Thank you, Brian, for sharing this. I have a young daughter myself, and cannot imagine something like this happening. It's sad that so many JW's are bound to the Watchtower teachings, even to the point of letting their children die to follow the Watchtower rules. God bless you, brother.
I'm sadden by your loss, I myself lost my sister in similar situation while she was giving birth to a son.
Online you will find SEAWATER transfusion into the body have cured cancers and are used as blood alternatives. Blood transfusions from human to human are very unclean with ever increasing diseases being passed by donors.
Unfortunatly much of this blood business is about the money not the cure.
The creator knows and will help, lean on him.... through prayer.
@seawaterblood Sorry your sister died at the hands of the Watchtower. I don't know if you support the Watchtower anymore. The Watchtower has taught in the past that blood transfusions are dangerous because the recipiant may take on the personality of the doner. Would this be the same case with seawater?
Man-up JW men. There is blood on your hands. How dare you even comment in this forum. Repent and be saved for the wrath of this bloodshed will be met against you murderers. Just do the right thing and Man-up.
I have a question, when scripture (Gods word) tells us to abstain from blood, was He saying this because they were giving blood transfusions in the days of old?
PM me and explain how I misrepresented the video. Certainly, based on the acomments, others watching have the "same impression". I will be pleased to apologize to you in public if I did misrepresent you, because I have no need to manipulate anybody's arguments, and like all humans, I make mistakes too.
@FredTorres1000 Claiming I said "they stopped mid surgery" or in the other post """""The video infers that death occurred because they COULDNT PROCEED."""" are both misrepresentations. I never said or implied either of those.
Yes consent, or in this case non consent is given before. However as circumstances change... they can and will ask again. That's the only thing I implied and why it is you would think this requires or implies "stopping" escapes me I already said it didn't.
Thanks. Consider though, that contrary to what you say, the video does not say that consent was sought before, rather, it was "as they were working on her,contrary to protocol, which was my point. Why? Because in a trauma situation a delay of even on minute can be catastrophic. Which is why I said he needed a better surgeon.
Based on the above, I would ask if this is an actual case, because it doesn't quite add up. Is it an actual case?
So to me, it appears more of a misunderstanding between us. I can assure you that if I did misrepresent you, it was based on that, not ill intention. I am sorry for that.
@FredTorres1000 if you and i were in the emergency room bleeding to death one doctor gives me a cup of blood to drink and your doctor gives you a blood transfusion who would live? two different purposes isn't it?
Wont lie, I did shed a tear during this. Child baptisms according to JWs are wrong because at that age they can't make up their own mind......and yet they still make the decision to waste the childs life. Really sobering thought.
"And I have yet to hear you condemn the drunk with same zeal with which you condemn a parent who took his child to the hospital for treatment and acted upon his beliefs."
The drunk driver certainly created the scenario. If these people were not Jehovah's Witnesses at the time, would they've rejected the idea of a blood transfusion to save the life of their child?
The drunk driver created the scenario? Are you serious? Do you hate JWs that much that you can't hold the actual responsible party responsible?
" If these people were not Jehovah's Witnesses at the time, would they've rejected the idea of a blood transfusion to save the life of their child?" Probably not. Instead, they would have opted for bloodless options to save the life of their child.
The responsible party for the death of the child. If the injuries were as life threatening as they are depicted in the video. there is no question that death came AS A RESULT OF THE ACCIDENT.
Of course I can't "prove" anything on youtube. Don't be ridiculous. The wholesale blood transfusions to an infant in trauma situations are equally risky, so If you ask me, the surgeon messed up big time, based on what is said here in the video. An effective surgeon could have arrested the bleeding and attempted other techniques. Brother, stop blaming the organization and start holding people accountable.
@FredTorres1000 I can't either? Honestly, we don't know? Why blame the surgeon? We don't know the extent of the injuries to the infant? I'm sure the surgeon didn't want to see this child die under his/her care, but they had to respect the beliefs of the client? If you're a caregiver and a child dies under your supervision how would you feel?
the parents can choose to obey or disobey, just like Adam and Eve. But again, it is a moot point, because you believe it's ok to disobey God to save the life of your child.
Absolutely. I've proved it to myself many times over. And it has nothing to do with the video, does it. Pray to the one that Jesus prayed to. Jehovah God, the only true God and May you find peace and truth.
What does the symbol =) mean? Is that like a smiley face?
@FredTorres1000 That means you better be 100% SURE before you answer this question. Are you 100% SURE that 1914 is a biblical teaching? You've "proved" it to yourself many times? What happens if the bible proves your 1914 belief to be wrong?
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I would change my view according to my view of what the Bible says about the progressive nature of knowledge. What would not happen is that I would blame the organization for a belief that I personally accepted as true.
@FredTorres1000 The reason I keep mentioning 1914 is to make you think. The Watchtower uses this date to claim all authority on earth. They make the bold claim they are God's mouthpiece on earth. These parents accepted the Watchtower's teaching as coming from God. Crosscheck has a good point, "What should we do with false prophets who kill people?" My 1914 question is my grenade question for witnesses, it exposes these false prophets manipulating scripture to achieve authority.
JW's claim the Bible as their authority. A rational person evaluates evidence and makes value judgments based on individual concepts, or "truths" even when some relationships exist between teachings, and he does not subscribe to the fallacious "falsum in unnum, falsum in omnibus". Once again, do not be fooled by that type of non-Christian thinking.
..and Crosscheck answered his own question to me about what to do with false prophets (as opposed to true prophets) that kill people. According to him, it's "legal" to kill your children because of "bad" theology (versus his theology I suppose) and he can't press charges. So, now what. What's the good point he was trying to make? Can you tell me?
@FredTorres1000 Fred, perhaps you can interact where Josiahvidz won't. If consuming blood is against God's law, did Jesus ever command a person, based on the situation they found themselves in, command a person to break God's law?
Sure. Jesus taught that mercy could be extended in certain situations. He did not teach that it was lawful to break the law and/or the spirit of the law. Those are two very different propositions.
The mat did not qualify as a "load" according to Jesus. The pharisees did. Jesus did not break the Law and most importantly, the spirit of the law. You suggest otherwise?
I don't so much suggest it; the apostle John does in 5:18. It says he was breaking the Sabbath by working on it by healing the man.
You're assuming that Jesus didn't view the mat as a "load." It wasn't a "mat" anyway...it was a bed. It was at least as heavy as, say, the load of grapes Nehemiah saw people carrying on the Sabbath in Neh 13:15.
It was the Jews, not the apostle John, who falsely accused Jesus of being a Law breaker. It appears you sympathize with the notion that Jesus was a law breaker.
"Loads" were intended for work related activities. The old man was not "working" on the Sabbath. Jesus cured him and told him to go home and pack his stuff. Simple.
OK. So we agree that John is reporting what the Jews are doing, not what he believes about the Sabbath. Very well.
"Why, according to John, were they trying to do so?" Because according to the Jews, Jesus was a law breaker. Their teachers strained the gnat and swallowed a camel. If you didn't give a tenth of the cumin, you're a law breaker. Do you sympathize with the Pharisaic school of thought on the application of the Law? Jesus did not teach that, he followed the Law perfectly.
@FredTorres1000 >>OK. So we agree that John is reporting what the Jews are doing...
Sir, you are misrepresenting me. I was saying that John was reporting that the Jews wanted to kill Jesus, because **ACCORDING TO JOHN** he was breaking the sabbath. It simply does not say "they perceived him to be."
I realize you can't concede this point; if you do, your blood doctrine, and really, your Christololgy, goes down the drain. And all the people who love you will stop loving you.
If I misrepresented you, it was without knowing it.
Sir, you can believe all you want of me. I answered your questions . Whether Jesus and the Pharisees have two perceptions of the Law as a matter of principle is accounted for in the procedures of the Christian Congregation as it relates to the dealing of sin within it. An entire theology goes down the drain because you
"can't" concede a point on youtube? That is a low bar to set in a serious discussion. bye, thanks again
@JesusTheMonotheist I'm saying...and the Apostle John is saying...that he DID break the Sabbath, but he did so for the sake of keeping an even higher law, God's mercy. He broke it without committing sin.
Jesus broke God's lower law for the sake of keeping God's higher law. The JWs keep a lower law to break a lower one.
@msm1876--->Jesus broke God's lower law for the sake of keeping God's higher law. The JWs keep a lower law to break a lower one.
What are you talking about? There is only one law according to Jesus, the Torah of his Father, God.
Mat 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier [matters] of the law(Torah), judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
@msm1876 Read in Context John said it was the fake Jews who were angry at Jesus for healing the impotent man and ordering him to take his bed and walk on the Sabbath therefore according to them Jesus broke the Sabbath. Jesus didn't break the Sabbath according to your fault reasoning he upheld his Father's Torah by doing good on the Sabbath, love is the fulfillment of the Torah.
@msm1876 Does John 5:17 say Jesus broke the Sabbath or does it say that his Father was working in him? - Act 10:38. Jesus of his own has no power to work any healing in anyone.
Gal 2:17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, [is] therefore Christ the minister of {{sin}}? God forbid.
