Scientist magazine. An excerpt is, “The Cassini spacecraft has flown through the upper atmosphere of Saturn's giant moon, Titan, and detected a huge number of complex organic chemicals. Scientists believe that similar processes may have built organic molecules in the atmosphere of early Earth…. It includes nitriles and scores of different hydrocarbons, some with up to seven carbon atoms. And the results suggest that Titan's upper atmosphere holds even heavier and more complex organics, which are beyond the instrument's mass range…. The INMS team were not expecting to find such a rich soup of chemicals so high up… That creates highly reactive radicals that can combine to form more complex molecules. …. Similar processes might have operated on the Earth a few hundred million years after it formed, generating the raw materials for life”. WG: Notice the extract even has the word “soup” in it. Titan is 10 times further away from the Sun and therefore gets 100 times less heat than Earth. Our home made soup was probably much thicker. I notice our JW friends have no comments on these evolution posts, maybe Noel is gone off to study the latest findings in evolution? I think it's ironic that a country, the USA, whose president thinks the world is 6,000 years old, is funding the discovery of proof of the natural origins and evolution of life.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 27/04/2005 10:00
I think it ludcrous to suggest the George W. Bush thiunks that the earth is only 6,000 years old. What brought you to this conclusion? Have you any proof of it?
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 27/04/2005 13:18
What! The next thing you'll be telling me is he believes in Evolution. Bush is a fundamentalist born again Christian and believes in the literal interpretation of the Bible. He believes he is “on God’s mission”. Most of Bush’s closest advisers are also born again and those that he seeks “spiritual” advice from also believe in the Young Earth nonsense. As far as I know Bush has never said one way or the other. Public statements by politicians and religious leaders are rarely as extreme as what they believe in and say in private. Bush has actually said that atheists should not be citizens of the US. From other comments he makes I doubt he even knows how old Scientists claim the planet is. I would imagine his knowledge of Science is miniscule. Bush is also trying to fill the US Supreme Court with born again Christians who hold his fundamentalist views. His supporters and many in the Republican Party also want ID thought in school’s Science classes alongside Evolution. Ian Paisley, the leader of the largest party in NI, also believes in a Young Earth btw. His family opposed the building of an interpretative centre on Lough Neagh because it was to say that the lake formed 20,000 years ago after the last ice age. Tony Blair, another born again Christian, has encouraged the growth of schools in the UK run by fundamentalists that teach children that the Earth is 6000 years old and Evolution is a lie. Interesting that himself and his wife and associated hangers on believe in a lot of new age rubbish as well. There is quite a bit of evidence that Bush’s policy on going to The Moon and Mars will be at the expense of real science, science that will one day provide further proof of Evolution. This Bush inspired change in course for NASA means that NASA is now becoming an engineering project rather than a scientific research organisation. Bush undoubtedly believes that the world, all its major structures, chemicals, all species and life was created by God complete and does not hold the opinion that it coalesced naturally from a gas cloud along with the Sun. Bush does not believe that the elements & chemicals that make up the Earth were created naturally in previous stars. Whether he exactly believes that God did this in 7 days 6000 years ago, 1,000,000 or that “big figure which he can’t remember” is not the most important point. Is the belief that Evolution is wrong and that all the world’s biologists are wrong any less ludicrous than that the world is 6,000 years old?
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 27/04/2005 14:22
William, I don't know where you're getting this information from. Tony Blair is a member of the Church of England, but frequently attends his wife’s Roman Catholic church, which it is rumored he will join after he steps down from office.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 27/04/2005 15:06
Blair appears to subscribe to Creationism. He has \"personally\" supported the setting up of a chain of Creationist schools un the UK. Schools where, when interviewed, the pupils have said that the world is only 6000 years old He has refused in the UK parliament to answer whether or not he subscribes to Creationist philosophy. He apparently \"found Jesus\" while at Oxford. He has prayed with Bush in private in the US. He also subscribes to a lot of what his wife believes in. He is obviously irrational.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 28/04/2005 10:17
Gentlemen, we have become somewhat side tracked from the issue at hand, and that is Jehovah’s Witnesses and Blood Transfusions. While your debate on evolutionism is very interesting it will go over the majority of the ordinary JWs heads as they are neither academic nor scientific minded. Our goal should be to high light the wrongs that has been perpetrated against these ordinary people by this organisation and to save Children’s lives who have no choice to accept or not accept blood transfusion or blood bi products as these decisions are being made by their parents who in my experience are being coerced and pressurised by their leaders.Qwerty
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 28/04/2005 11:36
Sorry but I disagree. Noel will never be swayed by bible related arguments. He probably has it memorised. He has admitted that if Evolution is true then he will stop being a JW AND stop converting those people you refer to. That will then save lives as well as stopping the awful brainwashing of inocent children. A form of child abuse in my opinion. Therefore I think that I should try and get Noel, who I beleive is an honest individual, to admit that he is wrong and that we evolved. I think that it will be very difficult to get him to believe in Evolution but all he has to do is start reading up on it and of course answering my questions.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 28/04/2005 18:50
"To say Scientists can only speculate is nonsense" sais WG. Yet one of the websites (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=cooper.section.90) that WG referred me too contains the statement: "How life originated and how the first cell came into being are matters of speculation, since these events cannot be reproduced in the laboratory"
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 28/04/2005 22:19
William, you favour the scientific approach. Scientists gather evidence. Please provide evidence that supports your statement that "99.99% of bioligists do not disagree that we evolved". The following is a quote from The National Geographic: "In a 1997 survey in the science journal Nature, 40 percent of U.S. scientists said they believe in God—not just a creator, but a God to whom one can pray in expectation of an answer. That is the same percentage of scientists who were believers when the survey was taken 80 years earlier. But the number may have been higher if the question had simply asked about God's existence." -http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1018_041018_science_religion.html The results of this survey contradict your statement.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 28/04/2005 23:23
In response to the assertion that there was "no oxygen". The many mineral forms of ferrous and ferric iron in Archean and lower Proterozoic rocks are most suggestive of oxygen-rich conditions. Sulfate in the oldest rocks indicates oxygen in the water. Weathered crusts on ancient rocks appear to require oxygen in both air and water. To the question, "Did the early earth have a reducing atmosphere?", we can say that reducing evidence has not been documented in the rocks.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 29/04/2005 14:14
To Anon 28/4. The word “only” is the key word here. I didn’t say scientists cannot speculate. All theories start off with speculation. What scientists do is gather evidence/information, propose hypotheses, make predictions, test these and if they are correct move forward with confidence that they are correct. The confidence increases the more evidence, more studies, more scientists that can replicate them and the better the theories are at prediction. Darwin’s Theory of Evolution predicted the entire science of genetics. ID creates nothing but paradoxes. The quote from the NG does not contradict my statement. The survey was amongst “Scientists” and not amongst “Biologists” so is irrelevant. I already mentioned at length the point that scientists commenting outside their discipline are not more likely to be right than a well read layman. In fact a scientist commenting outside his area of speciality is a layman in that area. Furthermore, there are scientists who believe in Evolution and also believe in God. William Reville who writes for the Irish Times is an example. Your quote doesn’t differentiate between them. They have a massive paradox to explain but let them do that. Just as Noel points out, Evolution does negate the possibility of any God. The reason there is no virtually no Oxygen in the atmosphere of any planet without life is that IT DOES get absorbed into the crust. That’s actually the point I made. To have Oxygen gas in the atmosphere you need life to replenish it.
 
  the four evils(EHL27940)  Posted: 29/04/2005 14:25
What are the four Evils? Religion, Fascism, Tyranny, Ignorance. Kudos on embracing all four, people! I'd like to point out that none of us have really been witness to the afterlife or what have you...anyone who takes a life may be very well depriving the poor soul of any shot at happiness, because, the truth is, no matter if you believe this or not, none of us has been to any Kingdom of God, so how can we be fools and take lives in any manner. This includes not saving someone in this realm, too. You don't really know if there is more fruit to be had after this Earthly life is over. To rob someone of their chance to live simply on a belief which has no real grounds for undoubted faith is cruel. Thus, a mockery of what you believe in the first place: to be called to an existence of happiness. If you deny a person life in this type of situation, you may very well be denying them their only chance to exist happily, because you just don't know. Have you really been witness to everlasting peace, or is it just a dream like any other unobservable belief?
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 02/05/2005 22:02
Here is an article that I was fortunate enough to find, it explains in “lay man” terms the exact position on the Blood issue that affects current and practising JWs...... Over the years, it’s been fascinating to examine the Watchtower’s changing teachings on blood transfusions. In the book, You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth, it says that, "abstaining from blood means not taking it into your body at all" (p.216). But this statement is much different from current Watchtower criteria. Although, at one time, the Watchtower used to prohibit the transfusion of every blood component, they have gradually permitted virtually all of them; First globulin, then the clotting factors, plasma proteins and finally hemoglobin in June of 2000.* As you may know, the Watchtower Society still insists that Jehovah’s Witnesses “abstain from blood” and, nevertheless, still prohibit whole blood and 4 primary blood components namely, red cells, white cells, platelets and plasma. But here is the key: they allow everything inside of these 4 primary components to be used. According to The Watchtower, June 15, 2000, “Questions From Readers”, essentially every component or fraction derived from whole blood and its "primary components" are allowed in medical treatment. So, technically, the Watchtower permits 100% of the blood in fractionated form. Even more recently, the Watchtower has notified their overseers worldwide that there will be no more disfellowshipping (excommunicating)of Jehovah's Witnesses who conscientiously accept a blood transfusion. Leaders have now decided that a Witness who accepts forbidden blood therapy in medical treatment will automatically be regarded as having disassociated themselves.(these people are treated just like excommunicated JWs) This procedural change is expected to place the Watchtower Society and their congregation leaders in less danger for potential lawsuits. Considering the changing and more lenient standards of the Watchtower’s blood policy, one must wonder if the Society is gradually preparing for “new light” when the strict ban on blood transfusions will be done away with, making the procedure the conscientious decision of individual Witnesses. This would be nothing new. For example, throughout the 30s and 40s, the Watchtower denounced vaccinations as a procedure that was medically harmful and morally wrong. The organization even stated that, “Vaccination is a direct violation of the everlasting covenant that God made with Noah after the flood” - The Golden Age, Feb. 4, 1931. However, the ban was dropped in the early 50s, and today the Society even recommends the procedure. In a similar vein, between 1967 and 1980, the Watchtower taught Jehovah’s Witnesses to refuse organ transplants, calling the procedure cannibalism. For 13 years, loyal Witnesses chose blindness rather than a cornea transplant and to die rather than submit to a kidney transplant. In 1980, the Watchtower Society made transplants an optional “matter for personal decision”, and later even applauded the procedure as one that has helped people. Considering the organization’s track record on vaccinations and organ transplants, should a Jehovah’s Witness stake his life, or his child’s, on the reliability of the leaders' interpretations prohibiting blood transfusions? Or, is the Society’s blood policy just another man-made medical doctrine destined for failure and reinterpretation? We hope that all Jehovah’s Witnesses will consider the facts before making an irreversible and life-threatening decision based on someone else’s imposed and unreliable standard Qwerty.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 03/05/2005 10:10
I am reading Dawkins latest book on Evolution, “The Ancestor’s Tale”, and realised that there is another major proof of Evolution that is rarely mentioned. A good proof of any theory is proof that supports it that crosses over from another theory or better still from another scientific discipline. The Geology of Plate Tectonics is a completely separate science from Biology. Plate Tectonics concerns itself with the movement of enormous floating sections of Earth’s continents. Over the last 150 or so million years the one huge landmass that was all Earth’s land and was called Pangaea has separated into today’s existing continents and islands. The southern bit, called Gonwandaland split into Madagascar, Africa, South America, Antarctica and Australia. The Northern bit into North America, Europe, China etc. The movements of all these continents is now well understood. These ongoing movements incidentally were the cause of the recent Tsunami in Indonesia. The dates that the different sections split from each other is well known in Geology. The astonishing thing is that the study of fossils and the molecular analysis of living things today clearly also shows that different major species sub sets split from each other along the same timescales and places on that long gone super continent. For example, when Madagascar split from Africa its species continued to evolve but separate from the rest of Africa, ditto North America and Australia. Another example is that’s why Australia has mostly Marsupial Mammals and Africa Placental Mammals. There is a wealth of proof in the study of the separation and separate evolution of species that ties in exactly with Tectonic drift. Explain that Noel.(Qwerty, no one doubts that the JW leadership has changed its mind.)
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 03/05/2005 11:19
It\'s not just JW\'s that change the mind of god. An article in today\'s Irish Times says, \"Official Catholic teaching always has given the impression that the pope and bishops will not and cannot change moral teachings because these teachings are based on God\'s law. Certainly Pope Benedict XVI will insist upon the same approach. But it doesn\'t have to be that way. History shows that the Catholic Church has changed its moral teachings over the years on a number of issues (without admitting its previous position had been wrong). A very sorry page in Catholic history, for example, is the fact that for over 1,800 years the popes and the church did not condemn slavery. And until the 17th century, popes, in the strongest terms, condemned loans with interest as violating God\'s law.\"
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 03/05/2005 13:22
William while, "no one doubts that the JW leadership has changed its mind" as you say. This is true for the majority of rational thinking people but the JWs are not being rational as they are brainwashed to the extent that if the Watchtower organisation told its members that "black is white" they would believe it. While this example of blind loyalty may be extreme it is in fact a reality as can be seen from their past history. The reason for my repetition is to try and make it sink in with Noel and any other JW that may be following these tracks. I can tell you from experience that to accept that they are wrong and that they have been duped will not be easy and particularly for those JWs that gave up their “worldly” family and friends. Qwerty
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 05/05/2005 14:57
This has been a very one sided argument for quite a while now. Have jehovah witnesses following this tract given up? It would be really interesting to hear more from yee, as although i have been following this tract with quite an open mind, there has been a lack of participation from jehovah witnesses which makes me doubt that you really know what you are talking about, and cannot make a strong enough argument to back up your case. so if you do have anything to say, please say it, as many i'm sure are interested!
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 09/05/2005 10:43
In response to Anonymous Post 05/05/2005 14:57 this would be typical of all Jehovah’s Witness’s. Their lack of participation is so obvious that it is shameful particularly on behalf of Jehovah’s Witness elders who are and have participated in these posts. It reminds me of the time I started to question the Watchtower and I was encouraged “to wait on Jehovah” as all would be revealed in time. This response is typical when the leadership CANNOT give a credible answer to a serious question or you will be assaulted with the waffle that has been offered up to us in previous posts by Noel May, as this is their tactic called “theocratic warfare”. The vast majority of JWs who are following these posts will bury their heads in the sand and hope we will go away (or delete this page from their computers or minds) and will be told that this site is an attack by Satan and we are Apostates.Qwerty
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 09/05/2005 15:12
what i really cant understand though, is that this tract is a chance for jehovah witnesses to argue their case, and possibly even open the eyes of non-believers, or those struggling to believe like myself. While they themselves are very aware of the watchtowers reasons for their position on blood tranfusions(and if they are not, they should be), others are not, and this is a great chance to make this clear. This lack of participation on their behalf makes me question their reasons for such beliefs, because if they do have established reasons for their faith, then it should not take a great effort to participate in this discussion.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 09/05/2005 15:58
It would not surprise me to much that an announcement of some sort has been made in the Kingdom Halls about the dangers of participation in internet forums and how they (JWs) should "keep seperate" from the world.Qwerty
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 09/05/2005 18:41
It's not just JW's that are warned to keep away from “Atheists”. When I was in school the Christian Brothers used to warn us about hanging around with "milk & water Catholics", especially if we ever went to live in England. There is a discussion possible here when you begin to realise that many people CANNOT think logically or objectively. Most religious people fall into this category. If have read articles by religious scientists where they make statements about god that are in total contradiction with every other principal they hold dear. When your brain develops in childhood and in your teenage years the physical connections between neurons in your brain grow at an amazing rate. This laying down of information and thinking routines is literally physical. The brain of someone brainwashed into believing in god is almost then *physically* incapable of reconsidering their position. If on the other hand you are of a scientific frame of mind then all you ever need to change your mind is evidence, scientific study, theories and proof. Anyone with even a reasonable level of intelligence who is well read on Evolution and denies it is obviously bordering on brain damaged. Even contradicting the work of *all* the world’s biologists is to create a state of denial that defines logic. I have asked this question before without answer, “why are all the engineers, physicists, chemical researchers, mathematicians etc right but the people who take up the study of biology all wrong?”
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 09/05/2005 22:14
http://www.watchtower.org/library/hb/article_01.htm. - Jehovah's Witnesses state their case here.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 09/05/2005 22:18
also, see the points posted: 27/11/2003 11:31
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 09/05/2005 22:19
Williams question and comment to me, ”Is Noel seriously suggesting that a God would have to use “..well proven methods and logic circuits”? A God who can create a universe has to use previously proven sub routines because otherwise he would make a mistake? Noel, of all the points you have made this must be that most daft.” I am not suggesting anything about what God would have to do but logic to me would indicate that the Creator would use uniform design and this is what we see in creation, God could have if particle in his wisdom use any method to make living things, but chose to use an orderly approach to it. This approach demonstrates to any who cares to look at living organisms incredible design and beauty. Thus giving glory to the designer, who of us would look at (for example) a mobile phone and conclude that it had no designer that is was all an accident, I doubt even William would. Anon of 18/4/05 asked “Noel, are you now implying that illnesses and "afflictions" result in not living under God's rule? “. In the sense that God warned of the consequences of rejecting his guidance Yes!. Much them same way that a parent may warn a young child of the danger of not obeying their rules to keep away from a fire place and the consequences of rejecting the parents warning. William asked “Why do most Christians pray to God for help if he is not running the earth?” Well most ignore what Jesus said was the important things to pray for, he summed those things up in the “Our Father’s prayer” most will recall it and so can see Jesus was not asking us to pray for miraculous intervention but for moral strength and for us to show respect to God his father. Qwerty keeps ranting on about how deluded we are and that we would believe black was white etc., what absolute nonsense. We have changed our views on some matters over the past hundred years, we have done so after much study and discussion and increased knowledge. Take for example the point raised about blood fractions, yes at one time we globally felt that this was included in the scriptural prohibition to “abstain from blood”, we now feel that it is a matter of individual conscience whether to partake of such fractions. Two separate things contributed to this developed stand. One area of study showed from the scriptures that when man was given permission after the Flood to eat meat by God he was told to let “the life blood pour out on to the ground” that we were not to eat the blood of the animal. Studies showed that this did not mean beating every last ounce of blood out of a corpse but to let the “life blood” flow out. Over a similar period of time medical technology was breaking out more and more minor fractions as by products of blood to use in medicine. Recognising this development the conclusion we came to was that it was no more correct to demand that we squeeze out every last drop of blood in an animal then it was to completely reject medical advances as regards minor blood fractions and so it was decided to leave the decision up to the individuals conscience to avail of this or not. This I believe is a mature reasonable approach to dealing with all technological advances, that’s is if the debate goes into a “grey area” where the absolutes are getting blurred then it is right and proper to leave it to the conscience of the individual to decide. We would take the same view for example on contraception. William mentioned in his comments on cell development how the evolutionary concept of survival of the fittest prevailed, well it reminded me of a TV documentary on Hitler this past week, on how his deeply held view that survival of the fittest was paramount in guiding his decisions to eliminate his enemy’s. Look what evil resulted in pursuing that concept. I thank God that’s not true!.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 10/05/2005 11:08
Noel, there are many comments I could make about your last post but I am being specific and trying to get you to think about the many paradoxes anti-Evolution throws up. You said, “…but (God) chose to use an orderly approach to it”. This is totally contradicted by research over the last decade into DNA & genes. It is far far from orderly. All creatures share DNA strands. How much they share is directly related to the time since they parted company from one another in evolutionary terms. As I asked you to explain before, this branching is also related to the movement of the Earth's continents over the last 150 million years. What possible purpose has god in creating life with genes that show how they evolved in keeping with their forced separation and separate evolution when the continents split away from one another? Q2. Why is 90% of a creature’s genome junk DNA that does nothing EXCEPT provide a future mechanism for Evolution and was caused by random mutation? [A gene can get copied by accident and sit there as a piece of non acting DNA or junk DNA. Then other mutations in it eventually may cause it to do something useful so it becomes part of the family of coding DNA. The reason there is so much junk is that useful mutations rarely happen, so therefore lots of junk.] So we know why the genome is as it is from an evolutionary pov, but where is the orderly nature in god creating genomes that can be described as a total mess from a design pov. To put it another way, as we investigate DNA we discover evidence of random mutation and NO DESIGN whatsoever. To say we got here by ID is totally contradicted by current research in Genetics. This research could be described as Chemistry & even Maths and not even Biology. The mobile phone analogy is accepted by all philosophers and scientists as nonsense. Who designed the beautiful rings of Saturn? You are not answering my difficult questions Noel. Linking science with Hitler is deeply offensive so please skip it. Hitler and Nazism have far more in common with blind religious fanaticism than Science as was brilliantly put by Jacob Bronowski in his documentary “The Ascent of Man”.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 10/05/2005 12:30
Qwerty keeps ranting on about how deluded we are and that we would believe black was white etc., what absolute nonsense. We have CHANGED our views on SOME MATTERS over the past hundred years, we have done so after MUCH study and discussion and INCREASED KNOWLEDGE. Take for example the point raised about blood fractions, yes at one time we GLOBALLY FELT that this was included in the SCRIPTURAL PROHIBITION to “abstain from blood”, WE NOW FEEL that it is a matter of individual conscience whether to partake of such fractions. Noel posts the above on 09/05/2005 22:19 (capitals added for emphasis). Lets analyse what Noel is suggesting what they did. We have “changed” our views on some “matters” now while the ordinary Jehovah’s Witnesses were waiting for these “changes” they went about selling up their homes and possessions and they sacrificed parenthood all because the Watchtower society had “scriptural” insight that the world was going to end in 1874 ooops 1914 ooops 1915 ooops 1918 ooops 1925 ooops 1975 and People went Blind and people Died and this was because the Watchtower had “increased knowledge”. Do not be fooled by Noels devious “theocratic warfare” responses to my posts Noel tells us not to take scripture out of context but its ok for the Jehovah’s Witnesses to quote out of context take for example the scripture they use to administer their prohibition on Blood Leviticus 17:14. For the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood by the soul in it. Consequently I said to the sons of Israel: “You must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh, because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off. But if we continue to read the following verses we see that the actual punishment for any one who eats blood is that they are only viewed to be unclean and they must go and wash and be unclean till the evening. Here’s these verses., 15 As for any soul that eats a body [already] dead or something torn by a wild beast, whether a native or an alien resident, he must in that case wash his garments and bathe in water and be unclean until the evening; and he must be clean. 16 But if he will not wash them and will not bathe his flesh, he must then answer for his error.’” This is totally different today for if you take Blood you will be Disfellowshiped and will be shunned and ostracised as you will be viewed as good as dead actually worse as you will be viewed Apostate. Noel carries on as a matter of factly “take for example the point raised about blood fractions” as if he was deciding what colour shirt to wear, ignoring the fact that CHILDREN have DIED and WILL continue to DIE all because “we globally felt” that this was included in the SCRIPTURAL PROHIBITION to abstain from blood. I would like to know who is “we” that has the power to allow CHILDREN to DIE Noel? Grey areas, decided, it was no more correct, leave the decision, absolutes are getting blurred, minor blood fractions, Noels words, all language that a Jehovah’s Witness elder and an experienced JW spokesman would use to disguise and colour their false prophesies and interpretations of recent years. It is evident that Noel May has not been faced with the blood issue personally, by his responses. Is there a law for Noel May regarding your children who left the organisation on how you should view them and how your two remaining children should treat those who have left I have asked this question in an earlier post and just like many of my previous questions they have been ignored? Now all I say is let the readers of these posts decide what is Black and what is White.Qwerty
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 10/05/2005 19:58
To Anonymous 09/05/2005 22:14 and 22:18 there is nothing on the Watchtower.org website that you posted and the post that you refer too, William and myself have dealt with, so what is your point? Qwerty
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 10/05/2005 23:37
William, please provide convincing support for these statements that you have made: (1)"Even contradicting the work of *all* the world’s biologists is to create a state of denial that defies logic." (2)"The mobile phone analogy is accepted by all philosophers and scientists as nonsense." (3)"99.99% of bioligists do not disagree that we evolved" If you cannot, I will take that to mean that you are prone to emotional and dogmatic staements, that do not rely on logic at all.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 11/05/2005 10:59
William, my last post (10/05/05 23:37) was harsh, sorry...it would have sufficed to say that if you use what appear to be inaccurate statements, then your argument is weakened.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 11/05/2005 13:22
(1) Would you agree that someone contradicting all the engineers that build planes by saying that planes can’t fly, would be “in a state of denial?” (2) This is known as the “Blind Watchmaker” philosophical argument and has been refuted even by philosophers for decades. Read Dawkins book with the same name. Furthermore the argument that something beautiful and awe inspiring must be designed is obviously daft. I keep asking who designed Saturn’s magnificent and beautiful rings? These amazing constructs are only a few million years old so even the JW’s are unlikely to claim god made them. They arise as a complex system from the application of the most basic 2 laws of nature, gravity and electromagnetism. They are clearly not designed but are beautiful AND awe inspiring. (btw Why we find them beautiful is to do with the way the human brain evolved, but that’s for another day.) Evolution itself is clear and unambiguous proof that complex creatures can evolve rather than be designed. (3) It is accepted that no known qualified research biologist at university level disagrees that Evolution is how all the species on Earth got here. There are hundreds of thousands of them, please send me a list of those that disagree and I will recalculate my figure to a higher degree of 9’s. There is no other scientific theory. Evolution IS accepted as a fact by everyone except those who have decided that god made the species. In other words there is no disagreement in science on the issue at all, at all, as we say in Ireland.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 12/05/2005 22:07
is Michael Behe a research biologist qualified to degree level? He is a professor of biology who doesn't support evolution. There IS a lot of disagreement in science... William Dembski etc.Of corse I agree that it would be a state of denial to contradict engineer's and state that planes can't fly. However evolutionists cannot be compared to engineer's in this case, because engineers have actually made planes that fly!! Evolutionists have only got the flawed Miller experiment.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 18/05/2005 09:55
Is'nt it amazing when a Jehovahs Witness knocks on your door and you show them some interest that it is near impossible to get rid of them, well heres an opportunity that is second to none to "spread the good news" and all the JWs that participated in this track have disappeared I wonder why?Qwerty
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 18/05/2005 21:05
While there is disagreement in all branches of science, there is no disagreement that we evolved. I agree that my initial quick look at Michael Behe, indicates that he is a Prof of Biochemistry and seems to believe in micro-evolution but not macro-evolution. I have read some reviews of what he has written and they indicate that he refuses to acknowledge the flaws in his argument. He is a staunch Catholic and it is obvious reading about him that this blocks his ability to analyse his position properly. OK, I’ll give you ONE, biologist that doesn’t believe in Evolution. Any more? Can you elaborate on why you think planes fly? It seems that all the physics related to flying mean nothing to you because you only seem to believe planes fly on the basis that they have been built and that you have seen them fly. This would indicate that you cannot accept anything that is not engineered and that you have seen with your own eyes. Do you believe Black Holes exist?
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 22/05/2005 23:59
Michael Behe's favourite example of why evolution could not produce life as "it's too complex to have evolved" is demolished here http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html and by a scientist that claims to believe in God! I am still waiting on Noel to get back to me on some questions on design v evolution. Noel claims to "have studied evolution" so should be able to answer my questions. Science is very close to mathematically proving evolution and when it does I trust Noel will stick to his promise and stop believing in God, but I doubt it. He will as he has down in the past attempt to re-write history.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 23/05/2005 14:21
Noel May accuses me of “ranting” I hope so, as the “Concise Oxford Dictionary” explains it as follows…Rant. Speak or shout at length, in a wild and impassioned way… (As the prophet Ezekiel did) And this is why as a Christian and a lover of Jehovah and the Truth, I must continue to “rant” and speak out against wrongdoing and deception especially where the lives and health of children are at risk. Noel should look at some of his posts and particularly his last post for it is so contradictory of his own organisation for in one instance they teach its adherents to “abstain” from blood and here we can plainly see that they are saying you can take blood as long as it is “fractionated”, confusing is it not? What about those people who have been disfellowshiped in the past Noel for using their conscience have they been reinstated and apologised to?Qwerty
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 27/05/2005 20:19
As a Jehovah's Witness who has participated many times in this track, I have not disappeared (as Qwerty keeps on about, yes I would say ranting about) but I see no point in going over the same ground again and again. I started out contributing to this track to explain why we believe as we do about Blood transfusions, and answer questions on it to the best of my ability. I think the expressions of some who disagree with our belief is fair enough, but based on partial knowledge and in some cases out right false information, but we each make our own minds up on the evidance we see and the experiences we have gained in life. I did not set out to try to persuade anyone to accept our beliefs, only to explain what they are and why I personally am convinced of the correctness and benifit of them.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 30/05/2005 22:30
I would like to know what other religions, that accept the Bible as inspired, make of Acts 15:29.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 31/05/2005 01:04
Noel you have not explained any thing that is remotely logical as to why Jehovah’s Witness’s “abstain” from blood as it is quite clear to anyone that has any rational thought that the Watchtowers logic is based on man made reasoning’s and nothing more. In my opinion. the Watchtower is trapped in its own quagmire and is in fear of the imminent litigations that will surely follow if it finally changes its teachings on blood, just as it did on organ transplants and vaccines. I have answered all your attempts to explain your beliefs on how you see the blood issue, and I have proven that Jehovah’s Witness’s DO NOT “abstain” from blood at all. To the many other questions that I have asked, you have either ignored or side stepped them. All of my answers have been provided with full knowledge and with information only from Watchtower publications and no other source. So how can you say that this information is “false” if it emanated from the Watchtower society? Now Noel how can you say that you are personally convinced that the Watchtower is right about blood when history has proven that the Watchtower have been WRONG about so many important things in the past. How can something be Truth one day, and the same thing not be True the next day? Qwerty.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 31/05/2005 10:18
Noel, have you given up debating Evolution? if so why? I asked some simple questions and asked you to explain why tehre is junk DNA for example. No reply. Why does an organism's the DNA clearly show its evolutionary history? Is God trying to fool us?
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 31/05/2005 11:48
William Noel may not have disappeared just yet, but the JWs who participated in this forum certainly have. Noel, why do JWs call to peoples homes, surely it is to convince them that your beliefs are the only TRUE way (i.e. Only Jehovah’s Witnesses will be saved) so what other reason did you participate in this forum other than to convince the readers that JWs are right and particularly that JWs are right on the blood issue. Perhaps when and I sincerely hope not that you are personally faced with the Blood issue you may see sense. Qwerty
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 31/05/2005 13:43
I think that Noel has explained his case quite clearly, Jehovah witnesses do abstain from blood, because thats what is clearly stated in the bible, and they believe that the bible is inspired by god. however daft this may seem to some of you following this tract, what you think as (for example evolution) as logical, may seem completely daft to Jehovah Witnesses. But that is not the issue here, the issue is whether parents have the right to refuse their children blood tranfusions. I recently watched a documentary on non-blood substitutes for blood tranfusions. Basically these alternatives carry less risks than blood tranfusions and are in most cases safer, as many experts in the field have claimed. Luckily, these treatments have become more widespread throughout the world, in the past number of years. Have a look at http://www.pharmj.com/Hospital/Editorial/200005/features/blood_alternatives.html for some of these alternatives. So Jehovah witnesses are not refusing treatment for their children, they are merely choosing medical alternatives. Parents have the right to choose medical treatment for their children, sure, they do not "own" their children, but they are responsible for them. Parents choose where to send their children to school, and yes they choose what religous practices and principles to teach their children(which some of you have referred to as brainwashing). But if parents were not resposible for the good of their children, whom they love and want the best for, then who would, and simply put, who would look after them with such love and care. Jehovah Witnesses are not out to hurt their children, they want what is best for them, and with so many medical advancements today that allow jehovah witnesses to make that choice, I dont see what all the worry is about. I think that alot of people in this tract have no tolerance for religious beliefs whatsoever, and although in some cases are obviously extremely educated, they are closeminded and ignorant to peoples right to religious beleifs.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 31/05/2005 15:56
Anon, JW's do NOT abstain from bood. They take blood fractions (like the logic of abstain from whole oranges but eating a lot of segments instead). Not is it clarly stated in the bible, if it were - other Chistian sects would inyterpret it the same wa y the JW's did for yuears, until thr WatchTower, apparently told them they were allowed to change their minds.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 31/05/2005 20:46
To Anon 31/05/2005 13:43 I think that you are missing the point here altogether please read the earlier posts that deals with the TRUE FACTS that Jehovah’s Witness’s “abstain” from blood, as it is quite clear that they don’t “abstain”. You are right to a certain degree, but lets leave blood out of the equation for the moment the issue here is do the parents of children have the right to deny their children anything that is beneficial for their children’s upbringing I think that all rational parents would want all what is good for their children and in particular they want their offspring to live fruitful and healthy lives so the answer has to be NO the parents should not be allowed and will not be permitted by governments to abuse their children in any manner including refusing them blood transfusions. While I can agree with you that blood alternatives can be less risky this is not always practical as in the case of emergencies. Fractionated blood products derived from whole blood and the acceptance of them is not “abstinence” full stop. Here is an extract from the article that of the web site you pasted “The 1998/99 SHOT report shows that although the risk associated with blood transfusion is now less than it has been at any time in the history of blood transfusion, some real risks still remain, particularly of immunological complications and, to a lesser extent, transfusion transmitted infections (TTIs). A number of steps in the collection and processing of blood for transfusion are designed to reduce these risks as much as possible.” The benefit of accepting this treatment is far greater than non-acceptance and particularly on the interpretations of a few scriptures that have been taken out of context. The risk associated with blood has never been less risky in history. On your thoughts of some peoples tolerance of other peoples beliefs the world would not be the same place it is today if the world had tolerated Hitler and his Nazism so why should honest people tolerate what is dishonest? Or why should we tolerate religions that have hurt people and continue to hurt people including their family members just be cause they see things differently? Qwerty
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 31/05/2005 22:20
Let’s just take this phrase, “..they are closeminded and ignorant to peoples right to religious beleifs.” Do you think your children have a right to their own religious beliefs or none? Do you think that parents have a right to inculcate their intellectually defenceless small helpless children with their own beliefs? If you accept that the vast majority of children throughout the world, and as adults, have the same religious beliefs as their parents do you not accept that de facto that the parents have forced their children to “have” their beliefs? How do you reconcile this with the phrase of yours above I quoted? Are children “people” in your phrase? Have they the same rights? I believe that children have the fundamental human right NOT to be brainwashed into believing in the silly superstitions of their parents, do you?
 
