April 10, 2001, updated Dec. 27, 2009

Organ Transplants

There is nothing in the Bible that clearly or directly has an impact on whether organ transplants and donations are permissible or not. But there are Biblical precedents that might favor a particular side of the issue.

First, there are laws that deal with conflicts of interest. For instance, one could not bring in the hire (wages) of a prostitute to donate to the temple. Ill-gotten money was not appreciated in the Bible. The ends does not generally justify the means as many seem to believe.

One could not resort to prostitution or have their daughter resort to prostitution (Leviticus 19:29) to sustain their lives or the lives of their family. God can resurrect, so one need not place too much importance on sustaining their present earthly life by resorting to immoral activity. Better to die and be resurrected than to sin to continue living and lose out on everlasting life.

The danger as I see it is that money could become a significant and conflicting factor in transplants. People, in desperation to live, might offer some big money for an organ. Such money could encourage more unprincipled people/doctors or institutions/governments to classify a person as dead so they can make money performing the operation or make money selling the organ. They may harvest it out of criminals or kill innocent people for their organs. There are already allegations that such things are done in some countries. I will deal with that more shortly.

This has happened before. In the pioneering days of doctors exploring surgical anatomy by dissecting dead human corpses, they would pay certain low-lifes to rob graves. That was considered horrible by the general Christian ethic of the time so only low-lifes would do such a thing. So for a certain amount of money, these bums would dig up the most recent burials. But the money got to be good enough where these enterprising hoodlums decided they didn't need to wait for people to die but would kill people and present corpses that were remarkable specimens. A little too remarkable, in fact.

This came to be known as Burking because the bum who first started doing it had a last name of Burke. He got caught, I believe, when one of his victims was a well known and beautifully shaped prostitute in the area which others (the doctor's students) recognized.

The potential abuse is clearly possible with organs as well. People should never become just a bunch of spare parts for others and have their organs become so valuable that they are worth more dead than alive, regardless of wealth.

I also see the day coming when people will be able to sell the organs of their deceased love ones and why not? Everyone else makes money on them. The doctors and hospitals make fantastic sums of money on organ transplants. Why shouldn't the people who experienced the real loss be compensated as well. I think that fair. But then you know what will follow?

The insurance companies will step in and make you turn the organs over to them in order to receive the insurance coverage in the event the person had a life insurance policy. Insurance companies will use it as a way to recover much of their policy payment. They might even make a profit for after they obtain rights to organs, they could then begin charging fees for the organs which they would technically and legally own by virtue of their policy coverage! You will definitely see them charge and no one in medicine or industry will argue then about charging since they all profit from the lucrative trade and commerce. Ain't free enterprise grand? Insurance Companies should have no such right and never be allowed to gain such rights. They have been paid for that policy as they always have been, by the policy holder/s. The gain from the loss should be the family of the lost one. Consider the following on this issue.

Then there is some medical information that may also have a bearing on this. First, it is the discovery and assertions of Dr. Arthur Janov (http://www.primaltherapy.com), backed by remarkable physical tests and lab results; that memory in some form or fashion, is recorded/remembered at a cellular level throughout the body. Each cell contains a various number of remembered states depending on what takes place in the brain.

This phenomenon has been somewhat documented by doctors in general. Many transplant patients report having feelings of the other person after receiving an organ. They will often report new or changed tastes, habits, inclinations, and desires. This is a well documented fact.

My uncle, now dead, reported sensing other feelings, memories, and desires for new activities that just didn't feel like his. His first kidney was from his sister, my aunt. 8 or 10 years later he had another one from a complete stranger. This one left him feeling even more strange as the things he would feel were even more different and removed from his typical self and he found them much harder to understand; they were less familiar than before.

In fact, medical journals report that nearly 30% of heart transplant patients experience episodes of psychosis. That is a pretty serious event of the mind to write it all off as in the head only.

If it is true and I, myself, am persuaded that it is, then basically what we are doing is placing another person's flesh, their heart so to speak, into our own body. If they are a better person that may not be so bad. But what if they were a criminal or some other vile person? Who are we inviting into our souls, so to speak, to reside with us? Food for thought, isn't it? Would we want to corrupt our own flesh or donate our flesh and have it defiled and corrupted by someone else? I think I will pass on that one.

Now imagine that you don't want you flesh corrupted in the body of someone else. You do not want to donate your organs to anyone. But now insurance laws and government laws say they have a right to your organs or that they must have them in order for you to get the insurance pay off. Interesting little dilemma, isn't it? Your conscience is no longer free to do what you want.