1Jo 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
@FredTorres1000 just like a jw, putting words in people's mouths; people who believe in blood transfusions are not disobeying God, they see the scripture in its context and understand - God dosen't want us to use blood as a sacrifice, or drink the blood of others/animals to "take on their spirit" - Who here is actually using blood as a sacrifice? You are responsible for many deaths if you teach this doctine - it is criminal.
Right. No attempts for a blood transfusion. Many attempts at non blood treatments. Risk-benefit analysis. No black and white answer, no wrong or right. Live in reality brother. Dont be fooled.
Right. No attempts for a blood transfusion. Many attempts at non blood treatments. Risk-benefit analysis. No black and white answer, no wrong or right. Live in reality brother. Don't be fooled.
Why don't you blame the drunk's ex wife while you're at it, since it's what caused him to drink.
You want me to prove that a risky medical procedure GUARANTEES the person survives? Not even the SURGEON can "prove" that. Do you even realize what you are asking?
...and I'm happy to see you admit that the parents were the ones responsible for saying no to blood, but, again, the cause of death were the injuries incurred in the accident caused by the drunk driver.
The potter said to abstain from blood. Who trusts the potter? The one who has faith in God's Word, and yet fights the the life of his child at the hospital with reliable bloodless options.
Who trusts the clay? The one who thinks he can make it home while DUI ...and what surgeon stops to ask for consent in the middle of surgery of a trauma case? Sounds like he the child needed a better surgeon too. Nice song, touching video, but implied message is misleading.
@FredTorres1000 You don't put your faith in God's word, you put your faith in the words from the Governing Body. You say my friend Brian's video is misleading, do you believe the message of 1914 is misleading? 1914 is a bold face lie that is holding you,your family and your friends captive to a false prophet organization that is masquerading themselves as faithful and true shepherds.You said the "child needed a better surgeon?" Were you there? The child fell victim to the cult.
Sir/Madam: The Jerusalem council was a governing body. Under inspiration they said we should abstain from blood. Luke under inspiration recorded it in the Bible. Anybody who follows the Bible has to deal with that.
Of course I wasn't there. Were you? What I said about the surgeon is based on the narrative in the video. And while tragic, the parent should accept responsibility for his beliefs and decisions. If anybody else can be held responsible it would be the drunk driver.
@FredTorres1000 The abstaining from blood was for dietary purposes by not eating the flesh of strangled animals. They were not talking about a life saving blood transfusion. The belief in 1914 didn't help .The parents believed this was God's organization and followed the advice and stayed faithful. Now the parent knows the truth and they hurt because they lost their child to a false prophet.The child may or may not have survived having a transfusion? They'll never know,will they?
You have your interpretation of the command to abstain from blood even though eating strangled animals is mentioned separately. Believe what you want. But that's not the point, is it? It wouldn't matter to you if the JWs are right, because even if they were, you'd still think that they're wrong for not compromising.
The child was lost to a drunk driver. Period. That they do know for sure. And shame on parents of any faith that look to blame someone else for their choices.
@FredTorres1000 "And shame on parents of any faith that look to blame someone else for their choices."
What would have happened to this Jw couple if they chose to allow their child to have a blood transfusion? Would they've remained in good standing? That could only occur in Bulgaria,right? Why is it that the brothers in Bulgaria have a choice without the consequences of being punished by the body of elders? I'd like you to explain how God has double standards for his people?
I don't know "what would happen." That would depend on what they believe, on works befitting repentance, the circumstances and type of consent, was there an unbelieving parent, and probably a host of other factors. But whatever happens is the decision of the parent, a topic you evidently don't like to talk about. And I have yet to hear you condemn the drunk with same zeal with which you condemn a parent who took his child to the hospital for treatment and acted upon his beliefs.
@FredTorres1000 Fred,13 years ago my ex-brother in law had a 3yr old daughter that needed a blood transfusion. He was a ministerial servant, his uncle was the P.O. When I first heard that he was contemplating on allowing his daughter to have the transfusion, I was sick. I couldn't believe what I was hearing, I tried to call him, but he wouldn't answer. He was told by the elders he couldn't allow this. Don't lie! You and I both know what happens.
When the elders say things like that...they are assuming that the person believes in the doctrine and as a matter of his stated conviction, he indeed cannot allow something that he knows is wrong. However, as in all other sins, such as fornication (mentioned in the same decree as blood), when someone does it, it does not automatically mean disfellowshipping. There is no black and white policy. The person's attitude is what matters.
@FredTorres1000 I've seen it all. My good friend was molested by the elder that I was studying with, My Ex- Brother-in-law had his child die due to the blood policy, My JW ex-wife betrayed me, my JW father was an abusive alcoholic that physically abused me and this list goes on and on. I pray that you'll wake up someday and find Christ. =)
See, now you're talking about the real issues hurting you.
And, think about what you are saying brother. Instead of blaming the religion or what it "allows", hold these individuals responsible for their actions! If all you say is true, then by blaming their religion you are making them out to be the victims. Don't be fooled, this is not Christian thinking! Think and pray over it.
I love Jesus and I love Jehovah God, the only true God. thank you for your well wishes.
@FredTorres1000 These issues don't hurt me? They've helped me to understand who I am and why I landed here? I don't hate the witnesses, I hate the organization that controls them and their minds.
"I hate the organization that controls them and their minds."
That's not what you conceded in your last message about who said no to blood. But Only a fool would deny the hurt. No need for bravado here. I don't blame you and it wasn't your fault. But stop making perps out to be victims of mind control.
However, there is little else I can say...but to take care.
1: The Potter says don't eat blood..... the clay is who says don't transfuse it. Two very different things.
2: They say no blood as they sign consent forms.... Doctors. will commonly ask a 2nd time if the situation changes. 3: Drunk drivers who kill people go to jail..... What should we do with false prophets who kill people?
@FredTorres1000 1: Overly simplistic and medically inaccurate Watchtower propaganda
2: Just had an elderly lady from my congregation have major surgery last month... I was updated mid surgery about a complication by a nurse. So again... False
3: You are free in this country to kill your kids based on bad theology....just as you were when the WT denied people blood fractions based on the same reasoning....... sad but true.
1. Simple yes. Inaccurate, no. Transfused blood is digested through catabolic process and waste is excreted in urine and feces, just like oral ingestion.
2. Major planned surgery of an adult and a trauma case of an infant.......think about it.
3. Then change the law. or rethink what you are saying.
1: it's not eating... It bypasses the normal functions and is only sustainable for a brief period. People are fed through esophageal or gastric tubes
2: What.... the nurses all disappear? Absurd
3. I can't press charges because it's legal.... But that doesn't make it right. All I can do is raise awareness which is what the video is intended to do. I can't protect your children if you have any, only you can.
Sir, I have professional training in this field. It's obvious are speaking of things you don't know. But I don't hold that against you, as most laypersons don't understand either.
1. Catabolic processes are a natural. It is in fact eating. Nutrition is gained. Please research Total Parenteral Nutrition
2. When a child is bleeding out during surgery, they surgical team doesn't stop to ask permission for transfusion consent. Nurses updates have nothing to do with this.
1: Again wrong.... It's not the same as eating.... The fact that nutrition is gained proves nothing. If I put a sandwich in a blender and dip fed you it by IV it process the same?
2: Again wrong.... No one said they stopped and surgical teams have no problem communicating and updating those outside the room..... Just absurd.... The fact that you now try to portray it as they "stop" indicates to me that you know your wrong so now your obfuscating.
2. Sir, the video is the one that infers that a delay in the decision to obtain consent is what caused the child to die. I am saying, as you seem to agree, that the surgical team DOES NOT stop mid surgery to get consent.The reason for that is because consent has ALREADY been obtained in one way or another BEFORE surgery not in the MIDDLE of it as the video suggests.
2: Fred don't misrepresent me.... which I assume you did purposefully. I never said or implied that surgeons "stopped mid surgery." Only that they can and do try AGAIN to get consent. Something that can be easily accomplished by a nurse or chaplain.... messages are often sent out. Your need misrepresent me exposes the weakness of your argument.
3: I prefer this because I know it has a larger impact....
1, Please take time to answer what I asked. How does someone with no usable gastric tissue eat? Would you categorize your view of TPN/IV feedings as "medically accurate"?
3. You believe that what you do is more impactful than changing the law?
1: Quote from the medical dictionary: " TPN is used when individuals cannot or should not get their nutrition through eating.." Notice (and this is important) you get tpn when you "cannot eat." Eating is only ever used in a general sense due to lack of a better term. Whats why they call it TPN not TPE.
3: No.... I don't believe the law will be changed. So it would be time wasted.
1. Thanks for your opinion. TPN is a type of hyperalimentation. "Alimentation"= a source of sustenance, food. As such, the word "eat" is used in the general sense not the other way around as yo suggest. Also, is eating the same as drinking?
Having a clear idea of your view now, would it be fair to characterize your view in the following manner: "The Bible prohibits the eating of blood, but not the feeding off of blood" I'm interested in your perspective on this matter.
