eyinjuege:


How convenient you're not eligible to donate. You call it sentiments, I call it reality of life. This thread was about transfusion, and how it's life saving. Agreed? (So how can we save more lives of those that want to be saved and don't mind transfusions? If not bias, why try to force transfusion on people that don't want when even those that want don't have access to it?)
So many baseless discussions that will lead to no fruition. Do you know how many decades this particular talk has been on for? It's an overflogged issue, long before the dream of NL was ever borne.
There are more practical ways of genuinely making a difference
Talking of sentiments, this thread was started in the first place to whip up sentiments, by using an innocent woman's name and story. Her crime was just being JW.
JW chose to believe their leaders. Same way some people chose to believe Jesus and other prophets.
You have no right to question their life choices. As simple as that. If however, they come on your lane like terrorists do, then you can start questioning.
They are not a threat to your life or existence.
I really do hope you know they are backed by the law. If you really have a problem with them, why not try to change the law so as not to favor such choices? That's a more practical way isn't it?
There is a reason they are backed and supported by the law, maybe a reason many people don't have the capacity to grasp.
Unless of course it's all about making noise as usual on NL.

Do you want to know why I can't donate? If you are so interested, you can ask directly.

So you still maintain your position that choices framed by religious leaders on their followers shouldn't be questioned? So you see someone so emaciated and unhealthy because he was told to fast for several months by his religious leader, in your opinion, the person shouldn't be questioned because he is not hurting anyone?

eyinjuege:


You want me to claim JW, but i am not.
If I was JW, I would never be ashamed to call myself one, as most of them appear to be polite and kind people.
I simply am not one.
Why would you assume everyone would speak against them btw?
When you have better arguments, let me know.
You sound like someone who has been ostracized by the JW.
Life doesn't begin and end with JW, so move on from the place of pain and hurt. You also seem to know so much about the sect. Everything I've ever learnt about them, the 8 men in suits in NY was from you on a previous thread. You have also mentioned HLM or is it HCM somewhere on this thread, and I don't even know what that means. I strongly believe you used to be a member, and they did something wrong to you.
All my years on earth, I know very little about them other than this issue of blood transfusion, no celebrations, pamphlets and knocking on doors every Sunday. Until I met you on a thread, and learnt about men in NY, now HLM.
Leave them alone

Tell them to leave Christendom alone then I will leave their non biblical doctrines alone.
Tell them to stop accusing Christendom for the things they are also guilty of doing
Tell them to stop presenting only the biased view on the bad side of things (non biblical) they forbid eg blood transfusion, higher education, Christmas, birthdays, holy communion, voting, military, etc.

Then We will leave them alone

JMAN05:


When will u guys learn to live apostates alone? Do you love disobeying Jehovah just so that you can win argument?

Who are the apostates? Don't think I'm JW because I am for people exercising the rights over their lives.
I'm not supporting JW because I believe in their doctrine, but simply because it is their right to choose or refuse medical treatment

Hairyrapunzel:



Tell them to leave Christendom alone then I will leave their non biblical doctrines alone.
Tell them to stop accusing Christendom for the things they are also guilty of doing
Tell them to stop presenting only the biased view on the bad side of things (non biblical) they forbid eg blood transfusion, higher education, Christmas, birthdays, holy communion, voting, military, etc.

Then We will leave them alone

Speak for yourself.
I am a Christian and I don't believe in your sentiments.

homesteady:


Do you want to know why I can't donate? If you are so interested, you can ask directly.

So you still maintain your position that choices framed by religious leaders on their followers shouldn't be questioned? So you see someone so emaciated and unhealthy because he was told to fast for several months by his religious leader, in your opinion, the person shouldn't be questioned because he is not hurting anyone?

Is the person in question mentally incapacitated? When will people start taking responsibilty for their own lives? Where does the place of personal responsibilty come in? Are people with brains just without sense?
Please, enough of the devil or pastor or shaitan told me to do it.
Religious leaders choices on their followers my foot. I am a deity unto myself. Many religions practice strange things, and provided they are not hurting anyone, their business. Even Jesus was a religious leader, and did strange things in his time. Majority chose not to follow his teachings.

eyinjuege:


Who are the apostates? Don't think I'm JW because I am for people exercising the rights over their lives.
I'm not supporting JW because I believe in their doctrine, but simply because it is their right to choose or refuse medical treatment

OK, am sorry for that mistake. Hope u didn't get offended. I thought you were a JW. We are better of not discussing with them than choose to waste our time. Because if they see JW in the picture, no reason can convince them. One might even be wasting his precious time.

eyinjuege:


Speak for yourself.
I am a Christian and I don't believe in your sentiments.

