Dennis Lindberg, at the age of 14, stood his ground and died for his beliefs tonight. He believed that the Bible was literal when it said to "keep abstaining from blood". In spite of tremendous pressure from doctors and well meaning friends and family, he made the decision based on his knowledge and understanding of what the Bible taught and what his medical options were.
I believe he is an example to all of us. Too many people today are willing to compromise on what they believe in order to save their own skin. From employees stealing from their companies, to soldiers who keep quiet because they're ordered to, to people "padding" their resume. What ever happened to "give me liberty, or give me death?" The marines shout "Semper fi!" to each other all the time. This is a sentiment that Dennis held dear. He preferred to die like a man, fighting for what he believed, rather than compromise and live like a coward. Whether he is right or wrong in his belief in the resurrection that Jesus promised, he conquered death itself.
May we all be so fortunate as to go like that; a symbol of all that we believe.
3 comments:
THE MORAL OF THIS STORY IS THAT CHILDREN ARE SAFER BEING REARED BY DRUG ADDICTS THAN BY JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES.
The following website summarizes over 315 U.S. court cases and lawsuits affecting children of Jehovah's Witness Parents, including 200+ cases where the JW Parents refused to consent to life-saving blood transfusions for their dying children:
DIVORCE, BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS, AND OTHER LEGAL ISSUES AFFECTING CHILDREN OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES
http://jwdivorces.bravehost.com
Here is the reason your friend died:
Misinterpreting the Old Testament prohibition against eating animal blood as a routine food item, in 1945, the WatchTower Society began teaching that receiving a blood transfusion was "eating human blood". Jehovah's Witnesses believe that receiving an infusion of human blood into their body's circulatory system is scientifically the exact same thing as eating or ingesting blood into their body's digestive system:
"A patient in the hospital maybe fed through the mouth, through the nose, or through the veins. When sugar solutions are given intravenously it is called intravenous feeding. So the hospital's own terminology recognizes as feeding the process of putting nutrition into one's system via the veins. Hence the attendant administering the transfusion is feeding the patient through the veins, and the patient receiving it is eating through his veins." -- The WATCHTOWER magazine, July 1, 1951.
Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to acknowledge that when human blood is transfused into their body's circulatory system that the transfused human blood remains to be human blood and continues to function as human blood. Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to acknowledge that if blood is eaten, then the ingested blood enters the body's digestive system, where the blood would be treated by the body exactly the same as it would treat a hotdog, a potato chip, or any other food item. Ingested blood would be completely digested and broken down into proteins, carbohydrates, fats, and waste; which are then either assimilated or excreted by the body.
The WatchTower Society uses scriptures which speak about the blood of slaughtered animals to teach Jehovah's Witnesses that blood is "sacred" because blood is the "symbol of life". Then, the WatchTower Society turns around and requires Jehovah's Witnesses to sacrifice their own "life" to maintain the alleged "sacredness" of a "symbol" of the very thing they are sacrificing -- their life. Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to acknowledge that the WatchTower doctrine on blood moronically places a higher value on the SYMBOL than it does on the THING SYMBOLIZED
In fact, the Old Testament scriptures permitted the eating of unbled animal meat, which the Bible treats exactly the same as eating animal blood itself. In isolated occasions, when humans needed to eat unbled meat in order to sustain their own human life, the Mosaic Law permitted such, but then required the eaters to fulfill the requirements of being "unclean" for a few days. Thus, the Bible recognized that the sustaining of human life was more "sacred" than maintaining the sacredness of animal blood. To do otherwise would be doing exactly what the moronic WatchTower Society does. It would make the SYMBOL more SACRED than the THING SYMBOLIZED.
In fact, the WatchTower Society is leading Jehovah's Witnesses to disobey GOD and violate the Holy Scriptures in one of the most serious ways possible. Because humans were created in GOD's image, GOD considers human life sacred. A Jehovah's Witness who sacrifices their SACRED LIFE in order to maintain the sacredness of a SYMBOL of that SACRED LIFE varies little from those who profane life by committing suicide. Those Jehovah's Witness Elders who teach and police this moronic doctrine vary little from common accessories to murder. The Bible is fairly clear in how GOD views murder, and how He deals with Murderers.
This moronic twisting of scripture would be laughable if not for the fact that it has lead to the pointless deaths of numerous Jehovah's Witnesses in the past, and it will continue to lead to the pointless deaths of many more Jehovah's Witnesses in the future.
The following website summarizes over 315 U.S. court cases and lawsuits affecting children of Jehovah's Witness Parents, including 200+ cases where the JW Parents refused to consent to life-saving blood transfusions for their dying children:
DIVORCE, BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS, AND OTHER LEGAL ISSUES AFFECTING CHILDREN OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES
http://jwdivorces.bravehost.com
"THE MORAL OF THIS STORY IS THAT CHILDREN ARE SAFER BEING REARED BY DRUG ADDICTS THAN BY JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES."
So, you're saying that a life of crime, violence and neglect are preferable to and safer than one with none of that, because of the off chance that some doctor does not know how to save the child's life without giving it blood?
How odd. :)
You can diss on our interpretation of the scriptures all you want, because, for all we know, you could be right. But the quoted comment makes no sense.
BTW, You obviously disagree on this point, but, I find sites dedicated to attacking any one set of beliefs, point of view or group of people to be dubious at best. I have seen many such sites and have found many lies, half truths and unsubstantiated rumors in them. And their targets are rarely as bad as they say. =)
Post a Comment