Giving or receiving blood

[Zen]

Which of the following things being pushed by Zen are from God, or the will of God?

My purpose here is to get people to believe God, and not bend scripture to fit in with godless people. To trust God, even if they don't understand something. To take His Word seriously, and believe it all. And that more often than not, His Word is literal and not a metaphor.

The thing is, we're both going to have to give an account. Me of wanting people to trust God more, and you of thinking I'm some kind of heretic.

I notice that you didn't highlight any of my points in green. Things being pushed by scientists must be good, according to you people, and yet the things I listed aren't. Maybe you ought to consider that there may be a point.

1) A flat Earth would validate God's Word.
2)There's such a thing as satanic DNA.
3)Losing your vision and seeing only gold for 10 minutes is an awesome experience for one suffering from a bi-polar disorder.

God's scripture is contrary to the big bang theory. They both can't be right, you have to choose. That's the point.

Satan has offspring.

Extraordinary spiritual experiences are not part of mental disorders.


Which of the following things being pushed by scientists are from God, or the will of God?

- 3 or more parents donating cells to create children in test tubes
- Blending animal and human DNA
- Mixing seeds to bring forth things not after their own kind
- Colonizing space
- Bio/chemical weapons
- Anti-gravity
- Weakening faith in God by influencing the brain
- Transhumanism / putting person's consciousness or soul inside a machine
- Modifying weather through cloud seeding
- Replacing people's blood to extend their life artificially
- Selectively editing genes of unborn children to give them designer traits
- Receiving electronic implants to make things like turning on lights much easier

Can you highlight all the ones that are good and from God, in green?

 

[plainguy]

My purpose here is to get people to believe God, and not bend scripture to fit in with godless people. To trust God, even if they don't understand something. To take His Word seriously, and believe it all. And that more often than not, His Word is literal and not a metaphor.

I see. And believing in a flat earth in your opinion is a necessary component to taking God's Word seriously ? (perhaps a flat moon too .. and don't believe what we see in a moonlit sky ?). Tell me .. I'm curious. What's on the reverse side of your flat earth ?

The thing is, we're both going to have to give an account. Me of wanting people to trust God more, and you of thinking I'm some kind of heretic.

I simply believe that you're misguided. Whether that makes you a heretic or not is not for me to decide.

I notice that you didn't highlight any of my points in green. Things being pushed by scientists must be good, according to you people, and yet the things I listed aren't. Maybe you ought to consider that there may be a point.

I noticed that nobody bothered to highlight any of your "points". Maybe take a cue from this ?

God's scripture is contrary to the big bang theory. They both can't be right, you have to choose. That's the point.

I've yet to meet a Christian that doesn't believe in creationism with God being the creator of all things. Where are you meeting them ?

Satan has offspring.

Spiritual or flesh and blood offspring ? Do those who reject Christ as their Messiah have a molecular DNA dissimilar to those who believe in Christ ?

Extraordinary spiritual experiences are not part of mental disorders.

And you're well-versed enough in the science of mental illness (and bi-polar disorders) to tell one suffering from such that losing your vision for 10 minutes and seeing only gold is a good thing ? And over the internet at that ... on a chat forum ? You're right about one thing. We're all going to give an account of ourselves.

 

[GOP]

Peace be with you my dear brother in JESUS' NAME.
Thanks for this post.
So many people are being deceived today by their traditions in their denominations. What a shame!

A Christian is a New Creation who is not born of blood or of the flesh but of GOD. This is what those who refused to give blood or receive blood from others not know. They are still living in the flesh that's why they are behaving like this.

For it is written, "But to all who received HIM, who believed in HIS Name, HE gave power to become children of GOD; who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man but of GOD (John 1:12-13).