I am human. That's why I have sentiments. Lol jw boy

JMAN05:


OK, am sorry for that mistake. Hope u didn't get offended. I thought you were a JW. We are better of not discussing with them than choose to waste our time. Because if they see JW in the picture, no reason can convince them. One might even be wasting his precious time.

So your main aim is to convince people to believe your non biblical doctrines?
Wonders shall never end.

eyinjuege:


Is the person in question mentally incapacitated? When will people start taking responsibilty for their own lives? Where does the place of personal responsibilty come in? Are people with brains just without sense?
Please, enough of the devil or pastor or shaitan told me to do it.
Religious leaders choices on their followers my foot. I am a deity unto myself. Many religions practice strange things, and provided they are not hurting anyone, their business. Even Jesus was a religious leader, and did strange things in his time. Majority chose not to follow his teachings.

Try jw leaders na and see if you will not loose your family members. Lol

eyinjuege:


Who are the apostates? Don't think I'm JW because I am for people exercising the rights over their lives.
I'm not supporting JW because I believe in their doctrine, but simply because it is their right to choose or refuse medical treatment

Apostates are people who hold contrary opinion to what the gb says. If people don't agree with doctrines coined by gb that are not in the Bible the gb teaches that they should address such people as apostates.

So apostates are those who don't agree with all governing body Bible interpretation .

Question for Jehovah's Witnesses:

Imagine a scenario where the Governing Body sent a directive saying that it had been revealed to them through prayer and a better understanding of the bible that that their prohibition of blood transfusion was wrong. That they had come to understand that saving lives was more important to God than obedience to ceremonial rules. That Jesus had declared all foods to be clean, anyway. That from that moment, Jehovah's Witnesses who needed blood transfusions to save their lives were encouraged to accept them and would not be punished in any way.

Now let's say that some days after they gave the above directive, a young child who was very close to you was hit by a car and rushed to the hospital. While she was lying unconscious, the doctors informed you that in addition to her serious injuries, she had lost 40% of her blood and her chance of survival without a blood transfusion was basically 0%, but with a blood transfusion and proper treatment she had a 70% chance of survival. As the next of kin or guardian, it was up to you to decide whether or not to allow the doctors to give her a blood transfusion.

What would you do in that scenario?

cc: OneJ, JMAN05, eyinjuege, blezzy080, triplec93, achorladey, finest0007, capitalzero, etc.

Hairyrapunzel:


I am human. That's why I have sentiments. Lol jw boy

You seem to like jumping over the place.
I am not JW, I am not a boy/man.
I hope your assumptions will not continually cause you problems generally in life. I have told you earlier to be calm, don't be so quick to speak allowing your emotions take over the logical part of you. You will pick up a lot of things if you could listen more, to both things said and unsaid.

JMAN05:


OK, am sorry for that mistake. Hope u didn't get offended. I thought you were a JW. We are better of not discussing with them than choose to waste our time. Because if they see JW in the picture, no reason can convince them. One might even be wasting his precious time.

No need to be sorry.
I guess it's easier to assume that because I've been quite vocal about allowing others exercising their right to he choice of medical treatment.
I honestly don't have problems with JWs, and I doubt those speaking against them do as individuals.
They are interested in the discussion, I'm really not interested in interpreting the bible for anyone. We all have eyes to read and listen, so they can equally do that. My own interpretation may be different from theirs/yours, but i will stick to mine and be true to myself, which I believe is the most important thing.

Seun:
Question for Jehovah's Witnesses:

Imagine a scenario where the Governing Body sent a directive saying that it had been revealed to them through prayer and a better understanding of the bible that that their prohibition of blood transfusion was wrong. That they had come to understand that saving lives is more important to God than obedience to ceremonial rules. That Jesus had declared all foods to be clean, anyway. That from that moment, Jehovah's Witnesses who needed blood transfusions to save their lives were encouraged to accept them and would not be punished in any way.

Now let's say that some days after they gave the above directive, a young child who was very close to you was hit by a car and rushed to the hospital. While she was lying unconscious, the doctors informed you that in addition to her serious injuries, she had lost 40% of her blood and her chance of survival without a blood transfusion was basically 0%, but with a blood transfusion and proper treatment she had a 70% chance of survival. As the next of kin or guardian, it was up to you to decide whether or not to allow the doctors to give her a blood transfusion.

What would you do in that scenario?

cc: OneJ, JMAN05, eyinjuege, blezzy080, triplec93, achorladey, finest0007, capitalzero, etc.

