Discussion:
ANOTHER VOTE FOR ATHEISM: Duped Jehovah's Witness Chooses DEATH Over Family & Medical Treatment!
(too old to reply)
Al Sharpton
2010-02-17 19:16:47 UTC
Permalink
Crazy witch converted from one supernatural cult to another.

Now, RELIGION is killing her!

But then, there's always life after death ... right?

--------------------
"Faith complicates a young mother's life-or-death decision on lung
transplant"

By Brigid Schulte
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 17, 2010; A01





MARIBEL PEREZ breathes in short puffs, panting almost, through a hole
cut into her trachea and covered demurely with a patch of gauze. Clear
tubes connected to a noisy machine in the living room of her small
Alexandria apartment pump pure oxygen into her nostrils.

Crossing the room can leave the 36-year-old woman breathless. Crying
sometimes feels like drowning.

Twice in the past two years, she has been told to prepare to die.
Twice, she has been rejected for a lung transplant because her case
was deemed too difficult. Twice, she has nearly been sent home to Peru
because doctors told her there was nothing more they could do here,
and if there were, her insurance wouldn't pay. She refused to believe
them.

Then, doctors, social workers, friends, family, priests, politicians
and strangers coalesced as a veritable army of guardian angels around
her. They pushed for treatment and insurance. They found loopholes,
hospital beds and ventilators. They prayed. They set up a "Save
Maribel" Web site and Facebook page. They called news conferences in
which Perez tearfully pleaded for her life. They raised $60,000 to
save her.

So it was nothing less than shattering when, miraculously, a few weeks
ago, one of the world's largest lung-transplant programs, at the
University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, agreed to take her, and Perez
said no.

Her reason had nothing to do with breath. It was because of blood.

Perez had become a Jehovah's Witness. The religion teaches that blood
is sacred, the seat of one's soul, and that in the Bible, God
specifically prohibits the consumption of blood, whether by mouth or
through veins in a transfusion. Many Jehovah's Witnesses carry cards
explaining that in an emergency they are not to receive blood and that
no medical practitioner will be held liable if they die as a result.

"What's more important: five, six, 10 or 20 more years on Earth? Or
living forever?" asked David Valdez, a Jehovah's Witness minister at
the Kingdom Hall in Alexandria, where Perez worshiped. Breaking God's
law on blood, Valdez explained, could condemn one to an eternity of
nothingness.

On Jan. 7, after one of many visits from fellow Jehovah's Witnesses,
Perez told her husband, Lorenzo, that she had signed a medical
directive refusing a blood transfusion. Hearing that, he said, was
like being slammed in the chest. "I had been fighting so hard for so
long to keep her alive, I felt betrayed," he said in Spanish. "I was
so angry. It was like I didn't know her anymore." His wife had chosen
to die.

Without a transplant, as her doctor, Leslie Kingslow, explained, Perez
has about a 50 percent chance of living an additional 18 to 24 months.
Less if she contracts another infection. The two childhood bouts of
inexpertly treated tuberculosis that so scarred her lungs also make
hers a high-risk surgery that would almost certainly require a
transfusion; without one, no transplant center would take her as a
patient.

In a panic, Lorenzo called out to his wife's army of guardians. They
descended upon her like avenging angels. How could she sign something
like this? The Witnesses could be wrong, they pleaded; other faiths
interpret the Bible differently. When that failed to move her, they
called her a hypocrite. Told her that she had wasted so many people's
time and faith. Then they softened. How could she leave her two
children after struggling so mightily to stay with them? How could a
loving God want her to choose death?

Perez, dressed in hospital socks and flannel pajamas festooned with
pink teacups, sat on the side of a twin bed, her head bowed, her eyes
locked onto the bare wood floor. When she spoke, it was in a faint
whisper. "Mi relación con Dios es más importante que todo," was all
she said. My relationship with God is more important than anything.

