Reason for The Crusades explained

[Aunty Jane]

You might also be interested in a case study where the patient was not one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Louise Case Study

 

[Matthias]

“The early Christians took Jesus at his word, and understood his inculcations of gentleness and non-resistance in their literal sense. They closely identified their religion with peace; they strongly condemned war for the bloodshed which it involved; they appropriated to themselves the Old Testament prophecy which foretold the transformation of the weapons of war into the implements of agriculture; they declared that it was their policy to return good for evil and to conquer evil with good. With one or two possible exceptions no soldier joined the Church and remained a soldier until the time of Marcus Aurelius (161-180 A.D.). Even then, refusal to serve was known to be the normal policy of the Christians - as the reproaches of Celsus (177-180 A.D.) testify. In the time of Tertullianus (say 200-210 A.D.), many soldiers had left the army on their conversion; and his writings are the earliest record we possess of any Christians joining the army when already converted. While a general distrust of ambition and a horror of contamination by idolatry entered largely into the Christian aversion to military service, the sense of the utter contradiction between the work of imprisoning, torturing, wounding, and killing, on the one hand, and the Master’s teaching on the other, constituted an equally fatal and conclusive objection.“

(C. John Cadoux, The Early Christian Attitude To War, p. 245)

https://theologicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/e-books/cadoux_c-j/early-christian-attitude-to-war_cadoux.pdf

“Anti-Christian” and “over-spiritualized” are inappropriate descriptions and false accusations of those who refused to use the weapons of the world against their enemies.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

I had always heard about The Crusades in a negative way. But in this video, Bob from Speaker's Corner in London, explains why The Crusades started. They were in response to centuries of Islamic invasion of many Christian countries.

No mater how you slice it, the so called crusaders tried to force people to convert to their false religion by the sword (threat of death) just like the islam people do.

None of these folks were being led by the Holy Spirit and were not Christians. All they had to religion and did not know the Lord like the pharisees and sadducees

Jesus doesn't promote forcing others to believe

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

But, I am super curious as to all that you know.

You'll regret that curiosity once you hear all the false doctrine their religion espouses

 

[Matthias]

Conscientious objectors didn’t kill anyone. Wrangler believes and teaches this is anti-Chrisitan.

The Crusaders (Roman Catholics) killed Muslims, Jews, and Christians - men, women, children; committed well-documented atrocities (raping, pillaging, torturing). Wrangler believes and teaches this is Christian.

I, a conscientious objector, stand unarmed with the weapons of the world against Wrangler’s brand.

I’ll stand alone if need be.

 

[Wrangler]

We are not permitted to take the law into our own hands.

Nonsense. Who stoned the man who gathered firewood?

It’s unconscionable that you make such proclamations after Christians have been doing this for centuries. It would cause a humble person to consider that Christians, being commanded to do justice, are required to take the law into our hands.

Said differently, if you were wrong, what would it look like in practice over the centuries?

 

[Wrangler]

It’s how we behave under provocation that determines whether we are obedient to God and his Christ

You keep confusing individual responsibility with corporate responsibility. And denying Christians have the responsibility to do justice.

 

[Wrangler]

You cannot serve the “Prince of Peace” with carnal weapons.

Sure you can! Honestly, such statements shows you’re over-spiritualized. Serving him with carnal weapons is why Jesus told us to buy a sword.

 

[Wrangler]

The world and it’s governments are not our supreme authority....we have a higher authority to obey.

True but irrelevant. Jesus told us to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s - meaning obey authority, even though a lower authority.

 

[Triumph1300]

meaning obey authority, even though a lower authority.

Millions were killed during the 1940s because of such a statement.
Christians following Adolf Hitler.
---------------------------------

Proverbs 29:12​

If a ruler listens to falsehood, all his officials will be wicked.

 

[Chihuahua]

Taking anything into the body to sustain life and provide nourishment is consuming it.....it is against God’s law to consume blood...the method makes no difference.

You didn't answer: "and thanks to doctors who saw that we were sincere in adhering to God’s Law on the consumption of blood, we have many ways now to avoid blood transfusions, with surprisingly successful outcomes."

Doctors know there are complications due to antibodies produced from multiple transfusions of red blood cells. These complications are screened and blood can be found that is compatible with the patient. You claim that methods exist to avoid transfusions but offered no examples.

.