Now possibly, part of the reason why God finds it undesirable for people to engage in loose promiscuous sexual relations, aside from pregnancy, could be disease and uncleanliness. You wouldn't have sex with a stranger but you will take them into your body, no questions asked? Right? Not me!

I see too many wicked things that can come from using people for spare parts. A human being is a scared thing. I am not sure that using it for spare parts is sanctioned. One would have to exercise their own conscience in the matter. But for me, it is an unacceptable practice. I will wait for a better life, an eternal one. It seems the much safer course.

It is alleged today, and I believe it, that China has on more than one occasion, killed prisoners in order to supply organs to those who have the means to pay for what they want and need. Why it only could have been a matter of time. If anyone ever read the book or saw the movie base on it, from perhaps the mid to late 70s, called "Coma," you will recall the nightmare scenario where the woman lead role, Dr. Wheeler ( Genevieve Bujold along with Mike Douglas ) discovers a bunch of people/bodies in a state of suspended animation, a coma, waiting for organs to be harvested. It might have even been a little bit of inspiration for "The Matrix" as well.

But that scenario seems much more possible now than ever before. And where are the abortion fanatics on this one??? I don't hear them and yet, maybe I should. Doctors now make determinations on how likely the patient is to survive. Why? If it is likely (but not absolutely certain) that the patient will die, then rather than let the organs go to waste, if the patient, or his guardian is willing to donate their organs, then they harvest them before death. Sounds a bit premature to me and what is there to assure us the doctors may not err on the side of eagerness to get those organs so they or their colleagues might make a few hundred thousand on a sweet organ transplant operation? Greed has always led to compromise with safety or anything else. It is not possible that it would not happen in this situation, either.

But it gets far worse. While we go about our day to day business and activities, there are those who spend a lot of money and labor and resources trying to integrate computer chips with an actual human brain, of course, simply to enhance human abilities and indeed, it might. But there is a more sinister possibility that exists, as well. They also want to extract human thoughts and memories. And indeed, if they can accomplish this ( They might have already done it by now. Allegations are that they have! ), it may even be possible to completely download or extract a person's entire brain content and personality makeup translated to digital data onto computer to retain till they either find a way to repair or reanimate their bodies or maybe find new bodies to have, a body transplant, if you will.

I suspect, as many who believe in or in some way practice "Life Extension" do, that aging and dying by aging may be solved fairly soon. And revitalizing and rejuvenating, for the elite, at least, will soon be upon us. I grant that being able to completely download or extract a person's memories and makeup is a bit more complicated, but . . . not impossible, either, and not likely all that far away. They are trying, you can be sure. But of course, these will be reserved for the elite only, you can bet.

I am not the first one to think of or suggest this. But I agree with the possibilities of the vision. Body transplants! Raise a person really good and then take over their bodies with new memories and brain patterns. Of course, Janov's research and findings that memories are stored all over the body and not just in the brain certainly complicates things enormously and could potentially impair or put body transplants out of practical reach. But consider that transplanting a brain of a primate, possibly a baboon, I can not recall for sure, has already been done. It is not that far out of reach. If they can think it, they can do it! And given that many people are killed all the time in order to accomplish many goals and obtain various results without a thought to the lives they are destroying, I believe this one is sure to happen. The research is being done. The morals have never been there. The madness of human kind know no limits! AS God said in Genesis 10:6 (RSV):

And the LORD said, "Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language; and this is only the beginning of what they will do; and nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them.

God gave man an enormous intelligence. We have only to look around at what we have accomplished already to realize there is little we can not accomplish if we can first imagine it. Our only problem is in restraining our instinct and emotions which tend to push our intellect around. We can imagine anything but we have difficulty controlling and limiting ourselves. For some, for many, there are no limits and never have been. It is only time that will bring about the very worst. Ask yourself, are things better now than they were 40 or 50 years ago? Anyone older enough to be able to answer that would have to say, no! The unthinkable can only be a matter of time.

If there are going to be limits, and it is possible that we no longer can limit by means of democracy and the desire of the majority, then we need to stop this one right now. But I would suggest it has gone too far and can not be stopped now. Only God can stop it now. It is beyond us. We are the problem. We can not control ourselves. Only God can restore that sort of control which Adam lost for us in the Garden of Eden.

