Talk:Scholar says Jehovah's Witnesses wrong about blood transfusions

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This bit, "There are only four babies left after two of them died earlier." needs a few sentences of background before you can use it. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i agree. I added some background to the story before I read your comment :) FellowWikiNews (W) (sign here!) 20:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd read the earlier story and pretty much forgotten about it, then I read this and didn't make the connection through the last sentence in the article. I'd probably put something up-front to indicating the guy is commenting on this case. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done FellowWikiNews (W) (sign here!) 21:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps needs some sort of reponse from somebody of that religion? Bawolff 21:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that this story is somewhat bias. I have deep connections with Jehovahs Witnesses and this story somewhat offended me. Especially with what the person was saying about reading the bible. I feel that everyone should have their own rights. But I'd rather see people not blow this out of porpotion.

I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses and this scholar is using a straw man argument. The Noahide command on blood specifically includes human blood. I t does not imply that people were inclined to eat human blood that that human blood is also to be 'poured out upon the ground' because God is 'asking it back'. - Genesis 9 George m 23:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but its a too late to change it now. (We in general only change article before they are published, or at most a couple days after) sorry. Bawolff 23:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]