All of that is irrelevant...we will not have blood......and the more we learn about it, the more we are convinced that it is good medicine to go without it. From personal experience, I have lost count of the brothers and sisters I have known throughout the years who were told point blank that they would die without blood....but none of them did, because they found doctors who respected our beliefs and adjusted their methods of treatment.

People die all the time from lack of blood. Doctors do not tell people they will die if they do not receive blood. They would inform them of a high probability.

I will include a video here from the Australian Government’s Blood Authority who’s job it is to oversee all things related to the use of blood in medicine....it’s not long but contains some very important facts and they have known this for decades.

Blood as Medicine There are risks

I hope it’s still available.....it’s not from JW’s.

There are always risks with any procedure but transfusions are quite safe.

We make it our business to know because we also know that some physicians are old school and stuck in their old practices. Modern techniques have eliminated the need for blood transfusions.

That is absolutely not true.

Our brothers are experts on bloodless medicine and are there for consultation by doctors treating Witness patients. Doctors are impressed with their knowledge.

Don’t give me attitude.....because you don’t know what you’re talking about....we are not in the dark ages...it’s modern medicine that has lifted the lid on this draconian practice.....the truth about how effective blood transfusions really are will shock people. More people actually die after accepting them than ever die without them......we are living proof.

Never came across a case of a person dying because of a correct blood transfusion. Do people die who had received a transfusion? I am sure there are but that does not mean it is the cause. People die after going to the hospital, does not mean the hospital was the cause.

And the techniques they have were developed because of us and others who have adverse reactions to foreign blood. What do you know about the lifestyle of the donor?

People who have adverse reactions receive blood donations that are compatible and screens are performed. Donors are required to fill out a questionnaire and blood is screened.

In the USA many down and out people sell their blood...would you want it if there was a safer option?

Blood from a person getting paid is not used for transfusions.

There are no safer options. If you are talking about the usage of blood for some disorder I am not familiar with any alternatives although I cannot say they do not exist. However, if a person is critical, there are no alternatives.

 

[Aunty Jane]

@Chihuahua My response was to defend our position and to demonstrate that it does not impact us negatively....it is based on my own experience and the experience of my brotherhood, but it is not something we enforce on anyone else....you can choose to do whatever you wish. It’s your life and your body.....but we will do what God commands, and it has never been a problem for us because well trained professionals have given us safe alternatives.

I assume that you didn’t watch the video I posted.....if you did, then you are ignoring the very people who are experts in this field of medicine.

In an article written by Dr. Ciril Godec, chairman of urology at Long Island College Hospital, in Brooklyn, New York, back in ‘99 ....he wrote: “Today blood would probably not be approved as a medication, since it would not fulfill safety criteria of the Food and Drug Administration. Blood is an organ of the body, and blood transfusion is nothing less than an organ transplant.”

Dr. Godec observed: “Organ transplant is the very last therapeutic option offered to patients. Because of the likelihood of severe side effects, patients are thoroughly informed about all possible alternatives before a transplant is performed.” Regarding blood transfusion, he concluded: “The benefit is so questionable that many surgeons have adopted a philosophy of ‘transfusion avoidance’ not only for medical but also for legal reasons.

Although methods of screening blood have improved in many places, Dr. Godec pointed out: “A potential danger arises from blood donated by individuals who are infected but have not yet developed antibodies that could be detected through screening tests.”

Concluding his article, Dr. Godec addressed the question raised above: “As physicians and surgeons develop better understanding of the physiology of oxygen delivery and recognize that hemoglobin levels need not be as high as previously thought, it almost always becomes possible for them to find alternatives to transfusion. As recently as a year ago the demanding surgeries of heart and liver transplantation were fraught with such major blood loss that they were deemed always to require massive amounts of blood replacement. Now, both procedures have been performed without resort to transfusion.”

He concluded...“It is quite possible that in the very near future transfusion will be eliminated altogether. . . . Transfusion is not only costly and dangerous; it simply does not provide the highest quality of care that patients deserve.”

Progress in the medical field has caused many to consider bloodless medicine. Where will this lead us? Professor Luc Montagnier, who discovered the AIDS virus, stated: “The evolution of our understanding in this field shows that blood transfusions must one day die out.” In the meantime, alternatives to blood are already saving lives.”