* * *

Four years ago, Perez began getting dizzy and falling. She could never
seem to catch her breath. A friend took her to a free lung clinic in
the District run by the National Institutes of Health for the homeless
and uninsured. There, Mark Gladwin diagnosed severe pulmonary
fibrosis. The doctor began to follow her closely. She was so young to
be terminally sick. The only way to extend her life was a lung
transplant, which can cost at least a half a million dollars. With no
money, immigration papers or insurance, Perez's prospects were poor.

In 2007, she was repeatedly hospitalized and sent to a hospice, where
doctors recommended that she return to Peru to die in her mother's
care. But friends and advocates found the Kaiser Permanente Bridge
program, which offers three years of discounted insurance to the
uninsured. She healed enough to go home.

In the fall of 2008, she contracted pneumonia. Again, she was
hospitalized. Again, doctors told her to prepare to die.

Instead, she spent a year at the Specialty Hospital of Washington,
with social worker Paula Hammond calling Kaiser every two weeks for
approval to extend her stay.

Hammond arranged for surgeons from Inova Fairfax Hospital, the area's
only lung transplant center, to evaluate Perez. They said the
operation would be too risky.

Last spring, Laura Wilson, 81, a friend who met Perez through a
neighbor and became like a mother to her, learned that Gladwin had
moved to Pittsburgh to become chief of the pulmonary division there.
She appealed to him: Maribel has insurance now! You can help her now!

Gladwin agreed to see Perez if Kaiser would pay for the transplant and
intensive follow-up care.

Perez could not contain her joy. "I want to be a part of my children's
lives," she said then. "For a mother, even one more day is precious."

But Kaiser at first refused to pay for the transplant, Perez's doctors
said, telling them that Pittsburgh was not in Kaiser's network. Kaiser
officials would not comment on Perez's case.

Her advocates wrote letters and sent appeals and, finally, Kaiser
agreed to cover the transplant as an out-of-network expense, meaning
Perez needed about $80,000 for the co-payment. Her advocates set up a
fund through the Catholic Archdiocese of Arlington and had news
conferences pleading for donations here and in Peru. Their efforts
netted $30,000. Then Wilson found the Ray Tye Medical Aid Foundation
in Massachusetts, which agreed to match those funds.

About 1,400 lung transplants a year are done in the United States,
compared with 15,000 kidneys and 2,200 hearts. The procedure is fairly
new and survival rates are low, averaging five to seven years, said
Joseph Pilewski, medical director of Pittsburgh's lung transplant
program. It's a therapy of last resort. "If your other option is a 90
percent chance of dying within the year," Pilewski said, "then a lung
transplant is a good option."

Perez has no other options, her doctors say. Hospitals in Peru, where
Kaiser recommended she return last summer, could not handle her case,
they say, nor could her damaged lungs survive a trip there. Caught
between borders, political policy and medical ethics, her life hangs
in existential balance.

"As a physician, if we were to be distracted by someone's insurance
status, their immigration status or other sociopolitical
variables . . . then we lose sight of our primary mission: to take
care of people," Gladwin said. "Maribel is a young woman. She has
young children. She's the kind of person a transplant was designed
for. From a social-justice standpoint, you could ask: Why is it fair
to give a lung transplant to a 65-year-old with emphysema who's smoked
for 40 years and not to a young mother?"

In mid-December, Perez and her husband traveled to Pittsburgh for five
days of testing. In a Dec. 23 letter, the medical team deemed her an
"acceptable candidate for transplant." She would join about 30 people
on their waiting list.

Her army of guardian angels rejoiced. Then, early last month, they
noticed she was no longer returning their calls.

* * *

After she signed the directive refusing transfusions, Perez was in
torment, she said. She knew she was signing away her last chance at
life.

She curled into herself on the single bed in the room she shares with
her 12-year-old daughter. She blew out short streams of breath to calm
herself. She couldn't sleep.

God had resurrected her, lifting her from deathbeds and despair. Was
it really His will that she now give up and die?

