Jump to content
JWTalk - Jehovah's Witnesses Discussion Forum


Full Access Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Stavro

  • Rank
    Resurrected One
  • Birthday 07/31/1984

Personal Details

  • Gender
  • First Name Only
  • Displayed Location
    East Coast US
  • Publisher
  • Baptized

My Hobbies & Interests

  • My favorite quotes
    Look! I tell you a sacred secret: We will not all fall asleep in server crashes, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the blink of an eye, during the last backup. For the server backup will be restored, and the deleted members will be restored incorruptible, and we will be changed. For this data which is corruptible must put on incorruption, and this data which is mortal must put on immortality. But when this data which is corruptible puts on incorruption and this data which is mortal puts on immortality, then the saying that is written will take place: “Database errors are swallowed up forever.” “Database error, where is your victory? Database error, where is your sting?”

Recent Profile Visitors

3,011 profile views
  1. "YES to gay marriage wins in Australia"

    Why would it be any more difficult than an unmarried gay couple? "That is what some of you were." (1 Corinthians 6:11) Just about everyone who comes into the truth has to make difficult choices regarding their family and their loved ones, sometimes even their own spouse. Being gay or straight doesn't change the unique difficulties every person faces, it only changes the labels we use to describe them.
  2. This article is still being cited by the branch regarding the use of leeches, so the principles are still intact. The fact of the matter is that if blood is removed from the body, human or animal, it is not to be used for transfusions or as food, even for leeches. While there are provisions for a human's blood to reintroduced into their body, these medical procedures do not involve transfusions, mixing it into food, or leaving it in unbled meat, so these medical procedures are simply irrelevant to this discussion.
  3. If we were speaking of cell-salvage, dialysis, or other procedures that maintain an 'unbroken connection' to the owner of the blood (thus it is not "removed from the body"), there have indeed been clarifications of the matter. But even in these cases, blood cannot be removed and stored for extended periods of time. But we are not speaking of human medical procedures of placing blood back into one's own body, we are speaking of removing the blood of an animal or human, and giving that blood to other animals as food. Regarding that matter, the quoted article makes it absolutely clear that blood separated from the body should not be used for other purposes, including being fed to animals. Have you heard this in writing, or from the branch, HLC, CO, or other reliable source?
  4. The article specifically notes "a container of dog food or some other animal food", which is typically heavily processed and has ingredients artificially added. If the bood is eaten through live or unbled meat, the blood would be incidental to the food itself, not something fed to the animal deliberately. *** it-1 p. 345 Blood *** At Deuteronomy 14:21 allowance was made for selling to an alien resident or a foreigner an animal that had died of itself or that had been torn by a beast. Thus a distinction was made between the blood of such animals and that of animals that a person slaughtered for food. (Compare Le 17:14-16.) *** w82 6/15 p. 31 Questions From Readers *** ▪ Would it be wrong for a Christian, under medical treatment, to allow leeches to be applied to him to draw off some blood? Christians should strive to manifest that they appreciate the sacredness of blood. (Acts 15:28, 29) Accordingly, if blood is removed from the body, it should be disposed of, comparable to the Israelites’ pouring blood out on the ground. At times doctors may have medical grounds for advising that blood be removed (phlebotomy). For example, with the blood disease polycythemia vera a person has excessive red blood cells (the opposite of anemia). The blood, thick with red cells, may produce clots, increasing the threat of strokes or heart attacks. There are various ways of managing this, but sometimes the choice treatment is venesection, drawing off some blood from a vein. The counsel of God’s Word would not rule this out so long as the removed blood was disposed of. Similarly, many Christians have felt conscientiously able to permit small quantities of blood to be taken for medical tests, realizing that once the tests were completed the blood would be discarded. However, though leeches parasitically feed on blood in their natural state at present, it would not be proper for a Christian to permit leeches to draw his blood. (Proverbs 30:15) Even where this was urged for medical reasons and the leeches would later be disposed of, the use of leeches would involve deliberately feeding blood to these creatures. That would conflict with the Bible’s indication that blood, being sacred and representing life, should be disposed of if it is removed from a body.
  5. "YES to gay marriage wins in Australia"