1: I didn't give my opinion so much as provide a direct quote from a medical dictionary. TPN is for those who can't eat.
Secondly.... I will ask you. Why did Jesus say nothing you eat can make you unclean? Aren't you arguing that "eating" blood by transfusion make you unclean? Why does Jesus disagree with you?
It is an opinion. TPN is for those who can't eat through their stomach, in non disease state. But I respect your opinion, which is why I ask if udraw a moral distinction between "eating" and "feeding" even though it's processed like food. I will ask again. In your view, does the Bible prohibit the feeding off of blood?
Jesus does not disagree with God's Law. Jesus did not eat blood or advocate its consumption in emergencies, did he? I will expand after you answer my question.
@FredTorres1000 Fred, you're not stupid. That baby's chance at life was impacted by the beliefs held by the JW parents. I challenged you on 1914 for a reason. The choices those parents made were based off what the parents perceived as the "Truth"
@FredTorres100 1: The question is a red herring.... blood is not given as "food" or to " feed" 2 That question is answered in the "blood and mercy" video attached to this one.
1. My question has to do with TPN and moral equivalency. If I make a vow to go on a hunger strike, but I accept IV TPN, am I keeping my vow, yes or no? Simple question, no red herring. BTW, blood is indicated for iron deficiency, so it is used to "feed."
2. You don't address my question in either video. I cant assume how you believe, since you've made what seem like contradictory statements. Why don't you just go ahead and answer directly? Thanks, just trying to understand.
I assume you have no more interest in pursuing our dialogue. I was intrigued by your views and perspectives on the issues raised by the questions I asked, and I respect your decision, if in fact that is the case.
@FredTorres1000 Cont.... Fred even if (and it's not) eating and transfusing are the same thing..... you're still wrong. The scriptures at the end of the video, and the video attached prove that.
I located a fine video for you and your viewers, especially those with non medical backgrounds by youtuber CmeGrandRounds of East Tennesee University called TPN. It includes info on central venous access TPN.
You might also remember that athletes are given IV solutions instead of gatorade because it is faster and has greater efficacy. Keep in mind that as well that TPN solutions and nutrients end up in digestive organs too, such as the intestines. Hope this helps.
Why are you still asking me questions if u already threw the grenade at me?
If your're interested in a grown man discussion with no internet bravado, PM me.
For now, just know that Satan is accountable for his actions, Eve is accountable for her actions and Adam is accountable for his actions. Adam blamed Eve, Eve blame the serpent, and Jehovah had none of that. I'll be happy to expand and continue a dialogue but no longer in public, you are still my brother. And I'm fine with 1914.
You're absolutely welcome brother. The concept that individuals, such as Satan, Adam and Eve are all accountable for their actions, as are all other intelligent beings, is an important topic for discussion. I hope you consider my offer,
@FredTorres1000 (Jer 25:12) Doesn't do 1914 any justice. When did Jehovah call account? 539? So if the 70 years were fulfilled, not 68 years, that would be 609 and not 607 as the witnesses are told. Without 607 the propaganda from the Watchtower falls like a house of cards.
Brother, I already told you that I'm no longer going to have a dispute with you in a public forum, for several reasons. And again, 1914 has nothing to do with this video. You couldn't even finish one topic and you started another. If you want to have a Christian discussion, like I already said, PM me. I will check my inbox in a few days in case you decide to accept my invitation.
3. Then change the laws like MADD did. Call your congressman. Make your case that a false prophet is killing countless children. Nobody is stopping you.
@FredTorres1000 Fred, just curious, have you ever considered Greg Stafford's treatment (no pun intended) on the blood issue? He wrote about it in his 3rd edition of "Jehovah's Witnesses Defended." Probably one of the best treatises of the issue i've read.
I corresponded with Greg before his 3rd book came out. I'm aware of his view....and he is totally off base in my estimation. The science itself proves him wrong, but he had "made up his mind" if you will.
this was so moving; jws have missed the point wth blood; they are sacrificing their own children; where is their merciful loving God? This makes me want to continue to fight this religion/cult. Thank you for your ministry.
Very emotional stirring video, Brian!!! I have 4 children, and not only will I give them my blood if they need it, but I will also give them my life to save theirs. My children are the driving force in my life and I love them very much, with all my heart.
Thank you for your love and your concern towards the Jehovah's Witnesses. May the Lord richly bless your ministry here on youtube.
Danish scientist Niels Jerne shared the 1984 Nobel Prize for Medicine. When asked why he refused a blood transfusion, he said: "A person's blood is like his fingerprints—there are no two types of blood that are exactly alike."
@Josiahvidz Before using a well known attempt by the Watchtower as a proof text using a Nobel prize winner. Maybe you should have read this to see if the Watchtower might be deceiving the readers? According to Jerne's biographer Thomas Söderqvist, Jerne was not a bench scientist, could not pipette accurately, and did not enjoy experimental work. His Nobel Prize was awarded for theories, rather than discoveries. Did you catch that? Once again the Watchtower is caught twisting things.
@1914watcher Why yes I did catch that I have the ebook, and I don't see you point. This person is way more educated in the field of medicine then you are wouldn't you say? and yet even he did not think taking blood was something healthful.
I guess you think they hand out Nobel prizes in cracker jack boxed huh? LOL
@Josiahvidz I've not forgot. You said that it's the same Kingdom, I agree. However, I disagree with you on the deity of Christ. We can start with (Isaiah 9:6) I'm going to hone in on these words "Mighty God, ETERNAL FATHER. (Isaiah 7:14) Notice "Immanuel" GOD with us, not a angel. Who is this [God]? (Psalms 90:2) focus on "You are God" (John 1:3) All things came into existence through him,and apart from him (Jesus) not even ONE thing came into existence. (Col1:16) Who's God?
@Josiahvidz If you want to discuss this topic go back over to Bill's channel. I will not continue this discussion here. This is a completely different subject between you and I.. Thanks =)
@Josiahvidz Oh Richard...are ya just gonna ignore me and my question about whether or not Jesus ever told someone to break God's law under certain circumstances? Ignoring it doesn't make it not true...
I would think there would be a moral responsibility for christians to preserve life. Maybe TWBTS is both instigator and scapegoat for this abandonment of responsibility
I'm glad that I no longer hold this view on the blood doctrine. Brian, you know what's going on in the family right now. This whole experience has really put our children's lives in perspective. We will get more test done next Thursday and the specialist will inform us on what steps to take next. This year we as a family are celebrating our children's birthdays. I'm going all out in June :)
@1914watcher Maybe one day you can share your story.... I know that when you do many will be greatly moved and hearts will be changed. You're a tremendous man of faith my friend. I have been so blessed to know you.
Very emotionally charged video. I had an emotionally charged discussion only today, from someone who claimed a friend of theirs committed suicide because the people in their life didn't accept the fact that they were homosexual. My point? our foundation for truth isn't what can stir our emotions, but what does God's Word say?
@TheAussiepreacher ""My point? our foundation for truth isn't what can stir our emotions, but what does God's Word say?"""...... I agree....but truth should stir up emotions should it not? Jesus was very emotional with the money changers and the pharisees. The truth is that children are dying over this foolish doctrine. If that's not worth getting emotional over what is?
@21crosscheck21 I know what you're saying. As twisted as their doctrine may be in refusing blood, I'm more concerned about their soteriology. Over 7.5 million JW's are going to hell. Not because they refused blood, but because they refused Christ as their Lord and Saviour.
@TheAussiepreacher I'm more concerned about the millions upon millions upon millions of Trinitarians going to hell. Not because they refused to be honest with the public on the matters of the Bible, but because they refused Yeshua the Nazarene's God as their very know God so they can be 'Christ-like.'
@TheGenuineChristian Sounds like you view the work of the cross as a moral example, rather than penal substitution. It is true that faith in Christ produces fruit (Galatians 6), however, following Christ as an example and not as Lord and Saviour will not attain anything (John 15:5).
@TheGenuineChristian 2 Cor 5:17 says whoever is IN Christ is a new creation, not whoever merely lives a good life. John 3:3 Jesus tells us we need to be born again, not merely live a good life. There is atonement in Christ, not merely a good example to follow.
@TheGenuineChristian The works view of the cross is not exclusive to the JW. In fact, there are many that view what Jesus did as a noble act, yet reject Him as their Lord and Saviour (Ghandi for example). Galatians 2:20 says I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. It's not just seeing the cross as a noble act to follow.
@TheGenuineChristian If you think your works can get you to heaven you are deceived, and it is the bewitching that Paul talks to the Galatian church about.
@TheAussiepreacher You know what, why don't you just stop replying to me since you're yet to answer any of my questions. Go preach to someone else. I'm on the verge of deleting any of your comments I see in my Inbox so I won't even see your comment/s.
@TheGenuineChristian ok, but don't forget Ephesians 4:26 And "don't sin by letting anger gain control over you." Don't let the sun go down while you are still angry,
This is what you call a propaganda video. It changes the cause of death from a car accident to the fact that she did not take blood. It implies she would have survived if she did so when in fact no one knows if this is true or not. Most casses of victims who accept blood still die after making it through surgery due to complications. Doctors now know the blood was the cause of those complications. We have faith that if we put God first we will gain more than this life has to offer. Matt 10:39
@Josiahvidz Yeah...... Kinda like showing the dead bodies from the concentration camps is Anti-Nazi propaganda right? Those dirty rotten scoundrels that show those pictures... how dare they.