Perez was raised Catholic, but a neighbor who was a Jehovah's Witness
impressed her with his knowledge of the Bible. Two years ago, she
began attending services and Bible study classes. Lorenzo went a few
times, but it wasn't for him. Still, he was happy that his fragile
wife had found a place of solace. What no one understood, she
explained later, was that in her darkest hours, when she lay dying in
the hospice, and throughout that long, lonely year at Specialty
Hospital, the word of God was the only thing that sustained her.
Twice, she'd thought of ripping out the life-sustaining tubes that
tethered her to the wall. Her belief in God stayed her hand.

She wanted desperately to do what He wanted.

That weekend, her mother called from Peru and begged her to change her
mind and have the operation. Her doctors called. Her sister, a nurse,
chimed in from Italy. Her sister-in-law reminded her of another
relative, a Jehovah's Witness who refused a transfusion and died,
leaving two toddlers behind.

Fellow Witnesses continued to visit and urged her to stay strong,
assuring her that just as soldiers die on the battlefield to defend
their country, sometimes Jehovah's Witnesses die to protect the
integrity of God's law. Lorenzo barred the Witnesses from the house,
told the children they could no longer be part of the congregation and
threatened that if Perez continued to refuse the transfusion, their
marriage of 19 years would be over.

Her children, schooled by the Jehovah's Witnesses, told her they'd be
sad if she died but were proud of her for following her faith.

Perez feared less for her eternal life than that God would punish her
by taking her life if she went ahead with the transplant. "I was
worried God wouldn't let me live after the operation," she said. Three
days later, Perez told Lorenzo she'd changed her mind.

"I began to think how much I loved my children, these marvelous gifts
from God," she explained, gulping for air as tears rolled down her
face. "God loves. He does not demand that we follow rules. The rules
are ours." Her heart told her that God wanted her to choose life.

Perez no longer talks to Jehovah's Witnesses, nor they to her. It is
hard, she said. They are like her family. But the religion
"disfellowships," or excommunicates, members who disobey its
teachings. Contacted by a reporter and asked about Perez, a member of
her congregation said, "She is not a Jehovah's Witness," and hung up.

* * *

Now, Lorenzo said, it is as if they are approaching the door to the
future with the key in their hand, ready to turn the lock. Perez, who
has difficulty walking into the next room, must once more travel to
Pittsburgh to sign a new directive, permitting doctors to use blood
during her operation. But first, Kaiser doctors now say she must
regain the 14 pounds her already-thin frame has lost since she got out
of the hospital. The transplant doctors want to know how she will pay
for medical care once her insurance expires. She doesn't know but
hopes that in Peru, it will be cheaper.

She is still not used to the bustle of activity in the small apartment
after so long in a lonely hospital room. Her son, Jason, a fourth-
grader, wanders in to tell about his day before running to the living
room to play a computer game. Lorenzo shuffles through the endless
paperwork that grows out of a serious illness. And her daughter,
Diana, sings her a new pop song, holding the handle of her mother's
portable oxygen tank like a rock star's microphone. The two giggle.
They pinkie-swear on a secret that they promise to talk more about
later, once the lights are out, when they will drift off to sleep,
together.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/16/AR2010021606057.html?hpid=dynamiclead
Kelsey Bjarnason
2010-02-17 19:29:22 UTC
Permalink
[snips]
Post by Al Sharpton
Crazy witch converted from one supernatural cult to another.
Now, RELIGION is killing her!
But then, there's always life after death ... right?
--------------------
"Faith complicates a young mother's life-or-death decision on lung
transplant"
No, it doesn't.
Post by Al Sharpton
So it was nothing less than shattering when, miraculously, a few weeks
ago, one of the world's largest lung-transplant programs, at the
University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, agreed to take her, and Perez
said no.
Her reason had nothing to do with breath. It was because of blood.
Perez had become a Jehovah's Witness. The religion teaches that blood
is sacred, the seat of one's soul, and that in the Bible, God
specifically prohibits the consumption of blood, whether by mouth or
through veins in a transfusion. Many Jehovah's Witnesses carry cards
explaining that in an emergency they are not to receive blood and that
no medical practitioner will be held liable if they die as a result.
What's the old line? "You can't fix stupid."
Post by Al Sharpton
"What's more important: five, six, 10 or 20 more years on Earth? Or
living forever?"
Since available evidence suggests nobody has managed the latter, the former
seems a tad more relevant.

