The end of the stem cell debate as we know it?

since it's been awhile since they've come up with new ways of getting all kinds of stem cells, including one that is somewhere between an adult stem cell and an embryonic stem cell. Cord blood as a source should be seen as non-controversial, as well. I've lost track of all the different ways of getting various types of stem cells, though I'll have to admit, the embryonic stem cells are more of a problem than adult stem cells. Those guys in Congress and Senate, who think they know everything (that is, they think the status quo has remained the same for the last few years), seem to be mired in the past, while technology passes them by.

since it's been awhile since they've come up with new ways of getting all kinds of stem cells, including one that is somewhere between an adult stem cell and an embryonic stem cell. Cord blood as a source should be seen as non-controversial, as well. I've lost track of all the different ways of getting various types of stem cells, though I'll have to admit, the embryonic stem cells are more of a problem than adult stem cells. Those guys in Congress and Senate, who think they know everything (that is, they think the status quo has remained the same for the last few years), seem to be mired in the past, while technology passes them by.

it's the responding.

BTW, "Cord blood as a source should be seen as non-controversial"
Nope, sorry. We wouldn't use it.

to use it as a source of stem cells. Quite a step from using skin cells. I have to admit I can't speak for others, but I would certainly avoid treatments based on this as a matter of conscience. My son and wife agree, based on his refusal to take another blood-derived medication. (His condition was life-threatening and the treatment was high on the doctor's recommended list.)

From the other side, were I a Christian woman who was giving birth, I wouldn't want my blood to be an object of medical use by others; same thinking as that involving transfusions.
"The only use of blood that [Jehovah] authorized was on the altar, in connection with sacrifices. (Lev 17:10-12; compare Rom 3:25; 5:8; Eph 1:7.) Otherwise, blood removed from a creature was to be poured out on the ground, disposed of.-Lev 17:13; De 12:15, 16."
Thus saith the Watchtower of 2/1/97, with which I entirely agreeth. (And don't neglect to look up the scriptures yourself.)

And even from the world's POV your belief may be na

the placenta. Ack!

But I view blood as being something on the order of a cornea transplant, skin graft, kidney, liver, heart, lung, hair, and any number of life-saving, life-extending, life-enhancing organs, except the brain and nerves.

I was just hearing an ad on the radio recently about a guy who could see for the first time in his life, due to a cornea transplant. He saw his family for the first time, and was speechless. After he gave them a big hug, he folded his white cane and put it in his back pocket.

I read that one person could help 50 people. Unfortunately, I may not be able to help anybody, because of the medicine I take. One exception might be my corneas.

"I view blood as ..."
Jehovah views blood as ...

'I view stealing as ...'
'I view adultery as ...'
'I view envy as ...'

And what kind of world have we made for ourselves?

If you want give your blood away, it's your blood to give away. Nobody can take it away without permission. That might make a difference, theologically speaking.

The Bible has nothing to say about the subject.

that took on a literal interpretation just to be on the safe side but could it just be?

-I have noticed that, when too much blood spills from a human or animal, it ceases to show life. It dies. Over and over I have seen this happen with the same result. Very compelling evidence indeed.

1 -it has been asked "what in us gives us life?"
2 -and who owns that life?
3 -and who gave it and who is allowed to take it away?

I know the answer to #s 2 and 3


What can I now postulate about question # 1 from the above evidence?


BTW, I am posing this while attempting to put thousands of years of science and medical knowledge out of reach. I am illiterate and there is no written authoritative comment available anyway.

heart, liver, skin, etc. and the organism dies. Blood similarly (and many doctors liken a transfusion to an organ transplant, in the seriousness of the side effects). But only blood has this said of it:

Gen 9:4 But flesh with the life thereof, [which is] the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

Gen 9:5 And surely your blood, [the blood] of your lives, will I require; At the hand of every beast will I require it. And at the hand of man, even at the hand of every man's brother, will I require the life of man.

Exd 12:13 And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and there shall no plague be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.

