Easily Led

Exploring the details of Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
JJ50
Banned
Banned
Posts: 512
Joined: Thu May 29, 2014 6:22 am

Easily Led

Post #1

Post by JJ50 »

Why is it that some people are easily led by people who force feed them a doctrine, however crazy? Like sheep they will follow them even if it puts their lives, and that of their loved ones, in danger. We have had some startling examples of that over the years, the dreadful Jonestown Massacre, for instance.

Islamic extremists somehow talk their adherents into following their unpleasant dogma to the death. The JWs have persuaded their conscripts that having blood transfusions is not approved of in the Bible, so even if death results because they have refused one for themselves or their families, so be it!

Many TV evangelists persuade their sycophants to fund their lavish live styles. The Benny Hinn and other 'healers' manage to convince the gullible that they have performed miracles.

The Catholic Church has managed to get away with many crimes against humanity over the centuries, The Inquisition being one of the most heinous. Other evil blots on their tainted copy book was turning a blind eye where paedophile priests are concerned, and consigning unmarried pregnant girls to homes like the Magdalene Laundries. Those girls were cruelly treated, their babies stolen when they were born, and often sold to the highest bidder! The protestant lot have nothing to be smug about either, the rabid pastors who scare folk with their hell-fire garbage if they don't get 'saved' garbage do Christianity no good at all.

If only people would realise those who preach to others, and claim to know the mind of god/s, have no more idea than the rest of us if any god exists. Matters of faith should never be accepted without thorough questioning.

User avatar
Blastcat
Banned
Banned
Posts: 5948
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:18 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #71

Post by Blastcat »

[Replying to post 69 by shnarkle]



[center]
Blood transfusion compared to hacking off a leg with an ax[/center]

Blastcat wrote:
Do you think that it's immoral or wrong somehow to use procedures that don't cost so much?
shnarkle wrote:
Not necessarily. However, when one could just hack off someone's leg with an ax to save money rather than performing an expensive operation that could save the leg, then one might think that this cost saving procedure might not be the most moral option available, no?
You are comparing human blood transfusions to hacking someone's leg off with an ax. The two acts are not comparable.


Saving money isn't the goal of medicine.
Saving as many lives as possible is one of them.

The way you just described it, doctors are barbaric sadists.

shnarkle wrote:
It seems that science is making discoveries quite frequently now that show that blood transfusions are not just unhealthy, but can cause recovery from surgery to take longer, and give opportunities for complications. So these supposed cost savings could actually end up producing a higher cost. An extra day in most hospitals runs around $10k to 20k.
Yet, medical science uses quite expensive treatments, so who not this one?

I did a Google search:

"Thus far, there are no well-accepted oxygen-carrying blood substitutes, which is the typical objective of a red blood cell transfusion"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_substitute

"Artificial blood is a product made to act as a substitute for red blood cells. While true blood serves many different functions, artificial blood is designed for the sole purpose of transporting oxygen and carbon dioxide throughout the body."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2738310/

"The blood replacement products being tested still have problems. For example, blood replacement products can interfere with blood tests, are more quickly removed from the body, and are less efficient oxygen carriers.

Several of these products are being developed. But their use, after they are approved, will probably be limited to emergencies involving severe blood loss caused by serious accidents.
"

http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/tc/b ... cial-blood

"Artificial blood may also cause severe side effects, including vasoconstriction — a tightening and narrowing of the blood vessel walls. Many times, the consequences of artificial blood come from the fact that it has not been satisfactorily tested prior to release on the national or international market, exposing potentially dangerous short- and long-term consequences."

https://www.reference.com/science/disad ... f0dff77673#

____________

Question:


  • Do you think that blood substitutes are as desirable and effective as human blood?

____________


:)

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Post #72

Post by Bust Nak »

shnarkle wrote: Not necessarily. However, when one could just hack off someone's leg with an ax to save money rather than performing an expensive operation that could save the leg, then one might think that this cost saving procedure might not be the most moral option available, no?
That was not the question, if you have to choose between hacking a limb off vs letting a child die, which would you choose? Telling me there are better alternative than limb hacking, doesn't not answer the dilemma.