Seun, I am no JW. I am definitely not the right person to ask that question, as i am not in the shoes of JW and don't understand their doctrine.
However, just for discussion purposes, i will answer it in my capacity as a not only as a person who believes in transfusion, but also as a Dr.
I order transfusions for both adults and children, so i am definitely not against transfusion.
But in the scenario you have written (let me go back and read it, I just skimmed through earlier)
Whether before or after their leaders made the decision to encourage their members to give transfusion, that child shall definitely and surely be transfused.
I have tried to let people know what is obtainable in earlier posts about children and mentally incapacitated.
I will do so again.
Children are not properties to be owned. You as an adult cannot refuse a life saving treatment for your child. Simple as ABC.
As a guardian, you can make certain decisions for a child. However, all decisions made must be in the BEST INTERESTS of the child, regardless of your own personal beliefs, culture etc.
If you refuse life saving medical treatment for a child, that decison will be taken off your hands by the senior medical clinician looking after that child, and that child shall be transfused. The law supports Drs to do that, especially late at night when the courts are closed.
The decison is simply taken out of your hands. It may also raise other safeguarding concerns about that child, and about other decisions you've made for him/her and how that child is being treated at home. .

Seun:
Question for Jehovah's Witnesses:

Imagine a scenario where the Governing Body sent a directive saying that it had been revealed to them through prayer and a better understanding of the bible that that their prohibition of blood transfusion was wrong. That they had come to understand that saving lives was more important to God than obedience to ceremonial rules. That Jesus had declared all foods to be clean, anyway. That from that moment, Jehovah's Witnesses who needed blood transfusions to save their lives were encouraged to accept them and would not be punished in any way.

Now let's say that some days after they gave the above directive, a young child who was very close to you was hit by a car and rushed to the hospital. While she was lying unconscious, the doctors informed you that in addition to her serious injuries, she had lost 40% of her blood and her chance of survival without a blood transfusion was basically 0%, but with a blood transfusion and proper treatment she had a 70% chance of survival. As the next of kin or guardian, it was up to you to decide whether or not to allow the doctors to give her a blood transfusion.

What would you do in that scenario?

cc: OneJ, JMAN05, eyinjuege, blezzy080, triplec93, achorladey, finest0007, capitalzero, etc.

Seun just placed JW members between the devil and the deep blue sea.

Hairyrapunzel:


So out out respect for god as the giver of life you choose death instead of taking a symbol?
You loose what a symbol represents instead of accepting the symbol?
Your God must really love suicide.

This statement is totally unfounded. Surgeons regularly perform such complex procedures as heart operations, orthopedic surgery, and organ transplants without the use of blood transfusions. * Patients, including children, who do not receive transfusions usually fare as well as or better than those who do accept transfusions. * In any case, no one can say for certain that a patient will die because of refusing blood or will live because of accepting it.

At one time, the medical community generally viewed strategies for avoiding transfusions, so-called bloodless medicine, as extreme, even suicidal, but this has changed in recent years. For example, in 2004, an article published in a medical education journal stated that “many of the techniques developed for use in Jehovah’s Witness patients will become standard practice in years to come.” * An article in the journal Heart, Lung and Circulation said in 2010 that “‘bloodless surgery’ should not be limited to J[ehovah’s] W[itnesses] but should form an integral part of everyday surgical practice.”

Thousands of doctors worldwide now use blood-conservation techniques to perform complex surgeries without transfusions. Such alternatives to blood transfusions are used even in developing countries and are requested by many patients who are not Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Seun:
Question for Jehovah's Witnesses:

Imagine a scenario where the Governing Body sent a directive saying that it had been revealed to them through prayer and a better understanding of the bible that that their prohibition of blood transfusion was wrong. That they had come to understand that saving lives was more important to God than obedience to ceremonial rules. That Jesus had declared all foods to be clean, anyway. That from that moment, Jehovah's Witnesses who needed blood transfusions to save their lives were encouraged to accept them and would not be punished in any way.

Now let's say that some days after they gave the above directive, a young child who was very close to you was hit by a car and rushed to the hospital. While she was lying unconscious, the doctors informed you that in addition to her serious injuries, she had lost 40% of her blood and her chance of survival without a blood transfusion was basically 0%, but with a blood transfusion and proper treatment she had a 70% chance of survival. As the next of kin or guardian, it was up to you to decide whether or not to allow the doctors to give her a blood transfusion.

What would you do in that scenario?

sce·nar·i·o
səˈnerēˌō/
noun

-a written outline of a movie, novel, or stage work giving details of the plot and individual scenes.