  Gordon(VIN29308)  Posted: 02/06/2005 13:02
I have been one of Jehovah\'s Witnesses for 36 years. During that time I have had some interesting experiences in regard to hospitals, use of blood, and Doctors making comments to the effect that death would result if blood tranfusions were not accepted. I would like to share some of them with you. Some time back, my business partner had their first son. He was terribly ill at birth, Doctors insisted that they transfuse blood, otherwise the lad would die. My partner and his wife opposed this cause and took the baby from the hospital. Another doctor diagnosed the problem as a blocked bowel! Once this was sorted he rapidly picked up health. To this day I can not see how a blood tranfusion would have helped. A friend of the family had a daughter who, although brought up as one of Jehovah\'s Witnesses, did not become one. For some time she worked as a Sister in an operating ward. On this particular occasion she had nursed an older patient who was to leave the hospital the following day. It was decided that they would give him some blood just to perk him up.. He did leave hospital the next day, but in a box. The direct result of a blood transfusion. This was the turning point in the young woman\'s life who studied to eventually become one of Jehovh\'s Witnesses. A young family that were close friends of our family were having her first baby. At birth serous blood lose occurred, and the Doctors made it clear that if she did not have a blood transfusion she would die. She refused. The woman in the next bed had a blood transfusion. Guess which one died? Several years later she again had another baby, and bleed. Her blood count went down to 1.6 yes you are reading that correct! 1.6. Again Doctors told the family to go and say good bye, because she was going to die. When we were approached by a nurse who had just come on duty and who was trying to convince us that a blood tranfusion was necessary because the blood count was 1.8 we all cheered. (It would appear that the nurse did not realise that the count had gone up.) Needless to say she survived. Try to convince this person that she should ever take blood for her self or her children! Doing the door to door preaching I called on a householder who was know to be abusive to Jehovah\'s Witnesses. The first thing that the woman sais was \'You people do not take blood\' I said that she was right, and then she said that she wished she had not taken blood as she developed an infection from the blood and ended up losing an arm. I have always founfd the Blood issue to be extremley emotive. One thing that Doctors can not say is that a person will live if they have a transfusion or they will die if they do not have one. Therefore why should anyone step in and force blood on a child? I have known accounts where this has taken place and the child has been given back to the family dead! The authorities do not accept any responsibility for this. If a child is involved in an issue of custody it makes the headlines. If some one dies as a direct result of blood this seldom gets a mention. A person working in the blood bank, accidently pricked her figer with a needle and died through contracting a virus, this was recorded in the news paper the size of a death notice. How different it would have been if a person who had refused blood and this was given as the reason for death! I do need to point out that no matter how much blood a person is given, in an attempt to save someones life, they may have other damages that in fact cause death. When a person refuses blood, but accepts other forms of blood substitutes, these same life threatening problems can cause death. Unfortunatley the focus is always on the refusal of blood. As one of Jehovah\'s Witnesses I accept what the Bible says, that life is in the blood. Jehovah, as the life giver has the right to say how blood should or should not be used. We respect that. So our stand is first and formost a Biblical one. If for some reason I stopped being one of Jehovah\'s Witnesses, I would still refuse blood for myself and any children I had, this based on my first hand experince, that I am better off with out it. Something that a lot of other people are becoming to realize. One last comment. Some years back I had to take my 6 year old daughter to the Doctors, she had been badly bitten by a dog. At the Doctors, he asked what she got for Christmas (It just happened to be Christmas day!) \'We are Jehovah\'s Witnesses and we don\'t celebrate Christmas\' We then had a discussion as to why we did not practice this pagan belief. (Yes we used too, but have moved on) I then asked him how he felt about the blood issue. He said that he would refuse blood for himself and his children. JUst one final point, no one has ever told me I cannot have a blood transfusion, and I, in the cause of helping people to understand the Bible have never told them that they cannot have one. However I have had Jehovahs law shown to me, and I have likewise shown the people that I have taught, from there we make up our own minds as to whether we will accept Gods law or not. Gordon
 
  Gordon(VIN29308)  Posted: 02/06/2005 13:15
William, I don't quite see how String Theory disprovesthe existance of God. Do you accept a first cause. I would be interested to here your comments on this. Also have just been checking a few web sites on proof of evolution, and find that even the staunch advocate cannot explain that in the sediments of Cambrian age, fossels 'suddenly' become common for the first time. I recall that on reading Darwin that he commented to the effect that he could give no satisfactory answer as to why there were no fossels that were able to be linked or found prior to the Cambrian system. Thought that I should quote directly from the book 'Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great, and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.' page 164 165 The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin abridged and introduced by Riuchard Leakey.No doubt William can advance the fossil cause! William, do you believe that man ! is the highest form of intelligence in the Universe? If yes, we have all got to be very worried, if no, who, where, what? I admire the conviction that you have that all forms of life on the earth just happened, and all developed at the same time, and as life forms developed that vegetation also developed to sustain the life that just happened by chance. Your argument about the aeroplane is lost on me. Of cause we accept flight. We don't accept, as I am sure you don't, that a plane can never produce itself, but you want us to believe or accept that the far more complex birdlife, that is capable of reproducing itself just happened, to come about through blind chance! You say you admire Newton. Were you aware that he said that the thumb alone would convince him of a Creator? William, some people will believe anything. I recently had a discussion with a University professorwho argued at lenght that a cow really could jump over the moon! (Pigs might fly!!!) But we are still waiting for the fossel record to provide the evidence that shows the tr! ansition from one life form to another. This will never be found for it did not happen. Rather the evidence shows that Jehovah formed life and kept the species apart. DNA keeps species apart. William, I would be very careful what you say about the so called 'junk DNA' as man researches this more he may just come to find how important this 'junk' is. Your continual comments that people who believe the Bible have been 'brainwashed' is absurd. If you were to study the Bible with Jehovah's Witnesses and then when all your questions had been answered to your satisfaction, you decided to become one. Would that mean that you had been brainwashed? That is the path that every one of Jehovah's Witnesses has taken. We are all Jehovah's Witnesses by choice. Look forward to your comments. Gordon
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 02/06/2005 15:34
Gordon if your theories about blood are true how come the WT org now allows JW's to take blood fractions which are up to 98% of whole blood. Surely these would cause the same type of problems your scare stories outline, as whole blood. Incidentally, there are far moe instancesof those dying from lck of transfusion than an 'instant death' from gettigna transfusion.
 
  Gordon(VIN29308)  Posted: 02/06/2005 18:05
Anon 15.34 News to me Anon. Lets get this sorted. WT org. does not decide for anyone when it comes to the blood issue. This is a choice we make as Jehovah's Witnesses. Scare stories? These are my own experiences wth the Blood issue, I would feel that the scare stories come from the misinformed medical fraternity who continure to say you will die if you don't have a blood tranfusion. Perhaps you can provide figures on deaths as a direct result of not accepting a blood transfusion. wait with interest. Gordon
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 02/06/2005 21:15
While Gordon has had “interesting experiences” with regard to hospitals and blood over the last 36 years what experiences did you have Gordon when the Jehovah’s Witness organisation forbid and banned outright TRANSPLANTS and VACCINES? I am so happy that in your experiences that the outcomes had been favourable and you are right in some cases blood transfusions cannot help and can be administered erroneously as mentioned earlier. Many people have had life experiences, that either changes their lives for better or for worse. Gordon have you not read the earlier posts because now let me say this loudly JEHOVAHS WITNESS’S TAKE BLOOD and say what you like that’s a FACT ask any haemophiliac that is a JW member, as they must take Factor V111 to survive, and this product is a bi-product of whole blood (read earlier posts). Anything to do with a person’s life particularly a child’s is emotive. Stop playing with semantics as this is the type of brainwashing that is carried out by minority sects and cults, for to reason as you are trying to do, holds no weight in your argument as statistics prove that blood transfusions are far more beneficial to its recipients, than to not receive them. Doctors or surgeons cannot guarantee any patient the chances of success on any operative procedure all they can do is reinsure and comfort their patients and give them the known success percentages. Only through modern science and the advancement of pharmaceuticals and medicine, have we come so far with the use of blood and its bi- products, and certainly not through the interpretations of the writing committee of the Watchtower society who have in the past and history can prove that some of the writers have been wrong and are certainly not “inspired”. Gordon posted the following….”If for some reason I stopped being one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I would still refuse blood for myself and any children I had, this based on my first hand experience, that I am better off with out it. Something that a lot of other people are becoming to realize.” Well Gordon, I am afraid science proves you wrong, and this is why our governments will continue to make our children wards of court. You mentioned and thank you for being honest Gordon Christmas, that JWs used to celebrate it, but you have moved on, well how convenient. The Watchtower organisation banned Transplants and Vaccines and people DIED now these bans no longer exist and people DIED, well I suppose that’s ok because you have move on. Gordon have you been faced with the blood issue personally by this I mean personally. You have had Jehovah’s law shown to you as you say, Jehovah’s law clearly shows you will only be UNCLEAN if you partake of blood, a far cry from what the leadership in Brooklyn condemns its members too, which is a living death through their policy of automatic disfellowshiping which leads to organisational shunning by immediate family and friends. Tell me Gordon when any JW at the time of the then transplant ban had a SKIN transplant (largest organ in the body) after a fire accident agreed to have a Transplant were they sentenced to disfellowshipping (living death), yes they were, but many are still alive today including cornea, kidney etc. recipients, where they reinstated and apologised too? You made a statement to William “some people will believe in anything” and this is true for if you and Noel who I believe are good honest hearted lovers of Jehovah, would just look out side the box for a moment as it is evident that Jehovah’s Witness converts just like you and ME, would and have, believed in ANYTHING. Qwerty
 
  Gordon(VIN29308)  Posted: 03/06/2005 12:13
Qwerty, if Jehovah's Witnesses take blood, what is all the fuse about that we dont't (take blood) and why is the issue raised about taking children from their families, and giving them blood? You have got me confused.Think you may benifit from the following article: Canada’s “Tainted Blood” Inquiry Awake Article 1995 6/8 VICTIMS of contaminated blood in Canada are dying from AIDS in growing numbers. Why the increase? More than a thousand Canadians contracted the AIDS virus from “tainted blood” and blood products in the 1980’s. These disturbing facts moved the federal government to set up a Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada. A public inquiry would determine the safety of Canada’s blood system. One of the country’s most highly respected senior judges was named commissioner of the inquiry. The commission is holding hearings across Canada. Hearings began in Toronto on February 14, 1994, and the Honorable Mr. Justice Horace Krever of the Ontario Court of Appeal was commissioned to report his findings in due course and to recommend improvements. A bereaved mother whose son died of AIDS from contaminated blood appealed to the judge: “They took my son and all I got was this inquiry. Please make it count.” She was anxious to see that a thorough investigation would be made so that the necessary steps would be taken to avoid the dangers associated with blood transfusions. She was not the only mother who lost a son in death from tainted blood. The commission heard heartbreaking testimony concerning this tragedy that shattered the lives of many Canadians. Headlines in Toronto’s Globe and Mail have reported: “Anger, Tears as Victims Tell of Blood Horror”; “Blood Inquiry Hears Chilling Testimony”; “Ignorance of MDs Detailed”; and “Officials Judged AIDS Risk to Be Tiny, Blood Inquiry Told.” Victims who contracted HIV from blood have said they were not warned about the risks. In several cases they did not know they had received a blood transfusion until they learned they were infected with the AIDS virus. A teenager with AIDS got HIV from a blood transfusion during open-heart surgery when he was three years old. An HIV-positive man with mild hemophilia used blood products prior to 1984 at a time when he was playing hockey. He would have changed his life-style had he known the risks. A mother was transfused with HIV-contaminated blood in 1985, and now she, her husband, and their four-year-old daughter are all infected. There have been heartbreaking accounts of people infected from only one or two units of blood. “Just to put a little red in his cheeks,” said one woman bitterly of the transfusion that infected her husband with HIV. Now she has the virus too. As more witnesses testified, attention has turned to another tragedy of great proportions—hepatitis from blood. According to The Globe and Mail, it is estimated that “as many as 1,000 Canadians a year die of hepatitis C.” The newspaper adds that “up to half of them may have contracted the disease from blood transfusions.” One man told how he contracted hepatitis C from a blood transfusion during back surgery in 1961. After his surgery, he became a regular blood donor. He found out in 1993 that he has cirrhosis of the liver. “What about the people who received blood I donated all those years when I didn’t know I had this disease?” he asked the inquiry. Justice Krever listened intently to more than a hundred Canadians whose lives have been shattered by HIV and other tragedies resulting from tainted blood. Medical experts have testified that it is impossible to make the blood supply totally safe from disease transmission and other dangers. They have admitted serious risks and misuse associated with blood. Dr. J. Brian McSheffrey, medical director of a regional blood transfusion service, testified that he draws attention to the problem by saying in lectures: “If you have to give a transfusion, you’ve either failed in diagnosis or failed in therapy.” There have been accusations of politics and rivalry among those whom the government committee called “major stakeholders” in Canada’s $250-million-a-year blood system. The Red Cross and government agencies have come under fire. No one seems to be in charge of the complex national blood system. Happy Contrast In contrast with the disheartening evidence, a happier account was put before Justice Krever on May 25, 1994, in Regina, Saskatchewan. William J. Hall, a 75-year-old man with severe hemophilia, told how he successfully manages his condition using alternatives to blood products. And he does not have AIDS. As one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mr. Hall has avoided blood and blood factors because of his religious conscience. More is yet to come. The government has extended the inquiry to the end of 1995. The commission could have time to examine effective nonblood treatment used in thousands of cases for adults and children who are Jehovah’s Witnesses. These alternatives apply to other patients as well. Doctors using such alternatives have expert evidence they could share with the commission. Dr. Mark Boyd of McGill University told The Medical Post in 1993: “We really should be somewhat grateful to Jehovah’s Witnesses because they have shown us how well we can do without blood transfusions.” A U.S. presidential commission noted in 1988: “The surest preventive measure with regard to the blood supply is to eliminate the exposure of a patient to the blood of others, whenever possible.” By obeying God’s law to “keep abstaining . . . from blood,” Jehovah’s Witnesses have been blessed with the “surest preventive measure” against tainted blood and other dangers of blood transfusions.—Acts 15:20, 29. Education Needed Sadly, most victims of the tainted blood transfusions were not informed about alternatives that could have prevented their tragedies. Patients were not given the choice of informed consent—to accept the risks of blood or use safer alternatives. Evidence before the commission reveals a need to educate doctors and the public about alternatives to blood transfusions. Such a high-level government inquiry could have a great impact in Canada. Justice Krever’s recommendations could set the stage for needed changes in attitudes and education in Canadian medicine about transfusion practices. The findings of the Commission of Inquiry will be of interest to all who want to avoid the dangers that go with blood transfusions. William J. Hall of Nipawin, Saskatchewan, told the commission how and why he manages his severe hemophilia without blood products. Here are excerpts from the court transcript of his testimony: • “My parents became aware that I was a hemophiliac when I swelled up from my toe to hip one time, and the doctors diagnosed it as hemophilia. . . . I would guess I was about one year old.” • “I have never taken blood or any blood product of any kind. . . . It is against my religious beliefs to take blood because I feel it is sacred.” • About his brother who also had hemophilia: “He didn’t have the same faith [religion] as I have, so he took a blood transfusion and he died from hepatitis.” • For a duodenal ulcer in 1962: “The doctor said that, if I didn’t use blood, I would die. . . . I was treated fine [without blood] in the hospital.” The bleeding was brought under control. • Regarding surgery in 1971 to pin a broken hip: “It was just a careful operation without blood. . . . The operation was successful.” Repeated blood tests at the time found no Factor VIII (clotting factor) present in his blood. • How he manages: “Lifestyle . . . , being careful.” He includes diet, rest, exercise, and careful treatment of swellings, bruises, and bleeds. • “I believe in relaxation and to meditate on the good things that our God has supplied us with and forget about our worries. This seems to help a lot.” William Hall is 76 years old and is one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.Dozens of deaths tied to blood transfusions Also thes reports highlight the dangers associated with blood: By Lindsey Tanner / Associated Press CHICAGO -- Blood transfusions can cause a serious and often-unrecognized lung problem that has been linked to more than 45 deaths nationwide since 1992, the government and researchers are warning. The condition -- transfusion-related acute lung injury, or TRALI -- is believed to be caused in most cases by an immune-system reaction to antibodies in the donor's blood. Though it produces lung damage that is generally reversible, TRALI is a leading cause of death for transfusion recipients. It kills 5 percent to 10 percent of patients who develop it. Doctors believe it is underreported because its symptoms -- including shortness of breath, fluid buildup in the lungs and low blood pressure -- mimic those of other ailments. An investigation found 14 suspected TRALI cases in northern California -- including one death -- all linked to a single blood donor. The investigation was published in today's Journal of the American Medical Association and was led by Dr. Patricia Kopko of BloodSource in Sacramento, a regional blood center. In addition, the Food and Drug Administration sent a letter Oct. 19 to transfusion specialists nationwide describing TRALI and warning that "recognition of symptoms and immediate treatment are imperative." The FDA said that it has received reports of more than 45 TRALI deaths since 1992 and 26 other cases since 1999. Deaths through contaminated blood transfusions increase 30 April 2000 16:30 The Irish Haemophilia Society has revised upwards the number of its members who have died from HIV and Hepatitis C which they unknowingly contracted from contaminated blood products. The Society's Administrator, Rosemary Daly, told RTE News that the number has been increased from 63 to 74 after they revised their records last week. She said the number had increased as 11 members, who had died of related illnesses, had not been included on the list up to this point. Of the 400 haemophiliacs in the country, 220 have been unknowingly infected with Hep C and HIV. Of these 74 have died. The number of haemophiliacs who have died since the Tribunal of Inquiry, under Chairwoman Judge Alisan Lindsay, began preliminary hearings last October remains at two. Public hearings at the Tribunal will begin on Tuesday. Over the following two weeks, the Tribunal will take evidence from 22 witness. Some of these are living with infection and others are relations of those who have already died. 'Bad blood' causes hundreds of unnecessary deaths 19:00 25 September 2002 Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition Qwerty my Email address is lausgords@hotmail.com I will address other issues if you are prepared to answers some questions of my own. Gordon
 
  Gordon(VIN29308)  Posted: 03/06/2005 12:19
Qwerty a couple more articles that you may like to comment on:Transfusions—The Key to Survival? IN 1941 Dr. John S. Lundy set a standard for blood transfusions. Apparently without any clinical evidence to back him up, he said that if a patient’s hemoglobin, the oxygen-carrying component of blood, goes down to a level of ten grams or less for every deciliter of blood, then the patient needs a transfusion. Thereafter that number became a standard for doctors. This ten-gram standard has been challenged for nearly 30 years. In 1988 The Journal of the American Medical Association flatly stated that the evidence does not support the guideline. Anesthesiologist Howard L. Zauder says it is “cloaked in tradition, shrouded in obscurity, and unsubstantiated by clinical or experimental evidence.” Others simply call it a myth. Despite all this vigorous debunking, the myth is still widely revered as a sound guideline. To many anesthesiologists and other doctors, a hemoglobin level of below ten is a trigger for transfusion to correct the anemia. It’s virtually automatic. No doubt, that helps account for the vast overuse of blood and blood products today. Dr. Theresa L. Crenshaw, who served on the Presidential Commission on the Human Immunodeficiency Virus Epidemic, estimates that in the United States alone, some two million unnecessary transfusions are administered every year and that about half of all transfusions of banked blood could be avoided. Japan’s Health and Welfare Ministry decried “the indiscriminate use of transfusions” in Japan, as well as the “blind belief in their efficacy.” The problem with trying to correct anemia with a blood transfusion is that the transfusion can be more deadly than the anemia. Jehovah’s Witnesses, who refuse blood transfusions primarily on religious grounds, have helped to prove the point. You may have seen newspaper headlines reporting that one of Jehovah’s Witnesses died because of refusing a blood transfusion. Sadly, such reports rarely tell the whole story. Frequently, it is the doctor’s refusal to operate, or to operate soon enough, that spells death for the Witness. Some surgeons refuse to operate without freedom to transfuse if the hemoglobin level drops below ten. However, many surgeons have successfully operated on Witnesses with hemoglobin levels of five, two, and even less. Says surgeon Richard K. Spence: “What I’ve found with the Witnesses is that the lower hemoglobin does not relate to mortality at all.” A Wealth of Alternatives ‘Blood or death.’ That is the way some doctors describe the alternatives facing a Witness patient. Yet, in reality, there are many alternatives to blood transfusion. Jehovah’s Witnesses are not interested in dying. They are interested in alternative treatments. Because the Bible forbids the ingesting of blood, they simply don’t consider blood transfusions an alternative. In June 1988, the Report of the Presidential Commission on the Human Immunodeficiency Virus Epidemic suggested that all patients be given just what the Witnesses have been requesting for years, namely: “Informed consent for transfusion of blood or its components should include an explanation of the risks involved . . . and information about appropriate alternatives to homologous blood transfusion therapy.” In other words, patients should be given a choice. One such choice is a type of autologous transfusion. The patient’s own blood is salvaged during the operation and recirculated back into the patient’s veins. Where such a process is simply an extension of the patient’s own circulatory system, it is quite acceptable to most Witnesses. Surgeons also stress the value of increasing the patient’s blood volume with nonblood expanders and letting the body replenish its own red cells. Such techniques have been used in place of transfusions without increasing mortality. In fact, they can improve safety. A promising drug called recombinant erythropoietin has recently been approved for limited use. It speeds up the body’s own production of red blood cells, in effect helping a person to make more of his own blood. Scientists are still searching for an effective substitute for blood that imitates its remarkable oxygen-carrying capacity. In the United States, the makers of such substitutes find it hard to get approval for their products. Yet, as one such maker objected: “If you thought about bringing blood to the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] to be approved, you wouldn’t have a prayer of ever getting it tested it’s so toxic.” Still, hopes are high that an effective chemical will be found that will be approved as an oxygen-carrying substitute for blood. So there are choices. Those mentioned here are but a few of those available. As Dr. Horace Herbsman, a professor of clinical surgery, wrote in the journal Emergency Medicine: “It’s . . . quite clear that we do have alternatives to blood replacement. Indeed, perhaps our experience with Jehovah’s Witnesses might be interpreted to mean that we do not need to rely on blood transfusions, with all their potential complications, as much as we once thought.” Of course, none of this is really new. As The American Surgeon noted: “The fact that major operations can be safely performed without blood transfusions has been amply documented in the past 25 years.” But if blood is dangerous, and there are safe alternatives to its use, then why are millions of people transfused unnecessarily—many of them without knowing it, others actually against their will? The report of the presidential commission on AIDS notes in part the failure to educate doctors and hospitals about the alternatives. It blames another factor too: “Some regional blood centers have been hesitant to promote strategies that minimize the use of transfusion therapies, since their operating income is derived from the sale of blood and blood products.” In other words: Selling blood is big business. • The medical journal Surgical Rounds recently published the results of two studies that revealed a “greatly increased” death rate for persons who receive massive blood transfusions over short periods of time. “The overall mortality rate of 50%,” reports the journal, “reflects the severity of the problems associated with massive transfusion.” Surgical Rounds also stated: “As might be expected, there was a substantial rise in mortality rate with increased numbers of transfusions. The mortality rate with 10 to 14 units of blood was 37%; with 15 to 19 units, 53%; with 20 to 24 units, 62%; and with 25 or more units, 78%.” For those who do not die from massive transfusions, there was a great risk of serious complications. “Approximately 85% of the patients receiving 10-19 units of blood and virtually all patients receiving 20 or more units of blood within a 24 hour period had major complications,” stated the article. “It was somewhat surprising that over 90% of the individuals receiving 15 or more units of blood developed one or more infections.”—August 1981, pp. 47-54.Cheers Gordon
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 03/06/2005 14:48
But Gordon, as you would know if toy read the entire doiscussion thread, a JW poster earlier on alos said that donating your own blod pre-op was alos forbidden.(prior to the WTog changing their followers minds of course) How could this be for health rasoins. It must be due to groundless superstition (i.e. religion).
 