The one upside of all this is that there is (or presumably shortly will be)
one less stupid person and they won't be inflicting their stupidity on
others.
Annointed Remnant
2010-02-17 19:50:58 UTC
Permalink
In article <bbb6a521-4c0c-4ad5-89af-***@c5g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>,
Al Sharpton says...
Post by Al Sharpton
Crazy witch converted from one supernatural cult to another.
Now, RELIGION is killing her!
But then, there's always life after death ... right?
--------------------
"Faith complicates a young mother's life-or-death decision on lung
transplant"
By Brigid Schulte
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 17, 2010; A01
"What's more important: five, six, 10 or 20 more years on Earth? Or
living forever?" asked David Valdez, a Jehovah's Witness minister at
the Kingdom Hall in Alexandria, where Perez worshiped. Breaking God's
law on blood, Valdez explained, could condemn one to an eternity of
nothingness.
Someone should take a goddamn brick and shove it down this asshole's throat!

Refusing a medically acceptable life saving procedure is nothing short of
suicide, and convincing someone else they should refuse is nothing short of
murder.
duane
2010-02-17 20:36:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Annointed Remnant
Al Sharpton says...
Post by Al Sharpton
Crazy witch converted from one supernatural cult to another.
Now, RELIGION is killing her!
But then, there's always life after death ... right?
--------------------
"Faith complicates a young mother's life-or-death decision on lung
transplant"
By Brigid Schulte
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 17, 2010; A01
"What's more important: five, six, 10 or 20 more years on Earth? Or
living forever?" asked David Valdez, a Jehovah's Witness minister at
the Kingdom Hall in Alexandria, where Perez worshiped. Breaking God's
law on blood, Valdez explained, could condemn one to an eternity of
nothingness.
Someone should take a goddamn brick and shove it down this asshole's throat!
Refusing a medically acceptable life saving procedure is nothing short of
suicide, and convincing someone else they should refuse is nothing short of
murder.
Good bye stupid woman. A hard slap in the face for each of her
spiritual advisers.
Greg Carr
2010-02-17 23:47:36 UTC
Permalink
On 17 Feb 2010 11:50:58 -0800, Annointed Remnant
Post by Annointed Remnant
Al Sharpton says...
Post by Al Sharpton
Crazy witch converted from one supernatural cult to another.
Now, RELIGION is killing her!
But then, there's always life after death ... right?
--------------------
"Faith complicates a young mother's life-or-death decision on lung
transplant"
By Brigid Schulte
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 17, 2010; A01
"What's more important: five, six, 10 or 20 more years on Earth? Or
living forever?" asked David Valdez, a Jehovah's Witness minister at
the Kingdom Hall in Alexandria, where Perez worshiped. Breaking God's
law on blood, Valdez explained, could condemn one to an eternity of
nothingness.
Someone should take a goddamn brick and shove it down this asshole's throat!
Refusing a medically acceptable life saving procedure is nothing short of
suicide, and convincing someone else they should refuse is nothing short of
murder.
The Bible is very clear on the taking of blood and this woman is to be
praised for her stance in the face of the ultimate ethical dilemma.
The lung that was going to be given her can be now given to someone
else that doesn't hold the same views.