Washington Post Ponders Transplants
Back to Top

The Doctors Who Are Redefining Life and Death - Washington Post
www.washingtonpost.com/cityguide

By William Saletan Sunday, October 5, 2008; Page B02

Think being the next president would be a brutal job? Imagine being a transplant surgeon. You can't tell the parents of a dying kid when to pull the plug, but you have to be there, ready, the minute he expires. You have to wait until he's dead, but not so long that his organs become useless. You can give him drugs to keep his organs healthy, but you mustn't technically revive him. And you can't remove and restart his heart until it's been declared kaput.

Pick up a recent issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, and you'll see the far edge of this tortured world. In the journal, doctors at Children's Hospital in Denver describe how they removed hearts from infants 75 seconds after they stopped. The infants were declared dead of heart failure, even as their hearts, in new bodies, resumed ticking.

 Is this wrong? We like to think that moral lines are fixed and clear: My heart is mine, not yours, and you can't have it till I'm dead. But in medicine, lines move. "Dead" means irreversibly stopped, and stoppages are increasingly reversible. And when life support ends, says one bioethicist, "not using viable organs wastes precious life-saving resources" and "costs the lives of other babies." Failure to take body parts looks like lethal negligence.

How can we get more organs? By redefining death. First we coined "brain death," which let us take organs from people on ventilators. Then we proposed organ retrieval even if non-conscious brain functions persisted. Now we have "donation after cardiac death," the rule applied in Denver , which permits harvesting based on heart, rather than brain, stoppage.

But stoppage is complicated. There's no "moment" of death. Some transplant surgeons wait five minutes after the last heartbeat; others wait two. The Denver team waited 75 seconds, reasoning that no heart is known to have self-restarted after 60 seconds. Why push the envelope? Because every second counts. Mark Boucek, the doctor who led the Denver team, says that waiting even 75 seconds makes organs less useful.

So how can death be declared based on irreversible heart stoppage when the plan is to restart that heart in a new body? Boucek offers two answers. First, even if the heart resumes pumping in a new body, it couldn't have done so in the old one. (That used to be true, but today, hearts can be restarted by external stimulation well after two or even five minutes.) Second, Boucek says the heart is dead because the baby's parents have decided not to permit resuscitation. In other words, each family decides when its loved one is dead. In a commentary attached to the Denver report, another ethicist proposes extending this idea -- letting each family decide not just whether to resuscitate but also at what point organs can be harvested. Brain death? Cardiac death? Persistent vegetative state? Death is whatever you say it is.

Robert Truog, an ethicist who supports the Denver protocol, says this redefinition of death has gone too far. Let's accept that we're taking organs from living people and causing death in the process, he argues. This is ethical as long as the patient has "devastating neurologic injury" and has provided, through advance directive or a surrogate, informed consent to be terminated this way. We already let surrogates authorize removal of life support, he notes. Why not treat donations similarly? Traditional safeguards, such as the separation of the transplant team from the patient's medical team, will prevent abuse. And the public will accept the new policy since surveys suggest we're not hung up on whether the donor is dead.

But down that road lies even greater uncertainty. How devastating does the injury have to be? If death is vulnerable to redefinition, isn't "devastating" even more so? The same can be asked of "futility," the standard used by the Denver team to select donors. Is it safe to base lethal decisions on the ebb and flow of public opinion, particularly when the same surveys show confusion about death standards? And can termination decisions really be insulated from pressure to donate? Even if each family makes its own choice, aren't we loosening standards for termination precisely to get more organs?

Modern medicine has brought us tremendous power. Boundaries such as death, heart stoppage and ownership of organs have guided our moral thinking because they seemed fixed in nature. Now we've unmoored them. I'm a registered donor because I believe in the gift of life and think that the job of providing organs falls to each of us. So does the job of deciding when we can rightly take them.

human@slate.com

End of Article - My Comments begin

Be afraid, be very afraid. It is clear to me that there is no moral compass or boundaries in the medical profession and the more you know about this profession, The more one might be inclined to believe as I do, that they can not be trusted and they are up to no good. They have suppressed and blocked, in my opinion, near to at least 10 cancer cures and ways to prevent as well. Some of Most of these therapies are cheap, easy to administer, painless and very fast and thorough. I urge you all to buy this book:

Politics in Healing - The suppression and manipulation of American Medicine - Author: Daniel Haley
Copyright 2000 Potomac Valley Press, Washington DC

You'll never be the same once you read this book. To me, The level and depth of corruption in both medicine, government, and the pharmaceutical industry is sickening. You can not afford to be without this book. One of the most important purchases you could ever make. In order to protect yourself against an enemy, you first have to be aware that he exists and is your enemy and has his crosshairs on you. Otherwise, you are easy prey.