  Gordon(VIN29308)  Posted: 04/06/2005 13:21
Qwerty Quotes 2 6 05 21.15 I am so happy that in your experiences that the outcomes had been favourable and you are right in some cases blood transfusions cannot help and can be administered erroneously as mentioned earlier. Qwerty, who will decide when a blood transfusion will help? Would you accept the advice of a doctor who was for blood or another doctor who said one was not needed. Likewide when will the decision be made that a blood transfusion could be ‘erronous?’ Well Gordon, I am afraid science proves you wrong, and this is why our governments will continue to make our children wards of court. Qwerty please provide evidence of the science you are referring too.Does that mean that the people in the medical field who have differing opionions as regard the use of blood , would you say these are are not ‘scientific?’ What about the doctor I mentioned who would not accept blood for himself or his children, would you consider him to be not scientific?’ Perhaps brainwashed? (By whom?) Maybe ‘not thinking outside the box?’ Maybe’daft?’ Jehovah’s law clearly shows you will only be UNCLEAN if you partake of blood, Qwerty, my KJ bible at Lev. 17:10 says’ they were to be cut of from among his people’ There clearly is more involved than just being unclean. Tell me Gordon when any JW at the time of the then transplant ban had a SKIN transplant (largest organ in the body) after a fire accident agreed to have a Transplant were they sentenced to disfellowshipping (living death), yes they were, but many are still alive. Qwerty, I have been around a while, but do not know of any instances where anyone has been disfellowshipped for taking blood.Obviously you do, as you state that many are still alive, please document name, date, circumstances of your claim. Gordon have you been faced with the blood issue personally by this I mean personally.Qwerty No. ….and certainly not through the interpretations of the writing committee of the Watchtower society who have in the past and history can prove that some of the writers have been wrong and are certainly not “inspired”. Qwerty WT Society never has claimed to be inspired,in the sense that they are infallible. Too my knowledge there is only one person on earth who makes that claim! …as statistics prove that blood transfusions are far more beneficial to its recipients, than to not receive them.Qwerty, please provide the statistics. Doctors or surgeons cannot guarantee any patient the chances of success on any operative procedure all they can do is reinsure and comfort their patients and give them the known success percentages. Qwerty, seeing there is no guarantee of success, why do doctors continue with the lie that someone who refuses a blood transfusion will die, when it has been demonstrated time and again that that is not true? Or that they will live if they have one? No wonder that there is differing medical opinion on this issue! As for me and my household we are convinced that Jehovah’s prohibition on the use of blood is sound. I had hoped to give my answers in Italics, but it has not worked out that way. I have endeavored to answer Qwerty's questions as per his posting 2 6 21:15. Regards Gordon
 
  Gordon(VIN29308)  Posted: 04/06/2005 13:27
For those that are interested in further explanations as to why Jehovah's Witnesses do not tkae blood for ourselves or our children, I post the following for your information:The following information is taken from the booklet Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Question of Blood Is Refusal a Form of Suicide? (par 88-98 cover this tracks main point of discussion: the issue of children) 55 In the face of massive blood loss from injury, disease or surgical complications, blood transfusions have often been administered in an attempt to preserve life. Hence, when persons hear that someone refuses a blood transfusion, they may feel that he is in effect taking his own life. Is that so? Is it “suicide” or exercising one’s “right to die” to refuse a blood transfusion? 56 Suicide is a seeking to take one’s own life. It is an attempt at self-destruction. But anyone even casually acquainted with the beliefs and practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses can see that they are not attempting self-destruction. Though they refuse blood transfusions, they welcome alternative medical assistance. An article in The American Surgeon correctly commented: “In general, refusing medical care is not tantamount to ‘suicide.’ Jehovah’s Witnesses seek medical attention but refuse only one facet of medical care. Refusal of medical care or parts thereof is not a ‘crime’ committed on oneself by an overt act of the individual to destroy, as is suicide.” (Italics added.)17 Professor Robert M. Byrn pointed out in the Fordham Law Review that ‘rejecting lifesaving therapy and attempted suicide are as different in law as apples and oranges.’18 And, addressing a medical conference, Dr. David Pent of Arizona observed: “Jehovah’s Witnesses feel that, should they die because of their refusal to receive a blood transfusion, they are dying for their beliefs in much the same way that the early religious martyrs did centuries ago. If this is passive medical suicide, there are several physicians in the audience right now who are smoking cigarettes, and that probably constitutes just as passive a suicide.”19 57 What about the idea that in refusing transfusions Jehovah’s Witnesses are exercising a “right to die”? The fact is that Jehovah’s Witnesses want to stay alive. That is why they seek medical help. But they cannot and will not violate their deep-seated and Bible-based religious convictions. 58 Courts of justice have often upheld the principle that each individual has a right to bodily integrity, meaning that in the final analysis a person himself is responsible to decide what will be done to his body. Really, is that not how you would want it to be if you were ill or hospitalized? Since it is your life, your health and your body, should you not have the final voice about whether something will be done to you or not? 59 There are logical consequences of this intelligent and moral view. A booklet produced by the American Medical Association explains: “The patient must be the final arbiter as to whether he will take his chances with the treatment or operation recommended by the doctor or risk living without it. Such is the natural right of the individual, which the law recognizes.” “A patient has the right to withhold his consent to lifesaving treatment. Accordingly, he can impose such terms, conditions, and limitations as he may desire upon his consent.”20 60 That is true regarding blood transfusion just as much as with any other “lifesaving treatment.” Dr. jur. H. Narr of Tübingen, Germany, stated: “The right and the duty of the physician to heal is limited by man’s basic freedom of self-determination respecting his own body. . . . The same is true for other medical intervention, hence also for refusal of blood transfusion.”21 61 Understandably, some persons are shocked at the thought of anyone’s refusing blood if doing so could be dangerous or even fatal. Many feel that life is the foremost thing, that life is to be preserved at all costs. True, preservation of human life is one of society’s most important interests. But should this mean that “preserving life” comes before any and all principles? 62 In answer, Norman L. Cantor, Associate Professor at Rutgers Law School, pointed out: “Human dignity is enhanced by permitting the individual to determine for himself what beliefs are worth dying for. Through the ages, a multitude of noble causes, religious and secular, have been regarded as worthy of self-sacrifice. Certainly, most governments and societies, our own included, do not consider the sanctity of life to be the supreme value.”22 Mr. Cantor gave as an example the fact that during wars some men willingly faced injury and death in fighting for “freedom” or “democracy.” Did their countrymen view such sacrifices for the sake of principle to be morally wrong? Did their nations condemn this course as ignoble, since some of those who died left behind widows or orphans needing care? Do you feel that lawyers or doctors should have sought court orders to prevent these men from making sacrifices in behalf of their ideals? Hence, is it not obvious that willingness to accept dangers for the sake of principle is not unique with Jehovah’s Witnesses and the early Christians? The fact is that such allegiance to principle has been highly regarded by many persons. 63 Also, it is worthy of reemphasis that, although Jehovah’s Witnesses do not accept blood transfusions, they welcome alternative treatments that may help to keep them alive. Why, then, should anyone else insist on and even force a certain therapy that totally violates a person’s principles and profoundest religious beliefs? 64 Yet that has occurred. Some doctors or hospital administrators have even turned to the courts for legal authorization to force blood on an individual. Concerning those who have followed this course, Dr. D. N. Goldstein wrote in The Wisconsin Medical Journal: “Doctors taking this position have denied the sacrifices of all the martyrs that have glorified history with their supreme devotion to principle even at the expense of their own lives. For those patients who choose certain death rather than violate a religious scruple are of the same stuff as those who paid with their lives for faith in God or who went to the stake rather than accept [forced] baptism. . . . Ours is the duty to save life but we may well question whether we do not also have a duty to safeguard integrity and preserve the few gestures of personal authenticity that continue to occur in an increasingly regimented society. . . . No doctor should seek legal assistance to save a body by destroying a soul. The patient’s life is his own.”23 The Doctor’s Role 65 We have seen that, because of their strong religious beliefs, Jehovah’s Witnesses avoid both food that contains blood and medically administered blood. But how are others affected by this stand, such as doctors who treat Witness patients? 66 Doctors are dedicated to saving or prolonging life. That is their profession. Consequently, when a doctor schooled to view blood transfusion as standard practice is treating a patient who is seriously ill or who has lost much blood, he may find it distressing to learn that the patient refuses blood. Whereas the patient’s Bible-trained conscience may not permit a blood transfusion, the physician, too, has a conscience and follows ethics that are extremely important to him. Should a doctor follow his own medical training and convictions if he feels that a blood transfusion, though refused by the patient, is needed to save that one’s life? 67 There is no question that in such cases a delicate situation exists. But each of us can ask: If I were in a situation where there was a conflict between my conscience as a patient and the sincere conviction of an attending physician, what course would I think ought to be followed? Consider the remarks made by Dr. William P. Williamson at the First National Congress on Medical Ethics and Professionalism: “Certainly, the physician’s first thought must be the welfare of the patient. Since life is a gift of the Creator to the individual, the primary decision rightfully belongs to the patient, because the patient is the custodian of that gift. . . . The physician should treat the patient within the dictates of the patient’s religion, and not force his own religious convictions upon the patient.” (Italics added.)24 68 There is another reason, a legal one, why the patient’s conscience must not be overridden. As Professor Byrn wrote in Fordham Law Review: “ . . . I do not mean that the doctor is bound by the patient’s choice to do something contrary to the doctor’s conscience. . . . I do mean that the patient is not bound by the doctor’s conscience to do something contrary to the patient’s choice, and consequently the doctor may have the right and choice to do nothing. The law of informed consent would be rendered meaningless if patient choice were subservient to conscientious medical judgment.” (Italics added.)25 69 The possibility exists of a physician in this situation ‘doing nothing,’ that is, withdrawing from the case; but is that the only alternative? In his article “Emergency Surgical Procedures in Adult Jehovah’s Witnesses,” Dr. Robert D. O’Malley commented: “The patient’s refusal to accept blood transfusion should not be used as an excuse for abandonment by the medical profession.”26 70 What, then, could a doctor do? Dr. J. K. Holcomb stated in a medical journal editorial: “No doubt, we, as physicians, feel frustrated, even angered, when an obstinate patient refuses to accept what we would consider the preferred regimen of therapy. But, should we honestly feel this way when the patient cites a religious belief as the basis for his reluctance to accept specific treatment? If we are honest with ourselves, we will admit that we settle for something less than ideal treatment with many patients in our day-to-day practice. . . . If we can do this with respect to our medical convictions, shouldn’t we likewise be willing to do the best we can when a patient’s convictions, particularly religious ones, prevent our offering what we would consider the desired form of therapy. Usually, patients having religious reasons for not accepting blood transfusions, etc. are aware of the medical risks involved in their decision, but are willing to accept those risks and ask only that we do our best.”27 71 There is another consideration as to the moral aspect of the matter. John J. Paris, Assistant Professor of Social Ethics, pointed out: “There is great consensus in both the medical and moral communities that an individual has no moral obligation to undergo ‘extraordinary’ medical treatment. And if the patient has no moral obligation to undergo ‘extraordinary’ treatment—common though it might be in regular practice—neither has the physician any moral obligation to provide it; nor the judge to order it.”28 For Jehovah’s Witnesses, who direct their lives by the Bible, blood transfusions certainly are “extraordinary” treatment. In fact, they are morally forbidden. Cooperation Between Patient and Doctor 72 All persons concerned with this matter can rest assured that Jehovah’s Witnesses are not fanatics who oppose medical care. Recall that Luke, who wrote the Bible account of the decree against blood, was himself a physician. (Colossians 4:14) Thus, when Jehovah’s Witnesses are ill or have an accident, they do not look for some miraculous “faith healing” cure. Rather, they seek medical help. In this they do not try to dictate to doctors on how to practice medicine or even on the management of their own particular problem. The one thing that they consistently ask from doctors is that blood not be used. 73 The Witnesses have a high regard for the training and abilities of persons in the medical field. They sincerely appreciate doctors who use their skill to treat a patient, but doing so in accord with the patient’s conscientious beliefs. Witnesses recognize that it takes courage for a doctor to operate without being free to use blood. Also, it takes a measure of courage to go contrary to the views of one’s medical contemporaries and agree to practice medicine under conditions that may be viewed as medically less than optimum. 74 Naturally, Jehovah’s Witnesses are aware that some surgical procedures may involve so much blood loss that a doctor may honestly believe they cannot be undertaken on the terms the Witnesses present. Most surgery, however, can be performed without blood. True, doctors may feel that by not using blood the operation is made more dangerous. But the Witnesses are willing to face such increased risks with the courageous help of skilled doctors. 75 During a panel discussion at the University of Pennsylvania, Dr. William T. Fitz related an interesting case. It involved a thirty-four-year-old patient who had bled severely from a tumor of the colon. The man, one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, told the doctors that he “would gladly undergo any surgical procedure as long as he would not be given blood.” The doctors agreed to operate, promising that blood would not be administered. During and after the operation blood loss was so great that the patient’s hemoglobin, which is normally 14 or 15 grams, fell to 2.4 grams. But he did not die. Rather, his condition stabilized and then his blood count climbed. Commenting on the doctors’ promise not to administer blood, Dr. Francis Wood, Chairman of the Department of Medicine, said: “I think you had a perfect right to promise. The man was going to die if you did not operate. He had some chance of getting well as a result of the operation without blood transfusion; therefore, I think you were perfectly justified in giving him the chance on his own terms.”29 Relieving Doctors of Liability 76 Doctors are in a difficult position in treating any serious case, for failure to use all available procedures may involve them in a malpractice suit. Jehovah’s Witnesses, however, are willing to bear the responsibility for their refusal to accept blood transfusion. They will sign legal waivers that relieve the medical staff and hospital of any concern about suits, in the event that harm be attributed to their operating without blood. 77 The American Medical Association has recommended a form entitled “Refusal to Permit Blood Transfusion” for patients who will not accept blood because of religious beliefs. It reads: “I (We) request that no blood or blood derivatives be administered to __________ during this hospitalization, notwithstanding that such treatment may be deemed necessary in the opinion of the attending physician or his assistants to preserve life or promote recovery. I (We) release the attending physician, his assistants, the hospital and its personnel from any responsibility whatever for any untoward results due to my (our) refusal to permit the use of blood or its derivatives.”30 This document is to be dated and signed by the patient and by witnesses present. A close relative such as a mate or parent (in the case of a child) could sign the form too. 78 The willingness of Jehovah’s Witnesses to accept personal responsibility regarding their stand on blood is further shown by the fact that most of them carry a signed card requesting “No Blood Transfusion!” This document acknowledges that the signee realizes and accepts the implications of refusing blood. Thus, even if he should be unconscious when brought to a doctor or hospital, this signed statement makes clear his firm position. Might a doctor or hospital be held liable if blood is not given? 79 An article in the University of San Francisco Law Review considered this point. It explained that Judge Warren Burger, who became Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, said that a malpractice proceeding “would appear unsupported” in an instance where a waiver had been signed. The article continued: “The possibility of a criminal charge is even more remote. One commentator who surveyed the literature reported, ‘I have not been able to find any authority for the statement that the physician would incur . . . criminal . . . liability by his failure to force a transfusion on an unwilling patient.’ The risk seems more the product of a fertile legal mind than a realistic possibility.”31 80 Regarding the situation in England, Emergencies in Medical Practice said: “If the position has been made clear to the patient and he dies untransfused no action can be taken against the doctor for no patient is obliged to preserve his life by the use of special or extraordinary measures.”32 81 A doctor contemplating surgery on a patient will naturally want to explain clearly what are the possible risks of refusing blood. But once he has done this, the doctor need feel no moral obligation to press the matter further. Certainly it would be unethical to try to “wear down” or frighten into submission a patient who has resolutely decided against accepting blood. 82 Since Jehovah’s Witnesses willingly accept responsibility for their decision, doctors are legally and in fact morally relieved of any obligation to insist on blood. And this is how many ethical and sincere physicians prefer it to be. “One cannot warn too urgently against a weakening of the human right of self-determination, including that of the patient,” wrote surgeon G. Haenisch of Hamburg, Germany. “A grant of authority for the physician to undertake a treatment that he deems right though it be against the will of the patient is to be uncompromisingly rejected.”—Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift.33 83 In view of this human right, legal and medical publications in some lands have repeatedly warned that administering a transfusion against a patient’s wishes could make a doctor (or the hospital staff) liable to assault and battery charges or a justified malpractice suit. What about administering blood without telling the patient, perhaps when he is unconscious? 84 Many sincere physicians feel that in some situations, such as with terminal cancer, it is a kindness not to give a patient full information about his condition. While there may be varying opinions about the propriety of withholding details of a patient’s condition, that is quite different from a doctor’s deliberately administering a treatment that he knows the patient has forbidden. Writing in the New York State Journal of Medicine, Dr. Bernard Garner and his associates stressed this point. They acknowledged that sometimes a doctor has let a Witness patient become unconscious and then given him blood, perhaps thinking ‘What he doesn’t know won’t hurt him.’ But they concluded emphatically: “Although the motive might be altruistic, this would be most distasteful ethically.”34 85 Why this is so was made clear by Marcus L. Plante, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School. He wrote that “the physician has a fiduciary relationship [one founded on trust] to his patient and owes an absolute obligation never to mislead the patient by words or silence as to the nature and character of the medical procedure he proposes to undertake.”35 86 Furthermore, in some localities a doctor’s promising not to give blood and then underhandedly doing so is legally wrong. For example, in West Germany’s Medical Tribune it was pointed out that “nothing is changed when the patient becomes unconscious.” This is so because ‘refusal to accept a blood transfusion, once expressly stated by a competent patient, is also valid in the event he becomes unconscious.’36 Underscoring the matter more emphatically, the Supreme Court of Kansas declared: “ . . . Each man is considered to be master of his own body, and he may, if he be of sound mind, expressly prohibit the performance of life-saving surgery, or other medical treatment. A doctor might well believe that an operation or form of treatment is desirable or necessary but the law does not permit him to substitute his own judgment for that of the patient by any form of artifice or deception.” (Italics added.)37 87 Consequently, deceptively administering a blood transfusion to one of Jehovah’s Witnesses is against the professional ethics of moral physicians. It could make a doctor liable legally. Respecting Parental Responsibility 88 Likely the aspect of this matter that is most highly charged with emotion involves the treating of a child. All of us realize that children need care and protection. God-fearing parents particularly appreciate this. They deeply love their children and keenly feel their God-given responsibility to care for them and make decisions for their lasting welfare.—Ephesians 6:1-4. 89 Society, too, recognizes parental responsibility, acknowledging that parents are the ones primarily authorized to provide for and decide for their children. Logically, religious beliefs in the family have a bearing on this. Children are certainly benefited if their parents’ religion stresses the need to care for them. That is so with Jehovah’s Witnesses, who in no way want to neglect their children. They recognize it as their God-given obligation to provide food, clothing, shelter and health care for them. Moreover, a genuine appreciation of the need to provide for one’s children also requires inculcating in them morality and regard for what is right. As has been mentioned, the early Christians were exemplary in this; the parents both taught their children and personally lived up to the moral teachings they enunciated. History relates that whole families sometimes were exposed to death in Roman arenas because the parents would not violate their conscientious beliefs. 90 We are all aware that the lack of parental teaching and moral example has contributed to the fact that many youths today have no basic values; they think nothing of endangering their health and life, as well as the lives of others, in an unrestrained search for thrills. Is it not much better for youngsters to have parents who promote morality and respect for high principles? Parents who are Jehovah’s Witnesses show great love for their children as well as their God by using the Bible to aid their children to become moral persons. Thus, when these children are old enough to know what the Bible says about blood, they themselves support their parents’ decision to ‘abstain from blood.’—Acts 15:29. Need a doctor feel that he ought to administer blood to a child in spite of the resolute wishes of the parents and perhaps even of the child itself? 91 Frankly, in view of the well-recognized right of parental responsibility, the moral, principled and consistent position for a doctor is to recognize the responsibility of loving, concerned parents to make decisions for their minor children. 92 In this regard, Dr. A. D. Kelly, Secretary of the Canadian Medical Association, wrote that “parents of minors and the next of kin of unconscious patients possess the right to interpret the will of the patient and that we should accept and respect their wishes. . . . I do not admire the proceedings of a moot court assembled at 2:00 a.m. to remove a child from his parent’s custody.”38 93 Some persons in the medical and legal professions have recognized that a competent adult has the right to refuse a blood transfusion. But they have held that if parents refuse permission for their child, a transfusion should be forced by court order. This position, however, lacks fundamental consistency and harmony, as pointed out in the journal Forensic Science: “Are we then to assume that the courts are willing to assign a different religion to the children than that of their parents, when statistics show that the overwhelming majority of children are reared and indeed follow the same religious denomination as their parents? Would this also not be as much an infringement of religious rights of the children by the courts as those rights which the court is trying to protect for the adults under the First Amendment [of the Constitution] by denying the transfusion over the adult’s objections? Are the courts not assigning in essence a religion to the children if they deny transfusions on religious grounds for adults and permit them for the children of the same adults?”39 94 There is often another gross moral inconsistency in forcing a blood transfusion on a child whose parents have asked that other medical therapies be used. At some hospitals doctors in one room may be forcing a transfusion on an infant. Yet in a nearby room other doctors may be performing legal abortions, ending lives only a few months younger than the child on whom blood is forced ‘to save a life.’ This has led thinking persons to wonder if ‘preserving life’ is always the real issue behind forced transfusions. 95 Consider the implications of state-authorized medical treatment that forcibly takes away the right of parental responsibility. In Scotland, A. D. Farr, a college lecturer on blood transfusion techniques, wrote with regard to forcing transfusions on adults and children: “The over-ruling in respect of a minority religious belief is extended to over-ruling the whole principle of an adult being allowed to accept or reject a particular form of medical treatment. . . . The State is gradually taking over the function of making decisions for the individual. It is in this way that free countries cease to be free and become totalitarian. It was indeed by the taking-over of the German children into the Hitler Youth movement that freedom and privacy were finally suppressed in Nazi Germany. This is not mere fanciful speculation. Freedom is a precious and comparatively rare possession, to be jealously guarded in those countries where it exists. Any one encroachment on individual liberty is one too many.”40 96 Additionally, even if a doctor sincerely believes that a child needs a blood transfusion, does that mean that no other therapy will do? Or does it mean instead that he thinks that a transfusion offers more likelihood of success than alternative therapies? In this connection a council of judges in the United States of America wrote in “Guides to the Judge in Medical Orders Affecting Children”: 97 “If there is a choice of procedures—if, for example, the doctor recommends a procedure which has an 80 per cent chance of success but which the parents disapprove, and the parents have no objection to a procedure which has only a 40 per cent chance of success—the doctor must take the medically riskier but parentally unobjectionable course.”41 98 These judges also said that “medical knowledge is not sufficiently advanced to enable a physician to predict with reasonable certainty that his patient will live or die or will suffer a permanent physical impairment or deformity.” Is there not much truth in that? Do not medical authorities emphasize that at best they can say only what seems likely to happen? Accordingly, many respected physicians and surgeons have cooperated with Jehovah’s Witnesses, providing fine medical treatment for young and old while respecting their Bible-based convictions about blood. Treating the “Whole Man” 99 Persons in the medical field are appreciating more and more that it is important to deal with a patient as a “whole man.” What needs treatment is not just a thyroid or a liver, but a whole person, a human with feelings and beliefs that actually may influence his response to treatment. In a Texas Medicine editorial, Dr. Grant F. Begley wrote that “when I treat an illness that affects the body, mind, and spirit of the person in my care, it is what he believes that is important. His beliefs, not mine, are the ones that cause him to feel fear, doubt, and guilt. If my patient does not believe in blood transfusions, what I think about them does not matter.”42 100 Treating the “whole man” is both humane and practical in view of the tragic results that can come from doing otherwise. “The perceptive physician,” urged Dr. Melvin A. Casberg in The Journal of the American Medical Association, “must be aware of these separate but interrelated facets of the body, the mind, and the spirit, and appreciate that healing the body in the face of a broken mind or spirit is but a partial victory, or even an ultimate defeat.”43 101 A doctor thus is following the course of wisdom and treating the “whole man” when he shows respect for his patient’s religious convictions as to the use of blood. Is Their Stand Medically Unreasonable? 102 Even though Jehovah’s Witnesses’ basic objection to blood transfusions is for religious reasons, many persons view this stand as medically unreasonable. But is it? Since the Witnesses’ position on blood relates to a medical issue, there is benefit in briefly examining the medical implications of refusing blood. 103 In just the United States, Japan and France, some 15 million units (500 cc. each) of blood are transfused annually. It is appropriate to ask: Is all this blood given because it is needed to save life? 104 The conclusion reached by 800 European doctors convened in Paris was that “blood is too often considered as a ‘miracle tonic’ given the patient whether he needs it or not.” These doctors particularly disapproved of single-unit transfusions, which they said are “useless 99 times out of 100.”44 A study in the United States suggested that 72 percent of the transfusions administered in some places are ‘unnecessary or questionable.’45 105 Dr. Rune Eliasson of Stockholm, Sweden, ventured the opinion “that many physicians, perhaps misled by the power of the word over the mind, have allowed themselves to be too easily blinded by the halo they themselves have placed around the transfusion of blood so that the advantages and disadvantages of this form of treatment cannot be seen in their proper perspective.”46 106 Whether or not you agree with the religious reasons why Jehovah’s Witnesses do not accept blood transfusions, the “advantages and disadvantages of this form of treatment” merit consideration. This is especially so since some judges discussing transfusions have recommended that a patient’s wishes as to alternative treatment should be followed if there is a distinct risk associated with the standard treatment. Blood—Complex and Unique 107 Whereas some persons may be quick to call the rejection of blood “suicidal,” a fair approach to the matter requires acknowledging the fact that there are uncertainties and even dangers associated with blood transfusion. 108 Doctors know that blood is extremely complex. This is manifested even in just the matter of blood types. Reference works state that there are some fifteen to nineteen known blood group systems. Regarding only one of these, the Rh blood group system, a recent book about blood said that “at the present time nearly three hundred different Rh types may theoretically be recognised.”47 109 Another facet of the complexity and uniqueness of each one’s blood is the variety of antibodies in it. At a meeting of scientists in Zurich, Switzerland, a group of English criminologists pointed out that the antibodies are so diverse that the blood of each person might be said to be specific and unique. Scientists hope to be able to “reconstruct from a bloodstain the personality image of every person who leaves behind a trace of blood.”48 110 The fact that blood is an extremely complex tissue that differs from person to person has a significant bearing on blood transfusion. This is a point Dr. Herbert Silver, from the Blood Bank and Immunohematology Division of the Hartford (Connecticut) Hospital, recently made. He wrote that, considering only those blood factors for which tests can be performed, “there is a less than 1 in 100,000 chance of giving a person blood exactly like his own.”49 111 Consequently, whether having religious objections to blood transfusions or not, many a person might decline blood simply because it is essentially an organ transplant that at best is only partially compatible with his own blood. Blood Transfusions—How Much Actual Danger? 112 Doctors know that with any medical preparation there is a measure of risk, even with medicines as common as aspirin and penicillin. Accordingly, it might well be expected that treatment with a substance as complex as human blood involves some danger. But just how much danger? And what bearing might this have on a physician’s view of the stand taken by Jehovah’s Witnesses? 113 A frank appraisal of the facts proves that blood transfusion must honestly be regarded as a procedure involving considerable danger and even as potentially lethal.50 114 Dr. C. Ropartz, Director of the Central Department of Transfusions in Rouen, France, commented that “a bottle of blood is a bomb.” Since the dangerous results may not appear until some time has passed, he added, “furthermore, it may also be a time bomb for the patient.”51 A United States Government publication carried an article on the dangers of blood and said that “ . . . donating blood can be compared to sending a loaded gun to an unsuspecting or unprepared person. . . . Like the loaded gun, there is a safety lever or button governing blood transfusions. But, how many persons have died from gun shot wounds as the result of believing the lever was on ‘safe’?”52 Can knowledgeable doctors dismiss the stated dangers as being exaggerations? 115 Hardly, for the reality of the dangers is often brought home to physicians. “No biologic product,” wrote Winfield S. Miller in Medical Economics, “has a greater potential for fatal mistakes in medical practice than blood. More than one doctor has learned to his sorrow that every bottle of blood in the blood banks is a potential bottle of nitroglycerin.”53 116 The patient or his family may not realize the dangers until it is too late. Stanford University’s Dr. J. Garrott Allen, a leading expert on the blood problem, estimated that blood transfusions kill at least 3,500 Americans each year and injure another 50,000.54 But there is strong reason to believe that this actually is an underestimation. For instance, the Southern Medical Journal recently suggested that the estimate that “between 3,000 and 30,000 deaths attributable to transfusions” is probably a conservative estimate.55 And bear in mind that these are figures for just one country, to say nothing of the rest of the world. 117 At a meeting of the American College of Surgeons, Dr. Robert J. Baker reported that the ‘danger of adverse effects from blood is far greater than previously believed with one out of 20 patients developing a reaction.’ How many persons realize this? Showing why that report should concern us all, Dr. Charles E. Huggins, associate director of a large blood bank, added: “The report is frightening but realistic because the same problems are facing every institution [throughout] the world.”56 118 Is relief in sight? Many persons, perhaps even some in the medical profession, may feel that science has been making real headway in overcoming the dangers of blood transfusion. But, as was stated in a recent issue of the journal Surgery, “major new problems related to massive transfusion have been proposed, problems hardly or not at all considered as recently as five years ago, yet potentially overshadowing almost all the problems that haunted the consciousness of the blood bankers, clinicians, and investigators for the first 40 years of clinical blood banking.”57 What Are the Dangers? 119 Without belaboring the fact that dangers do exist, we can briefly examine what some of these are. Though many doctors are acquainted with the following information, it may help other persons to appreciate that, even though the stand taken by Jehovah’s Witnesses is for religious reasons, it has merit medically. 120 The textbook Hematology contains this table:58 Types of Transfusion Reactions Febrile Leukocyte antibodies Platelet antibodies Pyrogens Allergic Hemolytic (incompatible transfusion) Transmission of disease Serum hepatitis Malaria Syphilis Cytomegalovirus infection Gross bacterial contamination Cardiac overload Citrate intoxication Potassium intoxication Abnormal bleeding Incompatible transfusion Massive transfusion Isosensitization Transfusion hemosiderosis Miscellaneous Thrombophlebitis Air embolism Injection of foreign material 121 These numerous types of transfusion reactions are indeed serious, for they can cause death. Let us consider some of them. 122 The table presents first some of the “immediate” reactions. A febrile or fever-producing reaction can usually be treated successfully. However, as Professor of Medicine James W. Linman reports, “severe febrile reactions occur and may be sufficiently stressful to be life-threatening in certain acutely ill patients.”58 Mismatched blood brings on a hemolytic reaction, involving rapid destruction of red blood cells, which can result in kidney failure, shock and death. Hemolytic reactions are especially dangerous to patients under anesthesia, for the symptoms may not be noticed until it is too late.59 123 “Transmission of disease” is also listed among possible reactions. Is there any substantial danger from this quarter? 124 Hepatitis B (serum hepatitis) is a particularly hazardous complication of blood transfusions. The blood of a donor, without its being suspected, may contain the hepatitis virus that can damage the health of a person receiving the blood, or even kill him. The more transfusions someone gets, the greater his likelihood is of contracting serum hepatitis. Yet it does not take a great deal of blood. Less than a drop will do; you can contract the disease from as little as one millionth of a milliliter of infected blood.60 125 How likely is it that you might contract hepatitis from a blood transfusion? To some extent that depends on where you live, for posttransfusion hepatitis is more common in lands where some of the blood comes from paid “donors,” people who sell their blood. 126 An estimate that often appears in medical journals is that one percent, or one person out of one hundred, contracts hepatitis following a transfusion.61 However, the evidence indicates that the true incidence may be much higher. This is so because hepatitis B has an incubation period of up to six months, so that the disease may not appear until long after the transfusion. Drs. John B. Alsever and Peter Van Schoonhoven wrote in Arizona Medicine: “Its incidence over the past ten to fifteen years in large community blood centers has been about 1% in reported retrospective studies of clinically evident disease. However, when one studies transfused patients prospectively in the laboratory at 2- to 4-week intervals, one finds up to a ten times greater incidence of infection.”62 127 Look at this from another standpoint. It has often been said that in the United States there are 30,000 cases of posttransfusion hepatitis annually, with 1,500 to 3,000 deaths.63 If that were the situation it would be serious enough. However, information provided by the government’s Center for Disease Control points to a conservative figure for hepatitis B cases as being 200,000 or more annually.64 And who can even estimate the total number of transfusion-related hepatitis cases for all North and South America, Europe, Africa and Asia? 128 Of course, some persons view the possibility of getting hepatitis from a blood transfusion as a justifiable risk. A doctor might reason, “I would rather have my patient alive with hepatitis, which I can treat, than dead from not having a transfusion.” But such reasoning is not a valid basis for viewing a patient’s conscientious objections to transfusion as ‘suicidal’ and unworthy of consideration. Can a patient reasonably be assured that he will survive posttransfusion hepatitis? 129 A sobering fact is that authorities admit that about 10 to 12 percent of those contracting serum hepatitis from transfusions die as a result.65 With persons over forty years of age, the mortality rate is 20 percent—one out of five.66 In patients over the age of sixty, about half die from the hepatitis.67 130 Furthermore, there is no sure way to eliminate the high risk of contracting hepatitis from transfusions. The Journal of Legal Medicine acknowledged that “none of the now known methods of preserving blood possess any antiviral properties. Any modality that will destroy or even attenuate the virus of hepatitis will also destroy the blood or blood fraction.”68 131 What about advances in testing techniques to identify and thus eliminate tainted blood? Dr. M. Shapiro, of the South African Blood Transfusion Service, recently pointed out that “even with the most sensitive tests perhaps only 1 in 8 or even fewer cases of post-transfusional hepatitis are avoidable by laboratory screening alone of donor bloods.”69 132 Consequently, even if serum hepatitis were the only posttransfusion disease danger, there would be ample medical reason for a person to have reservations about accepting blood. The fact is, though, that hepatitis is only one of the risks. Note these others: 133 “Blood should be considered a dangerous medicine, and should be used with the same caution as, for example, morphine.”70 Thus, Professor H. Busch, a director of transfusion medicine, ended a report to a convention of North German surgeons. In it he mentioned a dilemma regarding blood transfusions. He said that for its optimum biological value donated blood should be transfused within twenty-four hours; after that the metabolic risks increase because of changes in the stored blood. On the other hand, blood must be stored for at least seventy-two hours or else it may pass on syphilis. And even tests to identify syphilitic blood are not a safeguard, for they do not detect syphilis in its early stages. There is no need to describe here the damage that can come to a person receiving syphilis-infected blood, as well as the harm to his or her family. 134 The German report also stressed the danger of blood transfusions that spread cytomegalovirus infections and malaria. Cytomegalovirus is known to be especially dangerous for children. With good reason, then, the German doctors were warned of the “very serious, even fatal, results” that are possible from blood transfusions. And the American Medical Association advised that “with the increase in global travel and the return of servicemen from endemic areas, there has been an increase in the incidence of malaria in recipients of blood transfusion.”71 135 In tropical areas there are a number of other diseases that can be transmitted by blood transfusions, such as Chagas’ disease (having a fatality rate of one out of ten), African trypanosomiasis (African sleeping sickness), yaws and filariasis.72 136 Another danger that cannot be overlooked is gross bacterial contamination of blood. Certain types of bacteria can multiply even in chilled blood, posing a grave threat to anyone later receiving that blood. Though fewer patients experience this complication than, say, serum hepatitis, the results are tragic for those who do. The mortality rate is between 50 and 75 percent.73 137 What does the future hold as to dangers associated with blood transfusions? “The list of transmitted diseases,” reports Dr. John A. Collins of the Washington University School of Medicine, “will vary and will certainly grow, and considerable uneasiness may occur as more tumor-related viruses are identified in human blood.”74 Accordingly, many hospitals now require a patient to sign a waiver or agreement that he will not hold the doctor or hospital liable for injury resulting from a blood transfusion.75 138 Does this brief consideration of only some of the medical risks of blood mean that Jehovah’s Witnesses object to transfusions primarily for medical reasons? No, that is not the case. The fundamental reason why they do not accept blood transfusions is because of what the Bible says. Theirs is basically a religious objection, not a medical one. Nevertheless, the fact that there are serious risks in taking blood simply underscores the reasonableness, even from a medical standpoint, of the position that Jehovah’s Witnesses take. Alternative Therapies 139 If the course followed by Jehovah’s Witnesses were a fanatical one that had no basis and unavoidably meant harm to themselves and perhaps others, there would be reason for concern. In this connection it might well be asked: Is this religious view taken by Jehovah’s Witnesses so incompatible with the standards of human society and with medical knowledge that it cannot be reasonably accommodated? 140 The factual answer is that their Bible-based objection to blood certainly can be accommodated in most cases by the use of alternative therapies. 141 As is well known, in cases of elective surgery, doctors may ‘build up the patient’s blood’ before and afterward, such as with amino acids and oral or injectable iron compounds76; this can lessen any need for transfusion. Deep hypothermia (lowering the patient’s body temperature) has proved advantageous in minimizing blood loss during surgery, even on infants.78 Similarly, inducing hypotension (lowering blood pressure) can reduce the bleeding from small vessels during surgery. And probably what has proved most successful is meticulous attention to sealing off even the smallest of cut vessels. In the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, one doctor who has operated on many of Jehovah’s Witnesses said: “There is no doubt that the situation where you are operating without the possibility of transfusion tends to improve your surgery. You are a little bit more aggressive in clamping every bleeding vessel.”79 If a patient has lost a great deal of blood during surgery or through an accident, is the view that there is no alternative to blood a reasonable one? 142 Some facts presented by Professor James W. Linman in Hematology serve as a fine basis for evaluating the answer: “Blood is not a tonic or stimulant; it will not promote wound healing or suppress an infection; and its oxygen-carrying capacity is rarely, if ever, a limiting factor in surgery. A transfusion serves only to augment total blood volume, to enhance the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood, and as a source of normal plasma constituents.” (Italics added.)80 143 Consider first the matter of ‘augmenting total blood volume.’ Quite often when a person loses a great deal of blood, what fundamentally is needed to prevent shock and death is to replace the volume of fluid lost. At a congress of the Medical Association of South Africa, a blood transfusion specialist explained that a person might lose up to 1.5 liters (over three pints) of blood and still have over 60 percent of his red cells,81 an amount adequate for tissue nourishment. But the person needs more fluid in his vessels to keep the red blood cells circulating. 144 The British journal Anaesthesia reported that nonblood solutions do this more effectively than do transfusions of blood, for they do not reduce cardiac efficiency, a not uncommon complication accompanying blood transfusion. The article said that on occasions when apparently adequate amounts of whole blood failed to produce the desired result in a case of trauma, using nonblood solutions often produced dramatic improvement. Hence, the article observed: “Even if an adequate supply of whole blood is available, however, it is doubtful if it is the fluid of choice for the initial treatment for the rapid transfusion of grossly hypovolaemic patients [those who have lost much blood].”82 145 Is it not logical that a person normally could lose the equivalent of a unit (500 cc.) or more of blood without fatal results? Many persons have donated a unit of blood and then gone right on with their day’s activities. Controlled clinical study has indicated that a person with ‘a large blood volume may tolerate the loss of as much as two liters [2,000 cc.] of whole blood’ without requiring anything besides replacing the fluid lost with nonblood solutions.83 146 What, though, about ‘enhancing the oxygen-carrying capacity of blood’? Doctors know that alternative solutions are not really “blood substitutes.” Why not? Because the hemoglobin of the red cells delivers oxygen throughout the body. Nonblood solutions do not contain this. With a patient who has lost a great deal of blood, must whole blood or packed red cells be administered so as to supply oxygen to all his body? 147 This is a view frequently advanced, but is it in keeping with the facts? 148 A person normally has about 14 or 15 grams of hemoglobin in each 100 cc. of blood. Doctors generally take the position that ‘under sophisticated conditions a hemoglobin of 10.3 to 10.5 grams is regarded as the safe lower value for routine surgery.’84 But, in actuality, much of a person’s hemoglobin is in reserve for use during strenuous exertion; hence, a bedfast patient often is comfortable with as little as 5 or 6 grams.85 M.Keith Sykes, Professor of Clinical Anesthesia at the University of London, recently pointed out: “Although most centres choose a value of 9 or 10 g per cent as the dividing line between acceptance and refusal for elective operations, it must be emphasized that there is no conclusive evidence that values above this level are ‘safe’ or that values below this level impart an extra risk to surgery. It therefore seems unreasonable to choose an arbitrary figure as an acceptable haemoglobin level.”86 Likewise, Dr. Jeffrey K. Raines, of Massachusetts General Hospital, stated that “we can let the hematocrit get much lower than we had thought. We used to think a patient had to have a hemoglobin of 10, but we now know that is not really so.”87 Dr. Ricardo Vela of a department of anesthesia in Madrid, Spain, had experience in this connection with patients who are Jehovah’s Witnesses. He wrote that very low hemoglobin levels that formerly would have been considered as forbidden “were surprisingly well tolerated by the patients.”88 149 There is another aspect of this matter that has not been widely appreciated, even in the medical field. Will a transfusion immediately enhance the blood’s oxygen-carrying capacity? 150 Many persons believe that it will, but a recent editorial in Anaesthesia made this significant point: “It is worth remembering also that the haemoglobin of stored, citrated red cells is not fully available for the transfer of oxygen to the tissues for some 24 hours after transfusion . . . ; rapid blood transfusion must therefore be regarded primarily as a mere volume expander in the initial stages.”89 Researchers at Ohio State University found that the reason for this is that chemical changes occur in stored blood. Their investigation showed that blood stored more than ten days “does not improve or may even worsen oxygen delivery immediately after transfusion.” And they found that the oxygen delivery was still below normal twenty-four hours later.90 What are some of the nonblood fluids used as alternatives to blood transfusions? Are they being used effectively? What are their advantages? 151 Probably the most widely available and most frequently used emergency plasma replacement is simple saline solution (0.9%). It is easy to prepare, inexpensive, stable and chemically compatible with human blood.91 Ringer’s lactate (Hartmann’s) is an additional electrolyte or crystalloid solution that has been successfully used in cases of massive burns and in surgery where patients have lost up to 66 percent of the fluid volume of their blood.92 152 Another approach is to replace lost blood with colloids such as dextran. That is a clinical sugar solution that has proved valuable both in surgery and in treating burn cases and shock.93 Sometimes it is combined with a buffered salt solution so as to draw on the best properties of each. Haemaccel and hydroxyethyl starch solution have also been employed with good results in various operative situations as plasma volume expanders.94 153 Each of these fluids has its own properties and merits. But regarding disaster situations Anaesthesia commented: “Initially in the acute stage the exact fluid chosen, provided that it is not positively harmful, is relatively unimportant. Later, once the circulatory volume has been expanded, the specific requirements for a particular case must be taken into consideration.”95 154 Does this mean that these fluids are only for emergencies? Not at all. Regarding “all major types of operation,” surgeons at the University of Kentucky College of Medicine wrote: “A hundred patients each lost over 1,000 ml of blood while undergoing surgery and received two to three times that volume of Hartmann’s solution. Postoperative mortality and morbidity were not affected by the lack of blood in the replacement regimen. . . . Despite the persistent tradition that blood is the only effective replacement for blood loss, the practice of using saline solutions for part or all of blood substitution has gained ground in many centers.”96 155 Though for religious reasons Jehovah’s Witnesses will not accept blood, they have no such objections to the use of nonblood plasma expanders. From the standpoint of a doctor, then, these products have the advantage of being usable with Witness patients. But there are numerous other advantages. 156 “Non-biological substitutes for blood,” wrote Professor E. A. Moffitt of Canada, “can be manufactured in large quantities and stored for long periods of time. . . . The risks of blood transfusion are the advantages of plasma substitutes: avoidance of bacterial or viral infection, transfusion reactions and Rh sensitization.”97 157 There is another noteworthy benefit from using plasma expanders. When human blood is stored, chemicals must be added to prevent coagulation. Later when this blood is given to a patient, the additives can interfere with his own blood’s natural ability to coagulate; continued loss of blood can result. Heart surgeon Dr. Melvin Platt has called attention to the fact that this problem is avoided when “a neutral substance” such as Ringer’s lactate solution rather than stored blood is used.98 Major Surgery Without Blood 158 Courageous doctors who have agreed to operate on Jehovah’s Witnesses without using blood have often found the experience revealing. This is illustrated by rather recent developments in open-heart surgery. In the past, massive amounts of blood were normally used. But the surgical team headed by Dr. Denton Cooley at the Texas Heart Institute decided to try operating on Jehovah’s Witnesses. Because the doctors could not prime the needed heart-lung pump with blood or administer blood during or after surgery, they employed nonblood plasma expanders. Dr. Cooley reports: “We became so impressed with the results on the Jehovah’s Witnesses that we started using the procedure on all our heart patients. We’ve had surprisingly good success and used it in our [heart] transplants as well.” He added: “We have a contract with the Jehovah’s Witnesses not to give a transfusion under any circumstances. The patients bear the risk then, because we don’t even keep blood on hand for them.”99 159 What have been the long-term results of ‘bloodless heart surgery’ on adults and children? Dr. Jerome H. Kay of California wrote: “We have now done approximately 6,000 open-heart operations at the Saint Vincent’s Hospital in Los Angeles. Since we have not been using blood for the majority of patients, it is our impression that the patients do better.”100 A Canadian study provided specific details, revealing that when nonblood fluids, such as dextran and Ringer’s solution, were used instead of blood “the number of deaths dropped from 11 per cent to 3.8.”101 This type of surgery has also successfully been done on Jehovah’s Witnesses and children in Norway, Australia, South Africa, France, England and Japan. 160 Experienced surgeons are aware, however, that general surgical patients account for a greater proportion of the blood used than those undergoing more dramatic operations such as open-heart surgery. What has occurred with Jehovah’s Witnesses requiring more common operations where substantial quantities of blood are normally used? 161 Under the title “Major Surgery in Jehovah’s Witnesses” a group of New York doctors related a number of cases involving extensive surgery, such as the total removal of cancerous organs, and explained that by employing precise surgical techniques these procedures can be done without blood.102 Other procedures successfully performed without administering blood include radical head and neck operations, extensive abdominal surgery and hemipelvectomies (amputation of leg and hip).103 After removing a large brain aneurysm on a Witness, Dr. J. Posnikoff took exception to the “current opinion of most neurosurgeons that transfusion of blood is absolutely essential” for such brain surgery. He urged other surgeons “not to routinely deny major operation to those who may be in desperate need but cannot morally accept blood transfusion.”104 162 The conclusion reached by Dr. Philip R. Roen in “Extensive Urologic Surgery Without Blood Transfusion” was: “Our experiences with Jehovah’s Witnesses requiring operative procedures has demonstrated to us that blood transfusions are not necessarily essential even when hemoglobin levels are low—as low as 5 Gm. per 100 ml. . . . The stand of Jehovah’s Witnesses in refusing blood transfusion during necessary major and extensive operative procedures provides a considerable problem and challenge for the urologist. Such patients cannot and must not be abandoned because of their religious beliefs. We have not hesitated to perform any and all indicated surgical procedures in the face of proscribed blood replacement.”105 What Will You Do? 163 In considering the position Jehovah’s Witnesses take on blood, we have given attention to certain important aspects. We have examined the basis for their refusing blood and have seen that they do so for religious reasons based on the Bible. We have also reviewed the ethics involved, showing that it is the right of each person to determine what will be done to his body and to decide about medical treatment for himself and his children. In analyzing the doctor’s role, we have seen that treating an individual in accord with the patient’s beliefs is consistent with the fundamental principles of the medical profession. And, in discussing the medical aspects of blood transfusion, we have demonstrated that the position Jehovah’s Witnesses take can be accommodated medically. Case histories prove that in most instances skilled, courageous doctors can successfully treat Witness patients without employing blood. 164 While all of this may be so, we should not look upon the matter as merely an abstract discussion of an interesting question. Each of us may be called upon to use this information in deciding what to do personally. What about a doctor? 165 In the light of all that we have considered, a doctor should appreciate that Jehovah’s Witnesses are not “suicidal” religious fanatics who oppose all medical care. Rather, they are a reasonable, moral people who are anxious to stay alive; they love life and good health, which is why they seek qualified medical care. But a doctor should also understand that Jehovah’s Witnesses have seriously thought about their religious beliefs and are thoroughly convinced that they and their families must not accept blood. So, when confronted with this refusal to accept blood, medical personnel ought not view it as some emotional whim that can be ignored. It is an important religious conviction that should be respected, honored. What does this mean in practice? 166 It means that, in order to show respect for time-honored principles, blood must not be forced upon one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. True, for a doctor to accommodate their religious conviction might require adjusting his usual therapy. But, viewing matters on a long-range basis, is it not better for medical treatment to be somewhat circumscribed by religious convictions than for fundamental religious beliefs to be dictated to or overridden by current medical practice? Balanced consideration proves that to be true. By cooperating with one of Jehovah’s Witnesses a doctor can show his genuine commitment to the upholding of human rights and his respect for free exercise of religious conscience. At the same time he will be treating the “whole man,” using those therapies that serve to heal the patient physically while not harming him emotionally or spiritually. This will be in the patient’s lasting interests and will dignify the basic ethics that the doctor is dedicated to uphold. What about Jehovah’s Witnesses or others who are concerned with applying God’s Word in their lives? 167 Our review of the question of blood should further enhance one’s respect for the Bible’s injunctions against the sustaining of one’s life with blood. 168 Each Christian rightly makes the determination to continue steadfast in his faith. In dealing with medical personnel, the Christian should display reasonableness and a cooperative spirit, at the same time making it clear that any medical treatment offered must be consistent with his religious beliefs, such as his refusal to accept blood. If surgery is needed, it will be important to discuss with the doctors ahead of time the Christian stand on blood, so as to obtain their assurance that under no circumstances will blood be administered before, during or after the operation. And if a particular doctor does not feel that he can perform the surgery without resorting to blood, by the Christian’s knowing that beforehand he can seek the services of another physician. 169 In striving to uphold God’s law on blood, Jehovah’s Witnesses manifest their appreciation of the fact that their life is from and dependent upon the Creator and Life-Giver. He has said in the Bible that a Christian’s happiness and continued life in the future are based upon faith and obedience. (1 John 2:3-6) For that reason the early Christians were willing to risk their present life rather than go contrary to their religious beliefs. Jehovah’s Witnesses today are just as determined to maintain their good relationship with God. So they will continue to obey the Bible’s command to ‘abstain from blood.’—Acts 15:29.
 