We are not anti-medicine, we just refuse blood transfusions. Our personal medical choices are ours to make just as your choices are yours to make....I personally prefer to operate on the advice of those who do not profit from medical “industries”.....those more interested in making money than actually making people well.

Look up how much it costs for a blood transfusion and you will see why it is an “industry” that is continued and defended despite it being shown to be a highly dangerous practice.
That’s the way the world is....

 

[Wrangler]

Millions were killed during the 1940s because of such a statement.
Christians following Adolf Hitler.

You think that’s what Jesus command means, invoking Godwin’s Law?

 

[Wrangler]

After 1,000’s of such incidents, the Crusades finally was the result.

Hanukkah horror: At least 12 dead in terror attack at Jewish festival at popular beach in Australia * WorldNetDaily * by Joe Kovacs

'There were children there, there were babies there, there were families there and there were rabbis there'

www.wnd.com

 

[Chihuahua]

@Chihuahua My response was to defend our position and to demonstrate that it does not impact us negatively....it is based on my own experience and the experience of my brotherhood, but it is not something we enforce on anyone else....you can choose to do whatever you wish. It’s your life and your body.....but we will do what God commands, and it has never been a problem for us because well trained professionals have given us safe alternatives.

First, God does not command anything regarding transfusions. You make it appear that transfusions can be avoided. In some instances a patient can live without it, but often at risk. Doctors cannot provide alternatives to all conditions requiring blood.

I assume that you didn’t watch the video I posted.....if you did, then you are ignoring the very people who are experts in this field of medicine.

In an article written by Dr. Ciril Godec, chairman of urology at Long Island College Hospital, in Brooklyn, New York, back in ‘99 ....he wrote: “Today blood would probably not be approved as a medication, since it would not fulfill safety criteria of the Food and Drug Administration. Blood is an organ of the body, and blood transfusion is nothing less than an organ transplant.”

Not sure how a urologist is an expert. Blood is regulated by the FDA and has safety criteria. Blood is not defined as an organ and unlike organs, does not require immunosuppressants. An organ is made of tissues. Many transfusions do not even have cells.

Dr. Godec observed: “Organ transplant is the very last therapeutic option offered to patients. Because of the likelihood of severe side effects, patients are thoroughly informed about all possible alternatives before a transplant is performed.” Regarding blood transfusion, he concluded: “The benefit is so questionable that many surgeons have adopted a philosophy of ‘transfusion avoidance’ not only for medical but also for legal reasons.

I have no idea in what context he is speaking, or if this is a real statement, as I cannot find a source outside of watchtower. Organ transplants are always a last option because it requires immunosuppressants. Saying the benefits of blood transfusion are questionable makes me question if this person is even real the benefits of transfusion are not in question. When patients reach a critical level, they receive a transfusion if they have given permission.

Although methods of screening blood have improved in many places, Dr. Godec pointed out: “A potential danger arises from blood donated by individuals who are infected but have not yet developed antibodies that could be detected through screening tests.”

Well, it is a good thing the virus or disease itself is tested. A questionnaire is used to rule out blood with potential risks.

Concluding his article, Dr. Godec addressed the question raised above: “As physicians and surgeons develop better understanding of the physiology of oxygen delivery and recognize that hemoglobin levels need not be as high as previously thought, it almost always becomes possible for them to find alternatives to transfusion.

That is absurd. I have no idea what levels he is referring to. Below 7 is what triggers hospitals to transfuse RBCs. I am really questioning the source. Hemoglobin is one factor of transfusion. Patients may be critically low on platelets, for example. Saying it is almost always possible for them to find alternatives is absolute quackery. I'd really love his alternative to a massive transfusion protocol.

As recently as a year ago the demanding surgeries of heart and liver transplantation were fraught with such major blood loss that they were deemed always to require massive amounts of blood replacement. Now, both procedures have been performed without resort to transfusion.”

Not seeing his source. Transplants require massive amounts of blood products.

He concluded...“It is quite possible that in the very near future transfusion will be eliminated altogether. . . . Transfusion is not only costly and dangerous; it simply does not provide the highest quality of care that patients deserve.”

It is certainly not "dangerous". Transfusion is not going to be eliminated until artificial products can be made.

Progress in the medical field has caused many to consider bloodless medicine. Where will this lead us? Professor Luc Montagnier, who discovered the AIDS virus, stated: “The evolution of our understanding in this field shows that blood transfusions must one day die out.” In the meantime, alternatives to blood are already saving lives.”