A Private Investigation Reveals
Back to Top

I came across an account on the local news on TV, channel 6 WCSH, Portland Maine. A family who lives in Maine had a grown but still quite young daughter down in New Orleans (N.O.). She died at the hands of the LSU Hospital in N.O., due to, at the very least, indifference and incompetence. But I suspect a deliberate practice of just setting the poor aside and letting them die. But this young woman was mistaken for poor and a drug addict, when in fact she was not. But it looks to me like they just did not bother to care for her since they do not get money and maybe they would like to rid the place of poor people. I just saying. It may not be. I might be of my rocker and paranoid, right?

There may be much more to this scandal. I have not talked to the family enough about it yet. I hope to. The father (Michal) was hard at work investigating, as was the whole family. The young girls at home do most of the internet work for the parents. Mike went down to N.O. and right next to the hospital, he was likely killed with his car set on fire. That is the calling card of very nasty people who have a lot to cover up. I can not say much more without more knowledge.

But I can give you information that mother and wife of the late Michal has posted as she carries on the fight. What she has uncovered is fascinating in regards to Organ Transplants and how it is determined if someone is dead or not. It is very disturbing as is this whole issue of transplants and harvesting body parts. Teresa is the one who first posted the article just above from the Washington Post on the lack of definition and perhaps the impossibility of making a reasonable or comfortable determination. English is not her 1st language so you might detect some very minor evidences of that. But the truth comes through loud and painfully clear so she did her job quite well. So I turn this over to Teresa, a woman who has endured much and does us all an incalculable favor in letting us know what is going on. I personally thank her for her very noble efforts in this respect and wish her and her family sympathy and many good wishes. The colors of the text are her formatting.

http://teresaflisiuk.info/organ_tissue_harvesting.html

TERESA FLISIUK SPEAKING WITH MS. GENTRY IN THE MANNER OF THE TORTUROUS SMALL TALK - JUST TO GAIN THE INFORMATIONS. MS. GENTRY TALKED TO ME LIKE A SALE PERSON ON SOME SHOPPING CHANNEL. IT WAS BIZARRE AND PAINFUL...

Teresa - Hallo.

MS. Gentry -

Teresa...

Teresa - Yes ma'm. 

S. Gentry - This is Sally Gentry from LOPA.     [{ LOPA has a website. www.lopa.org   They collect the organs for hospitals in Louisiana. }]

Teresa - What is, regardless of the hospital records, what is the reason that LOPA couldn't get involved in organ harvesting and tissue harvesting?

Gentry - OK, the reason we could not is because of the reason that the hospital gave us because of her death, that it was a bacterial infection and so we were not able to recover anything because that if someone has a bacterial infection then it can cause the organs and tissues to... can be infected, that as sick as people are waiting for transplants they would not be able to transplant.

Teresa - So something, I'm a little confused now in regard what you have told me and also in regard to the... if the patient dies on the ward, at intensive care unit and immediately after the patient's death the LOPA and specific code number and specific person, I don't remember now, is being called, just after and the assisting physician who was trying to revive my daughter is filling those papers for LOPA and for coroners then I don't understand why would they notify LOPA at the first place if they knew there was an infection.

Gentry - OK, the reason why - in every state the hospitals are required to call on any imminent or death that come in to the hospital, no matter what state that anyone lives in, they're required to call because at one point when Tommy Thompson was the head of Health and Hospitals the requirement by law and by... it was just adhered to by all the hospitals is they must call the procurement agencies in the particular state where a person has died.

Teresa - Despite notifying the family and despite, I mean before they even notify the family?

Gentry - Generally yes, many times the family because they did not know who to contact.

Teresa - They did. But ma'm can I ask you...

Gentry - Sure.

Teresa - What I am trying to understand is... why they were not, why they had not received her, why she had not been diagnosed prior to her death... with sepsis

Gentry - Well, the way that the law has been set up for all the people who are waiting for the transplant,OK, that the law set up to where every hospital, regardless of how an individual dies must be called in to the organ procurement agency in that state. Now, if they come in to the hospital and they are already deceased then the agencies are not called but anyone who dies in any hospital this is requirement that they must have called in with the thought that perhaps it may be something that can possibly recover but not if there's is already a doctor that's, you know, diagnosed an individual then we do not contact the family because there's nothing that we can do as far as a recovery.

Teresa - And who those organs go to - to the rich old people from young who are dying?

Gentry - No..., no..., only... if a person dies a brain death.