  Gordon(VIN29308)  Posted: 05/06/2005 11:27
Evolution Answers William has commented at length on Jehovahs Witnesses not thinking 'out side the box' I provide the following as a good example that shows that is not the case. How Did Life on Earth Begin? One man’s search for the answer EARLY in life I knew the answer. God created it. My parents taught me that from the Bible. As I grew older I observed life around me. It fascinated me. My heart was filled with the wonder of it all. The flowers of summer died in the fall but left behind seeds that brought back their colorful displays in the spring. The sap in the trees went underground but months later returned to clothe the bare limbs in spring green. The woodchucks in the fields curled up in their holes and slept through the winter but were out again with the return of the warm sunny days. The pair of bluebirds that nested in the hollow iron post in our backyard flew south in the fall but returned to the same post in the spring to raise another family. I gazed up in awe at the V formations of geese flying south and listened fascinated to their continuous gabblings—and wondered what all this chatter was about. The more I learned about life, the more design I saw. And the more design I saw, the more I saw the need for the Master Designer my parents had told me about. No Designer Needed? Then in high school I was told that no designer was needed: ‘It all just happened. Chemicals in earth’s primitive atmosphere were shattered by lightning and ultraviolet rays, their atoms recombined to form ever-more-complex molecules, finally a living cell appeared. As it multiplied, random changes occurred, and thousands of millions of years later life in its myriads of forms covered the earth. Man is its latest production.’ They made evolution sound so simple. Maybe too simple. I clung to my belief in creation, but I didn’t want to be gullible. I wanted to be logical, to keep my mind open, to know the truth. I began to read science. I learned many things. My eyes were opened wider than ever to the wonders of nature. The more I learned the more I marveled. But the more design I saw, the more my mind balked at believing that random change and blind chance could create what brilliant men in their laboratories could not duplicate—not even the tiniest bacterium, much less the flowers, the bluebirds, the V’s of geese. During my years of study at both high school and university, I exposed myself to all the science I could get—chemistry, physics, biology, mathematics. Thereafter I continued to read books and magazine articles by evolutionists. It was still unconvincing. The evolutionary statements flowed so glibly, too glibly in view of the assertions that accompanied them. That was years ago. This is the 1980’s. Maybe now there is more proof and less assertion. Maybe it’s time for another look. I focused on one aspect—how life got started on the earth. After all, if evolution cannot make a case for the first living cell, how can it sustain its claim to produce living creatures with trillions of cells—and you and me with our one hundred trillion each? For my investigation I selected recent books by scientists with impeccable credentials—all evolutionists. I would adopt Jesus’ way of dealing with the false religionists: “By your words you will be declared righteous, and by your words you will be condemned.” (Matthew 12:37) My research limited itself to evolution’s major steps en route to life: (1) a primitive atmosphere, (2) an organic soup, (3) proteins, (4) nucleotides, (5) nucleic acids called DNA, and (6) a membrane. Assumptions About Early Atmosphere First needed, an atmosphere on early earth that, when bombarded with lightning or ultraviolet rays or other energy sources, would produce simple molecules necessary for life. In 1953 Stanley Miller reported on just such an experiment. He selected a hydrogen-rich atmosphere for early earth, passed an electric spark through it, and produced 2 simpler amino acids of the 20 required to make proteins.1 No one knows, however, what the early earth atmosphere was like.2 Why did Miller choose this one? He admitted prejudice in favor of it because it was the only one wherein “the synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place.”3 I discovered that experiments are often rigged to give the desired results. Many scientists acknowledge that the experimenter can ‘manipulate the outcome profoundly,’ and ‘his intelligence can be involved so as to prejudice the experiment.’4 Miller’s atmosphere was used in most of the experiments that followed his, not because it was logical or even probable, but because “it was conducive to evolutionary experiments,” and “the success of the laboratory experiments recommends it.”5 Nevertheless, evolutionists hailed Miller’s feat as a great breakthrough. Many experiments followed, using various energy sources and different raw materials. Through much manipulation and doctoring, and ignoring the conditions existing in a natural environment, scientists in their rigidly controlled laboratory experiments obtained additional organic chemicals relevant to life. They made a Mount Everest out of Miller’s molehill. It opened the way for an organic soup of life’s building blocks to accumulate in the ocean. Or did it? The Organic Soup Is a Myth Miller’s molehill was flawed, and with its demise their Mount Everest collapsed. Miller used a spark to break up the simple chemicals in his atmosphere to allow amino acids to form. But this spark would even more quickly have shattered the amino acids! So again Miller rigged his experiment: He built a trap in his apparatus to store the acids as soon as they formed, to save them from the spark. Scientists claim, however, that in the early earth the amino acids would have escaped the lightning or ultraviolet rays by plunging into the ocean. Thus evolutionists seek to save the soup. But for several reasons, to no avail. Amino acids are not stable in water and in the ancient ocean would exist in only negligible quantities. If the organic soup had ever existed, some of its compounds would have been trapped in sedimentary rocks, but in spite of 20 years of searching, “the earliest rocks have failed to yield any evidence of a prebiotic soup.” Yet “the existence of a prebiotic soup is crucial.” So “it comes as . . . a shock to realize that there is absolutely no positive evidence for its existence.”6 The Chances of a Protein Forming Allow the soup that nature disallows. Millions of amino acids in the soup, hundreds of different kinds, roughly half of them in a left-handed form and half right-handed. Would the amino acids now connect up in long chains to make proteins? Would only the 20 kinds needed be selected by chance out of the hundreds of kinds in the soup? And from these 20 kinds, would chance select only the left-handed forms found in living organisms? And then line them up in the right order for each distinctive protein and in the exact shape required for each one?7 Only by a miracle. A typical protein has about one hundred amino acids and contains many thousands of atoms. In its life processes a living cell uses some 200,000 proteins. Two thousand of them are enzymes, special proteins without which the cell cannot survive. What are the chances of these enzymes forming at random in the soup—if you had the soup? One chance in 1040,000. This is 1 followed by 40,000 zeros. Written out in full, it would fill 14 pages of this magazine. Or, stated differently, the chance is the same as rolling dice and getting 50,000 sixes in a row. And that is for only 2,000 of the 200,000 needed for a living cell.8 So to get them all, roll 5,000,000 more sixes in a row! By now I felt that I was beating a dead horse. But I continued. Assuming that the soup did give us proteins, what about nucleotides? Leslie Orgel of Salk Institute in California has indicated nucleotides to be “one of the major problems in prebiotic synthesis.”9 They are needed to make the nucleic acids (DNA, RNA), also called an overwhelming difficulty. Incidentally, proteins cannot be assembled without the nucleic acids, nor can nucleic acids form without proteins.10 It’s the old riddle in chemical garb: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? But let’s set that mountain aside and have evolutionist Robert Shapiro, professor of chemistry at New York University and a specialist in DNA research, dispose of the chance formation of nucleotides and nucleic acids in early earth’s environment: “Whenever two amino acids unite, a water molecule is released. Two molecules of water must be set free in assembling a nucleotide from its components, and additional water is released in combining nucleotides to form nucleic acids. Unfortunately, the formation of water in an environment that is full of it is the chemical equivalent of bringing sand to the Sahara. It is unfavorable, and requires the expenditure of energy. Such processes do not readily take place on their own. In fact, the reverse reactions are the ones that occur spontaneously. Water happily attacks large biological molecules. It pries nucleotides apart from each other, breaks sugar-to-phosphate bonds, and severs bases from sugars.”11 The final step of the six listed at the outset: a membrane. Without it the cell could not exist. It must be protected from water, and it is the water-repellent fats of the membrane that do this.12 But to form the membrane a “protein synthetic apparatus” is needed, and this “protein synthetic apparatus” can function only if it is held together by a membrane.13 That chicken-and-egg problem all over again! Molecular Biology Sounds Its Death Knell The evolutionists’ dream was discovery of a supersimple first living cell. Molecular biology has turned their dream into a nightmare. Michael Denton, specialist in molecular biology, sounded its death knell: “Molecular biology has shown that even the simplest of all living systems on earth today, bacterial cells, are exceedingly complex objects. Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10−12gms, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the nonliving world. “Molecular biology has also shown that the basic design of the cell system is essentially the same in all living systems on earth from bacteria to mammals. In all organisms the roles of DNA, mRNA and protein are identical. The meaning of the genetic code is also virtually identical in all cells. The size, structure and component design of the protein synthetic machinery is practically the same in all cells. In terms of their basic biochemical design, therefore no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth.”14 Not surprising, then, that Harold Morowitz, a Yale University physicist, has calculated that the chances of getting the simplest living bacterium by random changes is 1 in 1 followed by 100,000,000,000 zeros. “This number is so large,” Shapiro said, “that to write it in conventional form we would require several hundred thousand blank books.” He charges that scientists committed to the chemical evolution of life ignore the increasing evidence and “have chosen to hold it as a truth beyond question, thereby enshrining it as mythology.”15 One scientist specializing in cell biology says that millions of years ago “just a single cell could make weapons, catch food, digest it, get rid of wastes, move around, build houses, engage in sexual activity straightforward or bizarre. These creatures are still around. The protists—organisms complete and entire, yet made up of just a single cell with many talents, but with no tissues, no organs, no hearts and no minds—really have everything we’ve got.” She speaks of a single cell percolating with “those hundreds of thousands of simultaneous chemical reactions that are life.”16 What an unbelievable maze of chemical traffic within the confines of a microscopic cell, yet without a traffic jam! Obviously, this demands a Master Designer of supreme intelligence. The information content coded into a speck of DNA weighing “less than a few thousand millionths of a gram” is enough “to specify an organism as complex as man.”17 Even the information content of a single cell, “if written out, would fill a thousand 600-page books.”18 How awesome! Intelligence far beyond our powers of comprehension is an absolute must to start life on earth. My conclusion after all of this: Without the right atmosphere, no organic soup. Without the organic soup, no amino acids. Without amino acids, no proteins. Without proteins, no nucleotides. Without nucleotides, no DNA. Without DNA, no cell that reproduces itself. Without a covering membrane, no living cell. And without intelligent design and direction, no life on earth. But scientists have rendered a great service to believers in creation. Their discoveries about life are a powerful reinforcement of my faith in creation, and I now read with deepened appreciation Romans 1:20, 21, 28: “Ever since God created the world his everlasting power and deity—however invisible—have been there for the mind to see in the things he has made. That is why such people are without excuse . . . They made nonsense out of logic and their empty minds were darkened . . . In other words, since they refused to see it was rational to acknowledge God, God has left them to their own irrational ideas and to their monstrous behaviour.”—The Jerusalem Bible. My search convinced me that what my parents taught me is true: Jehovah God alone is “the source of life.” (Psalm 36:9)—By an Awake! staff writer. References 1. Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, by Robert Shapiro, 1986, p. 105; Life Itself, by Francis Crick, 1981, p. 77. 2. Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide, pp. 96-7. 3. The Origins of Life on the Earth, by Stanley L. Miller and Leslie E. Orgel, 1974, p. 33. 4. Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide, p. 103. 5. Technology Review, April 1981, R. C. Cowen, p. 8; Science 210, R. A. Kerr, 1980, p. 42. (Both quotes taken from The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, 1984, p. 76.) 6. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, by Michael Denton, 1985, pp. 260-1, 263; Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide, pp. 112-13. 7. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, pp. 234-8. 8. The Intelligent Universe, by Fred Hoyle, 1983, pp. 12-17. 9. Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide, p. 188. 10. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, p. 238; Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide, pp. 134, 138. 11. Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide, pp. 173-4. 12. Ibid., p. 65. 13. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, pp. 268-9. 14. Ibid., p. 250. 15. Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide, pp. 32, 49, 128. 16. The Center of Life, by L. L. Larison Cudmore, 1977, pp. 5, 13-14. 17. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, p. 334. 18. National Geographic, September 1976, p. 357. Is Evolution’s Foundation Missing? Awake 97 5/8 WHAT is the essence of Darwin’s theory of evolution? “In its full-throated, biological sense, . . . evolution means a process whereby life arose from nonliving matter and subsequently developed entirely by natural means.” Darwinian evolution postulates that “virtually all of life, or at least all of its most interesting features, resulted from natural selection working on random variation.”—Darwin’s Black Box—The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, by Michael Behe, associate professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, Pennsylvania, U.S.A. Irreducible Complexity—Evolution’s Stumbling Block? When Darwin developed his theory, scientists had little or no knowledge of the amazing complexity of the living cell. Modern biochemistry, the study of life at the molecular level, has revealed some of that intricacy. It has also raised serious questions and doubts about Darwin’s theory. The components of cells are made up of molecules. Cells are the building blocks of all living creatures. Professor Behe is Roman Catholic and believes in evolution to explain the later development of animals. However, he raises serious doubts about whether evolution can explain the existence of the cell. He speaks of molecular machines that “haul cargo from one place in the cell to another along ‘highways’ made of other molecules . . . Cells swim using machines, copy themselves with machinery, ingest food with machinery. In short, highly sophisticated molecular machines control every cellular process. Thus the details of life are finely calibrated, and the machinery of life enormously complex.” Now, all of this activity is taking place on what scale? A typical cell is only one thousandth of an inch [0.03 mm] across! In that infinitesimal space, complex functions vital to life are occurring. (See diagram, pages 8-9.) Little wonder that it has been said: “The bottom line is that the cell—the very basis of life—is staggeringly complex.” Behe argues that the cell can function only as a complete entity. Thus, it cannot be viable while being formed by slow, gradual changes induced by evolution. He uses the example of a mousetrap. This simple apparatus can function only when all its components are assembled. Each component on its own—platform, spring, holding bar, trap hammer, catch—is not a mousetrap and cannot function as such. All the parts are needed simultaneously and have to be assembled for there to be a working trap. Likewise, a cell can function as such only when all its components are assembled. He uses this illustration to explain what he terms “irreducible complexity.” This presents a major problem for the alleged process of evolution, which involves the appearance of gradually acquired, useful characteristics. Darwin knew that his theory of gradual evolution by natural selection faced a big challenge when he said: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”—Origin of Species. The irreducibly complex cell is a major stumbling block to belief in Darwin’s theory. In the first place, evolution cannot explain the leap from inanimate to animate matter. Then comes the problem of the first complex cell, which must arise in one fell swoop as an integrated unit. In other words, the cell (or, the mousetrap) must appear out of nowhere, assembled and functioning! The Irreducible Complexity of Blood Clotting Another example of irreducible complexity is a process most of us take for granted when we cut ourselves—blood clotting. Normally, any liquid will immediately leak out of a punctured container and will do so until the container is empty. Yet, when we puncture or cut our skin, the leak is quickly sealed by the formation of a clot. However, as doctors know, “blood clotting is a very complex, intricately woven system consisting of a score of interdependent protein parts.” These activate what is called a clotting cascade. This delicate healing process “depends critically on the timing and speed at which the different reactions occur.” Otherwise, a person could have all of his blood clotting and solidifying, or on the other hand, he could bleed to death. Timing and speed are the vital keys. Biochemical investigation has shown that blood clotting involves many factors, none of which can be missing for the process to succeed. Behe asks: “Once clotting has begun, what stops it from continuing until all the blood . . . has solidified?” He explains that “the formation, limitation, strengthening, and removal of a blood clot” make up an integrated biological system. If any part fails, then the system fails. Russell Doolittle, evolutionist and professor of biochemistry at the University of California, asks: “How in the world did this complex and delicately balanced process evolve? . . . The paradox was, if each protein depended on activation by another, how could the system ever have arisen? Of what use would any part of the scheme be without the whole ensemble?” Using evolutionary arguments, Doolittle tries to explain the origin of the process. However, Professor Behe points out that there would be an “enormous amount of luck needed to get the right gene pieces in the right places.” He shows that Doolittle’s explanation and casual language conceal tremendous difficulties. Thus, one of the major objections to the evolutionary model is the insurmountable hurdle of irreducible complexity. Behe states: “I emphasize that natural selection, the engine of Darwinian evolution, only works if there is something to select—something that is useful right now, not in the future.” “An Eerie and Complete Silence” Professor Behe states that some scientists have studied “mathematical models for evolution or new mathematical methods for comparing and interpreting sequence data.” However, he concludes: “The mathematics assumes that real-world evolution is a gradual, random process; it does not (and cannot) demonstrate it.” (Last phrase italics ours.) He earlier said: “If you search the scientific literature on evolution, and if you focus your search on the question of how molecular machines—the basis of life—developed, you find an eerie and complete silence. The complexity of life’s foundation has paralyzed science’s attempt to account for it; molecular machines raise an as-yet-impenetrable barrier to Darwinism’s universal reach.” This raises a series of questions for conscientious scientists to consider: “How did the photosynthetic reaction center develop? How did intramolecular transport start? How did cholesterol biosynthesis begin? How did retinal become involved in vision? How did phosphoprotein signaling pathways develop?” Behe adds: “The very fact that none of these problems is even addressed, let alone solved, is a very strong indication that Darwinism is an inadequate framework for understanding the origin of complex biochemical systems.” If Darwin’s theory cannot explain the complex molecular foundation of cells, then how can it be a satisfactory explanation for the existence of the millions of species that inhabit this earth? After all, evolution cannot even produce new family kinds by bridging the gaps from one family kind to another.—Genesis 1:11, 21, 24. The Problems of the Beginning of Life No matter how plausible Darwin’s theory of evolution may appear to be in the eyes of some scientists, they must ultimately face the question, Even if we assume that forms of living things evolved by natural selection, how did life get its start? In other words, the problem lies, not in survival of the fittest, but in arrival of the fittest and the first! However, as Darwin’s remarks on the evolution of the eye indicate, he was not concerned with the problem of how life began. He wrote: “How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated.” French science writer Philippe Chambon wrote: “Darwin himself wondered how nature selected emerging forms before they were perfectly functional. The list of evolutionary mysteries is endless. And today’s biologists have to humbly admit, with Prof. Jean Génermont of the University of South Paris in Orsay, that ‘the synthetic theory of evolution cannot readily explain the origin of complex organs.’” In the light of the tremendous odds against such endless variety and complexity of life forms, do you find it difficult to believe that it all evolved in the right direction just by chance? Do you wonder how any creatures could have survived in the battle of the survival of the fittest while they were still evolving eyes? Or while they were supposedly forming primitive fingers on a subhuman body? Do you wonder how cells survived if they existed in an incomplete and inadequate state? Robert Naeye, a writer for Astronomy magazine and an evolutionist, wrote that life on earth is the result of “a long sequence of improbable events [that] transpired in just the right way to bring forth our existence, as if we had won a million-dollar lottery a million times in a row.” That line of reasoning can probably be applied to every single creature that exists today. The odds are stacked against it. Yet, we are expected to believe that by chance evolution also produced a male and a female at the same time in order for the new species to be perpetuated. To compound the odds, we also have to believe that the male and the female not only evolved at the same time but also in the same place! No meeting, no procreation! Certainly, it stretches credulity to the limit to believe that life exists in its millions of perfected forms as a result of millions of gambles that paid off. Why Do the Majority Believe? Why is evolution so popular and accepted by so many as the only explanation for life on earth? One reason is that it is the orthodox view taught in schools and universities, and woe betide you if you dare to express any doubts. Behe states: “Many students learn from their textbooks how to view the world through an evolutionary lens. However, they do not learn how Darwinian evolution might have produced any of the remarkably intricate biochemical systems that those texts describe.” He adds: “To understand both the success of Darwinism as orthodoxy and its failure as science at the molecular level, we have to examine the textbooks that are used to teach aspiring scientists.” “If a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. . . . Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.” What viable and reliable alternative is there to Darwin’s theory of evolution? Our final article in this series will address that question. [Footnotes] Referred to from here on as Darwin’s Black Box. “Irreducible complexity” describes “a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.” (Darwin’s Black Box) Thus, it is the simplest level at which a system can function. Photosynthesis is the process whereby plant cells, using light and chlorophyll, make carbohydrates from carbon dioxide and water. It is called by some the most important chemical reaction occurring in nature. Biosynthesis is the process by which living cells manufacture complicated chemical compounds. Retinal is involved in the complex vision system. Phosphoprotein signaling pathways are integral functions of the cell. Creationism involves belief that the earth was created in six literal days or, in some cases, that the earth was formed only about ten thousand years ago. Jehovah’s Witnesses, while believing in creation, are not creationists. They believe that the Bible’s Genesis account allows for the earth to be millions of years old. The Molecule and the Cell Biochemistry—“the study of the very basis of life: the molecules that make up cells and tissues, that catalyze the chemical reactions of digestion, photosynthesis, immunity, and more.”—Darwin’s Black Box. Molecule—“the smallest particle into which an element or a compound can be divided without changing its chemical and physical properties; a group of like or different atoms held together by chemical forces.”—The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Cell—the fundamental unit of all living organisms. “Every cell is a highly organized structure that is responsible for the form and function of an organism.” How many cells form an adult human? One hundred trillion (100,000,000,000,000)! We have about 1,000,000 cells in every square inch [155,000 per sq cm] of skin, and the human brain has from 10 billion to 100 billion neurons. “The cell is the key to biology because it is at this level that a collection of water, salts, macromolecules, and membranes truly springs to life.”—Biology. The “Unparalleled Complexity” of the Cell “To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometres in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity. We would see endless highly organized corridors and conduits branching in every direction away from the perimeter of the cell, some leading to the central memory bank in the nucleus and others to assembly plants and processing units. The nucleus itself would be a vast spherical chamber more than a kilometre in diameter, resembling a geodesic dome inside of which we would see, all neatly stacked together in ordered arrays, the miles of coiled chains of the DNA molecules. A huge range of products and raw materials would shuttle along all the manifold conduits in a highly ordered fashion to and from all the various assembly plants in the outer regions of the cell. “We would wonder at the level of control implicit in the movement of so many objects down so many seemingly endless conduits, all in perfect unison. We would see all around us, in every direction we looked, all sorts of robot-like machines. We would notice that the simplest of the functional components of the cell, the protein molecules, were astonishingly, complex pieces of molecular machinery, each one consisting of about three thousand atoms arranged in highly organized 3-D spatial conformation. We would wonder even more as we watched the strangely purposeful activities of these weird molecular machines, particularly when we realized that, despite all our accumulated knowledge of physics and chemistry, the task of designing one such molecular machine—that is one single functional protein molecule—would be completely beyond our capacity at present and will probably not be achieved until at least the beginning of the next century. Yet the life of the cell depends on the integrated activities of thousands, certainly tens, and probably hundreds of thousands of different protein molecules.”—Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Facts and Legends “To a person who does not feel obliged to restrict his search to unintelligent causes, the straightforward conclusion is that many biochemical systems were designed. They were designed not by the laws of nature, not by chance and necessity; rather, they were planned. . . . Life on earth at its most fundamental level, in its most critical components, is the product of intelligent activity.”—Darwin’s Black Box. “There can be no doubt that after a century of intensive effort biologists have failed to validate [the Darwinian theory of evolution] in any significant sense. The fact remains that nature has not been reduced to the continuum that the Darwinian model demands, nor has the credibility of chance as the creative agency of life been secured.”—Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. “The influence of evolutionary theory on fields far removed from biology is one of the most spectacular examples in history of how a highly speculative idea for which there is no really hard scientific evidence can come to fashion the thinking of a whole society and dominate the outlook of an age.”—Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. “Any science of the past . . . that excludes the possibility of design or creation a priori ceases to be a search for the truth, and becomes the servant (or slave) of a problematical philosophical doctrine, namely, naturalism.”—Origins Research. “It is a legend . . . that Charles Darwin solved the problem of the origin of biological complexity. It is a legend that we have a good or even fair grasp on the origin of life, or that proper explanations refer only to so-called natural causes. To be sure, these and other legends of philosophical naturalism have a certain stature. One does not speak too harshly of them in polite company. But neither should one accept them uncritically.”—Origins Research. “In private many scientists admit that science has no explanation for the beginning of life. . . . Darwin never imagined the exquisitely profound complexity that exists even at the most basic levels of life.”—Darwin’s Black Box. “Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. . . . There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations. Since no one knows molecular evolution by direct experience, and since there is no authority on which to base claims of knowledge, it can truly be said that . . . the assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster.”—Darwin’s Black Box. The theory of evolution is certainly a gambler’s dream. Why? Because according to the evolutionist, it wins even with astronomical odds against it. Robert Naeye writes: “Because evolution is primarily a game of chance, any seemingly minor past event could have gone slightly different, cutting off our evolutionary line before humans evolved.” But no, we are supposed to believe that every gamble paid off, millions of times. Naeye admits: “The long series of bottlenecks makes it clear that the emergence of intelligent life is far more difficult than scientists once thought. There are probably more obstacles that scientists haven’t even stumbled across yet.” Should answer a number of your questions William. Cheers Gordon
 