Exd 30:10 And Aaron shall make atonement upon the horns of it once in the year; with the blood of the sin-offering of atonement once in the year shall he make atonement for it throughout your generations: it is most holy unto Jehovah

Lev 7:26-27And ye shall eat no manner of blood, whether it be of bird or of beast, in any of your dwellings. Whosoever it be that eateth any blood, that soul shall be cut off from his people.

Lev 17:10-14 And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, that eateth any manner of blood, I will set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life. Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood. And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, who taketh in hunting any beast or bird that may be eaten; he shall pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust. For as to the life of all flesh, the blood thereof is [all one] with the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh; for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.

Num 35:19 The avenger of blood shall himself put the murderer to death: when he meeteth him, he shall put him to death. [That blood thus = life is repeated in vv. 21-33.]

Deu 12:16 Only ye shall not eat the blood; thou shalt pour it out upon the earth as water.
Deu 12:23 Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life; and thou shalt not eat the life with the flesh.
Deu 12:27 and thou shalt offer thy burnt-offerings, the flesh and the blood, upon the altar of Jehovah thy God; and the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out upon the altar of Jehovah thy God; and thou shalt eat the flesh.
Deu 15:23 Only thou shalt not eat the blood thereof; thou shalt pour it out upon the ground as water.

1Sa 14:32-34 and the people flew upon the spoil, and took sheep, and oxen, and calves, and slew them on the ground; and the people did eat them with the blood. Then they told Saul, saying, Behold, the people sin against Jehovah, in that they eat with the blood. And he said, ye have dealt treacherously: roll a great stone unto me this day. And Saul said, Disperse yourselves among the people, and say unto them, Bring me hither every man his ox, and every man his sheep, and slay them here, and eat; and sin not against Jehovah in eating with the blood. And all the people brought every man his ox with him that night, and slew them there.

2Sa 23:17 And he said, Be it far from me, O Jehovah, that I should do this: [shall I drink] the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? therefore he would not drink it. These things did the three mighty men. [The whole story is well worth reading.]

To tie this "Old Testament" stuff to Christianity, we have the orders at Acts 15, and Paul's teaching, in Heb 9 & 10, about the parallels between the former worship of Jehovah, and the modern worship which publicly recognizes the role of Jesus in the salvation Jehovah purposes.

And, as I MAY have mentioned elsewhere, these statements are found in the printed pages of the bible (ASV, in this case). Even if Noah, Dragon, and you are all mythological creatures.

Not sure what you meant by "thousands of years of science and medical knowledge out of reach"

Matt 26:27-28
"Drink from it, all of you; 28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins." NASU

Drink His blood? No, I don't think so. Sometimes the Bible uses figurative language.

Of course you are right. Other essential organs exist. I am trying to put myself in the place of someone without such scientific understanding but only their observations. It's not possible to cut an organ from a living being without spilling its blood. If we cut out the liver, massive blood is lost and death occurs. Same with the heart. So what caused the death? The loss of the heart?, liver? The common denominator (I see as one who lacks better knowledge) is blood. Blood spills and something dies. I write down my observation and conclude that blood contains the magic ingredient that gives life. If I am spiritual, I now consider blood as sacred.

I certainly cannot conjecture with certainty why and how such beliefs came to be. Throughout the ages, writing would mention the spilling of blood. We know this to be reference to killing. Killing, of course, is a no-no.

the body dies. So, in setting up a body part to equate to life, the bible could have pointed out any such organ. (And many organs are talked about, symbolically, poetically, and literally.) The part chosen was the blood, so that's the one we have to consider if we want to take the bible seriously. Since there are so many mentions of staying away from blood, it's certainly reasonable to think about extending that to 'eating' by way of injection. And taking seriously those statements about blood/life may also prevent one from taking the life of another- a minor side benefit.