This is a quote used by JWs but cannot actually be found in its alleged original source. One day artificial blood products will come forward and revolutionize the field. There is no alternative to an MTP.

We are not anti-medicine, we just refuse blood transfusions. Our personal medical choices are ours to make just as your choices are yours to make....I personally prefer to operate on the advice of those who do not profit from medical “industries”.....those more interested in making money than actually making people well.

Doctors do not take money off transfusions. People die from bleeding out.

Look up how much it costs for a blood transfusion and you will see why it is an “industry” that is continued and defended despite it being shown to be a highly dangerous practice.
That’s the way the world is....

What industry? Do you know how the process works? Blood products are generally a few hundred dollars. It cost money to procure, test and store it. The rest of the cost of the transfusion is hospital expenses. If it was some profitable conspiracy they'd be paying for donations for transfusions. It is not a dangerous. It is a routine practice.

 

[Matthias]

“The early Christians took Jesus at his word, and understood his inculcations of gentleness and non-resistance in their literal sense. They closely identified their religion with peace; they strongly condemned war for the bloodshed which it involved; they appropriated to themselves the Old Testament prophecy which foretold the transformation of the weapons of war into the implements of agriculture; they declared that it was their policy to return good for evil and to conquer evil with good. With one or two possible exceptions no soldier joined the Church and remained a soldier until the time of Marcus Aurelius (161-180 A.D.). Even then, refusal to serve was known to be the normal policy of the Christians - as the reproaches of Celsus (177-180 A.D.) testify. In the time of Tertullianus (say 200-210 A.D.), many soldiers had left the army on their conversion; and his writings are the earliest record we possess of any Christians joining the army when already converted. While a general distrust of ambition and a horror of contamination by idolatry entered largely into the Christian aversion to military service, the sense of the utter contradiction between the work of imprisoning, torturing, wounding, and killing, on the one hand, and the Master’s teaching on the other, constituted an equally fatal and conclusive objection.“

(C. John Cadoux, The Early Christian Attitude To War, p. 245)

https://theologicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/e-books/cadoux_c-j/early-christian-attitude-to-war_cadoux.pdf

“Anti-Christian” and “over-spiritualized” are inappropriate descriptions and false accusations of those who refused to use the weapons of the world against their enemies.

An illustration of the importance of reading and knowing church history. The early church provides the refutation of the siren’s call.

 

[Triumph1300]

You think that’s what Jesus command means, invoking Godwin’s Law?

You know exactly what I was getting at.
Your response is off the subject.
Because you have no response.

 

[Aunty Jane]

What industry?

If you don’t know about the real machinery behind every trusted institution that affects our everyday lives...there is nothing much more to say to you. Greed for money drives all of it. Should we be surprised if satan is ruling “the whole world”? (1 John 5:19) That doesn’t leave much out of his jurisdiction...

As I said....your choices are yours to make, and so are mine. You do you.....it’s none of my business, but if there are real risks attached to this particular procedure, then informed consent is what we need. It just depends on where the information comes from.....I trust those who expose the lies...not those who have a vested interest in promoting them. It’s those in the medical profession who are blowing the whistle.

You are free to ignore them.

 

[Wrangler]

You know exactly what I was getting at.
Your response is off the subject.
Because you have no response.

I do know exactly what you were getting - claiming there is something corrupt about Christ’s command to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s. This is incorrect; there is nothing corrupt about Christ’s commands.

 

[Chihuahua]

If you don’t know about the real machinery behind every trusted institution that affects our everyday lives...there is nothing much more to say to you. Greed for money drives all of it. Should we be surprised if satan is ruling “the whole world”? (1 John 5:19) That doesn’t leave much out of his jurisdiction...

I am sorry, you do blood banking? I am not seeing some conspiracy.

If I don't know anything about a subject, then there is much for you to say. You present quotes from someone that cannot be verified and contradicts basic blood banking.

As I said....your choices are yours to make, and so are mine. You do you.....it’s none of my business, but if there are real risks attached to this particular procedure, then informed consent is what we need.

There are risks attached to anything, the question is if those are significant. What is significant are deaths related to blood loss.

It just depends on where the information comes from.....I trust those who expose the lies...not those who have a vested interest in promoting them. It’s those in the medical profession who are blowing the whistle.

You are free to ignore them.

You trust those that support your beliefs because they do.