  Gordon(VIN29308)  Posted: 06/06/2005 00:04
Qwerty says ‘The benefit of accepting this treatment is far greater than non-acceptance and particularly on the interpretations of a few scriptures that have been taken out of context. The risk associated with blood has never been less risky in history.’ What are the facts? I present two reports, one from American Journal of Medicine written by Kitchens that gives details on 16 reports of operations on Jehovah’s Witnesses and gives a mortality rate of 0.5-1.5%. Compared with The SHOT report (Serious Hazards of Transfusion)which gives a mortality rate of “2.5- 4.8% for people who have transfusions. All this info can be found on the web, where I have obtained it. Please note: This is not information provided by WT org. but available for all to view. Editorial Are transfusions overrated? Surgical outcome of Jehovah's Witnesses Craig S. Kitchens M.D. , 1 , Gainesville, Florida, USA Received 17 September 1991; accepted 18 May 1992. Available online 21 March 2004. Abstract Physicians as well as their patients are quite familiar with the ever growing list of complications of transfusion. Blood is usually administered by physicians with the nearly unchallenged view that failure to transfuse would have dire consequences. Evidence supporting that view is very difficult to obtain. Although no controlled trial exists, data are collected from 16 reports of the surgical outcome of a series of patients of the Jehovah's Witness faith who were not given transfusion for operations during which transfusion is typically given. Analysis of these data supports the concept that approximately 0.5% to 1.5% of such operations are complicated by anemia resulting in death. This risk of not transfusing patients must be weighed against the cost, morbidity, and mortality that would be expected to accrue had these patients been transfused. These concepts should be employed whenever one is formulating a risk-benefit ratio for patients for whom transfusion is contemplated. SERIOUS HAZARDS OF TRANSFUSION ANNUAL REPORT 2001 - 2002 Affiliated to the Royal College of Pathologists British Blood Transfusion Society, British Society for Haematology Faculty of Public Health Medicine, Institute of Biomedical Science Institute of Health Service Managers, NHS Confederation Health Protection Agency Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre Royal College of Anaesthetists, Royal College of Nursing Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health Royal College of Physicians, Royal College of Surgeons, UK Transfusion Services SHOT Annual Report 2001 / 2002 Cumulative data from 6 years of SHOT reporting 1996/97 to 2001/02 Figure 4: Questionnaires by incident 1996/97 – 2001/02 (n=1630) Minor or no morbidity (1212) 74.4% Major morbidity (200) 12.3% Death unrelated to transfusion (123) 7.5% Death definitely attributed to transfusion (41) 2.5% Death possibly attributed to transfusion (29) 1.8% Outcome unstated (17) 1% Death probably attributed to transfusion (8) 0.5% Definitley 2.5 Possibly 1.8 Probably .5 ------- 4 .8 vs 1.5 (as per Kitchen’ report) Even if one only accepts the Definitely, we still have 2.5% deaths from transfusions vs 1.5% for no transfusions. And this is just the tip of the ice-burg if we take into account transfusions passing on infections etc. This is clear evidence that Jehovah’s Witnesses refusing blood for themselves and their children are not placing themselves at any greater risk of dying by ejecting blood. The figures clearly show an increase in risk for accepting blood. Just to help in understanding that even these figures may be underestimated I include a report from Newsday that states that one estimate says that only 5% of all transfusion related deaths are reported.(in USA) BPOC SYSTEM REDUCES TRANSFUSION ERRORS The number of patients who die following a blood transfusion is on the rise, and many of these deaths can be traced to preventable errors by hospital staff, according to a three-part series in Newsday. In its review of federal records, Newsday found that transfusion-related deaths increased from 53 in 1995 to 68 last year; overall, at least 440 deaths were reported between 1995 and 2001. Many errors stem from flawed blood collection and storage practices but the most preventable mistakes involve transfusion with the wrong type of blood. Moreover, wrong-blood errors kill more patients than any other transfusion-related mistake. Experts say that most wrong-blood cases involve human error by overworked hospital employees. Advanced computer systems and other technological developments could prevent errors and lead to safer blood transfusions. Some hospitals have implemented systems to prevent such identification errors. Washington, D.C.-based Georgetown University Hospital is using handheld computers and barcodes to track blood samples. Experts suspect government statistics don't capture the full scope of the transfusion problem because many hospitals fail to report errors. By one estimate, as little as 5% of all transfusion-related deaths are reported. Link: http://www.newsday.com/ While we are discussing reports here is the Shot report SHOT Report 2000 - 2001 Foreword: Some Progress But More Is Needed SHOT has accumulated powerful national data on serious transfusion hazards, and based on these, has made firm recommendations to improve transfusion safety. This 5th reporting year saw an increase in participation to 92% of eligible hospitals compared with 72% the previous year, with an 11.6% increase in the number of hospitals submitting reports. There was a 7.5% increase in reports. The largest category of reports remains ‘wrong blood to patient’ episodes, 61% (699/1148) over 5 years. Eleven of the 699 patients who received the wrong blood died (5 definitely related to transfusion, 1 probably, and 5 possibly related), and a further 60 suffered major morbidity, for example necessitating intensive care unit admission. It is emphasized that transfusion of the wrong blood was potentially fatal in virtually all 699. The increased participation probably reflects a) greater user confidence in SHOT b) effective Clinical Governance and c) the requirements of the Clinical Negligence Scheme for Trusts (Appendix 9 - PDF). Universal participation in SHOT is achievable and would be further encouraged by d) SHOT participation as a standard for Clinical Pathology Accreditation (CPA) – the anticipated inclusion of reference to SHOT participation in the bibliography to the revised CPA standards being a step in the right direction, and e) a “no fault” ethos for error reporting, without fear of disciplinary action and with clear definition of the role of the Health and Safety Executive. We continue to press for greater emphasis on transfusion issues at hospital level, in particular, the appointment of transfusion practitioners, usually nurses, to help implement improved transfusion practice (Chapter 5). Education and training in blood transfusion should be incorporated in the medical undergraduate curriculum and in induction programmes for junior medical staff. There are 2 new useful teaching resources: a) the Handbook of Transfusion Medicine of the UK Blood Transfusion Services and b) a video from the National Blood Service (NBS), on blood transfusion errors, “The strange case of Penny Allison”. Hospitals should ensure that there is sufficient transfusion medical consultant time to provide clinical leadership to drive improvements in blood safety and appropriate blood usage. This is likely to have training and manpower implications. Notably, in 69/190 case reports (36%) of ‘wrong blood to patient’ episodes, the originating error was made in the hospital blood transfusion laboratory. Thirty six percent of all laboratory errors (100 errors in 80 reports) occurred out of hours. SHOT data have indicated that the considerable technical and interpretative skills essential for patient safety may be lacking during part of the current working week. Hospitals should ensure that there are sufficient numbers of appropriately skilled biomedical scientists, to maintain adequate staffing at all times. SHOT also recommends a proactive and co-ordinated approach, led at national level, to the development and assessment of new technologies to minimise blood transfusion errors, such as electronic blood/patient identification, remote blood issue and electronic compatibility testing. Some of these systems also have potential to reduce drug errors. SHOT is collaborating with broader NHS initiatives on hospital errors, particularly the new National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA). Currently, reporting to SHOT by hospitals continues unchanged. “Near Miss” events (452 this year, with 50% of reports describing sampling errors; Chapter 12) are more numerous than those which lead to mis-transfusion. Their analysis should supplement other SHOT findings and will be used to learn where systems need to be redesigned to minimize human error. “Near Miss” data will also be a major source of information to evaluate changes to improve blood transfusion safety. In this 5th reporting year all hospitals in the UK were encouraged to report “Near Miss” events to SHOT. Only 29% of eligible hospitals supplied data, but it is probable that more hospitals experienced “Near Miss” events. Appreciation of the value of collecting such data should encourage increased reporting of these episodes. The investigation of acute transfusion reactions (ATR) is variable. A forthcoming guideline on this subject from the BCSH is to be welcomed. It is striking that reactions to fresh frozen plasma (FFP) comprise 24% of ATR reports, yet only 11% of components issued are FFP. There is evidence from SHOT reports of misuse of FFP, so as a reminder, the relevant section of the BCSH guidelines on oral anticoagulation is summarised (Appendix 11 - PDF). None of the FFP related reactions were stated to be due to solvent-detergent (SD) treated pooled FFP. However, very little of this product is used in the UK, so further observation is needed. Once again, this report highlights the difficulty of diagnosing transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI), the second largest cause of transfusion-related morbidity and mortality after ABO incompatibility. While there has been improvement in the way these cases are investigated, greater consistency is needed. The UK Blood Transfusion Services are having to prioritise measures to prevent possible transmission of variant Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease (vCJD) by transfusion. Strategies for TRALI prevention must also be considered as part of overall blood safety planning. The report of a fatal case of transfusion-associated graft-versus-host disease (TA-GVHD) this year demonstrates that it cannot always be prevented by current leucocyte depletion processes. Of 13 cases, all fatal, of TA-GVHD reported over 5 years, 6 occurred in patients with B-cell malignancies. BCSH guidelines for irradiation of blood components should be reviewed to assess whether all patients with B cell malignancies should receive irradiated components, particularly where new and perhaps more aggressive treatment regimes are used. Transfusion transmitted infection (TTI) led to less than 3% of reported cases, with bacterial contamination responsible for 21/35 reports and 6 fatalities over 6 years. Bacterial contamination is thus the major cause of reported (i.e. generally symptomatic) TTI, a significant cause of death from transfusion, and accounts for more cases of TTI than all reported viral infections combined. It must be noted, however, that SHOT is not well suited to ascertainment of the chronic complications of viral transmissions which may only become apparent after several years. That said, it is appropriate that the past year has seen ongoing evaluation by the Blood Services of methods to minimise bacterial contamination. As the frequency of serious contaminations is greatest for platelet transfusions, specific strategies for platelet preparation and issue are being considered as well as strategies to reduce the frequency of contamination of all blood donations at the time of their collection. It is anticipated that during 2002/2003 there will be changes in the blood collection process to improve the cleansing of donors' arms and to divert the first few mL of blood collected (most likely to contain skin flora) away from the primary pack that is sent for component production. SHOT reports will be one source of information used to evaluate these changes. SHOT welcomes the new National Blood Transfusion Committee (NBTC) in England, which provides a potentially powerful framework for improving all aspects of clinical transfusion practice, and to support the work of local transfusion committees to promote safe and effective use of blood. It is hoped that the NBTC will oversee a continuing ‘Better Blood Transfusion’ initiative which should include introduction of the recommendations of a) the Health Service Circular (HSC) 1998/224, to date limited (Appendix 14 - PDF) and b) the HSC anticipated following the Chief Medical Officers’ ‘Better Blood Transfusion 2’ Seminar. The NBTC will also steer a Royal College of Physicians/NBS national comparative audit of blood transfusion practice. Consideration of appropriate blood usage and its alternatives remains a cornerstone of transfusion safety. BCSH guidelines on red cell transfusion6 are available. BCSH revised guidelines on FFP and platelet transfusion, as well as on autologous transfusion and alternatives to red cell transfusion, are in preparation. Attention is drawn to the new draft proposal by the European Commission (EC) for a directive covering the collection, testing, processing and distribution of blood, but not its donation or clinical use.12 SHOT continues to press for a national unified system with relevant expertise, to prioritise strategies most effective for blood safety. While a national blood safety system is not in place, we are encouraged that discussions have begun regarding a broader remit for the Department of Health’s Microbiological Safety of Blood and Tissues for Transplantation (MSBT) Committee. Resource should be allocated for implementation of SHOT’s recommended strategies to reduce the major transfusion hazard identified – transfusion of the wrong blood. Currently, SHOT receives reports on autologous pre-deposit transfusion and SD FFP (covered by the “Yellow card” system of the Medicines Control Agency (MCA), but also included for purposes of comparison in SHOT questionnaires), and this year we include the UK Haemophilia Centre Doctors’ report on adverse effects of coagulation factor concentrates (Appendix 15 - PDF). This broader picture may need to be expanded further. There is currently unprecedented interest in alternatives to donor blood, driven by concerns over vCJD and possible future blood shortages when a vCJD test becomes available. However, the UK is not yet in a position to gauge the risks and benefits of alternatives such as erythropoietin, haemodilution and cell salvage in parallel with risks from donor blood. During the forthcoming year, SHOT will consider how a broader view of the relative risks of donor blood transfusion and its alternatives can be obtained. We will also consider how best to complement the MCA reporting system for hazards from plasma products. The ultimate aim is to provide comprehensive and co-ordinated data – a national haemovigilance ‘umbrella’ - to inform policy for overall blood transfusion safety. Finally, we owe SHOT’s success to the overwhelming support and enthusiasm of hospital staff who take the time to complete report forms and detailed follow-up questionnaires. We warmly thank all participants. Hannah Cohen MD FRCP FRCPath Chair, SHOT Steering Group. Qwerty and those who insist ‘The risk associated with blood has never been less risky in history,’ really do need to think again. Jehovah’s Witnesses stand on the blood issue continues to be vindicated as sound practice despite the antagonism that is heaped upon them by misinformed people who are bent on distorting the truth. Jehovah is not one to be mocked. Blood is sacred and to be used as Jehovah prescribes, for sacrificial purposes which pointed forwarded to the shed blood of Christ which is the basis of our salvation. Gordon
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 06/06/2005 11:36
Gordon no one is denying that terrible mistakes have been made with blood but you are and no doubt the information is from Watchtower sources of which we cannot trust as history has proven are misleading the readers for before the Aids scare the Watchtower was allowing haemophiliacs to take blood products. What the Watchtower is good at is espousing blatant propaganda to further its own message. The Watchtower Society (WTS) has often been aided in its indoctrination efforts by the popular press. The WTS has fully exploited the AIDS scare to justify their blood prohibition, since one of the ways the AIDS virus (HIV) spreads is through blood transfusions. Some people were infected with HIV by blood transfusions, and these tragedies caused press reports and investigations by authorities. Safer blood products came as a result. The WTS has used such tragedies to indoctrinate Jehovah\'s Witnesses (JWs) about the horrors of blood transfusions. In so doing it attacks medical professionals and the International Red Cross: \"Contaminated Blood Given to Haemophiliacs BLOOD has become a two-billion-dollar-a-year business. The pursuit of profits from it has resulted in a gigantic tragedy in France. HIV-contaminated blood caused the death of 250 haemophiliacs in AIDS-related illnesses, with hundreds more infected.—The Boston Globe, October 28, 1992, page 4. An \"unholy alliance\" of medical negligence and commercial greed led to the death of some 400 German haemophiliacs, with at least 2,000 additional ones infected with HIV-contaminated blood.—Guardian Weekly, August 22, 1993, page 7. Canada had its own blood scandal. It is estimated that more than 700 Canadian haemophiliacs were treated with HIV-infected blood. The government was warned in July 1984 that the Red Cross was distributing AIDS-contaminated blood to Canadian haemophiliacs, but the contaminated blood products were not withdrawn from the market until a year later, August 1985.—The Globe and Mail, July 22, 1993, page A21, and The Medical Post, March 30, 1993, page 26.\" (Awake! May 22, 1994, p. 31) Such reports give the WTS ample ammunition to attack authorities, health officials and courts that order blood transfusions: \"Sample causes of AIDS in these cases were: \"Exposed to virus-infected blood during surgery,\" \"Infected by a 1983 transfusion,\" \"Infected by a transfusion, she infected her husband and a son,\" \"A blood transfusion gave him AIDS,\" \"Contracted AIDS from blood transfusion during 1981 surgery,\" \"Haemophiliac; his young son died of AIDS and his wife has ARC [AIDS Related Complex],\" \"He got AIDS from a blood transfusion, and he endured three years of pain, paralysis and encroaching blindness.\" One case, a 13-month-old baby, \"died, as did his mother, from a contaminated blood transfusion.\" A two-year-old girl \"had a blood transfusion shortly after birth\" and died of AIDS. In view of these evident risks, why are some authorities still insisting on forcing blood transfusions on adult Jehovah’s Witnesses and their babies?\" (Awake! April 8, 1988, p. 31) It is misleading for the WTS to use the AIDS scare to support the wisdom of its position on blood. The fact is that before anyone had heard of AIDS, way back in 1970\'s, the Society began permitting the use of blood products to treat haemophilia. \"What, however, about accepting serum injections to fight against disease, such as are employed for diphtheria, tetanus, viral hepatitis, rabies, haemophilia and Rh incompatibility? This seems to fall into a \'grey area.\' Some Christians believe that accepting a small amount of a blood derivative for such a purpose would not be a manifestation of disrespect for God\'s law; their conscience would permit such.\" (The Watchtower, June 15, 1978, pp. 30, 31, bold added) So, contrary to what the WTS claims, no one has to \"force\" these blood products on JW patients, because they are already allowed to accept them. When it changed its policy practically all-surviving JW\'s with serious haemophilia received HIV. Few survived serious haemophilia until the treatment appeared. In contrast the blood products JW\'s still refuse have rarely carried HIV infections. Instead of being protected, JW\'s get both the negative effects of accepting some types of blood transfusions, and the negative effects of refusing other types. On top of the danger caused by refusing necessary treatment, in practice JW\'s are exposed to HIV from blood. In Canada infection of the blood supply caused a public inquiry. The WTS gave plenty of coverage to this hearing. After listing many of the tragedies it said: \"In contrast with the disheartening evidence, a happier account was put before Justice Krever on May 25, 1994, in Regina, Saskatchewan. William J. Hall, a 75-year-old man with severe haemophilia, told how he successfully manages his condition using alternatives to blood products. And he does not have AIDS. As one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mr. Hall has avoided blood and blood factors because of his religious conscience.\" (Awake! June 8, 1995, p. 21) If Mr. Hall had read The Watchtower magazine more carefully, he might have discovered that the WTS no longer considered blood factors for haemophiliacs sacred, and his \"conscience,\" like that of other Witnesses, might have guided him differently. The WTS gives the impression that following its counsel saved Mr. Hall from infection by HIV. The fact is that Mr. Hall, one of the rare survivors of severe haemophilia, probably was saved from HIV by ignoring or not knowing about the WTS reversal on the treatment. Also worth noting is that the vast majority of people with severe haemophilia who did get HIV would not be alive in the first place without blood factor transfusions. In summary, in spite of the WTS propaganda AIDS has demonstrated that there is no Providence behind the blood prohibition. The timing could not have been worse when the WTS reversed its position and permitted blood factor transfusions just before AIDS was discovered. The great majority of those who receive HIV through blood transfusions are haemophiliacs, and the WTS position gives them no protection whatsoever. Clearly, the WTS is being disingenuous in its propaganda and shows disrespect for the facts. The moral of the story here is Gordon - I think you are being brainwashed by Watchtower information and blatant propaganda. Qwerty
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 07/06/2005 11:28
Gordon, you have written many words above, attempting to support a religious pretext. Remember tho that many sects use religion to attempt to support their belief that it's acceptable to mutilate and butcher their own children. Also, you have not quoted any mecical reason why it is unacceptable for JW's to use their own preop stored blood. I am not interested in whatever supposed religious reasons you may seek to tout - only medical/ scientific ones. As it is on these grounds that courts in this country seek to judege whether or not they need to make your children wards of court.
 
  Gordon(VIN29308)  Posted: 07/06/2005 13:57
Anon 7-06- 05 11:28 Our issue is very simple, we do not take any ones blood, not ours,(stored blood) or any body elses, this is in line with our acceptance of the Bible\'s command to \'abstain from blood\', which has been well documented on this site. Our stand on the whole blood issue is for Bible basesd reasons, not medical ones. It just so happens that the facts support this wisdom! You say you are not interested in religous reasons-only medical/scientific ones. But how do you feel after reading the two reports that showed Jehovah\'s Witnesses have a motality of 1.5% (kitchens report) as opposed to a mortality rate of 2.5% ( and could be as high as 4.8%!)for those that take blood (Shot report) This medical report shows that it is far more dangerous to take blood than not to take it. Therefore why would courts want to make our children wards of the state to inflict on them a more dangerous medical procedure? Please note, these statistics have not been supplied by the WT org, but are off the net.available for all too see. To further empasize the point I submit further evidence that it is safer not to have blood.in his article \"Blood Transfusion: Uses, Abuses, and Hazards,\" Dr. Douglas H. Posey, Jr., writes: \"Nearly 30 years ago Sampson described blood transfusion as a relatively dangerous procedure . . . [Since then] at least 400 additional red cell antigens have been identified and characterized. There is no doubt the number will continue to increase because the red cell membrane is enormously complex.\"—Journal of the National Medical Association, July 1989. The journal Cancer (February 15, 1987) gave the results of a study done in the Netherlands: \"In the patients with colon cancer, a significant adverse effect of transfusion on long-term survival was seen. In this group there was a cumulative 5-year overall survival of 48% for the transfused and 74% for the nontransfused patients.\" Physicians at the University of Southern California followed up on a hundred patients who underwent cancer surgery. \"The recurrence rate for all cancers of the larynx was 14% for those who did not receive blood and 65% for those who did. For cancer of the oral cavity, pharynx, and nose or sinus, the recurrence rate was 31% without transfusions and 71% with transfusions.\"—Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology, March 1989. Dr. P. I. Tartter did a study of colorectal surgery. Of patients given transfusions, 25 percent developed infections, compared with 4 percent of those who received no transfusions. He reports: \"Blood transfusions were associated with infectious complications when given pre-, intra-, or postoperatively . . . The risk of postoperative infection increased progressively with the number of units of blood given.\" (The British Journal of Surgery, August 1988) Those attending a 1989 meeting of the American Association of Blood Banks learned this: Whereas 23 percent of those who received donor blood during hip-replacement surgery developed infections, those given no blood had no infections at all. Dr. John A. Collins wrote concerning this effect of blood transfusions: \"It would be ironic indeed if a \'treatment\' which has very little evidence of accomplishing anything worthwhile should subsequently be found to intensify one of the main problems faced by such patients.\"—World Journal of Surgery, February 1987. So Anon, you may want to change your position, and think a little more deeper when it comes to taking blood.You may just decide that for medical/scientific reasons you may seek other alternative treatment. Again, Jehovah\'s Witnesses don\'t take blood for religous reasons, and it is becoming increadingly clear that Jehovah knows far more about blood than those who attempt to play \'God.\' Gordon PS Qwerty still waiting for your statistics and your recognition that the stats. that I have quoted have nothing to do with WT!
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 07/06/2005 14:32
So, what is he logical reason why blood salvage (recycling one's own blood) isacceptable but storing ones own blood prior to an op, is not - This of course refers to the period before WT.org changed jw's minds for them.
 