There are some denominations such as Jehovah's Witness who have an aversion to giving or receiving blood. I have search the Bible for some foundation on this but have found none.
One day a lady in my church was sharing a "testimony" about how she had to have surgery and the doctor advised her that she would need a blood transfusion. The doctor told her that was a high probability that she would die without the blood transfusion. So she's telling us how she doesn't believe in taking blood transfusions and that she was going to have "faith"...
Fortunately she survived but I'm sitting my seat thinking that was really stupid. God gave us doctors for a reason so their advice should be heeded.
I'm imagining someone dying from a similar circumstance and God says....well duh... what part of the doctor's instructions did you not understand?

 

[Denadii]

Peace be with you my dear brother in JESUS' NAME.
Thanks for this post.
So many people are being deceived today by their traditions in their denominations. What a shame!

A Christian is a New Creation who is not born of blood or of the flesh but of GOD. This is what those who refused to give blood or receive blood from others not know. They are still living in the flesh that's why they are behaving like this.

For it is written, "But to all who received HIM, who believed in HIS Name, HE gave power to become children of GOD; who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man but of GOD (John 1:12-13).

Well GOP That was really ambiguous... Which do you believe is right?

 

[Zen]

I see. And believing in a flat earth in your opinion is a necessary component to taking God's Word seriously ?

No, maybe you don't see.

If something contradicts God's Word, is it true?

1 Timothy 6:20
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

All the pictures of a spherical Earth are fake. If we are on a sphere, why fake the pictures?

1 Corinthians 1:20
Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

Still whining that somebody had a spiritual experience? Since when does depression/mania cause visual hallucinations?

1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Atheists treat people like you do, with doubt and suggestions to get worldly treatments. If you believe in God why haven't you checked yourself in to a mental asylum? I got told that I was delusional and needed medication when I gave my testimony that I heard Lord Jesus' voice.

Matthew 9:
[SUP]19 [/SUP]And Jesus arose, and followed him, and so did his disciples.
[SUP]20 [/SUP]And, behold, a woman, which was diseased with an issue of blood twelve years, came behind him, and touched the hem of his garment:
[SUP]21 [/SUP]For she said within herself, If I may but touch his garment, I shall be whole.
[SUP]22 [/SUP]But Jesus turned him about, and when he saw her, he said, Daughter, be of good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole. And the woman was made whole from that hour.

Hmm, strange, why didn't He send her to a psychiatrist?

 

[GOP]

I believe in the WORD OF GOD which is the only Truth. There is nothing wrong in given someone blood who is sick and in need of blood that is blood transfusion..

Well GOP That was really ambiguous... Which do you believe is right?

 

[graceNpeace]

Let us not forget also that they used to "bleed" people, being under the mistaken assumption that the procedure would help cure the person suffering.

Death of a President: A 200-Year-Old Malpractice Debate
Death of a President: A 200-Year-Old Malpractice Debate - The New York Times
More than two hundred years ago, on Dec. 14, 1799, the first president of the United States died at the age of 67 in his bed at Mount Vernon. George Washington's doctors said the cause was ''inflammatory quinsy,'' a severe infection of the throat, but to this day controversy has surrounded his death.

That debate -- did Washington die because of medical malpractice? -- is vividly evoked, though not resolved, in an article in the current issue (1999) of The New England Journal of Medicine. The author, Dr. David Morens, an epidemiologist with the National Institutes of Health in Maryland, pulls together details about Washington's treatment from dozens of published medical and historical sources over nearly two centuries.

''What I've tried to do is describe the medical events and also set Washington's final days in a social and cultural context,'' Dr. Morens, 51, said in an interview. ''My study shows that accusations of malpractice were very much in the air during and immediately after the great man died.''

Dr. Morens writes that when Washington's throat swelled so painfully that he could not swallow, he asked his doctors to bleed him. At the time it was standard medical practice, but the amount of blood removed was staggering -- 80 ounces, or 5 pints, in a single day -- and many people questioned whether he had been bled to death.

Still, bloodletting did not die out as a regular practice until the mid-19th century.