A mainstream source had this to say, before the issue was clouded by the transfusion issue:
"Commenting on Leviticus 17:11, 12, M'Clintock and Strong's Cyclopaedia (1882, Vol. I, p. 834) says: "This strict injunction not only applied to the Israelites, but even to the strangers residing among them. The penalty assigned to its transgression was the being 'cut off from the people,' by which the punishment of death appears to be intended (comp. Heb. x, 28), although it is difficult to ascertain whether it was inflicted by the sword or by stoning." (Quoted in a Watchtower publication)
"Cut off" usually does mean "executed", although even eviction [excommunication] would probably mean death in that wilderness. BTW, the Cyclopaedia cited Heb 10:28. It happens that Paul's exegesis is an excellent illustration of applying Hebrew Law to "the law of the Christ". (Gal 6:2)

I hope the bible does indeed change your view of blood in some way. But remember that blood isn't set up as a fetish, but as the equivalent of life, and of Jesus' part in that. Hey, if nothing else, it's nicer than the 'Believe in Jesus or burn in Hell' school of thought. (Except for Dragon- he gonna burn!)

putting "thousands of years of science and medical knowledge out of reach" is to say "absolved of all wisdom"....putting myself in the place of a person of long ago just tryin' to figure stuff out by myself from personal observations. Maybe my conclusions will be correct and maybe not. Maybe they'll be accepted for a time but bring out the skeptics later.
As for blood being the essence of life, I believe that notion predates Moses and was probably considered in the minds of many nameless persons. As well the spilling of blood for sacrifice has a history which predates the notion of one creator who is supreme. But those later "believers" sacrificed animals and spilled the blood on an altar which was considered the only proper and pleasing way lest one want to endure the consequences. So blood and life are interchangeable?? (asked rhetorically) As life does not belong to men, neither does blood? Of course a stopped heart produces death without blood loss but that action isn't naturally induced by a human (unless his wife catches him where he should not be. ).

Still speaking from self imposed and total ignorance here and enjoying the discourse.

Again, the public record shows you're na

Well, according to the bible, you have some idea, given the level of knowledge at that time. Blood was indeed thought of as being equivalent to life, and had continued to be for a long time. It wasn't too long ago that when person quite breathing, he was thought to be dead. I'm not sure when the idea of breathing for a person until he "came around" was thought of and became commonplace. I think if Jesus were around, today, knowing what we know, today, he would see things in a completely different light.

There were reasons, biblically speaking, that certain animals were to be avoided. The consumption of pork, for example, was forbidden by many. The reasoning was, people noticed that when a person ate pork, he got sick and often died. The meat was probably not cooked thoroughly enough, and these people got trichinosis.

My mother, until recently, had an old encyclopedia in which the theory of germs was explained, so you can see how far we've progressed technologically compared to the level of knowledge available 2000 years ago.

In every country of the world AFAIK we have to do more than 'just say no' to improper use of blood by [sometimes] well-intentioned MDs and [often] bad-intentioned civil servants. The legal files are numerous. My point was that you're not knowledgable in this area- it doesn't affect you, for one thing- but there may come a time when you will need the knowledge.

Our view of the bible is that it was written by Someone who had and has more knowledge than we have, so His instructions must be correct. John 5:19,30 explains what Jesus would do; Mt 7:21 explains what I do.

"Blood was indeed thought of as being equivalent to life"
In my recent reply to Steven I listed just a few of the scriptures that did make that equivalency, and they still do to those of us who believe the bible still has authority.

Many animals were "unclean" with no thought of their suitability as food, properly cooked or not. Compare Gen ch. 7, where the two types of animals are not named. The only reason that's consistent with all the bible record is that it was 'just because Jehovah said so'. And remember that pork and other foods were allowed under the Christian system, almost 2000 years before "modern knowledge". (Mt 5:17) Often Jehovah has people do or not do things because he wants his witnesses to be separate, even in appearance, from non-witnesses. (Num 15:37-41; Mt 23:5)
When the Jews were in Egypt they raised sheep and cattle in their own area of the country (the proverbial "land of Goshen"; Gen 45:10); the Egyptians raised pigs as well.

Our "level of knowledge" hasn't prevented numerous and serious problems with the blood supply on the one hand and the transfusion process on the other. Injurious transfusions are routine and fatal ones occur on a regular basis. (There are still type mismatches due to human error, to name just one possibility.) I'm reminded that we could stay away from transfusions of blood (not of the several alternative therapies) 'just because Woody Hayes said so': 'I don't like pass plays because only three things can happen, and two of them are bad'.