Teresa - Well, she was not declared brain dead.

Gentry - Right.

Teresa - That's what is interesting, when she dies, when she's pronounced dead, approximately at 6.30 A.M., why she's still, why she's still, you know this quite delicate issue, why she remains at intensive care unit and is being removed from intensive care unit after 9 A.M.

Gentry - I... I don't know... the hospital

Teresa - Is it connected with LOPA?

Gentry - No mam, it would have to do with the hospital.

Teresa - But, you know, this is kind of delicate to other patients and personnel and to keep the body on the premises where the living people are being treated, right?

Gentry - I don't know ... what the hospital... I can't answer that because I don't know what the hospital's rules are, I mean, I don't know what point they may have been able to reach you... I don't know that...that... that's under what the hospital's regulation's are.

Teresa - No, I mean, I asked about something else, I'm asking about not whom to reach at this point... but about from 6.30 to after 9 am the body remains at some facilities of the hospital, which was indicated an intensive care unit, and was not being removed from the facilities where the personnel, staff and the alive people are being treated.

Gentry - I don't know the answer to that... that again I don't know what the hospital's... I don't know what they... regulations on that...

Teresa - But on one flip of the coin you speak for the hospital and for something you had not told me originally, knowing the case, and on the other hand you just put this as only the hospital would have answered.

Gentry - Well, OK, let me try to explain it more clearly, I can only speak to... when I spoke with you Friday, I did not know for sure... what I did know with limited information that was provided to us by the hospital. Now, I don't know if she had said that to the emergency room staff, I do not know that, OK. So that's why I had to let you know I will call you back once I got the information of that was provided to us at the time. Now, I can only think about that information, but I cannot speak to everything that is involved with the hospital because we are not part of the hospital.

Teresa - That's exactly what I wanted to ask, exactly, you just hit the right point of my concern. As an independent organization LOPA, shouldn't you have your independent data?

Gentry - The information we got... we are not a hospital, the information we get when the hospital calls us when there is an imminent death and this is required by law for all hospitals in all states.

MOTHER: - O, so they called you!!! ... when there was imminent death. So they don't call after the person is actually deceased?

Gentry - No ma'm.

Teresa - A - H - A!

Gentry - So and the reason they called an imminent death is, again this a requirement by the joint hospital commissions and the government, so if somebody is possibly able to be a donor that's why the agencies are called, but if they have something, I mean they have to call every imminent death, everyone regardless of how the person may be dying, OK. But when we respond is when a person generally is brain dead b y a car accident perhaps they had been shot, perhaps they had attempted to take their own life, that the body, the organs are still viable, they're still healthy but the brain has died.

Teresa - In this particular situation she was not declared brain dead.

Gentry - Right. She was not.

Teresa - But, one more time... I don't want to take so much of your time, but again you as LOPA organization do you have your independent documents?

Gentry - The only documents that we have are her name and the information when the hospital called in to us. That's the only... because we do not go out and independently gather information...

Teresa - So you wouldn't mind if I would post one more question because in between receiving such information of imminent death, there must be some record, you should keep a record, there must be actual physical person who actually goes to the hospital (

Gentry sighs) or Lopa notifies someone who is... I mean, is this just being performed, that hospital performs this in case, in such case... particular hospital performs that for the LOPA or the LOPA has to provide their own physician?

Gentry - No, we do not, we take what the hospital's physician tells us, we don't have any independent, only unless the again the person has been declared brain dead and the physician at the hospital where the person is has his nurse or her nurse call the imminent death in to what is called our referral line and if the doctor thinks that this person may possibly be a potential donor, we have to take the hospital's word that this person could possibly be a donor but when we're called the information in, such as they did with Blanka, the doctor had already have made his diagnosis of what it's happened for her from the information they gathered which was what we automatically call a rule-out, and it means we did not send anyone to the hospital.

Teresa - So what would be the reason to call particular person, specific representative of the organization, what would be the reason then...

Gentry - Because by law, the hospital's staff is required to call in the organ procurement agency whichever state...

Teresa - You told me this ma'm but what would be the reason since they would harvest the organs and tissue themselves and they make a decision if it is ... if it qualifies so to speak...

Gentry - OK, what happens is...

Teresa - What would be the role of a person who represents the LOPA?

Gentry - OK, at that point the person... if they went to the hospital to have recovered... is that what you asked me?

Teresa - Well, having said that hospital, you know, the rules you've told me about, you know, legal issues... but they are in the position to decide if the person qualifies for organ or tissue donation and if there is such an instance, the hospital would have been in charge of harvesting the tissue or...