    In many countries, legal marriage is distinct from religious marriage. Sometimes the legal ceremony is performed immediately after the religious ceremony, in front of the same audience (as it is in our wedding talk outline), or sometimes the legal wedding may be performed in private sometime after the religious ceremony. Religious marriage is defined by the terms of any given religion, and the legal system cannot change those definitions, nor compel any church to perform a religious ceremony for ones who otherwise would not be allowed to do so. There are sometimes legal complaints when an individual/church performs weddings as a business for the general public, but these issues are in regard to the business transaction, not religious beliefs. Legal marriage is purely a political issue, and we should regard it as such.
  6. Abortion is not specifically mentioned, but I feel that the principles of this article about blood may apply to all matters where we have clear Scriptural direction. *** w64 2/15 pp. 127-128 Questions From Readers *** Would it be a violation of the Scriptures for a Christian to permit a veterinarian to give blood transfusions to a pet? And what of animal food? May it be used if there is reason to believe there is blood in it? Also, is it permissible to use fertilizer that has blood in it? The psalmist declared at Psalm 119:97: “How I do love your law! All day long it is my concern.” Such a love of God’s law and a concern for it would surely cause a dedicated servant of God to avoid any violation of God’s law whatsoever. God’s law on blood is very clear. Blood is not to be used as food and, when withdrawn from a body, it is to be poured out on the ground. (Gen. 9:3, 4; Lev. 3:17; Deut. 12:16, 23, 24; Acts 15:20, 28, 29) Christians certainly would not wish to do anything in violation of Jehovah’s law on blood. Love for God and for the righteous laws and principles of his Word calls forth that response from them in matters pertaining to blood. Since God’s law on blood has not been altered over the centuries, Christians today realize that they are bound by it. Please note, however, that it is not fear of some reprisal that moves them to comply with Jehovah’s law on blood. They do not obey God’s law simply because violation of it might result in the imposing of sanctions by the Christian congregation of which they are a part. They love what is right. Furthermore, because of their love of God’s law they will not rationalize or seek ways in which it appears possible to circumscribe it with seeming impunity. How, then, must we answer the question, Would it be a violation of the Scriptures for a Christian to permit a veterinarian to give blood transfusions to a pet? By all means, to do so would be a violation of the Scriptures. To use blood for transfusion purposes, even in the case of an animal, would be improper. The Bible is very clear in showing that blood should not be eaten. It should not be infused, therefore, to build up the body’s vital forces, either in the case of a human or in the case of a pet or any other animal under the jurisdiction of a Christian. In harmony with this, surely a Christian parent could not rationalize to the effect that a pet belongs to a minor child and thus this unbaptized child might, on its own, authorize a veterinarian to administer the blood. No. The baptized parent bears the responsibility, for that parent has authority over the child and over the pet and should control the entire matter. That is the parent’s obligation before God.—Eccl. 12:13, 14; Jas. 4:17. What, then, of animal food? May it be used if there is reason to believe there is blood in it? As far as a Christian is concerned, the answer is No, on the basis of principles already mentioned. Therefore, if a Christian discovers that blood components are listed on the label of a container of dog food or some other animal food, he could not conscientiously feed that product to any animal over which he has jurisdiction. He could not conclude that doing so would be excusable, for this would not be a case of an animal killing another animal and helping itself to the blood of that creature. No, this would be a direct act on the part of the Christian, making him responsible for feeding blood to a pet or other animal belonging to him. Of course, if there is no indication on the label of a package of animal food that the product contains blood, a Christian might conclude that it could be used. Still, his conscience might trouble him. In that case he should put his conscience to rest by making reasonable inquiry and acting in accord with the information he receives, for a Christian surely desires to have a good conscience before God.—1 Pet. 3:21. But now, what about fertilizer that has blood in it? One who is going to show respect for God’s law on blood would not use it. True, according to the Mosaic law, blood when taken from a body was to be poured out upon the ground and covered over with dust. (Lev. 17:13, 14) The objective was, however, that the blood should serve no useful purpose when thus disposed of. It was not placed on the ground with the thought in mind that it would serve as fertilizer. Hence, no Christian farmer today could properly spread blood on his fields to fertilize the soil, nor would he use commercial fertilizer containing blood. Such blood use would be a commercializing on something that God has reserved for himself. It would be a violation of God’s Word. Servants of God have been told in the Scriptures what is to be done with blood. So they know that they would be held responsible by Jehovah for any misuse of blood over which they might have control. What is more, because they love God they are prompted to observe the laws and principles of his Word. Thus they are moved to keep Jehovah’s law on blood even in ways that might appear to some to be insignificant. They do not view compliance with it as an encumbrance, for they hold in remembrance the words of 1 John 5:3, which states: “For this is what the love of God means, that we observe his commandments; and yet his commandments are not burdensome.”