@Josiahvidz This a reality video and the fact is that the man who lost his child due to the actions of a drunk does not excuse that there was a possibility that his baby may have survived if the Dr. was not hand cuffed by the watchtower.We all know there are risks when taking blood but in some case it might be a chance to live a long life and honor god.Even if a small chance of survival it should not be a publishing co. dissension to make.It is good propaganda that my save a life.
Dr's are never hand cuffed. This is the attitude they take though acting as if there is not other alternatives to blood tranfusions and ignoring the dangers. Let me ask you, I don't know what you do for a living but have you ever wen throught blood borne pathegens training? The Gov is spending millions on research on blood free procedures to help wounded soldiers . Don't sound like there hand cuffed to me.
@Josiahvidz If they were not hand cuffed then that baby may have gotten a chance to be treated.I have to agree that blood could cause many problems and I know there are millions of dollars being spent on alternatives but not all hospitals have the technology now I hope for you and all other JWs that it is in every hospital soon. But even if the technology is in every hospital there may be cases when blood will give a patient the best chance to survive such as burn victims.
@Josiahvidz The watchtower has you thinking everyone who gets a transfusion will get sick.That is not taught in the bible.That is taught in the watchtower magazine.Let me ask you if a transfusion was totally safe would you take one? I think not! so why do you use the argument on weather it is safe or not?
@Josiahvidz We know it is not 100% safe but there is a chance that it my save a life.I don't think it is as unsafe as you have been taught you might want to research in medical literature instead of religious literature to get medical information!!!
@pande4509 My info comes from medical websites and news reports not the WT so you need to stop assuming and start researching yourself. Do a simple search on dangers of blood transfusions and you will see.
@Josiahvidz Another fallacy. Not every hospital has access to bloodless procedures nor have they been perfected. Or how about those outside America.... the billions in 3rd world nations... Do you really think they have the technology? Should they just all die because they don't live in a major city?
@Josiahvidz No, you put the society's INTERPRETATION first. If the society changed their mind about the blood issue, you would change your mind right along with them.
@October31st1517 Exactly Mark. You hit the nail on the head. He'll gladly now accept fractions of that HIV infected blood..... not because the bible changed but because their interpretation of it did.
Thank you, Brian, for sharing this. I have a young daughter myself, and cannot imagine something like this happening. It's sad that so many JW's are bound to the Watchtower teachings, even to the point of letting their children die to follow the Watchtower rules. God bless you, brother.
7SoliDeoGloria7 2 weeks ago
I'm sadden by your loss, I myself lost my sister in similar situation while she was giving birth to a son.
Online you will find SEAWATER transfusion into the body have cured cancers and are used as blood alternatives. Blood transfusions from human to human are very unclean with ever increasing diseases being passed by donors.
Unfortunatly much of this blood business is about the money not the cure.
The creator knows and will help, lean on him.... through prayer.
seawaterblood 3 weeks ago
Jehovah's witnesses are a cult.This is a profound video exposing the dark side of the organization.
tgillspy2 2 weeks ago
@seawaterblood Sorry your sister died at the hands of the Watchtower. I don't know if you support the Watchtower anymore. The Watchtower has taught in the past that blood transfusions are dangerous because the recipiant may take on the personality of the doner. Would this be the same case with seawater?
thardin69 2 weeks ago
Man-up JW men. There is blood on your hands. How dare you even comment in this forum. Repent and be saved for the wrath of this bloodshed will be met against you murderers. Just do the right thing and Man-up.
pbar1000 3 weeks ago 10
I have a question, when scripture (Gods word) tells us to abstain from blood, was He saying this because they were giving blood transfusions in the days of old?
irishg1759 3 weeks ago
@FredTorres1000 Comment deleted for misrepresenting me and the video....
21crosscheck21 1 month ago
@21crosscheck21
PM me and explain how I misrepresented the video. Certainly, based on the acomments, others watching have the "same impression". I will be pleased to apologize to you in public if I did misrepresent you, because I have no need to manipulate anybody's arguments, and like all humans, I make mistakes too.
FredTorres1000 1 month ago
@FredTorres1000 Claiming I said "they stopped mid surgery" or in the other post """""The video infers that death occurred because they COULDNT PROCEED."""" are both misrepresentations. I never said or implied either of those.
Yes consent, or in this case non consent is given before. However as circumstances change... they can and will ask again. That's the only thing I implied and why it is you would think this requires or implies "stopping" escapes me I already said it didn't.
21crosscheck21 1 month ago
@21crosscheck21
Thanks. Consider though, that contrary to what you say, the video does not say that consent was sought before, rather, it was "as they were working on her,contrary to protocol, which was my point. Why? Because in a trauma situation a delay of even on minute can be catastrophic. Which is why I said he needed a better surgeon.
Based on the above, I would ask if this is an actual case, because it doesn't quite add up. Is it an actual case?
FredTorres1000 1 month ago
@FredTorres1000
So to me, it appears more of a misunderstanding between us. I can assure you that if I did misrepresent you, it was based on that, not ill intention. I am sorry for that.
FredTorres1000 1 month ago
@FredTorres1000 if you and i were in the emergency room bleeding to death one doctor gives me a cup of blood to drink and your doctor gives you a blood transfusion who would live? two different purposes isn't it?
TRAVERSEPOINT 3 weeks ago
google this to find article Medics-save-baby-born-with-no
pande4509 1 month ago
check out this article
telegraph.co.uk/health/9043527/Medics-save-baby-born-with-no-blood.html
pande4509 1 month ago
:..() so sad!
jwFairyTale 1 month ago
Oh gosh so sad. I know that this happens within the JW organization, but is this a true story for you?
YhwhKhaiMostHigh 1 month ago
Wont lie, I did shed a tear during this. Child baptisms according to JWs are wrong because at that age they can't make up their own mind......and yet they still make the decision to waste the childs life. Really sobering thought.
tickpenwa 1 month ago
"And I have yet to hear you condemn the drunk with same zeal with which you condemn a parent who took his child to the hospital for treatment and acted upon his beliefs."
The drunk driver certainly created the scenario. If these people were not Jehovah's Witnesses at the time, would they've rejected the idea of a blood transfusion to save the life of their child?
1914watcher 1 month ago
@1914watcher
The drunk driver created the scenario? Are you serious? Do you hate JWs that much that you can't hold the actual responsible party responsible?
" If these people were not Jehovah's Witnesses at the time, would they've rejected the idea of a blood transfusion to save the life of their child?" Probably not. Instead, they would have opted for bloodless options to save the life of their child.
FredTorres1000 1 month ago
@FredTorres1000 "Do you hate JWs that much that you can't hold the actual responsible party responsible?"
The responsible party that hit the car? Or the RESPONSIBLE party that said not to except blood?
1914watcher 1 month ago
@1914watcher
The responsible party for the death of the child. If the injuries were as life threatening as they are depicted in the video. there is no question that death came AS A RESULT OF THE ACCIDENT.
FredTorres1000 1 month ago
@FredTorres1000 The accident was the cause, but can you prove having a blood transfusion failed to save the child?
1914watcher 1 month ago
@1914watcher
Of course I can't "prove" anything on youtube. Don't be ridiculous. The wholesale blood transfusions to an infant in trauma situations are equally risky, so If you ask me, the surgeon messed up big time, based on what is said here in the video. An effective surgeon could have arrested the bleeding and attempted other techniques. Brother, stop blaming the organization and start holding people accountable.
FredTorres1000 1 month ago
@FredTorres1000 I can't either? Honestly, we don't know? Why blame the surgeon? We don't know the extent of the injuries to the infant? I'm sure the surgeon didn't want to see this child die under his/her care, but they had to respect the beliefs of the client? If you're a caregiver and a child dies under your supervision how would you feel?
1914watcher 1 month ago
@1914watcher
If a child dies under my supervision, I would feel terrible. And? What's your point?
You said it brother, "they had to respect the beliefs of the client.". No one else can be held responsible for something the PARENTS decide.
Just like the drunk has to be held responsible for what he did, even in his drunk stupor. No blaming the boss or the ex wife..or the effects of booze.
Good to see you understand what I have been trying to explain.
FredTorres1000 1 month ago
@FredTorres1000 ." No one else can be held responsible for something the PARENTS decide." Did the parents obey God?
1914watcher 1 month ago
@1914watcher
the parents can choose to obey or disobey, just like Adam and Eve. But again, it is a moot point, because you believe it's ok to disobey God to save the life of your child.
FredTorres1000 1 month ago
@FredTorres1000 Can you prove the WTBTS was picked in 1914? =)
1914watcher 1 month ago
@1914watcher
Absolutely. I've proved it to myself many times over. And it has nothing to do with the video, does it. Pray to the one that Jesus prayed to. Jehovah God, the only true God and May you find peace and truth.