Magenta - a little bit of perspective is called for here!
An untreated quinsy (no antibiotics and no option for surgery at that point in history) is fatal.
Blood-letting did not change the outcome here no matter how much or how little blood was let.

Also, there is a lot of misinformation being shared here by people who have NO professional insight into the issues being discussed.
The medical profession (of which I am one) are well aware of the dangers of blood transfusion.
I am not talking about the risks of transmitting infectious disease - that is always there but a very small risk with current screening techniques.
Rather there are risks in getting blood and the larger the transfusion the greater the risk.
And ongoing research is progressively uncovering more and more problems associated with receiving blood transfusion.
There is a difference between receiving one's own blood (safer) donated prior to an elective operation and blood from others (less safe).
However, on the flip-side there are a huge number of operations and other types of procedures (like bone marrow transplants for haematological cancers) which would never even be attempted without the availability of blood transfusion.

Do not throw the baby out with the bathwater!

Doctors (such as myself) are MUCH more conservative in prescribing blood products than we used to be.
However, the bottom line is that many, many individuals would not survive treatment for nearly all blood cancers without receiving sometimes hundreds of units of blood products, not to mention the massive blood loss from certain operations, major trauma, and complications of child-birth, etc (whole blood, packed cells, platelets, and sometime fresh frozen plasma and cryopecipitate, and other more specialised blood products).

More broadly, concern about safety in medical practice (and nursing etc) is huge. Massive efforts are made in nearly all first world hospitals to identify points of concern. Funding models have also been developed that actually penalise hospitals and practitioners for preventable complications. Executive staff are appointed to investigate patient safety issues with the authority to enforce changes in practice, and, if necessary fire unrepentant serial offenders.

I understand that the medical profession is NOT perfect but some of the bashing going on in this thread is just hearsay and sensationalism.

Also, as a disclaimer, although I started addressing a post from Magenta most of the points are applicable to other posters as well.

 

[Denadii]

I believe in the WORD OF GOD which is the only Truth. There is nothing wrong in given someone blood who is sick and in need of blood that is blood transfusion..

Thank you This time you were clear.

 

[Miri]

I didn't realise we had so many JW influenced people here.

I think I understand the concerns about blood transfusion, given the problems
it has caused at different periods of time and maybe in some countries, it is
still a concern.

But if i got run over by a car and needed a transfusion, would I accept it?
Absolutely.

I don't think God wants me to die prematurely (I think Satan does do).

I put in an earlier post that Jesus shed his blood for us to save us eternally.
Why wouldn't we give/receive blood to be saved physically.

It reminds me of that old joke where a man is caught up in a flood,
He prays to God to be saved and a boat comes, he refuses the boat because he wants
God to save him. Then a helicopter comes, he refuses that because he wants to God to
save him.

He dies and goes to heaven. There he meets God and asks why didn't you save me?
Well I tried said God, but you kept refusing the help I sent you!

 

[jaybird88]

I didn't realise we had so many JW influenced people here.

i didnt know JWs wrote all those bible passages that forbid mixing blood.

 

[plainguy]

Since when does depression/mania cause visual hallucinations?
I got told that I was delusional and needed medication when I gave my testimony that I heard Lord Jesus' voice.

Luke was a physician. That aside, forget that we even had this discussion. I won't be responding to you any further. But I will try to remember to pray for you.

 

[garee]

I didn't realise we had so many JW influenced people here.

I think I understand the concerns about blood transfusion, given the problems
it has caused at different periods of time and maybe in some countries, it is
still a concern.

But if i got run over by a car and needed a transfusion, would I accept it?
Absolutely.

I don't think God wants me to die prematurely (I think Satan does do).

I put in an earlier post that Jesus shed his blood for us to save us eternally.
Why wouldn't we give/receive blood to be saved physically.

It reminds me of that old joke where a man is caught up in a flood,
He prays to God to be saved and a boat comes, he refuses the boat because he wants
God to save him. Then a helicopter comes, he refuses that because he wants to God to
save him.