  Gordon(VIN29308)  Posted: 07/06/2005 16:08
Anonymous 14.32 The reason is that in the instance of the stored blood the blood has left the body completly. With regard to blood salvage, some witnesses may deem the system used as an extension of their own blood system and feel that is acceptable, (much the same as blood is cleansed for patients with kidney problems)Others perhaps would not. Each Witness makes up their own minds on this. Perhaps Anon may like to comment on the statistics I have quoted, which show conclusively one is better off not having a transfusion. Gordon
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 07/06/2005 16:30
Gordon, using ones own pre-op stored blood is NOT the same as a transfusion. You seem fond of quoting WT's medical stats, yet when it comes down to it, you cannot state a medical reason why JW's cannot use their own pre-op stored blood (before the WT.org changed their minds for them that is.)
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 07/06/2005 20:03
In my opinion, Gordon\'s contribution is useless. Doctors would not use blood transfusions unless it was in the best interest of their patients. JW\'s have \"boasted\" in their publications that their own children have died rather than take a transfusion. So how come they died? This is why judges in this state make JW children wards of court. The court decides that that is the correct thing to do otherwise they would not interfere in the religious beliefs of citizens. Gordon\'s religion tells him it\'s wrong so he tries to fit the facts to suit. Similar procedure to the anti-evolution campaigners. His little stories of those that fared badly with transfusions and visa versa are also completely useless as he could be telling us lies, half truths or cherry picking. His “statistics” are exactly the same. Cherry picking. Useless. Anecdotal evidence is also useless and those trying to use it include, UFO nuts, Alien abductees, anti-MMR campaigners etc... There is no science content in anything Gordon says. Can Gordon tell us how old he thinks the Earth is, in years please and not days.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 07/06/2005 21:02
Gordon with all due respect what you are posting is over most peoples minds. You see your stats may have some substance but your message is lost! Watchtower propaganda and yes more PROPAGANDA and O yes “theocratic warfare” at its most confusing. Gordon come on; start explaining TRANSPLANTS and VACCINES and why it is scripturally OK to take these Now.Qwerty
 
  Gordon(VIN29308)  Posted: 07/06/2005 21:19
Anon 16:30 Would Anon kindly show me where I have quoted WT's medical stats. I have been very careful to make the comparrison between what was reported by JAMA: (KItchens report) which shows Witness mortality to be 1.5% and what was reported by Shot which shows a mortality of 2.5%-4.8%.for those that take blood. These stats have got nothing to do with WT org!WE don't profess to have a medical reason for not taking our own stored blood. We see it as a violation of the injunction to keep free from blood. Again the stats speak for themselves keeping free from blood makes good medical sense. The stats show that. If any one would like to produce other stats. please supply them. I am still waiting for Qwerty to provide the evidence he indicated he had. The silence is deafening. Gordon
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 08/06/2005 10:51
Gordon, you say "Again the stats speak for themselves keeping free from blood makes good medical sense." - How does this apply to people who use their own pre-op stried blood? What stats can you cherry pick to prove that - or disproivehe opposite? How many people die from using their own pre-op stored blood?
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 08/06/2005 11:01
In 1995 a Jehovah’s Witness may have his own blood transfused back into him under certain circumstances. Acute Normovolemic Hemodilution (ANH) and autologous blood salvage procedure (Cell Saver) are acceptable and involve brief storing of the blood outside of the body. (Watchtower 8/1/95, p. 30) So well said William for here we see Gordon cherry picking or may be he is absent minded! Qwerty
 
  Gordon(VIN29308)  Posted: 08/06/2005 15:11
In answer to Williams postings here are some of his comments ‘I don’t know the figures for Ireland but I would guess that tens of thousands of people (including my father) are alive today that otherwise would be dead if they had not had operations and blood transfusions. How many are dead as a consequence? A few dozen.’ William if I or any other Witness came up with such a ‘guess’ you would make a mockery of the point. I have not submitted ‘guesses’ But reputable reports, I might add, in full, so that I would not be accused of misquoting. Hardly ‘cherry picking’. Please provide the reports that substantiate the following quote from you, ‘medical science still uses transfusions on the clear understanding backed by comprehensive research and medical audit that it saves lives overall,’ Where is this ‘comprehensive research and medical audit that it saves lives’ or are you just guessing again?. William present facts please, not guesses! And further William says ‘Doctors would not use blood transfusions unless it was in the best interest of their patients.’ Again, please produce evidence. In regard to finding information on transfusion deaths I present the following info: e-Network Forum Deaths After Transfusion - When to Investigate? Recently one of our members shared with the e-network that her institution was "still reeling from a 1998 FDA inspection where the institution was cited for not having reported a possible transfusion-related fatality. As a result of this citation the facility instituted a policy that requires their nurses to report to the laboratory each time a patient expires, if that patient received blood in the final 24 hours of life. Upon being informed of a patient's death, the laboratory performs a standard transfusion reaction investigation to rule out the possibility that the death was due to the transfusion therapy. The inquiring member asked the e-network if any other institutions have such a policy, or if other institutions merely rely on the clinician to determine that a patient's death might have been transfusion-related? The inquiring member also wanted to know what other institutions did if a patient expired directly as a result of trauma(but got blood before dying) or if a nurse wrote in the "vital sign" section of Transfusion Record "patient coded". Do any institutions automatically work up such deaths as possible transfusion reactions? Finally, the inquiring member wanted to know if other Blood Banks obtained a copy of the completed Transfusion Record (from the patient's medical chart, including the vital signs), so Blood Bank staff can independently review for increases in temperature. etc.? To which the following replies have been received [NOTE: some of the replies have been slightly edited for the sake of clarity): Reply #1: We are a large three-hospital system. We have never had such a proactive approach to what is admittedly a potentially problematic issue. While such an approach would be expected to have some level of case yield, I believe that it would be so small as have little merit -- at least to undertake it voluntarily. We do receive copies of the transfusion requisitions (not invariably), but we often find that vital signs have been entered in the patient's chart instead of on the requisitions. In our facilities, reviewing these would not be a good means of uncovering unreported reactions. Reply #2: No, at our institution we don't have such a policy and I think implementation of such a policy is not warranted either. In the situation under discussion, temporary followup on fatalities that coincide with blood transfusions may be helpful as an audit tool to ensure that staff is following appropriate procedures. Beyond that, I would concentrate on a thorough review of all transfusion-related procedures and policies and formulation of a corrective actions plan, if warranted. I would channel energy and resources into prevention of transfusion accidents and errors -that should also take care of any worries that something bad is happening and you don't hear about it. Reply #3: Our Blood Bank does not attempt to establish cause of death by an independent chart review. Also, we do not initiate investigations of possible transfusion-related fatalities on all deaths because the patient was coincidentally receiving a transfusion. We feel that the cause of death is most accurately established by the patient's physician. Having said that, I do not exclude the theoretical possibility that someday there could be a specific adverse laboratory finding, such as red plasma in a tube sent to the chemistry laboratory for analysis following our issuing Red Blood Cells to that patient's roommate, that would raise concern and such an independent investigation. In that theoretical situation, I would take each step with awareness that I'll probably be explaining these actions someday in a courtroom. Reply #4: Working up all deaths as possible transfusion reactions because transfusion has been received in the 24 hours prior to death is "over the top". Reply #5: We do not perform routine surveillance as described by the inquiring member for the possibility of fatal reactions. The clinical staff is responsible for "calling" a transfusion reaction, although questions regarding this can forwarded to the blood bank staff and pathologist. It would be a Herculean task to do a transfusion reaction workup on all deceased patients who had blood 24 hours prior to death, at least at our institution. It seems that this as much a clinical problem as a laboratory one, and that an effort to educate the clinical staff about transfusion reactions might be more rewarding. If one assumes a death rate from hemolytic reactions as 1:100,000 to 1:600,000 RBC's transfused, and that most of these will be suspected clinically anyway, one might go through a lifetime(s) of screening to discover the very rare "silent" fatal transfusion reaction. Reply #6: As the transfusion service director in a county hospital with a Level I trauma center (not the Web Master's place!), I attempted to monitor whether transfusions given within 24 hours of death were in any way related to death. The conclusion was that in most cases, death soon after admission was due to trauma and not to the multiple transfusions received by in extremis patients; however, one possible case of TRALI was picked up in a non-trauma patient and reported. A study of patients with ARDS to rule out TRALI would be more productive. Reply #7: The tip of another iceberg and one reason why FDA gets so very few reports compared to the reality. Follow-up is performed from a serological perspective and intervention of the Transfusion Service. We sometimes hear rumors or will call to find out what happened when we hear a patient we transfused has died. Transfusion medicine physicians make the call about what to report and when; we've routinely had to "strongly encourage" nurses to report their findings to lab even in routine reaction reporting. Without a knowledgeable staff who go that extra mile, know where to probe for the information, and are willing to stand firmly for doing the right thing, many transfusion-related concerns do not get followed up. This is the very issue which most concerns me when using a "generalist" staffing method. Generalists can be trained but the depth of their experience is often the issue. Reply #8: We rely on the clinician to determine the cause of death. We do, however, review transfusion slips which have the pre and post transfusion vital signs. Reply #9: We routinely screen the transfusion tag for abnormal vitals. We also have access to the daily admission, death and discharge log, so that we can respond with a workup to any nursing or physician suspicion of a fatality. In the past 15 years, we have never had a fatal transfusion reaction reported to us that had not been reported contemporaneously with a transfusion. I think perhaps the facility in question had no policy, procedure and no education in place for medical staff and perhaps that was why their FDA inspector cited them. Reply #10: We do not audit all deaths in our hospital to see if patients were getting transfused at the time they died and then working up those cases as a suspected transfusion reaction. We rely on those caring for the patient to inform us of transfusion reactions and of suspected deaths due to transfusion. I have always found the patient care areas to not hesitate to inform the laboratory if they think a patient's death was attributable to the transfusion. I think general education of the nursing and physician staffs concerning the recognition and treatment of transfusion reactions is more efficacious, in the long run, than searching for zebras when there aren't any. Having said that, I think that the short term monitoring and gathering of data can be useful as a quality assurance/compliance audit. For example, one can look at a number of issues related to proper completion of paperwork, proper transfusion techniques, proper monitoring of the patient's vital signs, proper recognition of transfusion reactions by patient care personnel, etc. If such an audit would demonstrate, for example, that transfusion reactions are not being properly recognized and worked up, then an educational effort might be needed. This would seem to be a better approach in the long run rather than the transfusion service assuming the role of transfusion reaction "police". Reply #11: We absolutely do not pro-actively look for deaths in patients who have received transfusions. Our hospital supports large hematology/oncology and BMT programs, as well as complex cardiovascular surgery and a trauma center. When we try to notify recipients in lookback programs, we find that almost 1/4 of our transfusion recipients died during the same hospitalization in which they were transfused, related to their underlying diseases. With regard to transfusion reaction reports, part of our protocol is that when a report of a "possible transfusion reaction" is received by the transfusion service, a transfusion service technologist calls the reporting nursing unit and inquires as to the current status of the patient. There are criteria for contacting the transfusion service physician, which include dyspnea, cyanosis, hypotension, shock, death (and of course, testing that indicates the presence of a hemolytic reaction). The transfusion service physician will follow-up on any of these "worrisome" symptoms. And finally, a Note from the Web Master: At USC we do not routinely perform a transfusion reaction workup on a patient just because he/she died within 24 hours of being transfused. Such a policy would result in an enormous amount of unnecessary work, because all too often a trauma patient expires in close relationship to a transfusion. However, if a clinical suspicion of a cause and effect that a transfusion might have contributed to a patient's death is raised by a clinician, nurse, family member or anyone who might have a legitimate opinion, an investigation is done to determine the cause of death and the role (if any) that the transfusion might have played as a contributing cause. In the absence of a clerical error leading to administration of ABO-incompatible blood or of a clinically overt reaction attributed to a transfusion (i.e., acute hemolysis, anaphylaxis, acute respiratory distress or sepsis), it is unlikely that a transfusion would be responsible for death in the acute setting. Furthermore, if a forensic investigation to determine the cause of death including a review of the medical records and the performance of an autopsy reveal no link to a transfusion, then a transfusion-related death is most likely excluded. On the other hand, if a clinical or laboratory investigation reveals evidence of one of the following: [1] post-transfusion hemolysis (such a finding in a massive trauma victim must be interpreted with caution, as hemoglobinemia and hemoglobinuria may result directly or indirectly from a traumatic injury or may be confused with myoglobinuria), [2] an incompatible transfusion, [3] clinical evidence of an anaphylactic or acute pulmonary reaction to transfusion, or [4] a bacterially contaminated blood component, then there may have been a causal link between the patient's death and a transfusion. In the event a blood transfusion is proven or highly likely to be related to a patient's death, we will report the fatality to the FDA, as required. ADDENDUM 7-25-00 William, your services for guessing could proof to be well sought after. Although I do believe that your credibility could be a problem. NOt long ago you made this comment '. Why is 90% of a creature’s genome junk DNA that does nothing EXCEPT provide a future mechanism for Evolution and was caused by random mutation? [A gene can get copied by accident and sit there as a piece of non acting DNA or junk DNA. Then other mutations in it eventually may cause it to do something useful so it becomes part of the family of coding DNA. The reason there is so much junk is that useful mutations rarely happen, so therefore lots of junk.'Was all this just another wild guess? How much 'science content'is in your comment? I leave it to readers of this track to review the following information, and draw their own conclusions.(Hopefully, William just may change his point of view!) "Junk DNA" Over 95 percent of DNA has largely unknown function By Jaan Suurkula M.D. Summary Presently, only the function of a few percent of the DNA is known, the rest has been believed to be useless garbage, commonly called "Junk DNA" by molecular biologists. Increasing evidence is now indicating that this DNA is not "junk" at all. Especially, it has been found to have various regulatory roles. This means that this so-called "non-coding DNA" influences the behavior of the genes, the "coding DNA", in important ways. However, the knowledge is still very incomplete about this DNA. And there is little knowledge about the relationship between non-coding DNA and the DNA of genes. Without this knowledge it is completely impossible to foresee and control the effect of artificial insertion of foreign genes. This is a very important reason why genetic engineering is unsuitable for commercial application. It is still at a stage of early experimentation with very incomplete understanding about its consequences. According to the ethical standards of sound science, the products of such experimentation should be strictly contained in labortories, especially as released DNA may spread indefinitely in an uncontrollable way. ________________________________________ Presently, only the function of a few percent of the DNA is known, the rest has been believed to be "junk". The most exhaustive knowledge is about the genes responsible for the bodily structures, the structural genes, which are the simplest part of the system. But the knowledge about the most important part of this system, the regulator genes, is incomplete. The genetic code language of these genes is only partially known. More than 95 percent of all DNA, was called "Junk DNA" by molecular biologists, because they were unable to ascribe any function to it. They assumed that it was just "molecular garbage". If it were "junk", the sequence of the "syllables", i.e. the nucleotides in DNA should be completely random. However it has been found that the sequence of the syllables is not random at all and has a striking resemblance with the structure of human language (ref. Flam, F. "Hints of a language in junk DNA", Science 266:1320, 1994, see quote below). Therefore, scientists now generally believe that this DNA must contain some kind of coded information. But the code and its function is yet completely unknown. It has been reported that the sequences of this unknown DNA are inherited and that some repetitive patterns in it seem to be associated with increased risk for cancer. Also, the DNA has been found to mutate rapidly for example in response to cancer. It has been speculated that this DNA may contribute to the regulation of cellular processes. Haig H. Kazazian, Jr., chairman of genetics at the University of Pennysylvania has recently found reasons to suspect they may be a key force for the development of new species during evolution. He thinks this DNA may be essential for increasing the plasticity of the hereditary substance. Such observations have spurred an extensive research into "Junk DNA" in recent years, some of which is briefly presented below. Recent studies Various important roles of "Junk DNA" have been discovered in recent years. In June 2004 a team at Harvard Medical School (HMS) reported, that they have, in a yeast, found a "Junk DNA" gene that regulates the activity of nearby genes. While common genes work by giving rise to proteins, this gene works by just being switched on. Then it blocks the activity of an adjacent gene. Quote: "In a region of DNA long considered a genetic wasteland, HMS researchers have discovered a new class of gene."... "The researchers have evidence that the new gene, SRG1, works by physically blocking transcription of the adjacent gene, SER3. They found that transcription of SRG1 prevents the binding of a critical piece of SER3's transcriptional machinery." Source: "Junk DNA Yields New Kind of Gene", Focus, Harvard Medical School, June 4 2004. Some studies have found that noncoding DNA plays a vital role in the regulation of gene expression during development (Ting SJ. 1995. A binary model of repetitive DNA sequence in Caenorhabditis elegans. DNA Cell Biol. 14: 83-85.), including: • development of photoreceptor cells (Vandendries ER, Johnson D, Reinke R. 1996. Orthodenticle is required for photoreceptor cell development in the Drosophila eye. Dev Biol 173: 243-255.), • the reproductive tract (Keplinger BL, Rabetoy AL, Cavener DR. 1996. A somatic reproductive organ enhancer complex activates expression in both the developing and the mature Drosophila reproductive tract. Dev Biol 180: 311-323.), and • the central nervous system (Kohler J, Schafer-Preuss S, Buttgereit D. 1996. Related enhancers in the intron of the beta1 tubulin gene of Drosophila melanogaster are essential for maternal and CNS-specific expression during embryogenesis. Nucleic Acids Res 24: 2543-2550.). Over 700 studies have demonstrated the role of non-coding DNA as enhancers for transcription of proximal genes. This includes a/o: • eosinophil-derived neurotoxin (EDN) and eosinophil cationic protein (ECP) (Tiffany HL, Handen JS, Rosenberg HF. 1996. Enhanced expression of the eosinophil-derived neurotoxin ribonuclease (RNS2) gene requires interaction between the promoter and intron. J Biol Chem 271: 12387-12393), • the variable region of the rearranged immunoglobulin mu (IgM) gene (Jenuwein T, Forrester WC, Fernandez-Herrero LA, Laible G, Dull M, Grosschedl R. 1997. Extension of chromatin accessibility by nuclear matrix attachment regions. Nature 385: 269-272.; Nikolajczyk BS, Nelsen B, Sen R. 1996. Precise alignment of sites required for mu enhancer activation in B cells. Mol Cell Biol 16: 4544-4554), • the alpha-globin gene (Bouhassira EE, Kielman MF, Gilman J, Fabry MF, Suzuka S, Leone O, Gikas E, Bernini LF, Nagel RL. 1997. Properties of the mouse alpha-globin HS-26: relationship to HS-40, the major enhancer of human alpha-globin gene expression. Am J Hematol 54: 30-39), • the activin beta A subunit gene (Tanimoto K, Yoshida E, Mita S, Nibu Y, Murakami K, Fukamizu A. 1996. Human activin betaA gene. Identification of novel 5' exon, functional promoter, and enhancers. J Biol Chem 271: 32760-32769). Over 60 studies have demonstrated the role of non-coding DNA as silencers for suppression of transcription of proximal genes. Such silencer genes include a/o: • apolipoprotein A-II gene (Bossu JP, Chartier FL, Fruchart JC, Auwerx J, Staels B, Laine B. 1996. Two regulatory elements of similar structure and placed in tandem account for the repressive activity of the first intron of the human apolipoprotein A-II gene. Biochem J 318: 547-553.), • the osteocalcin gene (Goto K, Heymont JL, Klein-Nulend J, Kronenberg HM, Demay MB. 1996. Identification of an osteoblastic silencer element in the first intron of the rat osteocalcin gene. Biochemistry 35: 11005-11011), • the 2-crystallin gene (Dirks RP, Kraft HJ, Van Genesen ST, Klok EJ, Pfundt R, Schoenmakers JG, Lubsen NH. 1996. The cooperation between two silencers creates an enhancer element that controls both the lens-preferred and the differentiation stage-specific expression of the rat beta B2-crystallin gene. Eur J Biochem 239: 23-32). Some studies indicate that non-coding DNA regulate translation of proteins. This includes a/o • the Lipoprotein Lipase gene (Ranganathan G, Vu D, Kern PA. 1997. Translational Regulation of Lipoprotein Lipase by Epinephrine Involves a Trans-acting Binding Protein Interacting with the 3' Untranslated Region. J Biol Chem 272: 2515-2519) • glutathione peroxidase and phospholipid-hydroperoxide glutathione peroxidase genes (Bermano G, Arthur JR, Hesketh JE. 1996. Role of the 3' untranslated region in the regulation of cytosolic glutathione peroxidase and phospholipid-hydroperoxide glutathione peroxidase gene expression by selenium supply. Biochem J 320: 891-895), • the luteinizing hormone/human chorionic gonadotropin receptor gene (58. Lu DL, Menon KM. 1996. 3' untranslated region-mediated regulation of luteinizing hormone/human chorionic gonadotropin receptor expression. Biochemistry 35: 12347-12353), • the thyrotropin receptor gene (Kakinuma A, Chazenbalk G, Filetti S, McLachlan SM, Rapoport B. 1996. BOTH the 5' and 3' noncoding regions of the thyrotropin receptor messenger ribonucleic acid influence the level of receptor protein expression in transfected mammalian cells. Endocrinology 137: 2664-2669), • the interleukin 1 type I receptor gene (Ye K, Vannier E, Clark BD, Sims JE, Dinarello CA. 1996. Three distinct promoters direct transcription of different 5' untranslated regions of the human interleukin 1 type I receptor: a possible mechanism for control of translation. Cytokine 8: 421-429) Conclusion The idea that a major part of our DNA is "garbage" ignored the fact that a key feature of biological organisms is optimal energy expenditure. To carry enormous amounts of unnecessary molecules is contrary to this fundamental energy saving feature of biological organisms. Increasing evidence are now indicating many important functions of this DNA, including various regulatory roles. This means that this so-called non-coding DNA influences the behavior of the genes, the "coding DNA", in important ways. Still there is very little knowledge about the relationship between non-coding DNA and the DNA of genes. This adds to other factors making it impossible to foresee and control the effect of artificial insertion of foreign genes. ________________________________________ Appendix JUNK DNA- May Not Be Junk After All (Quoted from Gene exchange no 2, 1996) In another reminder that we may not understand the full ramifications of genetic engineering, Science magazine recently reported new work on the function of genetic material*. Scientists have long been puzzled by the fact that fully 97% of the DNA in human cells does not code for proteins and appears to consist of meaningless sequences. The possibility that this apparently useless DNA has some as yet unknown function continues to tantalize scientists. The Science article reports on a paper suggesting that the non-coding 97% of the DNA, commonly referred to as junk DNA, might have a function. The authors of the paper employed linguistic tests to analyze junk DNA and discovered striking similarities to ordinary language. The scientists interpret those similarities as suggestions that there might be messages in the junk sequences, although its anyone s guess as to how the language might work. * F. Flam, Hints of a language in junk DNA, Science 266:1320, 1994. Last Updated: Wednesday, 12 May, 2004, 13:56 GMT 14:56 UK E-mail this to a friend Printable version 'Junk' throws up precious secret By Julianna Kettlewell BBC News Online science staff Humans and rats share large amounts of DNA A collection of mystery DNA segments, which seem to be critical for the survival of many animals, are causing great interest among scientists. Researchers inspecting the genetic code of rats, mice and humans were surprised to find they shared many identical chunks of apparently "junk" DNA. This implies the code is so vital that even 75 million years of evolution in these mammals could not tinker with it. But what the DNA does, and how, is a puzzle, the journal Science reports. Excess baggage? Before scientists began laboriously mapping several animal life-codes, they had a rather narrow opinion about which parts of the genome were important. According to the traditional viewpoint, the really crucial things were genes, which code for proteins - the "building blocks of life". A few other sections that regulate gene function were also considered useful. It absolutely knocked me off my chair David Haussler, University of California The rest was thought to be excess baggage - or "junk" DNA. But the new findings suggest this interpretation was somewhat wanting. David Haussler of the University of California, Santa Cruz, US, and his team compared the genome sequences of man, mouse and rat. They found - to their astonishment - that several great stretches of DNA were identical across the three species. To guard against this happening by coincidence, they looked for sequences that were at least 200 base-pairs (the molecules that make up DNA) in length. Statistically, a sequence of this length would almost never appear in all three by chance. Not only did one sequence of this length appear in all three - 480 did. Vital function The regions largely matched up with chicken, dog and fish sequences, too; but are absent from sea squirt and fruit flies. "It absolutely knocked me off my chair," said Professor Haussler. "It's extraordinarily exciting to think that there are these ultra-conserved elements that weren't noticed by the scientific community before." DNA: THE CODE OF LIFE The double-stranded DNA molecule is held together by chemical components called bases Adenine (A) bonds with thymine (T); cytosine (C) bonds with guanine (G) These letters form the "code of life"; there are close to 3 billion base pairs in mammals such as humans and rodents Written in the DNA of these animals are 25,000-30,000 genes which cells use as templates to start the production of proteins; these sophisticated molecules build and maintain the body The really interesting thing is that many of these "ultra-conserved" regions do not appear to code for protein. If it was not for the fact that they popped up in so many different species, they might have been dismissed as useless "padding". But whatever their function is, it is clearly of great importance. We know this because ever since rodents, humans, chickens and fish shared an ancestor - about 400 million years ago - these sequences have resisted change. This strongly suggests that any alteration would have damaged the animals' ability to survive. "These initial findings tell us quite a lot of the genome was doing something important other than coding for proteins," Professor Haussler said. He thinks the most likely scenario is that they control the activity of indispensable genes and embryo development. Nearly a quarter of the sequences overlap with genes and may help slice RNA - the chemical cousin of DNA involved in protein production - into different forms, Professor Haussler believes. The conserved elements that do not actually overlap with genes tend to cluster next to genes that play a role in embryonic development. "The fact that the conserved elements are hanging around the most important development genes, suggests they have some role in regulating the process of development and differentiation," said Professor Haussler. Rethinking "junk" DNA The next step is to pin down a conclusive function for these chunks of genetic material. One method could be to produce genetically engineered mice that have bits of the sequences "knocked out". By comparing their development with that of normal mice, scientists might be able to work out the DNA's purpose. Despite all the questions that this research has raised, one thing is clear: scientists need to review their ideas about junk DNA. Professor Chris Ponting, from the UK Medical Research Council's Functional Genetics Unit, told BBC News Online: "Amazingly, there were calls from some sections to only map the bits of genome that coded for protein - mapping the rest was thought to be a waste of time. "It is very lucky that entire genomes were mapped, as this work is showing." He added: "I think other bits of 'junk' DNA will turn out not to be junk. I think this is the tip of the iceberg, and that there will be many more similar findings." William you really need to do your home work, try thinking outside the square! As regards your question How old is the earth? This point has been covered on this track, we accept what the best estimated are namely 4.6 Billion years. No william my experiences are not made up or lies. (nor are the statistics that I have posted guesses! But reports that are on line for every one to read, that is those that are prepared to think outside the box!)Just before signing off, I wonder what the producers of the Shot report would feel about William suggesting there being no science content in their report that I quoted. Gordon
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 09/06/2005 12:53
Qwerty again, has borne outwht many posters on this site have stated but Gordon chooses to ignore. The WT.org and it\'s members have changed their minds sooften on so many medial matters as to completely loose their credibility.
 
  Gordon(VIN29308)  Posted: 09/06/2005 13:32
Still no one has risen to the opportunity to contradict the evidence that I have provided that conclusively shows it is better off not too have a blood transfusion. All the claims in the world, that what I have posted is ‘not scientific’, that I am ‘cherry picking’ that what I have posted is ‘over most peoples heads’, that it is ‘from the WT’ that ‘ Doctor’s would not use blood transfusions unless it was in the best interest of their patients’ ‘that I have made it up or could be lying’ can not alter the facts. I have presented report after report that show figures that take the assumption, the ‘guess’ work out of the equation. I will quote specifically from the main reports I have drawn attention to, the JAMA Kitchen report which shows 1.5% mortality for non transfused Witnesses, the Shot report shows 2.5% (if we include probably and possibly 4.8%) but happy to stay with the lower figure. Now these reports are based on medical science. That is why I provided the whole Shot report, so that I would not be accused of just taking references out of context. In regard to the Kitchen report, this has been accepted even by Jehovah’s Witnesses harshest critics as being factual. Gordon.
 
  Gordon(VIN29308)  Posted: 09/06/2005 13:45
Anon 10:51 Don't have any stats that I could get hold of, perhaps you could provide them for us. Again, our stand is a Bible based one not a nedical one. Think you may find the following points taken from .Autologous Blood Transfusion:, Donating your Own Blood for Yourself, interesting. Start. The procedure may not be practical for children under a certain age and a paediatric expert at your child's Gauchers Centre should be consulted on this issue. Not all hospitals in the UK have the facility to collect a patient's own blood. It requires specialist nurses or doctors to take the blood, separate blood bank fridges and separate issuing fridges. Risks Risks involved with donating your own blood prior to an operation are: ? One of the biggest risks of donor blood transfusion is receiving a unit which was actually intended for somebody else. This risk remains even if one uses autologous blood transfusion. It is usually the result of human error and all hospitals take precautions to prevent it from happening. Nevertheless, the latest information indicates that it happens about once in every 30,000 units transfused. A patient's platelet count and any abnormal platelet function may indicate that a patient is not suitable to donate their own blood. ? Other risk factors making autologous pre-donation potentially dangerous for a patient may be body size, high blood pressure, pre-existing cardiac disease and seizures. Reducing the Need for Blood Transfusions Current thinking focuses on reducing the need for transfusion at the time of surgery. Increasingly surgeons and anaesthetists try to perform surgery without blood transfusion. This new emphasis on reducing blood transfusions may be a more appropriate course than autologous blood transfusion. There is evidence that surgical patients can tolerate significant degrees of anaemia and that blood transfusion does not always improve the outcome of surgery.End quote. Hope this answers your questions. Gordon ________________________________________
 
  Gordon(VIN29308)  Posted: 09/06/2005 14:30
Anon 12:53 This is getting repetitiously boring! How many times do we have to say that we all acknowledge that the WT org has changed its mind, modified its position, use whatever language you want, change its teachings. At least Jehovah's people are progressive and do not cling to old 'chestnuts'. Ever since I have been one of Jehovah's Witnesses (for 35 years) I have contended with this same old accusation. My comment has always been, as it is now, show me where we are wrong today! I am not interested in discussing what we used to believe in the past.with regard to all the issues that have raged on this track, non acceptance of blood, non acceptance of evolution, what has been provided shows that the Bibles teaching on these subjects cannot be refuted. Once again show me where our teachings are wrong today! Just as a matter of intrest all Jehovah's witnesses look forward to receiving modification, further explanations to do with Bible teachings, this is because we will never come to a full comprehension of Jehovah's mind, so there will always be new things to learn. Yes these things will no doubt modify our thinking on matters, even as science modifys its thinking based on new discoveries. ( well some change, others cling to the same unproven concepts that there is no prove for) Gordon
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 09/06/2005 21:45
The medical community in every country in the world routinely uses blood transfusions to save lives and has done so for decades. The medical community are the world’s experts on medicine and to write a 10 page email and try to convince us that Gordon the Jehovah’s Witness knows better is laughable. My evidence that transfusions are safe and save lies is the fact that millions of highly trained doctors do transfusions daily to save lies. Furthermore the 10 page email ALSO tried to convince us that all Biologists, who are obviously the world’s experts on Biology, are also wrong and guess why, they disagree with the same book, the bible. The ONLY reason Gordon opposes transfusions is that the particular mini religion that he belongs to currently interprets the bible to say that the blood contains some magic quality that renders it out of bounds (well currently 2% of it). Then Gordon tried like all extremists to proof his theory by a laundry list of problems associated with transfusions. This is as silly as giving us a 10 page email of incidents where people died AS A RESULT of wearing a seat belt as evidence that seat belts are dangerous. Trying to link deaths 24 hours after transfusion and claiming that many people die within 24 hours of receiving one is as silly as the other daft “statistic” that claims medicine kills hundreds of thousands of people in the US every year on the basis that they died while taking medicine. Of course most people who die ARE taking medicine because they are sick. Of course many people who die do so after transfusions because they had the transfusion when very sick or after serious injury. I’m beginning to think that we have lies, damn lies, and JW statistics. DNA does contain junk, in fact some sections contain hundreds of thousands of repeating code that “codes” for nothing and is obviously the result of error/mutation. The very mechanism that induces evolution, mutation, can be seen at work in the mistakes that litter DNA. This is and will become a major problem for anti-evolutionists in the years to come because it will prove evolution conclusively and mathematically. In Gordon’s email he actually quotes scientists to support his position who believe in Evolution. Saying that a particular piece of DNA was believed by someone to be junk and is now believed by someone else not to be doesn’t invalidate my point in the slightest. I am well aware that the entire genome has not been analysed fully but when it is the majority of our DNA will still be junk. I would ask Gordon to skip the huge emails whose data are far better included as links to the relevant sites or is he simply trying to drown out this thread?
 
