ThePraeceptor

Members
  • Content count

    68
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

65 Excellent

1 Follower

About ThePraeceptor

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday

Recent Profile Visitors

258 profile views
  1. @Anna We are in absolute agreement. Most people will stay at the surface and will blame the refusal of blood transfusion for nearly every nosocomial death of a JW. That is the main reason opposers and apostates are spreading "information" about similar cases. During a cesarean section the uterus is cut open to deliver the baby inside. In this particular case it may be indicative of a continued bleeding after the operation or to extensive damage to the uterus during the procedure. In both cases the hysterectomy (total removal of the uterus) performed afterwards would be resolutive but unfortunately the complication of the infection killed the sister. No blood transfusion related death there either... Yes, I am.
  2. Ok. Let me explain better. A blood transfusion can be a very effective treatment for some kinds of leukemia. Since you linked from the cancer.org website I'm including 2 more links form there. Acute lymphocytic leukemia and acute myeloid leukemia. Why? In these treatments the recipient's red bone marrow (the tissue that "makes" blood) is destroyed by radiation or chemotherapeutic preparations. This is done in order to replace the "diseased" marrow that creates the cancerous blood cells via a bone marrow transplant. After this initial step the patient must be in an extremely controlled environment (because his/hers immune system is totaly destroyed) and receive blood transfusions (because not capable of producing his/hers own blood). After the transplant has succeded and a new healthy bone marrow has grown there is no need for additional transfusions. The patient produces his own blood and immune cells. (to be acurate, the blood is not his "own" because it comes from the donor's marrow and that is the main reason for the adverse effect of the graft-versus-host disease) Of course, as you have pointed out, transfusions can be used only for palliative purposes and may very well be the case of this sister. It can also be a treatment and a cure in other cases. Not having read the actual clinical files I can't be certain of the clinical situation of sister Bethany and of what was or wasn't possible to do. A diagnosis is just a label given to a condition so as to frame what one can expect or do in a situation, it doesn't give the details of the clinical picture a patient presents in every moment. The only information we have is mainly from her father that tried/(tries?) to blame all of JWs for his daughter's death and has not hesitated (as you also pointed out) to lie about our beliefs in regards of blood transfusions.
  3. Since the owner has no problem with it what exactly is your issue? They made an agreement. This means that they mutualy agreed that both their interests where satisfied by this arrangement. Why is this "totally against the scriptural principles they claim to uphold"?
  4. The treatment varies because leukemia is not just one disease. It's a "family" of clinical entities and based on the type of cells involved the ailment name and treatment can vary. There are cases that a blood transfusion is an absolute must and please bare in mind that not all hospitals and health centers are equiped to offer bloodless treatments and not every brother can afford the ones that do offer such treatments. You are very correct though, the OP is full of lies and delibarate distortions of what we truly believe about the use of blood in medicine just to evoke a sentimental reaction.
  5. That is why I used the word "probably" in my post and not the word "surely". I just rickrolled you... It's a joke. Lighten up! ;-) PS: we can continue by PM if you are so inclined.
  6. @Witness As you probably already know Queen Esther doesn't want arguments under her posts. So please move your lies to a more suitable place of the forum or here.
  7. I realy don't know how the legal system works in Canada. In my experience as a doctor in Europe though in an ongoing investigation the clinical documents are not released to anybody but only to the investigator and after sometime to the lawyers (in case there have been appointed). In this case the woman's family asked for the documents and obviously (and rightly in my oppinion) there have not been given access. When the investigation will be over they probably would have access to them via a lawyer.
  8. It was a marvelous meeting! Everybody I spoke to has nothing but positive things to say about the brother, the talk and the news about the progress in our territory. He visited Greece for the dedication of the RTO in Nikaia. If I may correct something you wrote @Queen Esther, it was not all the congregations in Greece but only those who had meetings on the same time as the live streaming. Of course every congregation will watch the programm but not in live streaming as they will stream the video next weekend (or in base of local dispositions). The total attendance was about 13100 brothers and sisters which amounts in something less than the half of all the brothers and sisters in Greece. :-)