User avatar
onewithhim
Savant
Posts: 8904
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
Location: Norwich, CT
Has thanked: 1217 times
Been thanked: 305 times

Post #73

Post by onewithhim »

[Replying to post 49 by shnarkle]

Did you have a chance to read my post #41? There was some info there about what makes up some blood substitutes, as I recall. Kudos to you for being willing to look into the matter.

User avatar
onewithhim
Savant
Posts: 8904
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
Location: Norwich, CT
Has thanked: 1217 times
Been thanked: 305 times

Re: Easily Led

Post #74

Post by onewithhim »

Bust Nak wrote:
onewithhim wrote: I wouldn't LET a child die. Blood transfusions are ancient medical procedures, just like leeching blood OUT of people was. I have shown you why blood subs titutes are far better than blood, but you keep asking the same question as if I hadn't said anything!
Granted you have said something, you just hasn't answered my question. Which is preferable, blood transfusion or a dead child? Telling me you wouldn't let a child die doesn't tell me whether you prefer blood transfusion over a dead child.

I could ask you the same thing with leeches: which would you choose, a blood letting or a dead child. I am guessing you would not hesitate to tell me you would go with the blood letting, as there is no religious implication with leeches. Why are you having such difficulties in affirming that you would let your child have a blood transfusions IF it means saving his life? You can object to the claim that that blood transfusions means saving his life all you like, that doesn't change the dilemma one bit because the claim is qualified with an if.

Don't make this out to be a question over medical science. It's about your valuing your religious beliefs over the life of a child.
A child is NOT GOING TO DIE if he is not given a blood transfusion!
Only if you make the assumption that blood substitution is available. People die all the time due to blood loss. More importantly that just side steps the moral dilemma along the lines of "who would you save from drowning, your mum or your wife" by telling me you wife is a great swimmer.
Can't you listen to doctors in various hospitals that say that the safest transfusion is NO transfusion?
What does that have to do with the fact that blood transfusion can save lives? The safest surgery is no surgery, that's not an argument against having surgery.
You say that there are no substitutes that carry oxygen to the cells.
That's not what I said. I said oxygen carrying substitutes are not easily available as it is still in clinical trails in the US.
BLOOD TRANSFUSION IS NOT CHEAPER. How you came to that conclusion I can't fathom.
Because that what google says.
Every medical site I have gone to has said that blood substitutes are much cheaper. One doctor I just listened to said, "Why not go with substitutes that allow the patient to recover more quickly without side-effects and complications, with better survival rates, and is cheaper too?"
Why not indeed if that were actually the case. The fact that we haven't made the switch should tell you there is something amiss about their claims.
Link doesn't work. More to the point, what made you think selling blood substitutes are not big business? The endorsements you linked to are all trying to sell you their alternative product.
I am absolutely convinced that putting someone else's blood into ANYONE is futile and unnecessary and ridiculous. I do not believe that blood transfusions save people, so your question is meaningless. You might as well ask me which I would choose....injecting my child with dog poop or letting my child die. Of course no one would choose the dog poop! The great thing is---my child wouldn't die for not receiving blood. There are SUBSTITUTES.

User avatar
Blastcat
Banned
Banned
Posts: 5948
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:18 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Easily Led

Post #75

Post by Blastcat »

[Replying to post 73 by onewithhim]

[center]

Extreme belief is dangerous to us all
[/center]

onewithhim wrote:
I am absolutely convinced that putting someone else's blood into ANYONE is futile and unnecessary and ridiculous.
Some people are convinced that evolution never happened.
Some don't believe in global warming.
Some don't believe in vaccination.
Some don't believe in modern medicine at all, preferring prayer, instead.
Some don't believe that blood transfusions are an accepted and necessary practice.

There is a lot of denial of science going on.

Denying reality.. never a great idea.