  Gordon(VIN29308)  Posted: 10/06/2005 03:00
Qwerty: Two questions for you. When you quoted the SHOT report 98/99,that you quoted partially (31 05 05 20.46) were you quoting WTS or did you get the info off the Webb? When I presented the 2001/2002 SHOT report, (quoted in full ) that shows the death mortality figures to be 2.5%-_4.8% for those that have blood tranfusions, do you believe I was quoting from the WTS or the Webb? William, I have misquoted you, 34,000 religions not 40,000. Apologies. Still waiting for the fossel evidence, the medical evidence and to hear whether you accept a first cause. Have you changed your mind on the 'junk' DNA? Gordon
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 10/06/2005 10:41
JUNK JUNK JUNK JUNK JUNK DRIVEL DRIVEL DRIVEL "the Truth will set you free"Qwerty
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 10/06/2005 10:47
Yes, thank you Gordon it does answer my questions. But do you deny the the WT.org cahanged it mind (and the minds of it's JW follwers) on the blood issue and now allows bblood fractions, some of which comprise up to 98% while blood. This is akin to being forbidden to eat oranges but being allowed to eat orange segments. It alos changed it's mind on vaccinations, transplants and the date of the end of world.
 
  Gordon(VIN29308)  Posted: 10/06/2005 11:11
All the claims in the world, that what I have posted is ‘not scientific’, that I am ‘cherry picking’ that what I have posted is ‘over most peoples heads’, that it is ‘from the WT’ that ‘ Doctor’s would not use blood transfusions unless it was in the best interest of their patients’ ‘that I have made it up or could be lying’ can not alter the facts. I have presented report after report that show figures that take the assumption, the ‘guess’ work out of the equation. I have just had an interesting chat in the preaching work with an ex commercial pilot. He was surprised to here of our stand on blood(He had not heard of it in the past) He then proceeded to tell me how he was mugged and badly knifed in a robbery in South America. He was told that he lost 1/3 of his blood but was not given blood because there was none to give. I made the comment to him that if that happened here, he would have been given blood, and he would be telling me that if he did not have blood he would not be alive!) Yes anecdotal, but clear evidence that one does not need a transfusion to survive. (William, you used anecdotal evidence in regard to your father, but the question remains, would he still be here if he had not had a transfusion? You can not prove that he would have died if he had not had a transfusion, or are you going to tell me that is what the doctor said? Or is it a guess?) Your ‘guesses’ can not be relied upon. ( William ‘guesses’ that a ‘few dozen’ have died in Ireland from blood transfusions. Deaths just from blood given to Haemophiliacs alone amount to 74! And unfortunately their will be more.) We again come back to the issue that I have raised, if blood is better, where is the evidence? Qwerty, I am going to ignore any points you make until you provide the information that backs up your claims, specifically that one is better off with having blood. There is much made of the number of deaths of Witnesses, I need to say that any death is a tradgedy, but what about the deaths associated with blood, seeing that there is a greater mortality, shouldn’t something be done to lower this death rate? One way do bring it down would be to follow the example of Jehovah’s Witnesses, if not for Biblical reasons then for very sound medical/scientific ones. To all those ‘scientific ‘ people out there, provide the facts, reports that back up your beliefs. Unless you examine this issue you really are not thinking outside the box. It is absurd to read that William leaves these matters up to his Doctor!. Fine, provide him with the Shot report, ask him if he has read it, does he accept that it is ‘scientific’ if yes, what would he advise as regards transfusions? If he does not accept it, what information has he got to show the compilers of the Shot report that they are in error?( please note that the actual statistics are at the end of the report.) I am sure you will provide them for our edification. We need to be informed so that we can make these decisions ourselves, by all means seek advice, but please lets be aware what the facts are. Lets think outside the box! Why not print them off and take them to your own Doctor and get his/her comments and views on matters. Please lets have facts, no guessing! The main issue our children, Why would the court force a medical treatment on them where there is very little evidence of accomplishing anything worthwhile? Indeed the evidence shows that someone is better medically better off not having one. William, we accept that there is a 1.5% mortality rate, children are included in this %. I’m sure you agree that this is a better % than those who die because of having one 2.5%-4.8% If you are not sure,your educated sons will tell you that this represents better odds!. As regards ‘cherry picking’ would some one,( perhaps you William) kindly show me the cherries that I have not picked? William, it has never been my claim that I am ‘scientific’. I am first and foremost, one of Jehovah’s Witnesses who believe and have implicit faith in the inspired word of God. I am amazed with regard to your silence in regard to the articles I have posted debunking evolution. What, not able to provide any contrary point of view? Please no guessing or speculation. Weight of numbers believing in something never is a good guide, as has already been pointed out, at one time every body (except bible believers) believed the earth was flat. It didn’t matter how many of them there were, they were wrong! It has already been pointed out that at one stage accepted medical practice was to drain blood! I’m sure you would agree that, that popular custom was wrong. Look at what some people thought about ‘junk’ DNA, And look at how many people accept that transfusions save lives. Look at how many people believe Jesus was born on 25 Dec and celebrate that, even people who don’t believe still get involved, as probably you and your family do! All these people who accept or accepted these things were ignorant of the truth! And while we are talking about people believing in things with no substance, when are you going to provide the fossil evidence that I asked for quite some time back and that Noel has requested? William you are right on one thing, there are a large number of religions, you say 40,000 I’ll accept that as a ball park figure, and clearly there can only be one that is right as you say. One of the requirements for those adhering to that true religion is to ‘abstain from…… blood.’ (Acts 15:20 KJ) How many religions do you know that obey this command? Gordon.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 10/06/2005 11:49
Gordon, you state non acceptance of blood . . . shows that the Bibles teaching on these subjects cannot be refuted. But this is now a nonsense as you openly admitted on a previous posting that JW's are not allawed to take 98% of blood. Fornicaiton is alos banned (quite rightly in my opinion) Will we see a time in the future where the WTorg changes it's mind on that also and allows a percentage of fornication.? So, now that the WT org hs admitted it was wrong on blood how does it propse to make make it up toparens who forced doctors to let their children die for want of a transfusion and will they re-admit and apologise to members who took transfusions and were shunned (disfellowshipped)? As for your assertion that other religion don't obey the command to abstain from blood. Of course they, acocrding to their interpretationjust as you do according to your own interpretation. They absain from the taking of blood as in the taking of life. This is alos thought to refer to blood as used in sacfices which were populr in medcial times. Afterall, transfusions did not exist then as modern medecine was not in use.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 10/06/2005 12:24
Before blood transfusions most Haemophiliacs died young. The number that died due to AIDS & Hepatitis is far less than has been saved due to transfusions. Furthermore extracting this sub section from the total number of those receiving transfusions is exactly what I mean by cherry picking. Why not analyse those whose lives were saved after massive blood loss in accidents? It\'s simple Gordon, transfusions save lives and your attempt to distort this if true would mean that all the worlds medical people needlessly killed more people than they saved by using transfusions. An absurd opinion to hold and only possible in the mind of a religious extremist. Your further anecdote concerning the pilot also proves nothing whatsoever like the other stories. No one said that without a transfusion that any particular person HAD TO die. They use transfusions to increase the possibility that people will NOT die. When someone loses a lot of blood they MAY die, then again they may not. Their probability of dying decreases if transfusions are used. Its that simple, which bit can’t you follow? It’s amazing that you don’t understand this very basic piece of logic. JW’s always try and use little stories to prove things but Gordon in my opinion this only works on children and stupid people. Just like JW’s argument that sheep don’t evolve into Giraffes means nothing your stories about airline pilots means nothing. Many many people would needlessly die if transfusions were stopped, not everybody who currently gets one but many of those that do, that is why doctors carry them out. Believers in the bible in the middle ages believed the Earth was flat and at the centre of the universe, you are re-writing history again. The classification, fossil & geologic evidence for evolution show that various species split from each other at different times in the past related to how close these creatures are to each other. In other words a chimp is closer to a human than a dog or a lizard. In evolutionary terms the DNA of these three creatures is dissimilar related to how long ago they were the same species. The study of genetics proves the same thing. How is it that our genes are more similar to a chimp than a dog and less similar again to a lizard? The genes clearly prove evolution BECAUSE they contain evidence of the history of the specification. How does religion explain this? I might add that the evidence is only coming in. As all creatures genomes are decoded and studied this evidence will become overwhelming and allow scientists to clearly track the history of all animals and plants alive today back through their evolutionary history. In a nutshell the DNA of all species is a vast database of information of their evolutionary history. The mathematical analysis of this vast database will be available within a few decades and be mind blowing in its explanatory power of evolution of life on Earth.
 
  Gordon(VIN29308)  Posted: 10/06/2005 12:36
William says 'My evidence that transfusions are safe and save lies is the fact that millions of highly trained doctors do transfusions daily to save lies.' All except 2.5%-4.8% according to reliable figures. And even then the fact that people survive without them raises the question as to how much good they do, as has been amply demonstrated by my use of Statistice from the medical profession. William please present your fiqures. Gordon
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 10/06/2005 12:38
Lame,Lame,lame, while it is convieniant for Gordon to say he is awaiting answers from William and Qwerty it is deafening that his silence is so obvious that he can reel off \"statistics\" he has not given one answer to the FACT that the Watchtower organisation banned TRANSPLANTS and VACCINES so Gordon come on give us the \"STASTISTICS\" to why these are no longer BANNED how load does one have to SHOUT this out? The Watchtower is unappolagetic for its past history the majority of mankind cannot be wrong.Qwerty
 
  Gordon(VIN29308)  Posted: 10/06/2005 13:13
William says 'The medical community are the world’s experts on medicine' end. Medical experts tell us, 'Current thinking focuses on reducing the need for transfusion at the time of surgery. Increasingly surgeons and anaesthetists try to perform surgery without blood transfusion.'end If blood transfusions are such life savers, why does 'current thinking focus on the need to reduce blood transfusions? Gordon
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 10/06/2005 14:53
Gordon, you cannot compare two sets of statistics willy nilly and claim they prove something. Saying 1.5% of JW’s died having operations from loss of blood against 2.5-4.8% for those dying after having transfusions means nothing at all. A scientist trained in the relative disciplines would have to review such statistics and studies for any conclusions to be drawn and then others would have to review this and concur. Your error here is extremely common and crops up all over the place, including claims by Homepathy chancers, anti-vaccine weirdos and those claiming UFOs exist. For example it may very well be that no doctor will operate on someone refusing transfusions in circumstances where the risk of death due to blood loss is too great so that your statistics are based on a self selected group. This is a basic fault in many arguments based on “statistics”. Say doctors only operate without blood transfusions if they estimate that the death rate/liklyhood is 1% or less CAUSED BY BLOOD LOSS, then if they are accurate all operations without blood would result is this statistic you quote. On the other hand doctors will always operate on someone if they can use transfusions. I do not accept that 1 in 20 people die as a result of transfusions or anything like it. The statistics could very well be of a group of sick JWs who needed life saving operations, 1.5% died as a direct result of not having blood transfusions from lack of blood, another 10% died because they refused blood transfusions and doctors would not operate and another 25% suffered on with whatever condition they had. This may mean 36.5% of very sick JW’s died or suffered ongoing conditions which may eventually kill them against maybe 1 in 1000 of non JW’s. Unless a proper controlled study was done ALL your existing figures are utterly useless. What is a FACT is that the entire medical profession totally disagree with you. It IS amazing the similarity between anti-fluoridation arguments, pro-Homeopathy and CAM in general and Gordon’s line. Pseudo science, misuse of statistics, mis-understanding of evidence, selective quoting of statistics and the faulty analysis of studies and downright distortion of facts.
 
  Gordon(VIN29308)  Posted: 10/06/2005 14:58
Qwerty, as already stated, I will answer your questions only after you have kindly answered mine. I have repeated them so many times now I refuse to do so again. Qwerty, you first! Gordon
 
  Gordon(VIN29308)  Posted: 10/06/2005 15:12
William, why can't you accept that 1.5% mortality is less than 2.5-4.8% mortality? Gordon
 
  Gordon(VIN29308)  Posted: 10/06/2005 15:19
William says ' Why not analyse those whose lives were saved after massive blood loss in accidents?'end I have. I'll repeat them for you. The medical journal Surgical Rounds recently published the results of two studies that revealed a “greatly increased” death rate for persons who receive massive blood transfusions over short periods of time. “The overall mortality rate of 50%,” reports the journal, “reflects the severity of the problems associated with massive transfusion.” Surgical Rounds also stated: “As might be expected, there was a substantial rise in mortality rate with increased numbers of transfusions. The mortality rate with 10 to 14 units of blood was 37%; with 15 to 19 units, 53%; with 20 to 24 units, 62%; and with 25 or more units, 78%.” For those who do not die from massive transfusions, there was a great risk of serious complications. “Approximately 85% of the patients receiving 10-19 units of blood and virtually all patients receiving 20 or more units of blood within a 24 hour period had major complications,” stated the article. “It was somewhat surprising that over 90% of the individuals receiving 15 or more units of blood developed one or more infections.”—August 1981, pp. 47-54.Cheers Gordon Posted 3 6 05.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 10/06/2005 15:57
Gordon in my opinion you have answered nothing! Let common sense prevail. This years conventions of Jehovahs Witness\'s the theme is \"Godly Obedience\". I think it would be really more appropiate to be \"Watchtower Obedience\" as this is what is required to be a member.Qwerty
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 10/06/2005 16:12
Gordon, What bit of my last post do you still not understand? The FIGURE 1.5 is indeed less than 2.5 but so what. 1.5 Apples is not less APPLE than 2.5 Orange. You CANNOT compare the two sets of figures. Do you not accept that?
 
  Gordon(VIN29308)  Posted: 10/06/2005 17:02
Please accept my not being able to contribute for a while as I am out of the country. Gordon
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 10/06/2005 17:34
Anon of the 01/06/05 10:47 has on several occasions made a point about fractions of blood being 98% whole blood which are used in some vaccinations and which Witnesses if their conscience permits use. Well I don’t see how this can be 98% in any single vaccination? I think what you mean is that if you take ALL the extracted fractions and then put them back together again you would come close to whole blood and of course that would be the case, but this is not done, otherwise it would be a blood transfusion and not a vaccination. Blood is incredibly complex and an amazing organ which shouts out evidence for a marvellous designer. That designer to me is God. So once again I come back to the point that I believe God (as the designer) knows best how it should be used and not used. We see in the news today that there is a “crisis” with operations in Ireland because there is not enough blood to give people, one doctor speaking on the radio this morning explained that over the last 3 years 20% of the donating population have been told due to potential danger not to donate anymore. So up until very recently all of those 20% were acknowledged to have been giving potentially dangerous blood that was not screened out . We have still to see the consequences of that work itself out in the population who received blood and who knows what else lurks out there. I would say it would be better to focus on how to eliminate blood from all operations as has been proven to be successful in the Witness community.
 
  Gordon(VIN29308)  Posted: 10/06/2005 17:40
William, just before I rush to catch the plane! I do accept that. I understand that the SHOT report figures are general and the Kitchen report was for something like 1404 ops for hip replacements and open heart surgery.(I'll need to confirm this) Don't know the exact breakdown, clearly I need to find out what the mortality for hip replacements and open heart surgery, will get on to it, maybe you could do some research yor self and we can compare notes. It is very difficult to find stats as my postings have indicated, most don't report blood transfusion mortality! Regards Gordon
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 10/06/2005 19:43
Wellcome back Noel. Your reasoning is in fact childish in the extream to the extent that it is contradictory to scripture. How about a little fornication for example the bible tells us that if we even have bad thoughts it is fornication so how is your reasoning sound? Can we have a little bit(fraction) of blood and be ABSTAINING? No we cannot,and any reasonable mind can see this just does not make any sense.So your so called arguement is rediculous.Qwerty
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 11/06/2005 19:25
Obviously the death rate for those receiving massive blood transfusions is bad THAT'S WHY they got the massive tranfusions they were dying and the doctors were trying to save their lives.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 11/06/2005 19:43
Noel thinks that blood shows evidence of a designer. In fact it is the EXACT opposite. The blood shows evidence that it was NOT designed, unless by an incompetent designer. Explain this Noel; why is the Haemoglobin molecule (carries oxygen around in the blood) made of two components (two halves) that show clear evidence of originally being an original and then a mutated copy of the same set of genes? Here’s the evolutionary history of the Haemoglobin molecule. Once upon a time (millions of years ago in our ancestors) the H. molecule was half the size it now is and half as efficient. The molecule was made from a set of genes. That set of genes got copied by accident. Then that copy mutated from time to time which didn’t cause a problem because the original copy was still there and doing its job, i.e. producing a molecule that carried oxygen around the body in the blood. Incidentally in case you wonder why the original didn’t mutate, it did but any mutation was likely to be disadvantage so those mutations died out but mutations in the copy, which at the time wasn’t doing anything useful (i.e. it was junk DNA at that time) didn’t matter until one day another mutation in the copy caused a individual to be born with a new and super improved H. molecule made of the two sets of genes. Now what possible explanation has god for this? As I keep saying weekly more evidence is coming in from genetics that proves evolution.
 
  Joe(joet61)  Posted: 12/06/2005 09:56
William referred (09/06/2005 21:45) to what he called 'the other daft “statistic” that claims medicine kills hundreds of thousands of people in the US every year on the basis that they died while taking medicine.' That is a serious misrepresentation of the facts. William must be unaware of the scientific studies that show the huge number of deaths and injuries *caused* by prescribed drugs. For example, according to the Journal of the AMA, 770,000 hospital patients suffer adverse reactions from taking "properly prescribed drugs" in the "prescribed doses", and there are 140,000 deaths attributable to properly prescribed prescription drugs, in one year, in the U.S. alone! ("Adverse drug events in hospitalized patients", Classen DC, et al. JAMA. 1997 Jan 22-29;277(4):301-6.) And from another official U.S. source: "Each year, approximately 2 million patients in the United States acquire infections while hospitalized for other conditions. These infections account for 88,000 deaths and cost approximately $4.6 billion. Similar infections occur in nursing homes, outpatient clinics, dialysis centers, and other sites of healthcare delivery." ("Forth Decennial International Conference on Nosocomial and Healthcare-Associated Infections", MMWR, February 25, 2000, Vol. 49, No. 7, p. 138.) With 140,000 Americans dying each year from adverse drug events and another 88,000 dying from acquired infections, that makes a total of 228,000 deaths a year from hospital-related harms. That would be the third leading cause of death in the United States, only behind heart disease and cancer, according to the CDC statistics. Stated another way, that is 9.7% of all deaths or nearly 1 out of 10 deaths will occur because of a drug mishap or acquired infection in a hospital. This does not include deaths from drug reactions or acquired infections occurring in other health care settings as nursing homes, or out-patient clinics, and deaths from adverse drug events that occur in a public setting (which would undoubtedly push the number of deaths to an even higher number). All of which prompts questions like: Are things any better in Ireland? How many of the acquired infections are caused by transfusions? (Does anyone have that figure?)
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 13/06/2005 08:54
Noel, did you not read my post. I said that JW's were now allowed to use blood fractions, which were, in some cases up to 98% whole blood. I did not mention vacinations at all. Now tell me, are you also allowed fractions of fornication?
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 13/06/2005 10:37
Noel makes a comment which is in fact amazing “Blood is incredibly complex and an amazing ORGAN which shouts out evidence for a marvellous designer”. Well that’s just what it is an ORGAN, which the Watchtower no longer bans. The only thing that is complex is the so-called “abstaining” prohibition that the Watchtower expects its members to adhere to rigidly. Noel then mentions the blood shortage that is being experienced presently. One thing that Jehovah’s Witness’s could do to alleviate this shortage is to donate their blood as they readily deplete the bloodstocks by their participation in its bi-products.Qwerty
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 13/06/2005 11:04
Yes, interesting question, Now that the WT.org has repealed it's ban on transfusions, how about JW's (those who are in good health, of course) donating blood?
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 13/06/2005 23:57
So now we know another thing Joe believes in, that medicine kills 1 in 1,200 Americans per year! This would mean that approximately 1 in 16 people will be killed by the medicine they take and not by whatever illnesses they suffer from. The “statistics” that Joe gives are nonsense. Most of these daft “statistics” are culled from taking the opinion that everyone that dies WHILE taking medicine dies BECAUSE they are taking medicine, clearly a daft viewpoint. Virtually everyone who dies in the US IS taking medicine BECAUSE they are sick. Again I claim that anti-fluoridation campaigners are in my opinion as daft as brushes because they support a plethora of other daft ideas like Joe, e.g. UFO’s, alien abduction, anti-vaccine, pro- mega doses of Vitamin C can cure cancer, anti-medicine, pro-Homeopathy and other magical cures, Colonic Irrigation and who knows what else. Don’t forget when you come to vote in two years that the Green Party in Ireland oppose water fluoridation. Don\'t tell me you are opposed to blood tranfusions? How about Evolution?
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 14/06/2005 11:11
William, perhaps you might allow me to give you an insight into certain things that the 'alternative movement' subscribe to 1: Prescription drugs only mask symptoms. They do nothing to correct the underlying biochemical causes of disease. Simultaneously, most prescription drugs cause nutritional deficiencies which lead to further progression of chronic disease. 2: Swelling is your body's natural strategy for enhancing the flow of blood and nutrients to the injured area. If drugs or hormones are used to prevent swelling, the injured tissues won't heal correctly, greatly increasing the likelihood of repeat injuries to the same area. 3: Mammograms actually cause cancer. They dose the breast tissues with harmful radiation. True prevention requires changes in food choice and lifestyle, not the use of imaging technology. 4: The most expensive urine in the world is created by taking multiple overpriced prescription drugs, not vitamins. With more than 40% of the U.S. population now on prescription drugs, the drug content in human urine is now so high that trace amounts of antidepressant drugs can be found in public water supplies. Compared to drugs, vitamins are cheap prevention. 5: The sun will prevent cancer due to the creation of vitamin D by the skin. Most Americans (and Canadians and Europeans, for that matter) are deficient in vitamin D. As a result, tumor cell growth in the breast and prostate is unregulated. Sensible exposure to natural sunlight generates cancer-preventing vitamin D... at no charge! Sunburns are actually caused by nutritional deficiencies (lack of antioxidants in the skin), not by sensible exposure to sunlight. 6: CT scans expose patients to 1000 times the radiation of chest X-rays. Repeated exposure to CT scans raises a patient's cumulative radiation to levels experienced by many hydrogen bomb victims in Hiroshima. In addition, rigorous studies have concluded that CT scans offer no medical benefit 7. Hundreds of thousands of medically unnecessary surgical procedures are performed each year in the U.S. alone, including hysterectomies and prostate cancer surgeries. 8: Today's foods are nutrient depleted, and they come from depleted soils. Processed and manufactured foods would have to be eaten at the rate of 10,000 calories a day just to meet minimum RDA requirements for basic nutrition. The only way to get adequate nutrition is to supplement with superfoods or whole food concentrates (vitamins, whole food powders, supplement capsules, etc.) along with eating healthy meals. Organizations like the AHA, however, insist that nutrient supplementation is actually bad for your health. 9: At least half of all diagnostic tests ordered by doctors are medically unnecessary. They're often conducted merely to generate revenues for the hospital or medical group that owns the doctor's clinic. Some doctors in the U.S. are actually required to generate a certain dollar amount of lab test revenues in order to keep their jobs.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 14/06/2005 12:54
1. This is a generalisation and therefore wrong and useless. Some drugs do treat symptoms such as pain which is why people take them. That’s what they are for and that’s why they are used. Other drugs actually cure or control illness such as antibiotics, cancer drugs etc.. I do agree that some headaches are caused by say dehydration and that the solution to that is to drink water and not take drugs but that is another argument to do with education. 2. The first thing I’ll say is that your body cannot “think” and therefore it’s reaction is not necessarily the best one. If swelling causes pain then it is legitimate to ease that pain. Is it not a form of alternative medicine to apply a cold press to a black eye? Or is not legitimate either? 3. The chances of a mamagram causing cancer of the breast is vanishingly small. Probably around the same risk as being killed on the way to the doctors to have the test done. It seems that the most likely indicator of breast cancer is genes so your point about lifestyle is untrue. There is a link with childbirth but few people would make a decision on having a child based on the risk to them getting breast cancer. One of the main and well known problems with all CAM supporters is the inability to understand probability and statistics. “Lifestyle change” is mainly a cliché. 4. All reputable scientific studies done including the latest ones show that extra vitamin supplements have no benefit whatsoever in illness prevention, not even in groups where you would expect some benefit. Extra vitamins in the body are useless and can be dangerous. Your figure of 40% is almost certainly wrong but it should be understood that the age profile of people today is much older than in the past because modern medicine is allowing people live much longer. Where high blood pressure killed people in years gone by, tablets allow people to cure that today and live for decades longer than otherwise. 5. Vitamin D does not prevent cancer. Cancer is mainly caused by genetic predisposition, environmental pollution such as asbestos, exposure to sunlight and mainly old age. Cancer is primarily a disease of old age. Sunburn is almost entirely caused by over exposure to the Sun’s UV light and the only prevention is to avoid over exposure. No supplement can prevent sunburn or the cancer it can cause. 6. Very few people get repeated CT scans and doctors are well aware of the dangers and have to balance the benefit to the very small risk, a thing many people are simply incapable of judging. The lack of understanding of probability is why people do the Lotto and then don’t wear seat belts. Why people campaign against power lines and smoke. I blame poor Maths teachers and woeful school curricula. BTW The cancer rate in atom bomb survivors is a lot less than expected. In fact as a result of the Chernobyl accident there hasn’t been any detectable increase in cancer. Belarus has one of the lowest cancer rates in Europe. The risk from radiation is grossly exaggerated. Bogus statistics are awash on the internet don’t believe them. 7. There are mechanisms to audit these matters and a doctor who carries out an un-necessary procedure will and they do get struck off. 8. Utter Bullsh1t. 9: Tell the fraud squad. Even if true has nothing to do with CAM. That there may be a few crooked doctors has no bearing on the fact that all CAM artists are medically unqualified chancers.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 14/06/2005 13:32
Thank you William, these are not my stats but those on target news (health website). You may be intrerested in readign more on that site. Including the theory / idea / hypotheseis that AIDS and cholesterol problems are caused by dyhyration.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 14/06/2005 14:37
To anon with the 9-point plan supporting 'alternative movement', I would have to agree with most of Williams reputals. In particular regarding mammograms & breast cancer. No-one really knows what causes breast cancer and there is no known method to prevent it. There are genetic links for some but not all breast cancer. Mammograms are a very useful tool in detecting breast cancer early, in post-menopausal women. A mammogram can detect tumours at a small size (less than 1cm), which is so small that you cannot even feel it. This gives a very good chance of long term survival. The radiation dose is so low, that the chances of causing cancer would be by huge factors less than the chance of detecting an early cancer. As Willima says it is all about probablity. As for referring us onto a web site with a theory that AIDS and cholesterol problems are caused by dyhyration, really gives an indication of the mumbo-jumbo science that this person believes.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 15/06/2005 10:50
Anon, you clearly did not read my post. If you had, it would be very clearthat I was not supplyign thse poins in order to support the 'altennative' movement, - far from it and the website referenced was not in support of my beleifs, but simply highlighting how ridiculous some of there ideas actually are. I woulsd have that this was perfectly obvious to all.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 15/06/2005 12:03
Anon 10.50. Fair enough, I thought you were being serious, and given some of the hocus-pocus presented as serious in other emails by other people, it can be hard to tell when someone is speaking tongue in cheek. I got the wrong end of the stick and given William's reputtals, so did he.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 15/06/2005 13:37
Sorry, but William didn't get the wrong end of the stick. When I first read the piece I did think that it was by a pro CAM person but upon double checking I realised it was ambiguous. I even changed the wording of my reply so as not to assume we had a pro-CAM writer.
 
  Joe(joet61)  Posted: 16/06/2005 12:06
William wrote (13/06/2005 23:57) that "the statistics that Joe gives are nonsense." It looks like he didn't read my message properly. The statistics were from the JAMA and the CDC. Now when organizations like that release figures that "go against the grain" with them, figures that seem contrary to their own "interests", then I tend to take notice. Why would they exaggerate those figures? Does William have any reason for being sceptical, let alone dismissing such statistics outright? The figures were stark: 228,000 American deaths a year from hospital-related harms, just from properly prescribed prescription drugs and hospital-acquired infections. We're talking *cause* of death.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 16/06/2005 19:47
Joe refers to ONE study conducted by someone from the Dept of Zoology in Canada on databases of patient records. These databases were a sample and cannot be extrapolated to an entire country. In other words these figures are not the official death rates but an extrapolation from a study of deaths in some hospitals. Even the method is dodgy and they used computer programs to search for key phrases rather than use “the cause of death”. The official cause of death has a tiny figure for deaths by Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR) in comparison to this study. This study has not be duplicated that I can see, is suspect for several reasons, is contradicted by other studies that list the causes of death and flies in the face of common sense. The idea that ADR could kill, relatively speaking, as many people as cancer and hearth disease is laughable. Drugs are regularly pulled from the market if they kill a handful of people and some drug companies and being sued because of the claim that they encouraged a small number of people to commit suicide. This one study referred to by every quack any-BIG PHARM web site referred to deaths caused by those in hospital and EXCLUDED human error, over prescription, suicide, abuse etc.. Virtually all drugs are known to have some adverse effects but to suggest 140,000 US citizens die from prescription drugs every year that are properly prescribed is nonsense. This is also a common trick of the antis. They trawl the internet for isolated studies out of the millions of studies that are published for anything they can use for propaganda. Whether or not the study is true or has been reproduced is irrelevant as long as it fits their agenda. They never publish all the facts critically from the study but cherry pick the best catch phrase and sound bites. The sentence, “140,000 US citizens killed by prescription drugs annually” is actually a lie.
 