What does the symbol =) mean? Is that like a smiley face?
FredTorres1000 1 month ago
@FredTorres1000 That means you better be 100% SURE before you answer this question. Are you 100% SURE that 1914 is a biblical teaching? You've "proved" it to yourself many times? What happens if the bible proves your 1914 belief to be wrong?
1914watcher 1 month ago
@1914watcher
Yes, I'm sure.
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I would change my view according to my view of what the Bible says about the progressive nature of knowledge. What would not happen is that I would blame the organization for a belief that I personally accepted as true.
FredTorres1000 1 month ago
@FredTorres1000 The reason I keep mentioning 1914 is to make you think. The Watchtower uses this date to claim all authority on earth. They make the bold claim they are God's mouthpiece on earth. These parents accepted the Watchtower's teaching as coming from God. Crosscheck has a good point, "What should we do with false prophets who kill people?" My 1914 question is my grenade question for witnesses, it exposes these false prophets manipulating scripture to achieve authority.
1914watcher 1 month ago
@1914watcher
JW's claim the Bible as their authority. A rational person evaluates evidence and makes value judgments based on individual concepts, or "truths" even when some relationships exist between teachings, and he does not subscribe to the fallacious "falsum in unnum, falsum in omnibus". Once again, do not be fooled by that type of non-Christian thinking.
FredTorres1000 1 month ago
@FredTorres1000 "JW's claim the Bible as their authority." What about Luke 22:21? Do you agree with the Bible or the Watchtower doctrine?
1914watcher 1 month ago
@1914watcher
..and Crosscheck answered his own question to me about what to do with false prophets (as opposed to true prophets) that kill people. According to him, it's "legal" to kill your children because of "bad" theology (versus his theology I suppose) and he can't press charges. So, now what. What's the good point he was trying to make? Can you tell me?
FredTorres1000 1 month ago
@FredTorres1000 Fred, perhaps you can interact where Josiahvidz won't. If consuming blood is against God's law, did Jesus ever command a person, based on the situation they found themselves in, command a person to break God's law?
msm1876 1 month ago
@msm1876
Thanks msm1876. I can try to answer your question But, are you an ex JW?
FredTorres1000 1 month ago
@FredTorres1000 No...I've not really even been to a KH, other than one time waiting in the lobby to find a JW.
msm1876 1 month ago
@msm1876
OK, thanks.
Sure. Jesus taught that mercy could be extended in certain situations. He did not teach that it was lawful to break the law and/or the spirit of the law. Those are two very different propositions.
FredTorres1000 1 month ago
@FredTorres1000 What about John 5:8 where he commanded the lame man to carry his mat on the sabbath?
msm1876 1 month ago
@msm1876
What about it? Jesus believed in extending mercy to an old man and He did not take a phariasaic approach to the Mosaic Law.
FredTorres1000 1 month ago
@FredTorres1000 You do know that there's a prohibition against carrying loads on the sabbath?
msm1876 1 month ago
@msm1876
The mat did not qualify as a "load" according to Jesus. The pharisees did. Jesus did not break the Law and most importantly, the spirit of the law. You suggest otherwise?
FredTorres1000 1 month ago
@FredTorres1000 >>>You suggest otherwise?
I don't so much suggest it; the apostle John does in 5:18. It says he was breaking the Sabbath by working on it by healing the man.
You're assuming that Jesus didn't view the mat as a "load." It wasn't a "mat" anyway...it was a bed. It was at least as heavy as, say, the load of grapes Nehemiah saw people carrying on the Sabbath in Neh 13:15.
msm1876 1 month ago
@msm1876
It was the Jews, not the apostle John, who falsely accused Jesus of being a Law breaker. It appears you sympathize with the notion that Jesus was a law breaker.
"Loads" were intended for work related activities. The old man was not "working" on the Sabbath. Jesus cured him and told him to go home and pack his stuff. Simple.
...I hope I've answered your question..thanks.
FredTorres1000 1 month ago
@FredTorres1000 >>>It was the Jews, not the apostle John, who falsely accused Jesus of being a Law breaker.
Where does John say "It was their perception that he was breaking the Sabbath" in John 5:18?
msm1876 1 month ago
@msm1876
OK.
The Jews, not John wanted to kill Jesus for "breaking the Sabbath". So clearly, it was the Jew's perception, that Jesus was breaking the sabbath.
Jesus fulfilled the Law. Thus, he did not break the Law, he only applied it mercifully.
I hope this helps you understand my position.
.
FredTorres1000 1 month ago
@FredTorres1000 "For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him"
Ok, there's John narrating the story, saying that the Jews were trying to murder Jesus. Why, according to John, were they trying to do so?
because not only was he breaking the sabbath,
It simply doesn't say that it was their perception. You need to read it into the text rather than let it speak for itself.
Jesus broke the law, but did so for the sake of mercy. As such, he did so without sin.
msm1876 1 month ago
@msm1876
OK. So we agree that John is reporting what the Jews are doing, not what he believes about the Sabbath. Very well.
"Why, according to John, were they trying to do so?" Because according to the Jews, Jesus was a law breaker. Their teachers strained the gnat and swallowed a camel. If you didn't give a tenth of the cumin, you're a law breaker. Do you sympathize with the Pharisaic school of thought on the application of the Law? Jesus did not teach that, he followed the Law perfectly.
FredTorres1000 1 month ago
@FredTorres1000 >>OK. So we agree that John is reporting what the Jews are doing...
Sir, you are misrepresenting me. I was saying that John was reporting that the Jews wanted to kill Jesus, because **ACCORDING TO JOHN** he was breaking the sabbath. It simply does not say "they perceived him to be."
I realize you can't concede this point; if you do, your blood doctrine, and really, your Christololgy, goes down the drain. And all the people who love you will stop loving you.
msm1876 1 month ago
@msm1876
If I misrepresented you, it was without knowing it.
Sir, you can believe all you want of me. I answered your questions . Whether Jesus and the Pharisees have two perceptions of the Law as a matter of principle is accounted for in the procedures of the Christian Congregation as it relates to the dealing of sin within it. An entire theology goes down the drain because you
"can't" concede a point on youtube? That is a low bar to set in a serious discussion. bye, thanks again
FredTorres1000 1 month ago
@msm1876 Your reasoning is so fault, if Jesus broke the Sabbath as you're claiming the world wouldn't have a Savior.
JesusTheMonotheist 1 month ago
@JesusTheMonotheist I'm saying...and the Apostle John is saying...that he DID break the Sabbath, but he did so for the sake of keeping an even higher law, God's mercy. He broke it without committing sin.
Jesus broke God's lower law for the sake of keeping God's higher law. The JWs keep a lower law to break a lower one.
msm1876 1 month ago
@msm1876 Very true my friend.... I did a video on that.
21crosscheck21 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@msm1876--->Jesus broke God's lower law for the sake of keeping God's higher law. The JWs keep a lower law to break a lower one.
What are you talking about? There is only one law according to Jesus, the Torah of his Father, God.
Mat 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier [matters] of the law(Torah), judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
JesusTheMonotheist 1 month ago
@msm1876 Read in Context John said it was the fake Jews who were angry at Jesus for healing the impotent man and ordering him to take his bed and walk on the Sabbath therefore according to them Jesus broke the Sabbath. Jesus didn't break the Sabbath according to your fault reasoning he upheld his Father's Torah by doing good on the Sabbath, love is the fulfillment of the Torah.
JesusTheMonotheist 1 month ago
@JesusTheMonotheist Please read John 5:17. Does Jesus deny or affirm that what he did when he healed the lame man was work?
msm1876 1 month ago
@msm1876 Does John 5:17 say Jesus broke the Sabbath or does it say that his Father was working in him? - Act 10:38. Jesus of his own has no power to work any healing in anyone.
Gal 2:17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, [is] therefore Christ the minister of {{sin}}? God forbid.
1Jo 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
JesusTheMonotheist 1 month ago
@JesusTheMonotheist I guess you overlooked John 5:18? What did Jesus do again?
1914watcher 1 month ago
@1914watcher In what way? did you read my posts. Did Jesus really break the first and fourth Commandments in Exo 20:3-17.
JesusTheMonotheist 1 month ago
@msm1876 You scared msn? Go check your inbox.
TheGenuineChristian 1 month ago
@FredTorres1000 just like a jw, putting words in people's mouths; people who believe in blood transfusions are not disobeying God, they see the scripture in its context and understand - God dosen't want us to use blood as a sacrifice, or drink the blood of others/animals to "take on their spirit" - Who here is actually using blood as a sacrifice? You are responsible for many deaths if you teach this doctine - it is criminal.
beefree45 1 month ago
@beefree45
Thanks for sharing your opinion with me.
FredTorres1000 1 month ago
@1914watcher I've already stated that we don't know, but what we do know is, there was no attempt at all to give this child a blood transfusion.
1914watcher 1 month ago
@1914watcher
Right. No attempts for a blood transfusion. Many attempts at non blood treatments. Risk-benefit analysis. No black and white answer, no wrong or right. Live in reality brother. Dont be fooled.
