XPost: alt.bible   
   From: sam@spade.invalid   
      
   James wrote:   
   > On Sun, 05 Oct 2025 20:33:39 -0700, Samuel Spade  wrote:   
   > >James wrote:   
   > >> On Fri, 03 Oct 2025 17:05:04 -0700, Samuel Spade    
   wrote:   
   > >>   
   > >> >James wrote:   
      
   (snippage clippage)   
      
   > >> >> Thus, besides drinking blood, Christians are to "refrain" from blood,   
   > >> >> such as getting a blood transfusion, etc.   
   > >> >   
   > >> >Would you refuse a blood transfusion if it were the only way to save   
   > >> >your life?   
   > >>   
   > >> No. Ask any JW and you would get the same answer. We believe in   
   > >> following God's word over anything else.   
   > >   
   > >Sounds like you meant Yes, you would refuse the transfusion.   
   >   
   > Thanks for the correction. Usually it is said the other way.   
   > Yes, I would refuse it, but ask for volume expanders if that would   
   > help, etc.   
      
   I've never heard of volume expanders.   
      
   >   
   > >I admire your adherence to principle.  Sometimes that gets taken too   
   > >far.  The Acts passage does not (IMO only) forbid transfusions.  You   
   > >have your own reading.   
   >   
   > If a doctor told you to abstain from alcohol, could you then shoot it   
   > in your veins? That would still be 'drinking' the alcohol. The doctor   
   > wouldn't be happy with you.   
      
   Poor analogy.  Alcohol is an intoxicant no matter where you stick it.   
   Transfused blood has a much different effect than drinking it.   
      
   A better example would be: it's really bad to drink isopropyl alcohol,   
   but applied to your skin it can prevent infection and save your life.   
   Should you "abstain" from isopropyl alcohol?   
      
   Does God have some purpose for ordering abstinence from transfusions?   
   With drinking blood, or eating shellfish or pork, you could see some   
   potential connection to health risks that people were aware of even in   
   the bronze age.  But what does it accomplish to ban transfusions?   
   Especially since dying from lack of transfusion is quite unhealthy.   
      
   Perhaps it's another of what the RCC calls holy mysteries, that our   
   finite minds just can't grasp, so stop asking questions.  THen again,   
   maybe there is no reason.   
      
   >   
   > In the Roman arena, Christian families refused to do a small act of   
   > worship to the emperor. (like taking a pinch of a substance, and   
   > throwing it in a fire, before a statue of the emperor) They were then   
   > thrown to the lions and killed.   
   >   
   > Did those families worshipping God take it too far? Please answer.   
   > What would you have done?   
      
   That's your legend.  They have their priorities, I'm not responsible for   
   judging them.   
      
      
   > >> >Would you refuse a blood transfusion for your child if it were the only   
   > >> >way to save his life?   
   > >>   
   > >> No. Just like parents send their children to war for a patriotic   
   > >> beliefs, or Christians with children in the past refused to worship   
   > >> the emperor, and were thrown to the lions, there are principles   
   > >> greater than our lives.   
   > >   
   > >Again, you apparently mean Yes.   
   >   
   > Looks like I was asleep again. Thanks for correcting me. Again I am so   
   > used to answering it another way.   
   >   
   > >   
   > >This is where most people would draw a moral line in the snow.  Do you   
   > >have a right to condemn a child to death who may not even understand the   
   > >situation?  Clearly it's not a legal right, and doctors often seek court   
   > >injunctions to administer transfusions to JW children over parents'   
   > >objections.   
   >   
   > What about wicked parents who have small children?   
      
   You mean, wicked parents who let their kids have transfusions?  They   
   usually are overjoyed and relieved with the outcome.   
      
   Otherwise, i don't see what that has to do with the subject.   
      
      
   >  When God's   
   > judgments come, what happens to the innocent children?   
      
   That's a good question.  In the bible, they get drowned in floods, or   
   dashed against rocks, or the firstborn slain by angels, or murdered by   
   Herod.  God is no respecter of men, let alone babies.   
      
   You should be explaining that, not me.   
      
   >   
   > God gave us children to be responsible for. That is a serious   
   > responsibility that can't be ignored, like many do today. Thus the   
   > small children go the way of the parents. Notice God;s judgments in   
   > the past:   
   >   
   > " 4.  and the Lord said to him, "Go through the midst of the city,   
   > through the midst of Jerusalem, and put a mark on the foreheads of the   
   > men who sigh and cry over all the abominations that are done within   
   > it.''   
   >  5.  To the others He said in my hearing, "Go after him through the   
   > city and kill; do not let your eye spare, nor have any pity.   
   >  6.  "Utterly slay old and young men, maidens and little children and   
   > women; but do not come near anyone on whom is the mark; and begin at   
   > My sanctuary.'' So they began with the elders who were before the   
   > temple."   
   >   
   > In verse 6, why slay innocent children? Because God holds the parents   
   > responsible for them.   
      
   That doesn't make any sense.  GOd holds parents responsible, so he   
   punishes them by killing the babies?   
      
      
   > >> If you are a Christian, would you curse God if it meant saving your   
   > >> life? Your child's life?   
   > >   
   > >I'm an atheist, and there's no reason to curse someone who probably   
   > >doesn't exist.   
   >   
   > I see. Thank you for that admission. Were your parents atheists also?   
   > Or did you develop that later on?   
      
   Thanks for your "admission" to being a JW.   
      
      
   > Even if I wasn't any religion, I would still not believe in evolution.   
      
   Stay on track.  We aren't going down that diversionary rabbit hole.  Not   
   today.   
      
   (snip)   
      
   > Don't get me started on the pseudo-science of evolution.   
      
   That's not an argument you're ever going to win.   
      
      
   > >The most common legal doctrine is that, eg, if someone is pointing a gun   
   > >to your head and ordering you to sign over your fortune, anything signed   
   > >under that kind of duress is void.  I'd expect the putative gods of most   
   > >religions would take that view, but some that some gods would take the   
   > >curse at face value and expect you to die instead.  Looks like your God   
   > >is in the latter group, right?   
   >   
   > Wrong! What's worth more, your life or your money?   
      
   Isn't that kind of what I said?   
   Do you mean Jehovah would let you skate if it were do or die?   
      
   Does he overlook the extraordinary mortal duress you were under when you   
   supposedly made the decision to comply or not?   
      
   > Even today there is a gizmo that reads your credit cards, and steals   
      
   (snip another tangential rabbit hole)   
      
      
   > >To answer your hypothetical question, though, yes and yes.   
   > I'm sure you would, based on your beliefs now.   
      
   I'm an atheist.  I don't need to have beliefs, thanks for asking.   
      
      
   > If you have any Bible questions, don't hesitate to ask. And have a   
   > good one.   
      
   Oh, all right.   
      
   Can a man see Jehovah and live?   
   Would welding goggles help?   
   Has anyone ever died from seeing Jehovah?   
      
      
   Thanks for your reply.  You have a good one too, peace out.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)