He dies and goes to heaven. There he meets God and asks why didn't you save me?
Well I tried said God, but you kept refusing the help I sent you!

I think when a parable is in view keeping in mind that without a parable Christ spoke not .parables give us the spiritual understanding according to the prescription found in 2 Cor 4:18.

While I think we should be careful to keep an open mind or possibly misunderstand the spiritual application as the meaning.
The promise was the Holy Spirit world pour out His Spirit, not seen on the flesh Blood that id seen represents the unseen spirit the faith principle .

I don’t think we can give each other a spirit transfusion .

Blood is treated as any other medicine, heals but cannot give spirit life

To drink the blood of Christ is to acknowledged He gave spirit life in jeopardy of His own Spirit, God who is not a man as us cannot die. Blood through the scripture represents the unseen Spirit of God ,water is used in the same way.



2Co 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

 

[Denadii]

I think when a parable is in view keeping in mind that without a parable Christ spoke not .parables give us the spiritual understanding according to the prescription found in 2 Cor 4:18.

While I think we should be careful to keep an open mind or possibly misunderstand the spiritual application as the meaning.
The promise was the Holy Spirit world pour out His Spirit, not seen on the flesh Blood that id seen represents the unseen spirit the faith principle .

I don’t think we can give each other a spirit transfusion .

Blood is treated as any other medicine, heals but cannot give spirit life

To drink the blood of Christ is to acknowledged He gave spirit life in jeopardy of His own Spirit, God who is not a man as us cannot die. Blood through the scripture represents the unseen Spirit of God ,water is used in the same way.



2Co 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

I'm not sure what you're saying in your first paragraph Garee. Without parables Jesus spoke not? Jesus said a lot of things straight out, no parables. It depended on who He was talking to.

 

[Miri]

I'm not sure what you're saying in your first paragraph Garee. Without parables Jesus spoke not? Jesus said a lot of things straight out, no parables. It depended on who He was talking to.

Thats the problem with trying to over spiritualise everything. Lol

 

[Miri]

I didn't realise we had so many JW influenced people here.

I think I understand the concerns about blood transfusion, given the problems
it has caused at different periods of time and maybe in some countries, it is
still a concern.

But if i got run over by a car and needed a transfusion, would I accept it?
Absolutely.

I don't think God wants me to die prematurely (I think Satan does do).

I put in an earlier post that Jesus shed his blood for us to save us eternally.
Why wouldn't we give/receive blood to be saved physically.

It reminds me of that old joke where a man is caught up in a flood,
He prays to God to be saved and a boat comes, he refuses the boat because he wants
God to save him. Then a helicopter comes, he refuses that because he wants to God to
save him.

He dies and goes to heaven. There he meets God and asks why didn't you save me?
Well I tried said God, but you kept refusing the help I sent you!

I think when a parable is in view keeping in mind that without a parable Christ spoke not .parables give us the spiritual understanding according to the prescription found in 2 Cor 4:18.

While I think we should be careful to keep an open mind or possibly misunderstand the spiritual application as the meaning.
The promise was the Holy Spirit world pour out His Spirit, not seen on the flesh Blood that id seen represents the unseen spirit the faith principle .

I don’t think we can give each other a spirit transfusion .

Blood is treated as any other medicine, heals but cannot give spirit life

To drink the blood of Christ is to acknowledged He gave spirit life in jeopardy of His own Spirit, God who is not a man as us cannot die. Blood through the scripture represents the unseen Spirit of God ,water is used in the same way.



2Co 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

See post 94! It really was a simple comment about blood transfusion and the need to
be physically alive, rather than letting ourselves die.

Im sure God has been rooting for us all these years to find cures and remedies.

 

[Denadii]

See post 94! It really was a simple comment about blood transfusion and the need to
be physically alive, rather than letting ourselves die.

Im sure God has been rooting for us all these years to find cures and remedies.