The current Pope faced the ultimate ethical dilemma in WW2 and chose
to swear an Oath of Allegiance to Adolph Hitler while others went to
prison or were shot or worse for refusing.
haiku jones
2010-02-18 00:00:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg Carr
On 17 Feb 2010 11:50:58 -0800, Annointed Remnant
Post by Annointed Remnant
Al Sharpton says...
Post by Al Sharpton
Crazy witch converted from one supernatural cult to another.
Now, RELIGION is killing her!
But then, there's always life after death ... right?
--------------------
"Faith complicates a young mother's life-or-death decision on lung
transplant"
By Brigid Schulte
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 17, 2010; A01
"What's more important: five, six, 10 or 20 more years on Earth? Or
living forever?" asked David Valdez, a Jehovah's Witness minister at
the Kingdom Hall in Alexandria, where Perez worshiped. Breaking God's
law on blood, Valdez explained, could condemn one to an eternity of
nothingness.
Someone should take a goddamn brick and shove it down this asshole's throat!
Refusing a medically acceptable life saving procedure is nothing short of
suicide, and convincing someone else they should refuse is nothing short of
murder.
The Bible is very clear on the taking of blood and this woman is to be
praised for her stance in the face of the ultimate ethical dilemma.
The lung that was going to be given her can be now given to someone
else that doesn't hold the same views.
The current Pope faced the ultimate ethical dilemma in WW2 and chose
to swear an Oath of Allegiance to Adolph Hitler while others went to
prison or were shot or worse for refusing.
Um...that last was some sort of recommendation?...


Haiku Jones
raven1
2010-02-18 00:13:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg Carr
The Bible is very clear on the taking of blood
I'll give you $5 for every Bible verse you can find that even mentions
blood transfusions.
Post by Greg Carr
and this woman is to be
praised for her stance in the face of the ultimate ethical dilemma.
The lung that was going to be given her can be now given to someone
else that doesn't hold the same views.
The current Pope faced the ultimate ethical dilemma in WW2 and chose
to swear an Oath of Allegiance to Adolph Hitler while others went to
prison or were shot or worse for refusing.
Annointed Remnant
2010-02-18 15:07:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg Carr
On 17 Feb 2010 11:50:58 -0800, Annointed Remnant
Post by Annointed Remnant
Al Sharpton says...
Post by Al Sharpton
Crazy witch converted from one supernatural cult to another.
Now, RELIGION is killing her!
But then, there's always life after death ... right?
--------------------
"Faith complicates a young mother's life-or-death decision on lung
transplant"
By Brigid Schulte
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 17, 2010; A01
"What's more important: five, six, 10 or 20 more years on Earth? Or
living forever?" asked David Valdez, a Jehovah's Witness minister at
the Kingdom Hall in Alexandria, where Perez worshiped. Breaking God's
law on blood, Valdez explained, could condemn one to an eternity of
nothingness.
Someone should take a goddamn brick and shove it down this asshole's throat!
Refusing a medically acceptable life saving procedure is nothing short of
suicide, and convincing someone else they should refuse is nothing short of
murder.
The Bible is very clear on the taking of blood
Refraining from blood comes from an ancient superstition which claimed that the
blood of an animal is its soul or life. To show respect for taking the animal's
life for food, the animal's blood was not consumed. This was blood from a DEAD
animal. If you wish to be so ignorant as to believe in ancient superstitions,
fine, but, even so, that has not a goddamned thing to do with blood
transfusions. Blood is shared between two LIVING individuals in a transfusion.
No intelligent person could argue that sharing a lung, kidney, or heart is any
different than sharing blood which is also considered an organ even by the
goddamned ignorant Jehovah's Witnesses.
Post by Greg Carr
and this woman is to be
praised for her stance in the face of the ultimate ethical dilemma.
If you bothered to read the entire article you would have seen that the woman
changed her mind and now wants the transfusion. The Jehovah's Witnesses who
supported her when she decided to commit suicide by refusing a transfusion has
now abandoned her because she wants to live and care for her children. In the
eyes of that goddamned stupid cult, she is now dead.

Yes, the woman is to be praised for standing up against that doomsday cult!
Unfortunately, she wasted precious time by repeatedly refusing the transplant
and now is in a much weaker condition, which means the Jehovah's Witnesses may
still be successful in their quest to wish an early death upon her. Once she's
out of the way, the cult will take in the children and destroy their lives like
they do to millions of others.
Post by Greg Carr
The current Pope faced the ultimate ethical dilemma in WW2 and chose
to swear an Oath of Allegiance to Adolph Hitler while others went to
prison or were shot or worse for refusing.
What the fuck has that got to do with refusing a blood transfusion?
Brian E. Clark
2010-02-20 02:53:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg Carr
The Bible is very clear on the taking of blood
The people who wrote the Bible were pre-scientific, by our
standards largely scientifically illiterate; they certainly
did not know about blood circulation, let alone
transfusion. Thus they could not and did not forbid the
transfusion of blood.