-a postulated sequence or development of events.

-a setting, in particular for a work of art or literature.

Reality isn't a scenario!

daamazing:

sce·nar·i·o
səˈnerēˌō/
noun

-a written outline of a movie, novel, or stage work giving details of the plot and individual scenes.

-a postulated sequence or development of events.

-a setting, in particular for a work of art or literature.

Reality isn't a scenario!

But there's been lots of reality whereby the JW org changed their doctrines under the guise of "new light".

blezzy080:
This statement is totally unfounded. Surgeons regularly perform such complex procedures as heart operations, orthopedic surgery, and organ transplants without the use of blood transfusions. * Patients, including children, who do not receive transfusions usually fare as well as or better than those who do accept transfusions. * In any case, no one can say for certain that a patient will die because of refusing blood or will live because of accepting it.

Many have died from refusing blood transfusion. Stop your watchtower programmed talk.

The children who fare better have no indication for blood transfusion. The ones who need blood transfusion (have an indication for it) and don't get it die.

Don't think you are talking to a daft person or an illiterate. Watchtower and their stupid logic.
Eg once you take blood transfusion you don't become better.

Come to hospital first and see. You people just think every body you talk to on nairaland is a gullible person.
All your assumptions and imaginations won't work.

Please your reference of children who need blood transfusion doing better when they don't get it.

daamazing:

sce·nar·i·o
səˈnerēˌō/
noun

-a written outline of a movie, novel, or stage work giving details of the plot and individual scenes.

-a postulated sequence or development of events.

-a setting, in particular for a work of art or literature.

Reality isn't a scenario!

Just the way Paradise earth/new system and Armageddon is a scenario and not reality

blezzy080:
At one time, the medical community generally viewed strategies for avoiding transfusions, so-called bloodless medicine, as extreme, even suicidal, but this has changed in recent years. For example, in 2004, an article published in a medical education journal stated that “many of the techniques developed for use in Jehovah’s Witness patients will become standard practice in years to come.” * An article in the journal Heart, Lung and Circulation said in 2010 that “‘bloodless surgery’ should not be limited to J[ehovah’s] W[itnesses] but should form an integral part of everyday surgical practice.”

Thousands of doctors worldwide now use blood-conservation techniques to perform complex surgeries without transfusions. Such alternatives to blood transfusions are used even in developing countries and are requested by many patients who are not Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Are these complex surgeries planned or are they emergency procedures?

You will just spew anything you like. Where are the studies. Give us a reference then we will read for ourselves.

We will know the type of study, who it was done on and where it was done before concluding.

blezzy080:
This statement is totally unfounded. Surgeons regularly perform such complex procedures as heart operations, orthopedic surgery, and organ transplants without the use of blood transfusions. * Patients, including children, who do not receive transfusions usually fare as well as or better than those who do accept transfusions. * In any case, no one can say for certain that a patient will die because of refusing blood or will live because of accepting it.

Is blood not the symbol of life again? Abi life has become the symbol of blood which one?

Hairyrapunzel:

Just the way Paradise earth/new system and Armageddon is a scenario and not reality

k

alBHAGDADI:


Seun just placed JW members between the devil and the deep blue sea.

Did he?

I'm surprised Seun mentioned me especially as I said I used to attend.

In this scenario, transfusion will certainly be a go. I can imagine some members will lose faith in the legitimacy of the Gb's claims to get divinely inspired instructions. Its the equivalent of the Pope saying Christmas is a pagan celebration that is forbidden henceforth.

Seun:
Question for Jehovah's Witnesses:

Imagine a scenario where the Governing Body sent a directive saying that it had been revealed to them through prayer and a better understanding of the bible that that their prohibition of blood transfusion was wrong. That they had come to understand that saving lives was more important to God than obedience to ceremonial rules. That Jesus had declared all foods to be clean, anyway. That from that moment, Jehovah's Witnesses who needed blood transfusions to save their lives were encouraged to accept them and would not be punished in any way.

Now let's say that some days after they gave the above directive, a young child who was very close to you was hit by a car and rushed to the hospital. While she was lying unconscious, the doctors informed you that in addition to her serious injuries, she had lost 40% of her blood and her chance of survival without a blood transfusion was basically 0%, but with a blood transfusion and proper treatment she had a 70% chance of survival. As the next of kin or guardian, it was up to you to decide whether or not to allow the doctors to give her a blood transfusion.

What would you do in that scenario?

cc: OneJ, JMAN05, eyinjuege, blezzy080, triplec93, achorladey, finest0007, capitalzero, etc.