  9. @JW Insider Ok, I see your point. It's a logical one. In your lengthy response, in my view, you are taking a lot of liberties in interpreting the wording and assuming too much. Also, I am not "claiming" things. I'm just stating facts on the meaning of words without even trying to interprete the verses. If your post was not so long I could refute your arguments point by point but I'm not really that interested in proving who is wrong and who is right. I would like to understand one thing though. According to your view the word "parousia" of the original should have been translated as "royal visitation" and not "presence". Am I right in concluding this by your post?
  10. My thoughts exactlly! This is also what the Greek Orthodox church is teaching about the "parousia" so I don't like much where this assumption/reasoning is going... No it is not! You just want it to be so as to fit your alternate interpretation (which, admittedly, is very interesting). παρουσία (parousi'a) is the noun of the verb πάρειμι (pa'rimi) which is a composite word from παρά (preposition with various meanings, in this case the meaning is "beside") and εἰμί (verb, I am) and so we have a literal meaning of "being beside, being with" or as it is commonly translated "being present". Therefore the noun would be "presence". Although it is true that the word has been used by ancient authors to describe a royal or official visitation there is no reason at all to presume that this was the intended meaning in the Bible. From the previous link to Liddell-Scott you can also follow the citations and you will see that there is no mention or even hint in the ancient texts of a "parade-like spectacle". The citations of Euripides and Sophocles are translated in English so you can read them and see that they are refering to a simple visit. Please bare also in mind that in Greek there is no other word for "presence". So, in my view, to use your definition of "royal visitation" to support the "visibility" or incontestability of Christ's presence is simply not accurate. You are not taking into account the fact that we cannot know everything. (Romans 11:33,34) What would be evidence enough? Some other things will be revealed to us when the time comes. (Daniel 12:8,9). In view of these scriptures/principals I think that sometimes (and for trivial matters such as chronology) not asking questions is a sign of humility. I never said it was automatic because obviously it is not. But what if a single person stumbles because of something I or you write in this forum against an "official" teaching? Do we accept such a responsibility? I just can't stop thinking what Jesus said in this regard in Matthew 18:6,7 and Mark 9:42.
  11. @Eoin Joyce Interesting read. Thanks for sharing.
  12. That is your prerogative. Why are you not going on with your life then but try to undermine the faith of others? Your conclusions are your own. What makes you believe that are the truth? The simple fact that you still bother yourself with a religion you chose not to follow is a clear sign of unresolved issues. I kindly encourage you to resolve them. You'll lead a happier life this way.
  13. No, it doesn't show this. You should read it again. It was never asked in the Bible for the Christians to celebrate Jesus' or anybody elses' birth. But, you go on, celebrate Christmas and don't forget to read the verses about the christmas tree, Santa Claus and the reindeers. These were wars ORDERED directly by God himself. If you think that a political leader speaks for God or is a physical manifestation of God then go ahead and go to war or "exercise your coscience" about it.
  14. Thank you for the trust Anna. :-) I have nothing more or less to say on the subject. The WT article you quoted is extremely acurate. I myself was understanding these verses in this particular way even before becoming a Jehovah's Witness (of course not the assignement of particular dates to the events but the flow of the events). I try not to interprete the scriptures relative to prophecies. I leave that to the slave. The interpretation given by the article you quoted is the only logical one in my view. To deny or question the existence of the composite sign is to go against what is written. The wording and the general contex leave no other explanation. The parable of the fig tree you mentioned is a prime example of that. Also it is clear from the text that there are two distinct events as you yourself wrote: My only complaint is that neither of the two comings requires a physical manifestation. Both "parousia" and the verbs describing the "coming" and "arriving" can be understood as refering to invisible events.