Prayer and nothing else

[Menotu]

Your kid's sick. Really sick. Do you take him to the doctor or just pray?

Prayer is, it's said, the most powerful thing you can do for/against someone.
Medicine, while imperfect, is also powerful. It saves lives, makes lives better, etc.

Is there anyone here that would not take their child/spouse to the doctors and use only prayer instead?

"Truly I tell you, if anyone says to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and does not doubt in their heart but believes that what they say will happen, it will be done for them."

Is it your faith that's weak or God's ability?

[2timothy316]

What you say about blood lets me know that you've done very little study on the subject.

Anyone that has done any research on the subject knows that blood transfusions are harmful and slow recovery. It is a medical fact that non-blood treatment is superior to blood based treatment.

You know, I'm regularly accused of "little study"

That is because you know very little about the theme of this forum. Theology, Doctrine and Dogma. You don't base your arguments on the Bible. Because you don't know it. What you call 'best' is not best according to the theme of this forum. You keep debating like you're in the CA forum. Here you need a Bible based augment. Which you never seem to have. Your post carry no Biblical weight. Both JW and I base what is 'best' on more information than you do. What Bible evidence do you have for your arguments?

[Tcg]

That is because you know very little about the theme of this forum. Theology, Doctrine and Dogma. You don't base your arguments on the Bible. Because you don't know it. What you call 'best' is not best according to the theme of this forum. You keep debating like you're in the CA forum. Here you need a Bible based augment. Which you never seem to have. Your post carry no Biblical weight. Both JW and I base what is 'best' on more information than you do. What Bible evidence do you have for your arguments?

This is an interesting post. You chide Difflugia for not presenting what you call a Bible based argument, and yet in posts 2, 9, 12, 16, 18, and 20, JW makes absolutely no reference to the Bible. You don't challenge her posts which aren't Bible based arguments.

Why the double standard?

Why have you not asked JW for the Bible evidence she has for her arguments?


Tcg

[Tcg]

I don't know who is spreading the rumor that prayer is the singularly the most powerful thing one can do but they are wrong.

That would be Jesus:

• Matthew 21:20 When the disciples saw it, they marveled, saying, “How did the fig tree wither at once?â€� 21 And Jesus answered them, “Truly, I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and thrown into the sea,’ it will happen. 22 And whatever you ask in prayer, you will receive, if you have faith.â€�

Jesus quite clearly claimed that whatever one asks for in prayer, they will receive as long as they have faith. If you disagree with Jesus, you'll need to support your disagreement with a Biblical reference given the sub forum we are posting in.


Tcg

[Difflugia]

That is because you know very little about the theme of this forum. Theology, Doctrine and Dogma.

I'm not the one that first shifted or keeps shifting the topic from doctrine. "Would you authorize a blood transfusion to save your child's life" is apparently a very, very difficult question to answer doctrinally.

To your credit, you are the one that answered the question, but even you felt the need to throw shade on the medical and scientific community in your otherwise doctrinal answer.

You don't base your arguments on the Bible.

The arguments I was responding to weren't based on the Bible.

Because you don't know it.

Ooh, that stings.

What you call 'best' is not best according to the theme of this forum.

Even in this forum, I'm pretty sure that "best medical care" could be understood to be from a secular standpoint. In fact, if you'd care to go back and look, my initial post in this thread was asking for a clarification. Once again to your credit, you at least did imply that if doctrine and medical science differed on what was "best," you meant "best" in a doctrinal sense. JW, on the other hand, has doubled down on making secular arguments to avoid having to choose between doctrine and a hypothetical child's life.

You keep debating like you're in the CA forum.

Nope. I'm debating like someone's equivocating on their claims.

Here you need a Bible based augment. Which you never seem to have.

Yeah, that sounds like me.

Your post carry no Biblical weight. Both JW and I base what is 'best' on more information than you do.

You have, anyway.

What Bible evidence do you have for your arguments?

That a blood transfusion to a child with an exsanguinating hemorrhage would be the therapy with the best medical prognosis? I'm pretty sure there isn't any, either for or against. That's why it seems a bit disingenuous for JW to keep shifting the discussion back to that question when asked about doctrinal opposition to transfusion.