Oh Seun, the command not to take blood is in the bible. It is not the GB that wrote it. They may only say they won't shun you if you do take blood(ie, it is now personal) but they can't tell you to go and take. That will never happen. Things that are so clear in the bible like this one the GB are afraid to go there. They would be overstepping there authority, and the sheep will keep writing until they change there decision.

Oh Seun, changes don't come that easy. I don't see how they can change this one.

Hello people, Pls who knows how I can get reach to Mr Seun osewa? Thanks.

JMAN05:


Oh Seun, the command not to take blood is in the bible. It is not the GB that wrote it. They may only say they won't shun you if you do take blood(ie, it is now personal) but they can't tell you to go and take. That will never happen. Things that are so clear in the bible like this one the GB are afraid to go there. They would be overstepping there authority, and the sheep will keep writing until they change there decision.

Oh Seun, changes don't come that easy. I don't see how they can change this one.

Change for this one will not come easily because it has caused so many deaths.
Did your illiterate leaders not change vaccination and organ transplant ban?
Did they not allow blood fractions after banning it since 1945?
Did they not start allowing white blood cells and platelets 2 years ago?

Your leaders change mouth anyhow.


it not the bible that says no one should take another man's life?

Seun:
Question for Jehovah's Witnesses:

Imagine a scenario where the Governing Body sent a directive saying that it had been revealed to them through prayer and a better understanding of the bible that that their prohibition of blood transfusion was wrong. That they had come to understand that saving lives was more important to God than obedience to ceremonial rules. That Jesus had declared all foods to be clean, anyway. That from that moment, Jehovah's Witnesses who needed blood transfusions to save their lives were encouraged to accept them and would not be punished in any way.

Now let's say that some days after they gave the above directive, a young child who was very close to you was hit by a car and rushed to the hospital. While she was lying unconscious, the doctors informed you that in addition to her serious injuries, she had lost 40% of her blood and her chance of survival without a blood transfusion was basically 0%, but with a blood transfusion and proper treatment she had a 70% chance of survival. As the next of kin or guardian, it was up to you to decide whether or not to allow the doctors to give her a blood transfusion.

What would you do in that scenario?

cc: OneJ, JMAN05, eyinjuege, blezzy080, triplec93, achorladey, finest0007, capitalzero, etc.

cc: Seun

Let me link this scenario to the account of 1 Corinthians 7:21.....were you called when a slave?(when these blood transfusion policies are still active) Do not let it concern you; but if you can become free(as the scenario pointed out that the policies are no longer binding, that being a directive from the GB), then seize the opportunity.

l believe this is what many JWs will readily want to do. It's a pity religious and organization policies are used to bind and led people's conscience as slaves. Take a queue from the Scripture cited. We are all bought at a great price, stop becoming slaves of men.

The way Acts 15:29 is worded does not sound like a religious or organization policy to me. Dont know about others. Acts 15:19 states......Therefore my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God.

If the divinely appointed Apostles are not causing trouble. Why the hullabaloo on all of these.

JMAN05:


Oh Seun, the command not to take blood is in the bible. It is not the GB that wrote it. They may only say they won't shun you if you do take blood(ie, it is now personal) but they can't tell you to go and take. That will never happen. Things that are so clear in the bible like this one the GB are afraid to go there. They would be overstepping there authority, and the sheep will keep writing until they change there decision.

Oh Seun, changes don't come that easy. I don't see how they can change this one.

Rather, you guys will gently obey them the same way you continued following them even after several failed end time prophecies. You will even make excuses for them like ''they never claimed to be perfect''.

Do you know the amount of people who became broke and poor after selling their properties because GB told them the world was going to end on a certain date?

achorladey:


cc: Seun

Let me link this scenario to the account of 1 Corinthians 7:21.....were you called when a slave?(when these blood transfusion policies are still active) Do not let it concern you; but if you can become free(as the scenario pointed out that the policies are no longer binding, that being a directive from the GB), then seize the opportunity.

l believe this is what many JWs will readily want to do. It's a pity religious and organization policies are used to bind and led people's conscience as slaves. Take a queue from the Scripture cited. We are all bought at a great price, stop becoming slaves of men.

The way Acts 15:29 is worded does not sound like a religious or organization policy to me. Dont know about others. Acts 15:19 states......Therefore my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God.

If the divinely appointed Apostles are not causing trouble. Why the hullabaloo on all of these.

The issue is that Acts 15:19 has been twisted to suit man-made doctrines which are being taught as commandment of God.