Now there is the thing. We don't have to FIND remedies, or tech, or anything else...All we have to do is ask our Father for it, then trust Him to provide it....

 

[Zen]

Today's news

Blood donation rules for sex workers and gay men are being relaxed in England and Scotland after improvements in the accuracy of testing procedures.

Men who have sex with men can now give blood three months after their last sexual activity instead of 12.
And sex workers, who were previously barred from donating, now can, subject to the same three-month rule.

Experts said the move would give more people the opportunity to donate blood without affecting blood supply safety.
The Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs - which advises UK health departments - recommended the changes after concluding that new testing systems were accurate and donors were good at complying with the rules.
[h=2]Three-month window[/h]All blood that is donated in the UK undergoes a mandatory test for Hepatitis B and C, and HIV, plus a couple of other viruses.
Scientists agree that three months is a comfortably long window for a virus or infection to appear and be picked up in the blood.

Prof James Neuberger, from the committee, said: "Technologies to pick up the presence of the virus have greatly improved, so we can now pick up viruses at a much earlier stage in the infection, and therefore it's much easier to tell if a blood donor has the virus."
The rule changes will come into force at blood donation centres in Scotland in November, and in early 2018 in England.
The changes affect groups including:

• men who have sex with other men
• people who have sex with high-risk partners - for example, those who have been in areas where HIV is common
• commercial sex workers.

They will now all be able to donate blood after abstaining from sex for three months.

 

[Zen]

July 11, 2017

LONDON — Prime Minister Theresa May on Tuesday ordered an inquiry into how contaminated blood in the 1970s and 1980s resulted in the deaths of at least 2,400 people and infected thousands more, an episode that members of Parliament have called “one of the worst peacetime disasters in Britain’s history.”
Britain’s health minister, Philip Dunne, told Parliament the government would set up an independent public inquiry aimed at getting to the truth of what happened when patients, many of them hemophiliacs, received blood products infected with H.I.V. or hepatitis C, supplied by the tax payer-funded National Health Service.
It was not immediately clear what form the inquiry, which comes after decades of campaigning by victims and their families for justice, would take.
Diana Johnson, a Labour member of Parliament who has led the cross-party call for an inquiry, told the House of Commons on Tuesday that the blood contamination scandal was a gross injustice, calling it a “cover-up” on an “industrial scale” that extended to the highest levels of the government.
She said she had been deeply moved by how the infected blood had devastated victims’ lives. She invoked Glenn Wilkinson, a father of two, who has hemophilia and was infected with hepatitis C when he was 19 after a routine operation in 1983 to remove two teeth.

 

[Magenta]

Magenta - a little bit of perspective is called for here!
An untreated quinsy (no antibiotics and no option for surgery at that point in history) is fatal.
Blood-letting did not change the outcome here no matter how much or how little blood was let.

Please do not miss the point entirely, which was: doctors are sometimes clueless, and introduce procedures into their practice which have absolutely zero effect in terms of curing the patient, and may actually work toward the opposite end of destroying the patient's chances for survival. The record of history attests to the fact that bloodletting, as an acceptable medical practice, was harmful to patients.

Doctors do not always know what is best just because they are a doctor. I do not say that to offend anyone, least of you, because you are a doctor. It is simply a plain statement of fact.

Blood letting was a useless and counter-productive practice, which is why I posted about it. It has nothing to do with whether or not blood transfusions are okay, allowable, acceptable, desirable, etc, or not. In fact I am in favor of blood transfusions. Neither does this fact alter the irrefutable fact that doctors do not always know what they are doing.

 

[hornetguy]

"Mr Hornet, the doctor will see you now. It's a painless procedure. He's going to jam this metal rod through your eye socket in to your skull and scramble your brain like an egg. It will make you much happier. Cheer up."

"Great, doctors are awesome."

What in the world does an archaic procedure have to do with whether blood transfusions are ok scripturally or not?

Or, are you just trying and failing to be funny?