FredTorres1000 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1914watcher
Right. No attempts for a blood transfusion. Many attempts at non blood treatments. Risk-benefit analysis. No black and white answer, no wrong or right. Live in reality brother. Don't be fooled.
FredTorres1000 1 month ago
@FredTorres1000 Which responsible party? "there is no question that death came AS A RESULT OF THE ACCIDENT."
Prove it!
1914watcher 1 month ago
@1914watcher
Why don't you blame the drunk's ex wife while you're at it, since it's what caused him to drink.
You want me to prove that a risky medical procedure GUARANTEES the person survives? Not even the SURGEON can "prove" that. Do you even realize what you are asking?
FredTorres1000 1 month ago
@1914watcher
...and I'm happy to see you admit that the parents were the ones responsible for saying no to blood, but, again, the cause of death were the injuries incurred in the accident caused by the drunk driver.
FredTorres1000 1 month ago
t"Trust the Potter, Not the Clay."
The potter said to abstain from blood. Who trusts the potter? The one who has faith in God's Word, and yet fights the the life of his child at the hospital with reliable bloodless options.
Who trusts the clay? The one who thinks he can make it home while DUI ...and what surgeon stops to ask for consent in the middle of surgery of a trauma case? Sounds like he the child needed a better surgeon too. Nice song, touching video, but implied message is misleading.
FredTorres1000 1 month ago
@FredTorres1000 You don't put your faith in God's word, you put your faith in the words from the Governing Body. You say my friend Brian's video is misleading, do you believe the message of 1914 is misleading? 1914 is a bold face lie that is holding you,your family and your friends captive to a false prophet organization that is masquerading themselves as faithful and true shepherds.You said the "child needed a better surgeon?" Were you there? The child fell victim to the cult.
1914watcher 1 month ago
@1914watcher
Sir/Madam: The Jerusalem council was a governing body. Under inspiration they said we should abstain from blood. Luke under inspiration recorded it in the Bible. Anybody who follows the Bible has to deal with that.
Of course I wasn't there. Were you? What I said about the surgeon is based on the narrative in the video. And while tragic, the parent should accept responsibility for his beliefs and decisions. If anybody else can be held responsible it would be the drunk driver.
FredTorres1000 1 month ago
@FredTorres1000 The abstaining from blood was for dietary purposes by not eating the flesh of strangled animals. They were not talking about a life saving blood transfusion. The belief in 1914 didn't help .The parents believed this was God's organization and followed the advice and stayed faithful. Now the parent knows the truth and they hurt because they lost their child to a false prophet.The child may or may not have survived having a transfusion? They'll never know,will they?
1914watcher 1 month ago
@1914watcher
You have your interpretation of the command to abstain from blood even though eating strangled animals is mentioned separately. Believe what you want. But that's not the point, is it? It wouldn't matter to you if the JWs are right, because even if they were, you'd still think that they're wrong for not compromising.
The child was lost to a drunk driver. Period. That they do know for sure. And shame on parents of any faith that look to blame someone else for their choices.
FredTorres1000 1 month ago
@FredTorres1000 "And shame on parents of any faith that look to blame someone else for their choices."
What would have happened to this Jw couple if they chose to allow their child to have a blood transfusion? Would they've remained in good standing? That could only occur in Bulgaria,right? Why is it that the brothers in Bulgaria have a choice without the consequences of being punished by the body of elders? I'd like you to explain how God has double standards for his people?
1914watcher 1 month ago
@1914watcher
I don't know "what would happen." That would depend on what they believe, on works befitting repentance, the circumstances and type of consent, was there an unbelieving parent, and probably a host of other factors. But whatever happens is the decision of the parent, a topic you evidently don't like to talk about. And I have yet to hear you condemn the drunk with same zeal with which you condemn a parent who took his child to the hospital for treatment and acted upon his beliefs.
FredTorres1000 1 month ago
@FredTorres1000 Fred,13 years ago my ex-brother in law had a 3yr old daughter that needed a blood transfusion. He was a ministerial servant, his uncle was the P.O. When I first heard that he was contemplating on allowing his daughter to have the transfusion, I was sick. I couldn't believe what I was hearing, I tried to call him, but he wouldn't answer. He was told by the elders he couldn't allow this. Don't lie! You and I both know what happens.
His daughter died in his arms ;(
1914watcher 1 month ago
@1914watcher
I'm sorry to hear about your niece, honestly.
When the elders say things like that...they are assuming that the person believes in the doctrine and as a matter of his stated conviction, he indeed cannot allow something that he knows is wrong. However, as in all other sins, such as fornication (mentioned in the same decree as blood), when someone does it, it does not automatically mean disfellowshipping. There is no black and white policy. The person's attitude is what matters.
FredTorres1000 1 month ago
@1914watcher
I do not lie on this matter, neither as a matter of policy nor in actual practice. I've also been present in similar situations.
FredTorres1000 1 month ago
@FredTorres1000 I've seen it all. My good friend was molested by the elder that I was studying with, My Ex- Brother-in-law had his child die due to the blood policy, My JW ex-wife betrayed me, my JW father was an abusive alcoholic that physically abused me and this list goes on and on. I pray that you'll wake up someday and find Christ. =)
1914watcher 1 month ago
@1914watcher
See, now you're talking about the real issues hurting you.
And, think about what you are saying brother. Instead of blaming the religion or what it "allows", hold these individuals responsible for their actions! If all you say is true, then by blaming their religion you are making them out to be the victims. Don't be fooled, this is not Christian thinking! Think and pray over it.
I love Jesus and I love Jehovah God, the only true God. thank you for your well wishes.
FredTorres1000 1 month ago
@FredTorres1000 These issues don't hurt me? They've helped me to understand who I am and why I landed here? I don't hate the witnesses, I hate the organization that controls them and their minds.
1914watcher 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1914watcher
"I hate the organization that controls them and their minds."
That's not what you conceded in your last message about who said no to blood. But Only a fool would deny the hurt. No need for bravado here. I don't blame you and it wasn't your fault. But stop making perps out to be victims of mind control.
However, there is little else I can say...but to take care.
FredTorres1000 1 month ago
@FredTorres1000 Let me respond to you...
1: The Potter says don't eat blood..... the clay is who says don't transfuse it. Two very different things.
2: They say no blood as they sign consent forms.... Doctors. will commonly ask a 2nd time if the situation changes. 3: Drunk drivers who kill people go to jail..... What should we do with false prophets who kill people?
21crosscheck21 1 month ago
@21crosscheck21
1. People can and do eat intravenously
2. In mid surgery in trauma case.....not sir.
3. I don't know. If you have evidence of any wrong doing, who is stopping you from pressing charges?
FredTorres1000 1 month ago
@FredTorres1000 1: Overly simplistic and medically inaccurate Watchtower propaganda
2: Just had an elderly lady from my congregation have major surgery last month... I was updated mid surgery about a complication by a nurse. So again... False
3: You are free in this country to kill your kids based on bad theology....just as you were when the WT denied people blood fractions based on the same reasoning....... sad but true.
21crosscheck21 1 month ago
@21crosscheck21
1. Simple yes. Inaccurate, no. Transfused blood is digested through catabolic process and waste is excreted in urine and feces, just like oral ingestion.
2. Major planned surgery of an adult and a trauma case of an infant.......think about it.
3. Then change the law. or rethink what you are saying.
FredTorres1000 1 month ago
@FredTorres1000
1: it's not eating... It bypasses the normal functions and is only sustainable for a brief period. People are fed through esophageal or gastric tubes
2: What.... the nurses all disappear? Absurd
3. I can't press charges because it's legal.... But that doesn't make it right. All I can do is raise awareness which is what the video is intended to do. I can't protect your children if you have any, only you can.
21crosscheck21 1 month ago
@21crosscheck21
Sir, I have professional training in this field. It's obvious are speaking of things you don't know. But I don't hold that against you, as most laypersons don't understand either.
1. Catabolic processes are a natural. It is in fact eating. Nutrition is gained. Please research Total Parenteral Nutrition
2. When a child is bleeding out during surgery, they surgical team doesn't stop to ask permission for transfusion consent. Nurses updates have nothing to do with this.
FredTorres1000 1 month ago
@FredTorres1000
1: Again wrong.... It's not the same as eating.... The fact that nutrition is gained proves nothing. If I put a sandwich in a blender and dip fed you it by IV it process the same?
2: Again wrong.... No one said they stopped and surgical teams have no problem communicating and updating those outside the room..... Just absurd.... The fact that you now try to portray it as they "stop" indicates to me that you know your wrong so now your obfuscating.
21crosscheck21 1 month ago
@21crosscheck21
1, YES. Total Parenteral Nutrition
2. Sir, the video is the one that infers that a delay in the decision to obtain consent is what caused the child to die. I am saying, as you seem to agree, that the surgical team DOES NOT stop mid surgery to get consent.The reason for that is because consent has ALREADY been obtained in one way or another BEFORE surgery not in the MIDDLE of it as the video suggests.