:)

User avatar
onewithhim
Savant
Posts: 8904
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
Location: Norwich, CT
Has thanked: 1217 times
Been thanked: 305 times

Re: Easily Led

Post #76

Post by onewithhim »

Blastcat wrote: [Replying to post 73 by onewithhim]

[center]

Extreme belief is dangerous to us all
[/center]

onewithhim wrote:
I am absolutely convinced that putting someone else's blood into ANYONE is futile and unnecessary and ridiculous.
Some people are convinced that evolution never happened.
Some don't believe in global warming.
Some don't believe in vaccination.
Some don't believe in modern medicine at all, preferring prayer, instead.
Some don't believe that blood transfusions are an accepted and necessary practice.

There is a lot of denial of science going on.

Denying reality.. never a great idea.


:)
I am not "denying science" nor am I "denying reality." I have unequivocally shown that science has itself set forth the reality that giving people someone else's blood is counterproductive. Couldn't it be YOU who is denying reality?

Claire Evans
Guru
Posts: 1153
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2015 3:40 am
Location: South Africa

Re: Easily Led

Post #77

Post by Claire Evans »

JJ50 wrote: Why is it that some people are easily led by people who force feed them a doctrine, however crazy? Like sheep they will follow them even if it puts their lives, and that of their loved ones, in danger. We have had some startling examples of that over the years, the dreadful Jonestown Massacre, for instance.

Islamic extremists somehow talk their adherents into following their unpleasant dogma to the death. The JWs have persuaded their conscripts that having blood transfusions is not approved of in the Bible, so even if death results because they have refused one for themselves or their families, so be it!

Many TV evangelists persuade their sycophants to fund their lavish live styles. The Benny Hinn and other 'healers' manage to convince the gullible that they have performed miracles.

The Catholic Church has managed to get away with many crimes against humanity over the centuries, The Inquisition being one of the most heinous. Other evil blots on their tainted copy book was turning a blind eye where paedophile priests are concerned, and consigning unmarried pregnant girls to homes like the Magdalene Laundries. Those girls were cruelly treated, their babies stolen when they were born, and often sold to the highest bidder! The protestant lot have nothing to be smug about either, the rabid pastors who scare folk with their hell-fire garbage if they don't get 'saved' garbage do Christianity no good at all.

If only people would realise those who preach to others, and claim to know the mind of god/s, have no more idea than the rest of us if any god exists. Matters of faith should never be accepted without thorough questioning.
I believe it is due to brainwashing which is a result of fear. Fear can make people believe anything. If one has been raised to believe that if they aren't a Catholic, for example, they won't go to heaven. Therefore they would be too frightened to question the RCC or the Vatican. Often family pressure is involved.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: Easily Led

Post #78

Post by Bust Nak »

onewithhim wrote: I am absolutely convinced that putting someone else's blood into ANYONE is futile and unnecessary and ridiculous. I do not believe that blood transfusions save people, so your question is meaningless. You might as well ask me which I would choose....injecting my child with dog poop or letting my child die. Of course no one would choose the dog poop! The great thing is---my child wouldn't die for not receiving blood. There are SUBSTITUTES.
I am absolutely convinced that injecting ANYONE with dog poop is futile and unnecessary and ridiculous. I do not believe that dog poop save people, and yet that doesn't stop me from being able to answer that I would indeed injecting my child with dog poop instead of letting my child die. You need a better excuse for refusing to answer my question.
The great thing is---my child wouldn't die for not receiving blood. There are SUBSTITUTES
Do you realise that had blood transfusions been futile and unnecessary, there wouldn't be a need for SUBSTITUTES? If blood transfusion is counterproductive why are you using blood substitutes? Tell me what exactly is the point of a SUBSTITUTE, if not to fill a gap that was previously filled by something else? The thesis along the lines of blood transfusions are always bad is a non starter given that you are appealing to blood substitutes.

Take blood letting as an example. It is found to be counterproductive, we did not try and find better ways of letting blood, we didn't experiment with leech substitutes. We simply stop doing blood letting.

User avatar
Blastcat
Banned
Banned
Posts: 5948
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:18 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Easily Led

Post #79

Post by Blastcat »

[Replying to post 75 by onewithhim]


[center]

Religious medicine vs scientific medicine
[/center]

onewithhim wrote:
I am not "denying science" nor am I "denying reality."
We are in a disagreement about that.
This might take a while to figure out.