Gentry - No, the hospital's not....

Teresa - I asked you if you have your own physician to be sent to do so.

Gentry - No, we do not have our own physicians, we have nurses who go out, but we... we... transplant surgeons who come in and would do the recovery of the organs so that their patients that are listed on a transplant waiting list, they are separate from LOPA or any other organ recovery agency. Now, if the person is old...

Teresa - Is this... I'm sorry... You mentioned Tommy Thompson and I know who he is... was in the government, this is a federal law?

Gentry - Yes, yes.

Teresa - So since it comes from the government it is federal law right?

Gentry - Yes, yes and the people that we report to is the Federal Drug Administration, the Department of Health and Hospitals, the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, we have to report, all these people come in and look at all these records in every state to make sure that what is going on is according as how the law was put in to effect

Teresa - I have a question I am sorry that I keep you...

Gentry - No, it's OK. I can tell you this if you'd like additional information... do you use the computer?

Teresa - I'm trying. I'm not really a computer person.

Gentry - OK. But United Network of Organ Sharing is one of our designated agencies for everyone that is waiting for an organ transplant is listed according to state.

Teresa - I see...So if I wanted to find it where would I go?

Gentry - You would go to WNW.unos.org.

Teresa - OK, you know, I would like to ask you because you know how it functions... What are the chances... you know if you represent, if this is federal law, is the LOPA only serving the State of Louisiana ?

Gentry - Yes. Yes.

Teresa - And what would be the chances if I was a resident of Louisiana and I needed an organ, how... would you give me that organ?

Gentry - The way it outworks is, your doctor who would be a transplant surgeon would have you listed on the transplant waiting list and if we had a donor and your blood matched, your size of body matched, then there would be a possibility that then you would receive that organ.

Teresa - I just really wanted to exclusively know LOPA's record about my grandson and my daughter and I wanted you to distinctly, I wanted the distinction of your records, I know it has to be connected with a particular hospital with which you are dealing, you must have kept your own records, right?

Gentry - The records that we have are not from us going out to the hospital but what the hospital has given to us. And we then have Blanka's name, we have her weight...

Teresa - If I paid... Would you be able to send me copies of these records.

Gentry - You don't have to pay... I'll be more than happy to...

Teresa -So I am entitled to those records...

Gentry - Yes you are because you are the legal next of kin.

End of Published Report

Revealing, no? Anyway, you can visit these 2 sites for more info relating to the inexcusable deaths of Michal and Blanka, and learn more about our glorious wonderful medical system in the greatest country in the world, right?. Oh, surely you can see the sarcasm dripping from that, can't you? 

www.teresaflisiuk.info
www.michalflisiuk.com

But in the mean time, I am of the opinion that Christians would be wise to avoid this transplant thing. God can preserve our lives or return them to us in the resurrection. We just need to have faith/trust. But I believe a good consideration of my article on Blood, Fat, & Atonement article on rules from the Mosaic law is very important in making a determination on this one as well. But really, "by their fruits you will know them" means that we should be able to see why God would likely frown on transplants. Look at the morbid fruits we are already beginning to see. How much worse does it have to get?

But I know there are many who will try to justify it by pointing out that lives are saved. Wrong! They are prolonged but not saved. Only God can save and preserve forever. And consider that eating a mere piece of fruit forbidden by God condemned all of us to death and being out of control. God can pick any thing and attach whatever symbolism He wants to it. A tree, a piece of fruit or whatever. And He has attached enormous symbolism to blood as well. That being the case, it is difficult to contemplate saving a life by violating God's law.

Can I prostitute myself in order to save my life? Not that I know of. Why did so many Christians get executed by Rome? Because they refused to compromise to save their lives. Are we such a bunch of pussies now that we would not consider death over compromise? That is what God requires! If we can not do that, maybe we should not be considering Christianity as our religion. Maybe you should find a more relaxed religion to practice. Of course, you can forget about eternal life, but the choice is yours.

Obey God, even to the point of death and live forever after a relatively short wait, or accept a few more months or years of life now and that will be it as death, when it finally comes, and it will come, will be permanent. As for me, I'll take the temporary death and remain faithful to God, as I have complete confidence in Him, that He can and will bring me back after all things have been accomplished in bringing this miserable world to a conclusion.

Blood, Fat, Atonement The Symbolism of blood as defined in the Law of Moses
www.teresaflisiuk.info
www.michalflisiuk.com

Back to Top