3. Have you called your congressman?
FredTorres1000 1 month ago
@FredTorres1000
1: Nutrition does not equal eating
2: Fred don't misrepresent me.... which I assume you did purposefully. I never said or implied that surgeons "stopped mid surgery." Only that they can and do try AGAIN to get consent. Something that can be easily accomplished by a nurse or chaplain.... messages are often sent out. Your need misrepresent me exposes the weakness of your argument.
3: I prefer this because I know it has a larger impact....
21crosscheck21 1 month ago
@21crosscheck21
1, Please take time to answer what I asked. How does someone with no usable gastric tissue eat? Would you categorize your view of TPN/IV feedings as "medically accurate"?
3. You believe that what you do is more impactful than changing the law?
FredTorres1000 1 month ago
@FredTorres1000
1: Quote from the medical dictionary: " TPN is used when individuals cannot or should not get their nutrition through eating.." Notice (and this is important) you get tpn when you "cannot eat." Eating is only ever used in a general sense due to lack of a better term. Whats why they call it TPN not TPE.
3: No.... I don't believe the law will be changed. So it would be time wasted.
21crosscheck21 1 month ago
@21crosscheck21
1. Thanks for your opinion. TPN is a type of hyperalimentation. "Alimentation"= a source of sustenance, food. As such, the word "eat" is used in the general sense not the other way around as yo suggest. Also, is eating the same as drinking?
Having a clear idea of your view now, would it be fair to characterize your view in the following manner: "The Bible prohibits the eating of blood, but not the feeding off of blood" I'm interested in your perspective on this matter.
FredTorres1000 1 month ago
@FredTorres1000
1: I didn't give my opinion so much as provide a direct quote from a medical dictionary. TPN is for those who can't eat.
Secondly.... I will ask you. Why did Jesus say nothing you eat can make you unclean? Aren't you arguing that "eating" blood by transfusion make you unclean? Why does Jesus disagree with you?
21crosscheck21 1 month ago 5
@21crosscheck21
It is an opinion. TPN is for those who can't eat through their stomach, in non disease state. But I respect your opinion, which is why I ask if udraw a moral distinction between "eating" and "feeding" even though it's processed like food. I will ask again. In your view, does the Bible prohibit the feeding off of blood?
Jesus does not disagree with God's Law. Jesus did not eat blood or advocate its consumption in emergencies, did he? I will expand after you answer my question.
FredTorres1000 1 month ago
@FredTorres1000 Fred, you're not stupid. That baby's chance at life was impacted by the beliefs held by the JW parents. I challenged you on 1914 for a reason. The choices those parents made were based off what the parents perceived as the "Truth"
You and I both know this.
1914watcher 1 month ago
@21crosscheck21
...I am awaiting your response to the following questions:
1. Do you draw a moral distinction between "eating" and "feeding"?
2. In your view, does the Bible prohibit the feeding off of blood?
Thanks...
FredTorres1000 4 weeks ago
@FredTorres100 1: The question is a red herring.... blood is not given as "food" or to " feed" 2 That question is answered in the "blood and mercy" video attached to this one.
21crosscheck21 3 weeks ago
@21crosscheck21
1. My question has to do with TPN and moral equivalency. If I make a vow to go on a hunger strike, but I accept IV TPN, am I keeping my vow, yes or no? Simple question, no red herring. BTW, blood is indicated for iron deficiency, so it is used to "feed."
2. You don't address my question in either video. I cant assume how you believe, since you've made what seem like contradictory statements. Why don't you just go ahead and answer directly? Thanks, just trying to understand.
FredTorres1000 3 weeks ago
@FredTorres1000 Why do Orthodox Jews who keep the Blood law allow Blood Transfusions? And why don't JWs keep Kosher?
pretoshohmoofc 3 weeks ago
@21crosscheck21
I assume you have no more interest in pursuing our dialogue. I was intrigued by your views and perspectives on the issues raised by the questions I asked, and I respect your decision, if in fact that is the case.
FredTorres1000 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@21crosscheck21
...I am awaiting your response to the following questions:
1. Do you draw a moral distinction between "eating" and "feeding"?
2. In your view, does the Bible prohibit the feeding off of blood?
Thanks...
FredTorres1000 4 weeks ago
@FredTorres1000 Cont.... Fred even if (and it's not) eating and transfusing are the same thing..... you're still wrong. The scriptures at the end of the video, and the video attached prove that.
21crosscheck21 1 month ago
@21crosscheck21
I located a fine video for you and your viewers, especially those with non medical backgrounds by youtuber CmeGrandRounds of East Tennesee University called TPN. It includes info on central venous access TPN.
You might also remember that athletes are given IV solutions instead of gatorade because it is faster and has greater efficacy. Keep in mind that as well that TPN solutions and nutrients end up in digestive organs too, such as the intestines. Hope this helps.
FredTorres1000 1 month ago
@FredTorres1000 "What would not happen is that I would blame the organization for a belief that I personally accepted as true."
Okay, Satan shouldn't be held accountable for deceiving EVE,right? (Lev 19:11,12)
Do you still feel comfortable with 1914?
1914watcher 1 month ago
@1914
Why are you still asking me questions if u already threw the grenade at me?
If your're interested in a grown man discussion with no internet bravado, PM me.
For now, just know that Satan is accountable for his actions, Eve is accountable for her actions and Adam is accountable for his actions. Adam blamed Eve, Eve blame the serpent, and Jehovah had none of that. I'll be happy to expand and continue a dialogue but no longer in public, you are still my brother. And I'm fine with 1914.
FredTorres1000 1 month ago
@FredTorres1000 No, I have not. My grenade hasn't went off,yet.
1914watcher 1 month ago
@FredTorres1000 Thank you for clearing it up!
1914watcher 1 month ago
t@1914watcher
You're absolutely welcome brother. The concept that individuals, such as Satan, Adam and Eve are all accountable for their actions, as are all other intelligent beings, is an important topic for discussion. I hope you consider my offer,
your brother, Fred
FredTorres1000 1 month ago
@FredTorres1000 (Jer 25:12) Doesn't do 1914 any justice. When did Jehovah call account? 539? So if the 70 years were fulfilled, not 68 years, that would be 609 and not 607 as the witnesses are told. Without 607 the propaganda from the Watchtower falls like a house of cards.
1914watcher 1 month ago
@1914watcher
Brother, I already told you that I'm no longer going to have a dispute with you in a public forum, for several reasons. And again, 1914 has nothing to do with this video. You couldn't even finish one topic and you started another. If you want to have a Christian discussion, like I already said, PM me. I will check my inbox in a few days in case you decide to accept my invitation.
FredTorres1000 1 month ago
@21crosscheck21
3. Then change the laws like MADD did. Call your congressman. Make your case that a false prophet is killing countless children. Nobody is stopping you.
FredTorres1000 1 month ago
@1914watcher
...and to say the believing in 1914 killed this child, is well, far-flung. Believe that if you want, I'm not stopping you.
FredTorres1000 1 month ago
@FredTorres1000 Fred, just curious, have you ever considered Greg Stafford's treatment (no pun intended) on the blood issue? He wrote about it in his 3rd edition of "Jehovah's Witnesses Defended." Probably one of the best treatises of the issue i've read.
theapologeticfront 1 month ago
@theapologeticfront
Hey Mike! It's good to talk to you.
I corresponded with Greg before his 3rd book came out. I'm aware of his view....and he is totally off base in my estimation. The science itself proves him wrong, but he had "made up his mind" if you will.
FredTorres1000 1 month ago
this was so moving; jws have missed the point wth blood; they are sacrificing their own children; where is their merciful loving God? This makes me want to continue to fight this religion/cult. Thank you for your ministry.
beefree45 1 month ago
Very emotional stirring video, Brian!!! I have 4 children, and not only will I give them my blood if they need it, but I will also give them my life to save theirs. My children are the driving force in my life and I love them very much, with all my heart.
Thank you for your love and your concern towards the Jehovah's Witnesses. May the Lord richly bless your ministry here on youtube.
OurGr8God 1 month ago
@OurGr8God Thank you. God bless you and your precious children as well.
21crosscheck21 1 month ago
Danish scientist Niels Jerne shared the 1984 Nobel Prize for Medicine. When asked why he refused a blood transfusion, he said: "A person's blood is like his fingerprints—there are no two types of blood that are exactly alike."
Josiahvidz 1 month ago
@Josiahvidz Before using a well known attempt by the Watchtower as a proof text using a Nobel prize winner. Maybe you should have read this to see if the Watchtower might be deceiving the readers? According to Jerne's biographer Thomas Söderqvist, Jerne was not a bench scientist, could not pipette accurately, and did not enjoy experimental work. His Nobel Prize was awarded for theories, rather than discoveries. Did you catch that? Once again the Watchtower is caught twisting things.
1914watcher 1 month ago
@1914watcher Why yes I did catch that I have the ebook, and I don't see you point. This person is way more educated in the field of medicine then you are wouldn't you say? and yet even he did not think taking blood was something healthful.
I guess you think they hand out Nobel prizes in cracker jack boxed huh? LOL
Josiahvidz 1 month ago
@Josiahvidz I know Richard...blood is so unsafe! So is giving birth! We probably should stop doing that too! It would be much safer for all of us!