  Joe(joet61)  Posted: 17/06/2005 23:19
William is wrong in suggesting that the Claasen study in the JAMA is an isolated case. Another JAMA source puts the U.S. annual death toll from pharmaceutical drugs (used as prescribed) at over 100,000. (Lucian Leape, Error in medicine. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1994, 272:23, p 1851. Also: Leape LL. Institute of Medicine medical error figures are not exaggerated. JAMA. 2000 Jul 5;284(1):95-7.) Is it all nonsense and lies? Will William ignore it, just as he ignored the CDC figure of 88,000 annual American deaths from hospital-acquired infections? And irishhealth.com recently reported that Ireland has the worst MRSA rate in Europe. Who believes that transfusions are safe?
 
  Joe(joet61)  Posted: 17/06/2005 23:22
William wrote above that "as a result of the Chernobyl accident there hasn’t been any detectable increase in cancer. Belarus has one of the lowest cancer rates in Europe." That is seriously misleading. The latest Irish Medical News reports: "According to the Chernobyl Children’s Project, in the Gomel region of Belarus, the incidence of leukaemia has already increased by 50 per cent in adults and children. Swiss Medicine Weekly also recently published findings which showed a 40 per cent increase in all kinds of cancers in Belarus between 1990 and 2000. There is a fear that a variety of cancers will only emerge 20 to 30 years after the disaster, and that the incidence may not peak for another 50 years. Five years after the Chernobyl disaster the Ukranian Ministry of Health reported three times the normal rate of birth deformities. Maternal exposure to radiation can cause severe organ and brain damage to an unborn child. The Health Ministry also noted an increase in the number of miscarriages, premature births and stillbirths. A condition coined 'Chernobyl heart' (multiple defects of the heart) sees an already existing waiting list of 7,000 children awaiting treatment and an estimated 800 to 1,000 children are added to this list each year. Without intervention many of these children will die within three to five years. Added to all this are problems with the endocrine system, nervous system, immune system, malignant tumors and blood disorders." (www.irishmedicalnews.ie/articles.asp?Category=feature&ArticleID=13927)
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 18/06/2005 15:24
i think they should let jehoovah's withnesses have blood transfusions have read the bible myself i came across ascripture on blood transfusions and it says in acts15 verse 28,29[for the holy spirit and we ourselves have favoured adding no further burden to you except these neccesary things,to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication.if you carefully keep yourselves from these things,you will prosper.good health to you!]
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 20/06/2005 22:20
Some questions for the person who posted this on the 10/06/2005 11:49 (and anyoneelse that wishes to comment) : "As for your assertion that other religion don't obey the command to abstain from blood. Of course they, acocrding to their interpretationjust as you do according to your own interpretation. They absain from the taking of blood as in the taking of life. This is alos thought to refer to blood as used in sacfices which were populr in medcial times. Afterall, transfusions did not exist then as modern medecine was not in use" What is the difference between drinking blood and injecting blood? Do you think there is a distinction between using blood as a drink and using it as a medicine, in the Christian's prohibition on blood? (Interestingly the Romans at the time drank blood for health reasons)If there is, why do you so answer? Also, why did mature members of the Christian religion at that time view the drinking of blood as a serious sin?
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 21/06/2005 08:44
Of course the drinking of blood - human blood constitutes a serious sin, as it was, in ceremonia form, in Roman times, part of ceremonial sacrifice, where human life was taken (a grave wrong). A transfusion, to sae life, it very obviously, a tota;lly different maater than taking part in hman sacrifice or spilling blood as in the taking of life.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 21/06/2005 23:54
All Joe ever does is grab a figure that seems in isolation to boost his already formed opinions. I clearly pointed out the faults in the first quoted statistic so Joe comes up with another one, as usual, ignoring the mistakes he made the last time. Move on throw another silly figure into the ring. The “laundry list” technique. I have now seen a figure for deaths from 48,000 to 108,000 to 180,000. When this happens it’s obvious that no one knows and are just guessing. Throw enough mud and some might stick. The 2nd study was again only a limited one and very much open to opinion. Furthermore the figure Joe quotes is a major extrapolation from a very small study. Many other studies claim that this figure is exaggerated. The simple fact is that there is no unambiguous statistics available, that I can see, that show how many die from medical accidents, imperfect treatment, side effects of medicine etc.. Also there is a very large grey area as to what is meant by “caused by” in these cases. Many patients are terminally ill anyway. 4,000,000 million Americans die a year. The majority of them are old and sick and on medicine. The World Health Organisation (WHO) state unambiguously in ALL their reports on Chernobyl, including the latest one, that there is no increase in cancers or birth defects of ANY DESCRPTION with the exception of Thyroid Disease and all bar 1 child was cured. So 1 child died from the effects of Chernobyl. WHO clearly states there are no other health problems caused by the accident. It clearly identifies, as do all other researchers, poverty, the collapse of communism and alcoholism as major problems in this region. These are the main reasons for the orphanages. Romania has the same problem and had no Chernobyl. Cancer stats in Belarus ARE among the lowest in Europe. This reminds me of the unfortunate fact that the people of Lourdes in France are no healthier than the rest of France despite having a Grotto that has cured millions. So it won’t peak for 50 years? Not bad considering that the life expectancy in former USSR countries is one of the worst in the developed world and any adult alive during the Chernobyl accident and still alive after 50 years (i.e. 70+) is already beating the odds. Chernobyl Heart is a myth. Quoting an organisation that gathers huge sums of monies for non existent victims of Chernobyl as proof of damage is farcical. Surely even you can see that Joe? Last week a newspaper published that absurd “statistic” that has been bandied about for years that a child coming to Ireland for two weeks holidays from Belarus lives several years longer as a result. I think this is incredible garbage.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 22/06/2005 11:18
OF COURSE NO ONE KNOWS THE TRUE FIGURE. Not becuase they ae guessing but because the medical industry are far more adept at covering it up and have far more resourcs available to them to do so.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 22/06/2005 20:35
As you say, drinking blood is a serious sin. But would it no longer constitute a serious sin to drink blood if it was drank in order to prolong life? (Unlikely to arise of course, but it illustrates the principle)
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 22/06/2005 20:54
If "now one knows the figure", how do you? How do u know there is a cover up? Even if there is now do you know how big it is? Do you just make up whatever notions enter your head and pass them along?
 
  noel(noelmay)  Posted: 23/06/2005 06:28
Anon of 13/06 says (for some unknown reason to me, other then Anon believing what anti-witnesses are misleadingly trying to make out) that “Now that the WT.org has repealed it's ban on transfusions” I would like to say that this is NOT true. Also I would like to point out that as Witnesses it is what the Bible teaches that we try our best to adhere to. I believe this is the wise and most beneficial course for all to follow both in our physical and spiritual lives.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 23/06/2005 11:30
They repealed their ban last une by allowing it's memnbers to take "fractions" of blood. Some of there comprise 98% of whole blood. Will they perhaps allow fractions of fornication as well.
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 23/06/2005 11:36
Noel says, \"..as Witnesses it is what the Bible teaches that we try our best to adhere to\". Wrong. It is what the leaders of your particular religion INTERPRET from the bible at any given time that you adhere to. That interpretation is different for all 34,000 different Christian sects proving conclusively that the bible is ambiguous by definition and should not be used as justification for the death of a child.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 23/06/2005 12:37
In my opinion it is plain to see how deluded the JWs are by Noel Mays attempts of answering any question that has been addressed to him and it is also obvious that he is ignoring questions that have been posed to him as a representative of the Watchtower organisation. He cites conveniently anti witness participants and yet the JWs are anti everyone whether Christian, Evolutionist, Humanist etc. The ban has been \"repealed\" to allow its members to take up to 98% of whole Blood as long as it is FRACTIONATED it is OK. These changes have mostly happened recently and Noel knows this but before these changes occurred JWS DIED. Now come on, any reasonable person will tell you that this is not abstaining. That’s like telling an alcoholic to dilute his whiskey with water and he wont be drinking whiskey music to his ears but certainly NOT REASONABLE. Qwerty
 
  Gordon(VIN29308)  Posted: 28/06/2005 15:06
Well nothing much has changed. Still no figures or fossel evidence from William, and still no names from Qwerty. William says. ‘What is a fact is that the entire medical profession totally disagree with you.’ William, the following should show that while some may extol blood transfusions are necessary others in the medical profession are convinced otherwise, the entire medical profession do not disagree with us! First, a further report on ops without blood. Report of 542 operations without blood transfusion D. A. Ott and D. A. Cooley Jehovah's Witnesses who require operation represent a challenge to the physician because of the patients' refusal to accept blood transfusion. We report a 20-year experience with a consecutive series of 542 Jehovah's Witness patients ranging in age from 1 day to 89 years who underwent operation. … loss of blood was the direct cause of three deaths. Cardiovascular operations can be performed safely without blood transfusion. End. Note the comment ‘Cardiovascular operations can be performed safely without blood transfusions.’ This is not the comment of the WT, but the medical fraternity. Lets have some more medical opinion, and experiences to further prove the point. . Stanford University’s Dr. J. Garrott Allen, a leading expert on the blood problem, estimated that blood transfusions kill at least 3,500 Americans each year and injure another 50,000. But there is strong reason to believe that this actually is an underestimation. For instance, the Southern Medical Journal recently suggested that the estimate that “between 3,000 and 30,000 deaths attributable to transfusions” is probably a conservative estimate. And bear in mind that these are figures for just one country, to say nothing of the rest of the world. Dr. Jerome H. Kay of California wrote: “We have now done approximately 6,000 open-heart operations at the Saint Vincent’s Hospital in Los Angeles. Since we have not been using blood for the majority of patients, it is our impression that the patients do better.” A Canadian study provided specific details, revealing that when nonblood fluids, such as dextran and Ringer’s solution, were used instead of blood “the number of deaths dropped from 11 per cent to 3.8.” The conclusion reached by Dr. Philip R. Roen in “Extensive Urologic Surgery Without Blood Transfusion” was: “Our experiences with Jehovah’s Witnesses requiring operative procedures has demonstrated to us that blood transfusions are not necessarily essential even when hemoglobin levels are low—as low as 5 Gm. per 100 ml. . . . What do such studies suggest regarding transfusions? In his article “Blood Transfusions and Surgery for Cancer,” Dr. John S. Spratt concluded: “The cancer surgeon may need to become a bloodless surgeon.”—The American Journal of Surgery, September 1986. Dr. John A. Collins wrote concerning this effect of blood transfusions: “It would be ironic indeed if a ‘treatment’ which has very little evidence of accomplishing anything worthwhile should subsequently be found to intensify one of the main problems faced by such patients.”—World Journal of Surgery, February 1987. “In his book Who Is Your Doctor and Why?, Dr. Shadman writes, ‘The blood in any person is in reality the person himself. It contains all the peculiarities of the individual from whence it comes. This includes hereditary taints, disease susceptibilities, poisons due to personal living, eating and drinking habits. . . . ’ “‘Every individual has his own type of blood, and since no two are exactly alike, you cannot with impunity put another person’s blood into your veins no matter how well it is typed. Your system has to get rid of it and begins to do so immediately, and continues to do so until it has all been eliminated. . . . ’ “‘A lot of propaganda is circulated about purifying the blood and only using the clean residue. It cannot be done. The bloodletting of yore has been superseded by blood transfusion. Of all the ridiculous medical practices of the past and present times, this present blood craze is the worst.’” The article also quoted Dr. Shadman as saying: “In performing upwards of 20,000 surgical operations, I never gave a blood transfusion and never had a patient die from lack of it. I have given many transfusions of normal salt solution. It is better and safer. I have used it in cases of all degrees of exsanguination, and none died. Some were white as chalk and cold as stone, but they lived.” Dr. Manuel Estioko, of Good Samaritan Hospital in Los Angeles, spoke of their “extensive experience with hundreds of open-heart operations without blood.” Mr. Richard R. R. H. Coombs, of Imperial College School of Medicine, London, said that “99.9 percent of all orthopedic surgery can be done without . . . blood transfusions.” Medical Hotline (April/May 1983) told of surgery on “Jehovah’s Witnesses who underwent major gynecological and obstetric operations [at Wayne State University, U.S.A.] without blood transfusions.” The newsletter reported: “There were no more deaths and complications than in women who had undergone similar operations with blood transfusions.” The newsletter then commented: “The results of this study may warrant a fresh look at the use of blood for all women undergoing obstetric and gynecological operations.” At the hospital of Göttingen University (Germany), 30 patients who declined blood underwent general surgery. “No complications arose that could not also have arisen with patients who accept blood transfusions. . .. Professor Dr. V. Schlosser, of the surgical hospital at the University of Freiburg (Germany), noted: “Among this group of patients, the incidence of bleeding during the perioperative period was not higher; the complications were, if anything, fewer. The special view of illness, typical of Jehovah’s Witnesses, had a positive influence in the perioperative process.”—Herz Kreislauf, August 1987. Those who refuse transfusions on the basis of such evidence will also be acting in harmony with directions from our Creator. Jehovah’s Witnesses are more than convinced that their God’s way (Jehovah) of doing things is clearly the best way. Please tell me how many more reports you need to see to be convinced that Jehovah’s Witnesses have a lower mortality rate than those who take blood. Please no guessing, just provide the facts. One last point. I raised the question, ‘How many religions do you know that obey the command to abstain from blood? Anon10.6 says ‘They abstain from the taking of blood as in the taking of life.’ Perhaps Anon could tell me which religions – like Jehovah’s Witnesses, refuse to take up arms and kill? There can be no denying the fact that on the issue of blood, Jehovah’s Witnesses are unique, not only in abstaining from it, but also in refusing to shed it. Gordon .
 
  Gordon(VIN29308)  Posted: 28/06/2005 16:22
In reply to William suggesting that I have not compared Apples with Apples, I provide comparative information from 3 documented reports from JAMA Vol 288 no 12 sept 25 2002 Setting and Patients The blood sampling study included 1136 patients from 145 western European ICUs, and the anemia and blood transfusion study included 3534 patients from 146 western European ICUs. Patients were followed up for 28 days or until hospital discharge, interinstitutional transfer, or death. Results …..Both ICU and overall mortality rates were significantly higher in patients who had vs had not received a transfusion (ICU rates: 18.5% vs 10.1%, respectively; 2 = 50.1; P<.001; overall rates: 29.0% vs 14.9%, respectively; 2 = 88.1; P<.001). For similar degrees of organ dysfunction, patients who had a transfusion had a higher mortality rate. For matched patients in the propensity analysis, the 28-day mortality was 22.7% among patients with transfusions and 17.1% among those without (P = .02); the Kaplan-Meier log-rank test confirmed this difference. Conclusions This multicenter observational study reveals the common occurrence of anemia and the large use of blood transfusion in critically ill patients. Additionally, this epidemiologic study provides evidence of an association between transfusions and diminished organ function as well as between transfusions and mortality. Vol 292 no 13 Oct 6 2005 Main Outcome Measure Thirty-day mortality. Results Of the patients included, 2401 (10.0%) underwent at least 1 blood transfusion during their hospitalization. Patients who underwent transfusion were older and had more comorbid illness at presentation and also had a significantly higher unadjusted rate of 30-day death (8.00% vs 3.08%; P<.001), myocardial infarction (MI) (25.16% vs 8.16%; P<.001), and death/MI (29.24% vs 10.02%; P<.001) compared with patients who did not undergo transfusion. Using Cox proportional hazards modeling that incorporated transfusion as a time-dependent covariate, transfusion was associated with an increased hazard for 30-day death (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 3.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.26-4.75) and 30-day death/MI (HR, 2.92; 95% CI, 2.55-3.35). In the landmark analysis that included procedures and bleeding events, transfusion was associated with a trend toward increased mortality. The predicted probability of 30-day death was higher with transfusion at nadir hematocrit values above 25%. Conclusions Blood transfusion in the setting of acute coronary syndromes is associated with higher mortality, and this relationship persists after adjustment for other predictive factors and timing of events. ….We suggest caution regarding the routine use of blood transfusion to maintain arbitrary hematocrit levels in stable patients with ischemic heart disease. Vol 279 no 20 May 27 1998 In an ongoing study on transfusion requirements in older patients with hip fracture,2 we analyzed the 60-day survival in 206 consecutive older patients (mean [SD] age, 80 [7] years). Using a transfusion trigger set to a minimum hemoglobin level of 95 g/L,3 death occurred in 22 of 106 patients who received allogenic blood and in 3 of 100 who did not receive transfusions. Comparing apples with apples show those that do not have blood transfusions are better off. It goes without out saying that the Kitchen report of .5-1.5 mortality which was indeed for open heart surgury and hip replacements, (all ops that usually require large amounts of blood) compares favourablby with the Shot report of 2.5-2.4% general mortality. How many reports do you need to see to be convinced that Jehovah's witnesses are not disadvantaged by not taking blood? Gordon .
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 28/06/2005 19:23
Gordon the Watchtower has not been content with giving \"Biblical\" reasons for prohibiting blood transfusions. Articles and publications dealing with this question usually devote more pages to emphasizing the dangers of blood transfusions and the advantages of some alternatives to blood transfusions. Playing to the Witness community, the Watchtower and Awake! magazines are filled with horror stories emphasizing the danger. Most Jehovah\'s Witnesses, when dealing with the issue, will focus on the risks of contracting Hepatitis and AIDS and the horrible dangers of blood transfusions. Despite having no expertise in medicine they will also insist that there are always alternatives to blood transfusions. This is because of the heavy propaganda from the Watchtower. \"It is not surprising that transfusing such a complex substance might, as one surgeon put it, \"confuse\" the body\'s immune system. In fact, a blood transfusion can suppress immunity for as long as a year. To some, this is the most threatening aspect of transfusions. Then there are infectious diseases as well. They have exotic names, such as Chagas’ disease and cytomegalovirus. Effects range from fever and chills to death. Dr. Joseph Feldschuh of the Cornell University of Medicine says that there is 1 chance in 10 of getting some sort of infection from a transfusion. It is like playing Russian roulette with a ten-chamber revolver. Recent studies have also shown that blood transfusions during cancer surgery may actually increase the risk of recurrence of the cancer. No wonder a television news program claimed that a blood transfusion could be the biggest obstacle to recovery from surgery. Hepatitis infects hundreds of thousands and kills many more transfusion recipients than AIDS does, but it gets little of the publicity. No one knows the extent of the deaths, but economist Ross Eckert says that it may be the equivalent of a DC-10 airliner full of people crashing every month.\" (Awake! Oct. 22, 1990, p. 9) The FACTS are that the Watchtower has used similar – and stronger – arguments against vaccination programs and organ transplants. While there are negative side effects of vaccinations, informed persons agree that on the whole they have been of tremendous benefit to humanity. Even though some individuals have died, vaccinations have saved millions of lives. One would be hard pressed to find anyone – JW or not – who would not agree that vaccinations have been a good thing. In my opinion, Gordon’s posts are nothing more than exaggerated horror stories about blood transfusions. For now let it suffice to point to the similarities between the threats used against those who accepted vaccinations, organ transplants and now blood transfusions. The Watchtower has not been content just to exaggerate real threats. In line with claims about alleged personality changes as a result of vaccinations and organ transplants, it appealed to the same sort of quack scientists: \"Criminals in jail are given the opportunity to donate their blood. For example, the New York Times of April 6, 1961, reported: \"Inmates of Sing Sing Prison at Ossining will give blood to the Red Cross today.\" A commendable act? Perhaps not as beneficial to their fellow men as the community is led to believe. . .. in his book Who Is Your Doctor and Why? Doctor Alonzo Jay Shadman says: \"The blood in any person is in reality the person himself. It contains all the peculiarities of the individual from whence it comes. This includes hereditary taints, disease susceptibilities, poisons due to personal living, eating and drinking habits. . . . The poisons that produce the impulse to commit suicide, murder, or steal are in the blood.\" And Dr. Américo Valério, Brazilian doctor and surgeon for over forty years, agrees. \"Moral insanity, sexual perversions, repression, inferiority complexes, petty crimes – these often follow in the wake of blood transfusion,\" he says. Yet it is acknowledged in the public press that organizations whose blood supply is considered reliable obtain blood for transfusion from criminals who are known to have such characteristics.\" (The Watchtower, Sept. 15, 1961, p. 564) So according to the Watchtower a blood transfusion can give you a criminal\'s personality! We should ask what is the more astonishing: that the Watchtower actually taught this nonsense or that it was able to dig up \"experts\" who agreed with them? We know for certain that this quackery was believed by many JWs well into the 1980s, and probably still is as we can see from Gordon’s posts. It is interesting to note how much in recent years the Watchtower has changed its general ideas about science, and medical science in particular. While it once considered the medical profession to be demon-possessed, it is now more likely to print articles in Awake! magazine about the wonders of surgery and medicine, and it often warns against certain alternative treatments that are not backed by scientific evidence. Considering that the JW community has historically been hostile to medical professionals (and this hostility has of course been fed by the controversies related to the blood prohibition) and positive to \"alternative medicine,\" (some of those \"experts\" quoted to support the anti-vaccination stand were homeopaths) it will be interesting to see how quickly this reversal will change the attitude of the rank and file. Despite the fact that the Watchtower has gone to great lengths to minimize damage to the JW community by allowing more and more blood components and fractions to be used in treatment, the blood prohibition is a major cause of the strained relationship between Jehovah’s Witnesses and medical professionals, and is a major reason they are considered a dangerous religious cult by some governments and social scientists. Qwerty
 
  William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 28/06/2005 21:37
What is Gordon waffling on about fossil evidence? There are hundreds of tons of it. Go to the western US and you can pick it up in the deserts. Virtually all the world’s biologists accept the fossil evidence. Scientists would just as likely have decided that Evolution didn’t occur if there was no evidence, they have no bias in these matters. There are plenty of religious biologists, some of them wrote my Biology books in school in the 70’s and left out evolution because of their religious beliefs. If Scientists believe in Evolution then it must be the most likely explanation so why would they drop this idea just because some sect of one of the 34,000 various Christian ones thinks that their interpretation of a particular religious book claims Evolution is not how we got here? Gordon continues to make the same mistakes that all extremists make. Searching for those that claim the most alarmist statistics to support whatever you believe in does not constitute evidence. In all research and matters of opinion there are extreme figures/statistics at both ends of every argument. Gordon simply uses those that appear to support his position. There are millions of doctors in the world so obviously there are every sort of doctor imaginable from mass murderers like Shipman to those whose papers are withdrawn like Wakefield, there are JW doctors, fascist doctors such as Joseph Mengele who tortured his patients to death and of course Catholic doctors who resist prescribing the pill based on their superstitious beliefs. Gordon still cannot understand that comparing patients that had blood transfusions and died with X days of their operation as opposed to those that didn’t have blood transfusions means nothing. Anyone needing a blood transfusion is obviously more ill than someone who doesn’t need one. Gordon like all religious fanatics believes whatever his “betters” tell him to believe and then tries to square the circle to fit his beliefs. Scientists have no dogma, whatever is proven is accepted. If one day artificial blood turns out to be better than real blood then doctors will switch to it BUT unlike those that allow their children to die and boast about them being martyrs to the cause, doctors work on evidence and facts, that is why they still use transfusions to save lives. Do not forget that JWs admit that their children die because they refused blood transfusions, they call them Martyrs. Is there a difference between a Muslim suicide bomber crashing a plane into a building on the basis of his holy book and a JW dying because a book tells him blood transfusions are wrong? No. Gordon wants is to believe that a group of religious fanatics that believe in a religion that was started in the 19th century in the US is right and all the world’s doctors and biologists are wrong. Some chance! Science is now investigating in earnest how the brain works and over the coming decades it will explain why people like Muslim suicide bombers cannot think straight.
 
  Anonymous   Posted: 28/06/2005 21:37
The Watchtower Society has been heavily involved in occult, psychic and quack medical procedures throughout much of its history. Like their current ban on blood transfusions for its members, this past quackery has put the lives of millions unnecessarily at risk, given the average JW's faith in what the Society tells them and mistrust of what everyone else claims. Many have lost their eyesight, contracted illnesses or lost their lives following the unorthodox and bizarre Watchtower teachings on medicine. One of the most recognizable aspects of Jehovah's Witnesses to the general public today is not their theology, but one of their medical positions: their refusal to accept blood transfusions. Many have read or heard reports of JWs refusing a blood transfusion for themselves or their child, with the result being the tragic death of the person who refused a transfusion, perhaps while a frustrated and helpless doctor stood by. Unknown to most outside Jehovah's Witnesses--and in many cases JWs themselves--is their long history of quack medical endorsements which put the health of millions of their followers at risk, or caused the premature deaths of perhaps thousands. The Watchtower Society has even endorsed some of the most notorious medical quacks of the twentieth century such as Albert Abram’s, George Starr White, Charles Betts, Bernard McFadden and others. They have endorsed numerous occult, psychic and pseudoscience nostrums and cures, even inventing, promoting and selling quack medical gadgets to their followers. The Watchtower sponsored such exotic and bizarre quackery as medical radiesthesia; radionics; the Radio-Solar Pad (a worthless and perhaps harmful device containing Radium which was worn by no less than "Judge" Rutherford, the Society's second president); Zone Therapy; Iridiagnosis; The Biological Blood Wash; The Radio Disease Killer; The Electronic Radio Biola (invented by a JW); The Grape Cure, Ensign Remedies and much more. The Watchtower Society rarely published anything favourable to orthodox or scientific medicine until recently. This was especially true of The Golden Age magazine (Changed to Consolation in 1937 and to its current name Awake! in 1946). This magazine by the Society, unlike The Watchtower, was not primarily concerned with Biblical interpretation and theology. It was a news and information magazine for the general public and JWs. Numerous articles were published on the subject of health and medicine, documenting the Society's views on the subject. Their view of scientific medicine was extremely critical and condemnatory until the 1960s when they became more accepting. Here's a typical example from a Golden Age article, which extolled the virtues of Eugenics: “We do well to bear in mind that among the drugs, serums, vaccines, surgical operations, etc., of the medical profession, there is nothing of value save an occasional surgical procedure. Their whole so-called "science" grew out of Egyptian black magic and has not lost its demonological character.... we shall be in a sad plight when we place the welfare of the race in their hands.” They not only demonised the medical profession, but the prominent individuals within the movement such as Dr. Morris Fishbein, the past president of the American Medical Association and former editor of its two periodicals, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) and Hygeia. In one Golden Age they favourably quoted a quack medical Journal that said: “The Journal of the A. M. A. is the vilest sheet that passes the United States mail.... Nothing new and useful in therapeutics escapes its unqualified condemnation. Its attacks are generally ad hominem. Its editorial columns are largely devoted to character assassination.... Its editor [Morris Fishbien] is of the type of Jew that crucified Jesus Christ.”. …Just say no to drugs! Is a familiar expression that we are all aware of look at how the Watchtower said No to drugs! The Watchtower Society condemned the use of drugs for the most part from Aspirin to Morphine until fairly recently. Aspirin they said (ironically) caused heart disease and other maladies. In one early Golden Age though they claimed that intravenous drug use would be common during the Millennium and that this would be used by The Christ (the 144,000 and Jesus) to help mankind become perfect, free of all diseases! Vaccination hysteria was rampant at one time in the Watchtower organisation as can be seen from the following: -Many will not be aware that the Watchtower Society campaigned against vaccinations for decades. They claimed it was "a direct violation of the everlasting covenant" and Witnesses were expected not to have one. Vaccines were said to cause all kinds of disease: “Thinking people would rather have smallpox than vaccination, because the latter sows the seed of syphilis, cancers, escema, erysipelas, scrofula, consumption, even leprosy and many other loathsome affections. Hence the practice of vaccination is a crime, an outrage and a delusion.” And Vaccinations were useless: “Vaccination has never saved a human life. It does not prevent smallpox.” In addition to diseases, vaccinations were responsible for the spread of "demonism" and sexual immorality! In short, vaccination was a "cruel hoax" on mankind by Satan himself. They carried on their crusade for decades after the medical community demonstrated the value of vaccinations in preventing certain contagious diseases. No one knows what effect this ban on vaccinations had on JWs, but one assumes many lives were at least put unnecessarily at risk. Then we had Aluminium hysteria as we can see from the following: - The Watchtower Society also carried on an irrational and phobic campaign against aluminium cookware. This was another "demonic" or Satanically inspired curse on mankind that they tried valiantly to stop. Aluminium in products, especially aluminium cookware was believed by the Society to cause all manner of ailments and disease from athlete's foot to cancer. This campaign was also carried on decades after most known popular aluminium cookware was shown not to be harmful for the general population to cook food in -- at least for the short term. No long term studies were done to my knowledge, but the Watchtower claimed significant and immediate, negative health consequences of cooking just one meal in aluminium pans, most frequently, severe and sometimes deadly "aluminium" (food) poisoning. The Quackery continues for here we have Germs vs. constipation. The Golden Age (1919-1937) and its successor Consolation (1937-1946) magazine contained several articles against the germ theory of disease. They believed the medical profession and scientific communities that held certain germs caused disease were wrong. They believed that the germs associated with certain diseases followed the arrival of the diseases. Instead of germs causing diseases, they believed diseases caused germs. The diseases themselves were actually caused by improper diet and constipation! According to The Golden Age, if one had less than two bowel movements a day, one would get any number of diseases in short order. Again, long after certain bacteria and viruses proved to be the cause of some diseases, The Golden Age was saying that "not a single disease" was caused by germs, that Pasteur was a "fake" and that Hydrophobia or Rabies was simply a "mental hoax". For this reason, The Golden Age and Consolation magazines advised its readers not to drink pasteurised milk, but to drink it "raw" to get the benefits of nutrients destroyed during pasteurisation. Since they didn't believe bacteria caused food poisoning, they thought it must be the aluminium food was cooked in. Since germs didn't cause diseases such as smallpox, having a vaccination was viewed as simply putting "filthy pus" into ones veins. The real culprit in disease causation they declared was constipation! The Watchtower Society rejected orthodox medicine until fairly recently. It has instead promoted "alternative" medical philosophies and procedures much more vigorously. The Golden Age, Consolation, and Awake! magazine articles on health were almost exclusively from an anti orthodox and pro alternative medical position. Most articles written on health in those magazines until the 1970's or so were written by alternative medical doctors, including Naturopaths, Homeopaths, Chiropractors and Osteopaths. These alternative systems of healing have completely different ideas on the cause and cure of diseases and have given rise to numerous quacks and quackery. Naturopathy has had a colourful history. Its basic philosophy when developed sounds harmless enough and even intuitive. Disease is the result of the body breaking down due to improper use and care (diet, etc.). Naturopathy seeks to help the body repair itself "naturally" once damaged and prevent diseases with such things as proper diet, sleep, rest, fresh air, sunshine, exercise, and so forth. They help "nature" cure by utilizing or strengthening the so-called "life force" of the person. Naturopaths have thus traditionally been concerned with nutrition, diet and exercise. In this they have in some ways been ahead of their time. However, this seemingly benign philosophy and approach has historically been frequently taken to unhealthy extremes and has laid Naturopaths open to numerous quacks and quackery, which hasn't helped current Naturopathic methods bec