Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But if the patient is dead, he can no longer wait for this new cure. Why not use the one offered. Why chose martyrdom. In the case of a child, it is the adult making his decision. Does God want us to chose for others still too young to chose for themselves. Does omission cause us to kill. God does not recommend that we kill.
Regards
DL
Like I said, we aren't martyrs. We choose better healthcare. If a doctor tells you that blood will save your child, he is a liar. There is no guarantee. Blood is NEVER the only option. If a doctor told me that, especially where my child was concerned, I would immediately demand another doctor. Consider the health risks involved in blood transfusions and its fault screening process. There are more and more advanced nonblood alternatives available at almost every hospital across the country now.
Christians who refused to break God's law in the first century were repeatedly scorned and persecuted. Yet they did not give in. Some of them were executed. Did this make THEM bloodguilty? Hardly. The scriptures make it clear that God values their integrity.
You ask if there is a Christian church that follows scripture? I give you one.
Last edited by alicenevada; 10-16-2008 at 02:01 PM..
Like I said, we aren't martyrs. We choose better healthcare. If a doctor tells you that blood will save your child, he is a liar. There is no guarantee. Blood is NEVER the only option. If a doctor told me that, especially where my child was concerned, I would immediately demand another doctor. Consider the health risks involved in blood transfusions and its fault screening process. There are more and more advanced nonblood alternatives available at almost every hospital across the country now.
Christians who refused to break God's law in the first century were repeatedly scorned and persecuted. Yet they did not give in. Some of them were executed. Did this make THEM bloodguilty? Hardly. The scriptures make it clear that God values their integrity.
You ask if there is a Christian church that follows scripture? I give you one.
You do recognize do you not that some blood disorders have as yet no substitute for transfusions?
In such a case, would you let your baby or child die?
You do recognize do you not that some blood disorders have as yet no substitute for transfusions?
In such a case, would you let your baby or child die?
Regards
DL
Blood disorders, as in blood disease? Almost universally, blood transfusions are not the solution. Doctors who have absolutely no relgious reasons at all have been debating this for decades. A friend of ours just lost his father due to the doctors trying to 'cure' his blood w/ new blood. They just kept pumping it into his veins, pint after pint. He died, quite miserable. This is a small town and unfortunately, if our friend had known about other treatments, the disease could possibly have been treated. Instead, the doctors relied on the only thing they knew to do, never recommending he go elsewhere. Incidentally, the disorder his father was suffering from would have been more positively affected by a simple cleansing of his own blood, via an extended circulatory system. It's like blood is the equivelent of duct tape. Hey, it'll hold just about anything together...why bother fixing the problem? Just slap on some duct tape.
Would I let my child die? Absolutely not. I would fight it with every fiber of my being. But that doesnt mean I'm going to give in to blood. There are doctors everywhere that refuse to use blood, even for the most traumatic blood loss.
Location: In the North Idaho woods, still surrounded by terriers
2,179 posts, read 7,020,231 times
Reputation: 1014
I have received blood once to keep me alive after a pulmonary embolism...I give blood twice a year to help others. When my son died we donated his organs to help others. There is nothing that will ever convince me that your god would object to one human helping another in any way possible!!! What silly tripe! The Bible is so full of statements that have been twisted and abused by Fundamentalist Christians that it is absolutely to the point of absurdity. Religion and its various dogma's is the reason I am not Christian...not because of God. God would never be so screwy as to forbid blood transfusions to save a life. And if there ARE doctors who would allow a patient to die rather than accept a blood transfusion, I hope he or she never treats me or mine!
Even the food laws and the treatment of slaves and women.
Women are to be silent yet I have heard many speak in and out of church.
Regards
DL
Actually, Paul is inconsistent on the subject of women in the pulpit. After all, if you believe his letter to Timothy, he creates two church offices: Bishop and Deacon. Then, in his letter to Romans, he sends Phoebe to Rome to act as the Deacon of the community there.
In the original texts, he uses the word deacon. Not a feminine form of the noun (Which didn't exist for several more centuries in Greek). Not 'servant' as some of the more dishonest translations have substituted Nope. He uses the term Deacon, which he considers to be the functional equivalent of priests today.
Further he sends Phoebe to lead the congregation of the ancient world's most important city. Now, if Paul were so absolute as to restrict women from serving as priest, how then do you explain his letter to the Romans? And how do you explain his commending her to act on his behalf to the capital of the Roman Empire?
In a larger question, which one of the texts do you value when there is a contradiction? After all, the Christian Old Testament was based on the Septuagent which was written in Greek, while the Hebrew Old Testament was written in...Hebrew. How do you reconcile the contradictory passages describing the same events in all the Synoptic Gospels. If the Gospels were absolutely, 100% accurate depictions, then why were they all termed, "According to...." Why didn't the original editors of the Bible combine all the Gospels into one authoritative narrative, rather than four separate books each written at least 30 years after Christ's death?