The JW doctrine regarding blood transfusion was promulgated
by the Watchtower Society beginning in the 1940s. The
belief is based on a very strange interpretation of a Bible
verse from Acts, a passage which pertains to eating, not to
intravenous fluid transmission.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
Annointed Remnant
2010-02-20 15:14:48 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@news.eternal-september.org>, Brian E.
Clark says...
Post by Brian E. Clark
Post by Greg Carr
The Bible is very clear on the taking of blood
The people who wrote the Bible were pre-scientific, by our
standards largely scientifically illiterate; they certainly
did not know about blood circulation, let alone
transfusion. Thus they could not and did not forbid the
transfusion of blood.
The JW doctrine regarding blood transfusion was promulgated
by the Watchtower Society beginning in the 1940s. The
belief is based on a very strange interpretation of a Bible
verse from Acts, a passage which pertains to eating, not to
intravenous fluid transmission.
Very little if any of the Watchtower doctrine is original. Charles T. Russell
was in partnership with an Adventist who supplied Russell with what would become
the basis of his beliefs. Adventists were an offshoot of the Millerites. When
Russell split up and went on his own, he borrowed bits and pieces, ala cart,
from several different American religions. It was vogue in the decades before
Russell for American religions to attempt to become 'primitive.' Russell came
about near the end of these movements and so had a whole shopping cart full of
doctrines to borrow from.
That didn't change after his death. Whatever hit the fancy of any of Watchtower
presidents (up until the time the governing body became the major decision
maker) became part of the Watchtower doctrine. Abstaining from blood was not an
exception. There was an obscure Scottish Christian religion who also had the
same beliefs. It was mentioned in the Watchtower about the same time they
adopted their blood rules, so it is easy to see where the 'new' belief came
from. To insinuate that there is some god directing the WT organization is
ludicrous.