  7. In the US, there's a 'diet cycle' that repeats itself every couple years, fed by the fraudulent labels and Doctor Facebook. 1. Some people have a medically-verified allergy/intolerance to some type of food, and they have to eliminate that from their diet. 2. Companies see the need for [food]-free products, so they label their products to assist others with that intolerance. 3. People see the labels, assume that labels must mean good, and spread their new "miracle diet" all over social media. 4. Other companies that are not [food]-free see the free marketing opportunity, and fraudulently label their products without any regard to those who will suffer. 5. Medical professionals will start a major campaign to convince people to stay off these fad diets because they are harming themselves by ignoring vital nutrients (which would otherwise be provided through the advice of their doctor), as well as harming others who are suffering due to the fraudulent labels that the fad diet helped create. 6. A new allergy/intolerance gains popularity on social media, and the cycle repeats. On being told that someone has an allergy, a fairly common response is "I was allergic to that for a few years but I decided I like the taste". Or in a restaurant where someone requests that a dish not include something, that item will be put in anyway and picked off by the server. Or in someone's home, after rejecting something with an allergen, the host will say "try it, I'm sure you'll like it", or in extreme cases they might even slip it in to your food anyway to convince you that you'll like theirs. The PEpiPen is not covered by most insurance policies, and hospital stays due to anaphylactic shock usually have a fairly high deductible. So if someone tells me "as a joke" that they served me the food I'm allergic to, and they only come clean after I've used my EpiPen, that's $600 out of my pocket to replace it. Or if they slipped it into my food because they think I use the social media definition of "allergic", that's a $10,000 bill for the hospital visit and a few (unpaid) days off work. And that's ignoring the whole issue of getting medical treatment within ~30 minutes in order to survive. Your diet is under the advisement of a medical professional, and you live in a country where fraudulent labels are banned, and that's great, keep doing what you're doing. But the researcher in the linked article is not talking about your condition or your country, he's addressing the issues of ones with self-diagnosed "allergies", and they are the ones driving the fraudulent labels that have caused so much unnecessary suffering and death. By arguing against his claims, you're not defending yourself and your condition, you're supporting the medically unsound fad diet and the fraudulent labels that it has created.
  8. Your research and experience has come under the guidance of a medical practitioner, and you should absolutely continue following that advice. This researcher is not challenging valid research, he is denying the validity of "I saw it on facebook so it must be true", which is the basis used by the vast majority of people following this diet, and so many others. You're right, I don't feel happy about it. But if I had a choice between getting my feelings hurt on a few occasions, or being forced to use my EpiPen at a dinner because the host has decided that "allergy" really means "I don't like it", I'll take the hurt feelings over the 48 hour ICU stay every single time. And I suspect that the same would be true of the many Celiac sufferers who have been victims of fraudulently labeled "gluten free" foods put out by companies who are profiting off those who rely on Doctor Facebook rather than any medical professional.
  9. Let's please not make such attacks simply because we have a different opinion on a subject. Some of these researchers are our brothers and sisters, and they certainly do not deserve such baseless attacks based on what you imagine them to believe.
  10. And since they know that 99% of their customers will be part of the fad diet rather than an actual celiac sufferer, they'll be more lax with their standards since they know that almost nobody will be affected. Case in point, Cheerios does not meet the Canadian government standards for limiting cross-contamination, yet in the US they are continuing to use the label anyway, under the assumption that if cross contamination does occur almost nobody would be affected.
  11. "Shipping" is free, but handling is not (and will not be disclosed until you receive the bill), the warranty will be nonexistent, and the fact that so many of their products are third-party refurbished or open-box returns (though sold as "new") means that you'll need that warranty sooner rather than later. If anyone really needs a budget streaming device, the Roku Express is $30 new, or you can find manufacturer refurbished versions of both the Roku Express and the Amazon Fire Stick for about $20.
  12. Here's the page to order it from Amazon directly for a better price: https://www.amazon.com/All-New-Fire-TV-Stick-With-Alexa-Voice-Remote-Streaming-Media-Player/dp/B00ZV9RDKK QVC does not offer any discounts, ever. They artificially raise the price by 25-100%, mark it back down to somewhere near standard retail, then tack on heavily inflated shipping and handling fees. And thanks to the way they source their products, the manufacturer's warranty does not apply. But if it's ordered from a traditional retailer, you will ALWAYS pay a lower price, the shipping will be much faster and cheaper, an the warranty will be intact.
  13. Friends are people you choose to be close to. Brothers and sisters (and other family members) are people you cannot choose, and often are not close to. I would like to think that we are closer to our friends in the truth than we are to our fleshly family members who pressure us into following unscriptural practices.
  14. The 'like' button. ..

    We already have a "Thanks" button for exactly that purpose.
  15. The 'like' button. ..

    I'm not sure these would be good options, too often they would be used to convey a disapproval of one's opinion without actually sharing their own.

JWTalk 19.10.11 by Robert Angle (changelog)