So, let's agree to no more scientific arguments, then. If we simply stipulate that there is a situation where a transfusion of blood or would save the life of your child, would you authorize the transfusion? You, 2timothy316, already strongly implied an answer to the question, but you can make it explicit if you'd like. JW hasn't actually answered the question at all, yet.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 24 by Difflugia]

There is still no Bible backing in this post. Not a single scripture and without it there is nothing to respond to. When you have a Biblical standpoint I will respond. What this doctor says or that doctor says doesn't automatically determine what is best for ourselves.

If you can't include a Bible backed post then perhaps you'd enjoy the CA forum better where faith and scripture do not have to be part of the debate.

[2timothy316]

So, let's agree to no more scientific arguments, then. If we simply stipulate that there is a situation where a transfusion of blood or would save the life of your child, would you authorize the transfusion? You, 2timothy316, already strongly implied an answer to the question, but you can make it explicit if you'd like. JW hasn't actually answered the question at all, yet.

Scientific arguments are not the issue. It's that you ignore some sides of the issue. It seems only your facts are relevant while other doctors are not. And apparently you want to dismiss what God wants, the one that made the human body in the first place and knows what is best for us than all the doctors in the world. You're not taking into the consideration what the best 'doctor' in the universe is saying. What does He say?

"Abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.� (Acts 15:19-21)

Here is a scientific study that shows bloodless procedures are better. They actually encourage it.

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/bloodle ... e_surgery/


If there is a situation where living for a few more years or living forever is placed in front of you, what will your choose? I know what I'd choose, I'd choose to live forever. Even if that meant giving up a few years now by not accepting blood to obey God's Word at Acts 15:21.

[Difflugia]

There is still no Bible backing in this post. Not a single scripture and without it there is nothing to respond to. When you have a Biblical standpoint I will respond. What this doctor says or that doctor says doesn't automatically determine what is best for ourselves.

I haven't actually argued with your position, so I don't know what you think would need a response.

If you can't include a Bible backed post then perhaps you'd enjoy the CA forum better where faith and scripture do not have to be part of the debate.

I enjoy both forums. The only requirement in this one is that the Bible is treated as authoritative. None of my arguments in this thread have suggested otherwise. You're free to limit your own arguments and the conversations you participate in as you see fit, but it seems a bit misplaced to insist that the rest of us share your own, personal guidelines.

[2timothy316]

There is still no Bible backing in this post. Not a single scripture and without it there is nothing to respond to. When you have a Biblical standpoint I will respond. What this doctor says or that doctor says doesn't automatically determine what is best for ourselves.

I haven't actually argued with your position, so I don't know what you think would need a response.

If you can't include a Bible backed post then perhaps you'd enjoy the CA forum better where faith and scripture do not have to be part of the debate.

I enjoy both forums. The only requirement in this one is that the Bible is treated as authoritative. None of my arguments in this thread have suggested otherwise. You're free to limit your own arguments and the conversations you participate in as you see fit, but it seems a bit misplaced to insist that the rest of us share your own, personal guidelines.

If you don't use the reference book that this forum has set as authoritative then you're just another non-authoritative voice in a sea of voices. That means I can place in you in my ignore list, because if you're not going to use the Bible, then you have nothing I want to read. It will allow me to focus on those that actually do have good information to share.

[Tcg]

"Abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.� (Acts 15:19-21)

Given that the first human blood transfusion wasn't performed until the early 19th century, this passage couldn't possible be referring to that practice.

It should also be noted that this advice was directed only to Gentile converts:

• Acts 15:19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, 20 but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.

Whatever it was that the Gentile converts were practicing involving blood, it couldn't possibly have been transfusions. This passage clearly does not forbid transfusions. Neither the author nor the Gentiles it was addressed to could have had any concept of this medical procedure.


Tcg

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 23 by Tcg]

You're only giving half of what we should do. We don't pray and then sit back and wait for something to happen. Jesus didn't do that. He didn't just pray for people to hear the good news and that was it. Jesus went right to the people with the Kingdom message, teaching them publicly and in their homes. (Mt 5:1; 9:10, 28, 35)

Don't just focus on what Jesus said but what he did as well.