The Bible mentions the consumption of blood from dead animals. It comes from an
ancient superstition that required those who killed an animal for food to drain
its blood and not consume it. Whether one wishes to believe in ancient
superstitions is their business but the medical necessary procedure of
transferring blood from a live human being to another live human being has
absolutely nothing to do with it. It is more than obvious that the WT now
wishes it never had such a doctrine, evidenced by their acceptance of so many
blood fractions. But they can't eliminate it entirely because of the onslaught
of lawsuits they would receive for advising people to go ahead and die.
Jason
2010-02-21 21:35:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Annointed Remnant
Clark says...
Post by Brian E. Clark
Post by Greg Carr
The Bible is very clear on the taking of blood
The people who wrote the Bible were pre-scientific, by our
standards largely scientifically illiterate; they certainly
did not know about blood circulation, let alone
transfusion. Thus they could not and did not forbid the
transfusion of blood.
The JW doctrine regarding blood transfusion was promulgated
by the Watchtower Society beginning in the 1940s. The
belief is based on a very strange interpretation of a Bible
verse from Acts, a passage which pertains to eating, not to
intravenous fluid transmission.
Very little if any of the Watchtower doctrine is original. Charles T. Russell
was in partnership with an Adventist who supplied Russell with what would become
the basis of his beliefs. Adventists were an offshoot of the
Millerites. When
Post by Annointed Remnant
Russell split up and went on his own, he borrowed bits and pieces, ala cart,
from several different American religions. It was vogue in the decades before
Russell for American religions to attempt to become 'primitive.' Russell came
about near the end of these movements and so had a whole shopping cart full of
doctrines to borrow from.
That didn't change after his death. Whatever hit the fancy of any of Watchtower
presidents (up until the time the governing body became the major decision
maker) became part of the Watchtower doctrine. Abstaining from blood was not an
exception. There was an obscure Scottish Christian religion who also had the
same beliefs. It was mentioned in the Watchtower about the same time they
adopted their blood rules, so it is easy to see where the 'new' belief came
from. To insinuate that there is some god directing the WT organization is
ludicrous.
The Bible mentions the consumption of blood from dead animals. It comes from an
ancient superstition that required those who killed an animal for food to drain
its blood and not consume it. Whether one wishes to believe in ancient
superstitions is their business but the medical necessary procedure of
transferring blood from a live human being to another live human being has
absolutely nothing to do with it. It is more than obvious that the WT now
wishes it never had such a doctrine, evidenced by their acceptance of so many
blood fractions. But they can't eliminate it entirely because of the onslaught
of lawsuits they would receive for advising people to go ahead and die.
Where did that rediculus doctrine that most JWs would NOT go to heaven
after they died come from? As far as I know, no other groups of Christians
believe in the doctrine that some people call "soul sleep"?
Annointed Remnant
2010-02-22 04:15:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Annointed Remnant
Post by Annointed Remnant
Clark says...
Post by Brian E. Clark
Post by Greg Carr
The Bible is very clear on the taking of blood
The people who wrote the Bible were pre-scientific, by our
standards largely scientifically illiterate; they certainly
did not know about blood circulation, let alone
transfusion. Thus they could not and did not forbid the
transfusion of blood.
The JW doctrine regarding blood transfusion was promulgated
by the Watchtower Society beginning in the 1940s. The
belief is based on a very strange interpretation of a Bible
verse from Acts, a passage which pertains to eating, not to
intravenous fluid transmission.
Very little if any of the Watchtower doctrine is original. Charles T. Russell
was in partnership with an Adventist who supplied Russell with what
would become
Post by Annointed Remnant
the basis of his beliefs. Adventists were an offshoot of the
Millerites. When
Post by Annointed Remnant
Russell split up and went on his own, he borrowed bits and pieces, ala cart,
from several different American religions. It was vogue in the decades before
Russell for American religions to attempt to become 'primitive.' Russell came
about near the end of these movements and so had a whole shopping cart full of
doctrines to borrow from.
That didn't change after his death. Whatever hit the fancy of any of
Watchtower
Post by Annointed Remnant
presidents (up until the time the governing body became the major decision
maker) became part of the Watchtower doctrine. Abstaining from blood
was not an
Post by Annointed Remnant
exception. There was an obscure Scottish Christian religion who also had the
same beliefs. It was mentioned in the Watchtower about the same time they
adopted their blood rules, so it is easy to see where the 'new' belief came
from. To insinuate that there is some god directing the WT organization is
ludicrous.
The Bible mentions the consumption of blood from dead animals. It comes
from an
Post by Annointed Remnant
ancient superstition that required those who killed an animal for food
to drain
Post by Annointed Remnant
its blood and not consume it. Whether one wishes to believe in ancient
superstitions is their business but the medical necessary procedure of
transferring blood from a live human being to another live human being has
absolutely nothing to do with it. It is more than obvious that the WT now
wishes it never had such a doctrine, evidenced by their acceptance of so many
blood fractions. But they can't eliminate it entirely because of the
onslaught
Post by Annointed Remnant
of lawsuits they would receive for advising people to go ahead and die.
Where did that rediculus doctrine that most JWs would NOT go to heaven
after they died come from? As far as I know, no other groups of Christians
believe in the doctrine that some people call "soul sleep"?
The founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses, Charles Taze Russell, believed that only
144,000 people would go to heaven. I'm not sure if that was his own convoluted
belief or if he borrowed it from someone else. Revelation does mention 144,000
of the 12 tribes of Israel ascending to heaven, but most Christians accept that
number to be symbolic.
After Russell died, the Russellites continued to grow until there were about
fifty to sixty thousand in the cult. The Watchtower president, Rutherford,
realized that soon there would be more than 144,000 followers, so in 1935 he
made the announcement that the 'heavenly class' was suddenly completed and that
from then on all the followers were going to be of another 'class' that would
not go to heaven.