If every syllable of the Bible is the utterance of God, then why throw out the Levitical laws? Did God change his mind? Did God make an error in instituting the original laws that proscribed people from eating shellfish, wearing garments of different fabrics sewn together, or reaping the corners of their fields?
Which do we do? Turn the other cheek? Or massacre people who use the withdrawal method of intercourse, as was inflicted on the poor people of Onan's village? See how many different ways the Bible can be interpreted?
I have received blood once to keep me alive after a pulmonary embolism...I give blood twice a year to help others. When my son died we donated his organs to help others. There is nothing that will ever convince me that your god would object to one human helping another in any way possible!!! What silly tripe! The Bible is so full of statements that have been twisted and abused by Fundamentalist Christians that it is absolutely to the point of absurdity. Religion and its various dogma's is the reason I am not Christian...not because of God. God would never be so screwy as to forbid blood transfusions to save a life. And if there ARE doctors who would allow a patient to die rather than accept a blood transfusion, I hope he or she never treats me or mine!
A friend of mine had a pulmonary embolism and she did not take blood. She is still alive today, and incidentally she healed twice as quickly as someone who would have accepted it according to the doctor. There is no way a doctor can tell you tht blood will save your live for certain...or that refusal of it will result in your death.
Fundamentalist Christians have twisted and abused the Word of God, I heartily agree. Thankfull, I am not part of that group. But in my eyes, there is no twisting three simple words 'abstain from blood'. Blood has always been sacred in the eyes of God. So that is a commandment I have no desire to try to find a way around, as most of Christendom has done.
Is there a Christian Church that follows scripture?
Over time, all the churches and creeds of Christianity that I know of have moved away from following scripture to the letter.
I am not saying they should but with the acceptance of women priests and homosexuals as well as not believing in Mary and or various other tenets of scripture, no church seems to be following the WORD of God.
Has the old church disappeared or am I looking in the wrong places?
Should the old tenets have been kept?
Regards
DL
Sacred Scripture came from the Church, the Church didn't come from Sacred Scripture. The Church predated the Bible by almost 400 years. What Church is that you say? It's the same Church that Paul says is the pillar and foundation of the truth. Well that Church is the one and only Jesus created Roman Catholic Church.
Sacred Scriptures came from the Jews. They were given/written by the Jewish People. The early/late Christians were all Jews, and were meeting in synagogues.
Also, 'Jehovah' is not a real word. If anyone should follow God then at least they should know that it's not God's name.
10Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
11This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. 12Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by juj
Sacred Scripture came from the Church, the Church didn't come from Sacred Scripture. The Church predated the Bible by almost 400 years. What Church is that you say? It's the same Church that Paul says is the pillar and foundation of the truth. Well that Church is the one and only Jesus created Roman Catholic Church.
Blood disorders, as in blood disease? Almost universally, blood transfusions are not the solution. Doctors who have absolutely no relgious reasons at all have been debating this for decades. A friend of ours just lost his father due to the doctors trying to 'cure' his blood w/ new blood. They just kept pumping it into his veins, pint after pint. He died, quite miserable. This is a small town and unfortunately, if our friend had known about other treatments, the disease could possibly have been treated. Instead, the doctors relied on the only thing they knew to do, never recommending he go elsewhere. Incidentally, the disorder his father was suffering from would have been more positively affected by a simple cleansing of his own blood, via an extended circulatory system. It's like blood is the equivelent of duct tape. Hey, it'll hold just about anything together...why bother fixing the problem? Just slap on some duct tape.
Would I let my child die? Absolutely not. I would fight it with every fiber of my being. But that doesnt mean I'm going to give in to blood. There are doctors everywhere that refuse to use blood, even for the most traumatic blood loss.
Two things come to mind.
You say the doctors did the only thing they knew to do.
You also talk of other treatments that may have done beter.
We all know that the medical system is not perfect and many die because of lack of competence.
If the other treatments you speak of were denied then you have cause for great anger and perhaps legal action.
It is an unfortunate part of the system that the larger the center the beter the care. Usually, not always.
It appears that the best available treatment for your time and place was offered. It failled.
Anecdotal experience is useful but unless you can show where a policy of non treatment is better than the system in place then you nor I are not qualified to change government policy. Like all governments, ours has to know where it is going to a fine degree before policy can be changed. This is what your church needs to do. Not deny services. This is the logical way to go. If your case is sound then the law changes. If not or not shown then you, in a secular society must conform or risk the law.
I have a lot of friends who left Islam after seeing that they had to annihilate those who dont accept Allah.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatest I am
Thanks I might look into it.
It might be nice to find someone who is predictable according to their writen philosophy and beliefs.
It would show a strong and workable creed.
It is too bad though that Christians can't do it. Perhaps that is why Islam is growing and Christianity is not.
What do you think.
Regards
DL
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
