Blood transfusions

[Xeno.of.athens]

The Bible forbids eating blood

Yes, we know that, for which I am most thankful to God.

Let me ask, would you excommunicate and shun anybody? If not, then why not?

 

[Strong in Him]

I really do not know why you wrote that.

Because it's true.
Blood transfusions aren't illegal. The opposite; they save many lives and people are encouraged to become blood donors.
Blood transfusions aren't a faith issue, can't/don't affect salvation or people coming to know God and aren't forbidden in Scripture.
Morally, legally and spiritually they are not wrong. If you believe they are, that is your belief and you are entitled to refuse one for yourself.

Denying someone else a blood transfusion, and therefore a chance at life, or a better life, may well be wrong on all fronts.

 

[chevyontheriver]

No idea.
I reject the one about paying indulgences to have a vial of Christ's blood, or whatever it was.

You really lost me there. I was talking about moral teachings. You are talking about something WAY different. So different I've never heard of it. Nonsensically different. And I was talking about your ancestors in the faith anyway. Is that something they taught as Christian moral teaching?

No, the Bible doesn't teach, or advise, on whether to get married,

Ask Paul about that.

how many children to have, if any at all,

Be fruitful and multiply. Who said that?

where to send them to school, whether to get the vaccinated or anything else. That's not its purpose.

Train them up in the way of the Lord.

This isn't about drugs, or contraception.
If a couple decide, before God, that they don't want children; if they don't want to add to the earth's over population or have another reason for not wanting children, the means to prevent pregnancy are in place.
Far better that than to have a child/children you don't want/can't afford, or become pregnant and then go for an abortion.

It [Galatians 5:10-20] is about potions, which are drugs. A major portion of these drugs were for the purposes of contraception and abortion. That's just the life and times of ancient Greek culture. You can apply your superior understanding all you want, but there is the Bible. It just isn't saying what you want it to say.

New Horizons December 1996: Before You Use Birth Control, Consider ...

Why do we talk about ''birth control''? This expression is a euphemism given to us in 1914 by Margaret Sanger, the leader of the birth control movement and the founder of Planned Parenthood. ...

opc.org

chevyontheriver said:
Are you even aware that your ancestors in the faith would have been unanimously opposed to contraception before 1930?

So?
We have it now, it's allowed and legal and not unscriptural.
It may be against the Pope's teachings, but that's not the same thing.

Again, for you it appears that if it's legal it's moral. If that's the way you calibrate your moral compass, oh well. And if your ancestors in the faith are irrelevant to you, oh well too. I expect Christian moral teaching to be consistent from one century to another, but that's just me.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Of course not, of course they are not opposed, yet they each have their own jurisdiction, so to speak.

To use an analogy; Love is like the pope, the universal sovereign, while the dogmas are like the other bishops, each sovereign in his own diocese yet each bishop rules under the ultimate sovereignty of the pope.

Not following that. My point is that to be most pastoral one should be most doctrinal. They belong together. Separating them does violence to both.

So just to be clear, are you opposed to blood transfusions or not?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

So just to be clear, are you opposed to blood transfusions or not?

Of course I am not, I said so in the Original Post.

 

[The Liturgist]

Do you think there is a case, however weak it may be, for forbidding blood transfusions?

No. It’s a gross misinterpretation of the kind the Jehovah’s Witnesses specialize in. The Council of Jerusalem appears to have desired us to not eat the blood of animals, but that goes back to the Noachide Laws, and it is not a sin worthy of the draconian punishments that J/Ws inflict on members who receive blood transfusions, who they effectively anathematize for life with no hope of repentance.

The J/Ws are an evil cult, and a predatory one; their members are the poorest in the US on a per capita basis (conversely, another cult which historically also rejected the identity of Jesus Christ as God Incarnate, the Unitarian Universalists, but which now mostly just reject Jesus Christ altogether in favor of a religion that as far as I can tell is centered around far-left political agitation, are the wealthiest, probably because of their membership consisting heavily of land owning descendants of Yankee settlers in Boston and New England, “Old Money” as they are known, the aristocracy, and also wealthy left wing intellectual converts and fellow travelers. John Adams and Frank Lloyd Wright are prominent followers; prominent heresiarchs include Ralph Waldo Emmerson. But at least the Unitarians in all of their snobbery do not prey upon the most vulnerable members of society in the way that the J/Ws do.

You are quite correct in a willingess to receive blood. Also, if possible, give blood donations. In the US, this is also a way for the uninsured who are not poor enough to qualify for free state healthcare via the MedicAid programs such as Medi-Cal in California, or senior citizens who get Medicare, which covers nearly everything (major exceptions include optometry and dentistry, since apparently seniors don’t need to see or chew their food), is to donate blood. I am planning on a blood donation at some point this month. I am blessed with very accessible veins in both of my arms and have never had anyone have difficulty giving me an IV; this, my lungs, and my skin and eyesight and hearing are practically the only systems on my body which are functioning well at present (prayers for my health are appreciated as practically everything else is malfunctioning).

 

[The Liturgist]

Of course I am not, I said so in the Original Post.

Well good; hopefully though when we dine together in my upcoming trip to Australia, perhaps with prodromos if you can find a way to get along with him in the near future and the two of you happen to be in the same region, we will not suddenly find ourselves in need of them, but if our blood type is compatible, you can take some of mine, since in addition to having good lungs (and little else) I am also devoid of blood-borne illnesses, hence my ability to donate blood.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Well good; hopefully though when we dine together in my upcoming trip to Australia, perhaps with prodromos if you can find a way to get along with him in the near future and the two of you happen to be in the same region, we will not suddenly find ourselves in need of them, but if our blood type is compatible, you can take some of mine, since in addition to having good lungs (and little else) I am also devoid of blood-borne illnesses, hence my ability to donate blood.

I get along just fine with prodromos, I dislike some of his posts, but he's an excellent fellow.

 

[The Liturgist]

I get along just fine with prodromos, I dislike some of his posts, but he's an excellent fellow.

Well then we should have a splendid time. I had a Catholic and Orthodox friend from South Australia, but I have sadly lost touch with them. I met them on one of their road trips, at a pilgrimage at an Orthodox monastery.