Malcolm McLean
2010-02-18 18:05:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Annointed Remnant
Refusing a medically acceptable life saving procedure is nothing short of
suicide, and convincing someone else they should refuse is nothing short of
murder.
No, it's not suicide. Suicide is when you throw away your life because
it is worthless, not when you refuse to save it because you value
something else more highly.
However the second part of the sentence has a lot more going for it.
Annointed Remnant
2010-02-18 20:36:17 UTC
Permalink
In article <cb73059b-281e-4bd8-bfb5-***@36g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>,
Malcolm McLean says...
Post by Malcolm McLean
Post by Annointed Remnant
Refusing a medically acceptable life saving procedure is nothing short of
suicide, and convincing someone else they should refuse is nothing short =
of
Post by Annointed Remnant
murder.
No, it's not suicide.
It most definitely is. Like most words, there is more than one definition to
'suicide.'
Post by Malcolm McLean
Suicide is when you throw away your life because
it is worthless
That is the most common definition. Another is when a person refuses to do what
is necessary to stay alive. Starving onesself to death is suicide. Whether you
starve yourself to death because some cult told you to starve yourself to death
is irrelevant. It's still suicide.
Post by Malcolm McLean
not when you refuse to save it because you value
something else more highly.
Sorry, but valuing a doomsday cult, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, over your
own life does not change the definition of suicide. True, they might not be
aware of just how ensnared they are in the cult, but that does not excuse one of
taking their own life.
Post by Malcolm McLean
However the second part of the sentence has a lot more going for it.
ProstateTumor
2010-02-18 21:05:54 UTC
Permalink
The world contains an estimated 6.8 billion people.

Don't you think that fully half of them would, today, commit suicide
if they truly believed they could reach a "promised land," rather than
endure their miserable, filthy, starving, disease-ridden, war-torn
existence on THIS earth, in THIS life?
Rob
2010-02-19 11:28:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by ProstateTumor
The world contains an estimated 6.8 billion people.
Don't you think that fully half of them would, today, commit suicide
if they truly believed they could reach a "promised land," rather than
endure their miserable, filthy, starving, disease-ridden, war-torn
existence on THIS earth, in THIS life?
Good point and I've used it many times to debunk any afterlife. If everyone
believes in heaven, why do people cry at funerals?? They should be dancing
with joy that their loved one is now in heaven with a harp. And then they
should all kill each other to join him. Do they?? NNNOOOOO. Why? Because
maybe they really don't believe it.
raven1
2010-02-20 00:11:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob
Post by ProstateTumor
The world contains an estimated 6.8 billion people.
Don't you think that fully half of them would, today, commit suicide
if they truly believed they could reach a "promised land," rather than
endure their miserable, filthy, starving, disease-ridden, war-torn
existence on THIS earth, in THIS life?
Good point and I've used it many times to debunk any afterlife. If everyone
believes in heaven, why do people cry at funerals??
I'm an atheist who cries at funerals because I'll miss the deceased.
Is it so unbelievable that theists would do the same?
Ips-Switch
2010-02-20 00:11:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob
Good point and I've used it many times to debunk any afterlife. If everyone
believes in heaven, why do people cry at funerals?? They should be dancing
with joy that their loved one is now in heaven with a harp. And then they
should all kill each other to join him. Do they?? NNNOOOOO. Why? Because
maybe they really don't believe it.
There you go! Deep inside I believe most people know there is no
pie-in-the-sky heaven.
Ips-Switch
2010-02-20 00:02:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Annointed Remnant
Refusing a medically acceptable life saving procedure is nothing short of
suicide, and convincing someone else they should refuse is nothing short of
murder.
It is MURDER. Legal murder. They see nothing wrong with causing the death
of fellow JWs.
Olrik
2010-02-17 22:30:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al Sharpton
Crazy witch converted from one supernatural cult to another.
Now, RELIGION is killing her!
But then, there's always life after death ... right?
--------------------
"Faith complicates a young mother's life-or-death decision on lung
transplant"
Let a better, worthwhile person have the lung, and let this already
brain-dead woman pass away, as she wishes.
Loading...