From what I read ( and I didn't read everything you wrote about this subject, sorry ) you seem to be confused about blood transfusions. You criticize the practice, to the exclusion of ever other medical practice.. as if all medical practices didn't include RISKS.

When someone singles out ONE item in a HUGE list.. there's something very strange going on. There is a huge honking LIST of risky medical practices. Singling on blood transfusions for special attention is of course, ONLY DUE to your religious sensibilities.

onewithhim wrote:
I have unequivocally shown that science has itself set forth the reality that giving people someone else's blood is counterproductive.
I really don't know what you MEAN by "counterproductive"... what do you imagine that blood transfusions are trying to PRODUCE?

I don't consider "saving someone's life" counterproductive at all. However, I don't think anyone should think that any medical practices are PERFECT just yet. So, yeah.. maybe future medicine will be way better than what we have now.

Let's have more and more scientific progress.

onewithhim wrote:
Couldn't it be YOU who is denying reality?
Of course, onewithhim, of course.

The more mistakes I discover, the more my thoughts will align with reality. I might be unintentionally denying what is actually real. This happens quite often to me. I take pride in rooting out my thinking mistakes and then, correcting them.

So, it's important to test my cherished notions to see if they do match with reality or not. An antipathy towards blood transfusions is of a religious nature, and not about medicine at all. It says blood is bad in a religious book. Some people go a little more to the extreme, and believe that it's somehow wrong. They want to justify this belief.. and try to find corroboration by way of actual science.

It's like the "repeal and replace" of Obamacare. Some people might think it's better to stop all blood transfusions until something BETTER comes along. A lot of people would die if they repealed the practice of human blood transfusion before they replaced it.

Medical science might discover a better replacement for human blood, but so far, from what I know.. they have NOT.

In my opinion, what you are defending here is a religious practice.. not a scientific one. Let's see if we can agree that you are doing religion and not science.

____________

Question:


  • Are you defending a religious prohibition against ingesting blood products or a medical practice that saves lives?

____________



:)

User avatar
onewithhim
Savant
Posts: 8904
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
Location: Norwich, CT
Has thanked: 1217 times
Been thanked: 305 times

Re: Easily Led

Post #80

Post by onewithhim »

Bust Nak wrote:
onewithhim wrote: I am absolutely convinced that putting someone else's blood into ANYONE is futile and unnecessary and ridiculous. I do not believe that blood transfusions save people, so your question is meaningless. You might as well ask me which I would choose....injecting my child with dog poop or letting my child die. Of course no one would choose the dog poop! The great thing is---my child wouldn't die for not receiving blood. There are SUBSTITUTES.
I am absolutely convinced that injecting ANYONE with dog poop is futile and unnecessary and ridiculous. I do not believe that dog poop save people, and yet that doesn't stop me from being able to answer that I would indeed injecting my child with dog poop instead of letting my child die. You need a better excuse for refusing to answer my question.
The great thing is---my child wouldn't die for not receiving blood. There are SUBSTITUTES
Do you realise that had blood transfusions been futile and unnecessary, there wouldn't be a need for SUBSTITUTES? If blood transfusion is counterproductive why are you using blood substitutes? Tell me what exactly is the point of a SUBSTITUTE, if not to fill a gap that was previously filled by something else? The thesis along the lines of blood transfusions are always bad is a non starter given that you are appealing to blood substitutes.

Take blood letting as an example. It is found to be counterproductive, we did not try and find better ways of letting blood, we didn't experiment with leech substitutes. We simply stop doing blood letting.
Well, JWs simply stopped taking blood. We don't do it. The medical community has seen that blood is not necessary to give to a person to keep him alive, and they say it was because JWs refused it, so they had to look for alternatives. They have FOUND alternatives, and if you bothered to look at my links you would see that that is true.

One thing that blood was transfused for was the fact that veins would collapse. The blood kept that from happening. Guess what!! Saline solution does the same thing! So why use blood? It's only because blood is a lucrative business. Do some research instead of attacking innocent people that look for the BEST MEDICAL HELP for their children.

Post Reply