"Level of knowledge": The HIV is acquired by sex with an infected person, by IV drug use, by blood (transfused or during "rough sex"). Only the bible was able to prevent all of these modes for those who take it as authoritative. Modern medicine (from the 1960s and later) was able only to watch it happen. It's ironic that there is now another method: Accidental contact with infected fluids by first providers and medical staff.

Nurses give the wrong medicine and doctors occasionally give a patient a medicine to which the patient is allergic. This is just human error. Likewise, there can be an error with blood. The majority of people are saved by transfusions or transplants, when the alternative is a sure death. I think Jesus would approve. One of my own doctors is called Jesus, BTW!

Dragon: "I think Jesus would approve."
Jesus: "Most truly I say to YOU, The Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing. For whatever things that One does, these things the Son also does in like manner. I cannot do a single thing of my own initiative; just as I hear, I judge; and the judgment that I render is righteous, because I seek, not my own will, but the will of him that sent me." (John 5:19,30)

So your approval of blood transfusion is your personal choice, based on information you've received from those who are biased in favor of it. Sounds like religious fanaticism to me.
But is it medically sound? "The alternative is a sure death." We hear that all the time; it's hardly ever true. Hardly ever true. Several good alternatives to blood injections are available; the literature is full of their successes. Mostly involving us.
The emotional stories about accidents and such aren't relevant. A serious bleeder may die at the scene from lack of blood. First responders can't "save" him with blood because they don't carry any. They do carry other products, equipment, and knowledge that sometimes staves off death even in major trauma cases. Those things you and I can use.

I had in mind to quote from How Can Blood Save Your Life?, a brochure we published over 15 years ago, but it will be more useful to you if you get a copy and study it for yourself. You will learn from medical people themselves why blood is overused from their POV, you'll get accurate knowledge of the history of the procedure, and increased knowledge of safe and scriptural alternatives. (Many non-Witnesses who know about them are identifying themselves as Witnesses when they go into the hospital. It doesn't work, because the medical profession is unwilling to move away from its comfort zones. And it's a proven source of revenue for the system.)

I do hope you'll go on to get more and better information than you have.

The plastic blood recently developed looks promising. It has a relatively long shelf life and doesn't have to be kept refrigerated.

Still, there is the question of other organs. Not that anyone thought of transplants back in the olden days -- not even Jesus, or God, herself.

I expect the same from the one currently under study. If it does work, and if it's done w/o blood products, I'm for it. A better prospect though, is Rev 21:34.
The bible's view- mythical or otherwise- is that the Creator knows all about the mechanisms he created. (Isa 48:17,1 Before OSHA, we had De 22:8.
Bottom line: You will continue to use blood when it's offered.

to find out why you don't have verse 34.

Here are verses 3 and 4:
"With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: "Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his peoples. And God himself will be with them. And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away."

take the one with the big...........

oops, different thread

.,http://forums.cnet.com/5224-6130_102-0.html?forumID=50&threadID=251208&messageID=2514512
Submit

Genuine product is best but using artificial ok until genuine product available. Donated blood is, in some sense, artificial. It's also not permanent but recycles regularly and naturally.
What did we do before discovering the many uses for duct tape as a temporary fix?

cold boxes of one form or another for some commonly-used substances that need cooling. Why not take along whole blood or at least plasma? Q for your friendly local EMT on your next ridealong.
Your other comments aren't relevant to the bible; perhaps to medicine.

I'm sorry, Steve, but


the duct is unclean.

use of blood and blood products is based on an Old Testament prohibition to the Israelites, one of the very few, btw, which was carried on to Christians by the Council of Jerusalem briefly described in either the Acts of the Apostles or one the the Epistles. I don't have either quote handy by heart, though I'm sure Doug probably knows both. However, I submit that the JW position is unfortunately a perfect example of taking a prohibition out of context -- it wasn't intended to apply to blood transfusions, which were unknown at the time (and in fact would usually have been lethal due to blood type mismatch).

Instead, the context of the prohibition had to do with pagan cults that drank, bathed in, or otherwise abused the blood of animal or even human sacrifices as part of their rituals. THAT'S what was being prohibited, and it follows directly from the First Commandment.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!