Hey, here's a question you can ignore, the way you do my "did the WT misrep Ignatius in their 2-1-92 WT" question.
Did Jesus ever command someone to break God's law based on the circumstances they found themselves in?
msm1876 1 month ago
@1914watcher So what happened to my about what kingdom we preach?
Josiahvidz 1 month ago
@Josiahvidz I've not forgot. You said that it's the same Kingdom, I agree. However, I disagree with you on the deity of Christ. We can start with (Isaiah 9:6) I'm going to hone in on these words "Mighty God, ETERNAL FATHER. (Isaiah 7:14) Notice "Immanuel" GOD with us, not a angel. Who is this [God]? (Psalms 90:2) focus on "You are God" (John 1:3) All things came into existence through him,and apart from him (Jesus) not even ONE thing came into existence. (Col1:16) Who's God?
1914watcher 1 month ago
@Josiahvidz If you want to discuss this topic go back over to Bill's channel. I will not continue this discussion here. This is a completely different subject between you and I.. Thanks =)
1914watcher 1 month ago
@Josiahvidz Oh Richard...are ya just gonna ignore me and my question about whether or not Jesus ever told someone to break God's law under certain circumstances? Ignoring it doesn't make it not true...
msm1876 1 month ago
I would think there would be a moral responsibility for christians to preserve life. Maybe TWBTS is both instigator and scapegoat for this abandonment of responsibility
alamo11 1 month ago
I'm glad that I no longer hold this view on the blood doctrine. Brian, you know what's going on in the family right now. This whole experience has really put our children's lives in perspective. We will get more test done next Thursday and the specialist will inform us on what steps to take next. This year we as a family are celebrating our children's birthdays. I'm going all out in June :)
1914watcher 1 month ago
@1914watcher Maybe one day you can share your story.... I know that when you do many will be greatly moved and hearts will be changed. You're a tremendous man of faith my friend. I have been so blessed to know you.
21crosscheck21 1 month ago
Very emotionally charged video. I had an emotionally charged discussion only today, from someone who claimed a friend of theirs committed suicide because the people in their life didn't accept the fact that they were homosexual. My point? our foundation for truth isn't what can stir our emotions, but what does God's Word say?
TheAussiepreacher 1 month ago
@TheAussiepreacher ""My point? our foundation for truth isn't what can stir our emotions, but what does God's Word say?"""...... I agree....but truth should stir up emotions should it not? Jesus was very emotional with the money changers and the pharisees. The truth is that children are dying over this foolish doctrine. If that's not worth getting emotional over what is?
21crosscheck21 1 month ago
@21crosscheck21 I know what you're saying. As twisted as their doctrine may be in refusing blood, I'm more concerned about their soteriology. Over 7.5 million JW's are going to hell. Not because they refused blood, but because they refused Christ as their Lord and Saviour.
TheAussiepreacher 1 month ago
Comment removed
TheGenuineChristian 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheAussiepreacher I'm more concerned about the millions upon millions upon millions of Trinitarians going to hell. Not because they refused to be honest with the public on the matters of the Bible, but because they refused Yeshua the Nazarene's God as their very know God so they can be 'Christ-like.'
TheGenuineChristian 1 month ago
@TheGenuineChristian Sounds like you view the work of the cross as a moral example, rather than penal substitution. It is true that faith in Christ produces fruit (Galatians 6), however, following Christ as an example and not as Lord and Saviour will not attain anything (John 15:5).
TheAussiepreacher 1 month ago
@TheAussiepreacher
Following Christ? What do you know about following Christ?
The man Jesus had (and has Revelation 3:12) a God. Who was his God? The Father.
The ones holding to the Trinity also have a god. Who is their god? The father, the son, and the holy spirit.
The God of the man Jesus: The Father.
The god of Trinitarians: The F, the S, the H.S.
So, it's clear that Trinitarians are not 'Christ-like' (Christian) for they don't even have the same God!
TheGenuineChristian 1 month ago
@TheGenuineChristian 2 Cor 5:17 says whoever is IN Christ is a new creation, not whoever merely lives a good life. John 3:3 Jesus tells us we need to be born again, not merely live a good life. There is atonement in Christ, not merely a good example to follow.
TheAussiepreacher 1 month ago
@TheAussiepreacher
I doubt you have been 'born again' or truly comprehend what it means for that matter.
So, are you a 'Trinitarian'?
TheGenuineChristian 1 month ago
@TheGenuineChristian Your good works can't get you to heaven (Romans 3:23), only faith in Christ (John 1:12, Romans 10:9,10)
TheAussiepreacher 1 month ago
@TheAussiepreacher
I'm not a Jehovah's Witness nor was I ever one, so save your preaching for someone else.
So, are you a Trinitarian?
TheGenuineChristian 1 month ago
@TheGenuineChristian The works view of the cross is not exclusive to the JW. In fact, there are many that view what Jesus did as a noble act, yet reject Him as their Lord and Saviour (Ghandi for example). Galatians 2:20 says I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. It's not just seeing the cross as a noble act to follow.
TheAussiepreacher 1 month ago
@TheAussiepreacher
You don't even accept the salvation verse, Romans 10:9 (compare it to Romans 4:24), so why you even talking to me about rejecting him as Lord?
TheGenuineChristian 1 month ago
@TheGenuineChristian If you think your works can get you to heaven you are deceived, and it is the bewitching that Paul talks to the Galatian church about.
TheAussiepreacher 1 month ago
@TheAussiepreacher You know what, why don't you just stop replying to me since you're yet to answer any of my questions. Go preach to someone else. I'm on the verge of deleting any of your comments I see in my Inbox so I won't even see your comment/s.
TheGenuineChristian 1 month ago
@TheGenuineChristian ok, but don't forget Ephesians 4:26 And "don't sin by letting anger gain control over you." Don't let the sun go down while you are still angry,
TheAussiepreacher 1 month ago
This is what you call a propaganda video. It changes the cause of death from a car accident to the fact that she did not take blood. It implies she would have survived if she did so when in fact no one knows if this is true or not. Most casses of victims who accept blood still die after making it through surgery due to complications. Doctors now know the blood was the cause of those complications. We have faith that if we put God first we will gain more than this life has to offer. Matt 10:39
Josiahvidz 1 month ago
@Josiahvidz Yeah...... Kinda like showing the dead bodies from the concentration camps is Anti-Nazi propaganda right? Those dirty rotten scoundrels that show those pictures... how dare they.
21crosscheck21 1 month ago
@Josiahvidz This a reality video and the fact is that the man who lost his child due to the actions of a drunk does not excuse that there was a possibility that his baby may have survived if the Dr. was not hand cuffed by the watchtower.We all know there are risks when taking blood but in some case it might be a chance to live a long life and honor god.Even if a small chance of survival it should not be a publishing co. dissension to make.It is good propaganda that my save a life.
pande4509 1 month ago
@pande4509 "Dr. was not hand cuffed"
Dr's are never hand cuffed. This is the attitude they take though acting as if there is not other alternatives to blood tranfusions and ignoring the dangers. Let me ask you, I don't know what you do for a living but have you ever wen throught blood borne pathegens training? The Gov is spending millions on research on blood free procedures to help wounded soldiers . Don't sound like there hand cuffed to me.
Josiahvidz 1 month ago
@Josiahvidz If they were not hand cuffed then that baby may have gotten a chance to be treated.I have to agree that blood could cause many problems and I know there are millions of dollars being spent on alternatives but not all hospitals have the technology now I hope for you and all other JWs that it is in every hospital soon. But even if the technology is in every hospital there may be cases when blood will give a patient the best chance to survive such as burn victims.
pande4509 1 month ago
@Josiahvidz The watchtower has you thinking everyone who gets a transfusion will get sick.That is not taught in the bible.That is taught in the watchtower magazine.Let me ask you if a transfusion was totally safe would you take one? I think not! so why do you use the argument on weather it is safe or not?
pande4509 1 month ago
Comment removed
pande4509 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Josiahvidz We know it is not 100% safe but there is a chance that it my save a life.I don't think it is as unsafe as you have been taught you might want to research in medical literature instead of religious literature to get medical information!!!
pande4509 1 month ago
@pande4509 My info comes from medical websites and news reports not the WT so you need to stop assuming and start researching yourself. Do a simple search on dangers of blood transfusions and you will see.
Josiahvidz 1 month ago
@Josiahvidz well would you take blood if it was 100% safe????
pande4509 1 month ago
@Josiahvidz Another fallacy. Not every hospital has access to bloodless procedures nor have they been perfected. Or how about those outside America.... the billions in 3rd world nations... Do you really think they have the technology? Should they just all die because they don't live in a major city?
21crosscheck21 1 month ago
@Josiahvidz No, you put the society's INTERPRETATION first. If the society changed their mind about the blood issue, you would change your mind right along with them.
October31st1517 1 month ago
@October31st1517 Exactly Mark. You hit the nail on the head. He'll gladly now accept fractions of that HIV infected blood..... not because the bible changed but because their interpretation of it did.
21crosscheck21 1 month ago