Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none
Lexilogio

Organ Donation

Organ donation is something that can provoke strong emotions.

Would you be an organ donor?
gone

I know it is daft but I have always been a bit queezy at the prospect of being a donor, but my kids would certainly give permission for the old girl's useful bits to be removed and recycled.
Jim

I wish I could be a donor, but, what with all the pills and potions I take (legally...!) my organs aren't acceptable.
I can't even give blood, now, for the same reason - which is a real pity, as I'm polysiphaemic; the opposit of anaemic; I produce to many red bllod cells. The stuff is taken from me theree times a year and dumped. I feel that's such a waste, as, many years ago now, I needed, and received, a transfusion.
Pukon_the_Treen

I give blood as often as I can, and I'm happy for all my bits to be used after death. My skin would make a rather nifty lightweight jacket, what with the tattoos and all, and my skull should be made into a drinking vessel and presented yearly to the headlining act of the Download festival.
Ketty

I'm not allowed to be an organ donor either.  

That aside, and I understand all the arguments for it, there's part of me that feels totally uncomfortable about it all.  None of the uncomfortableness is based on logic and perhaps not rationality either, but nonetheless I'm in the situation where, in a way I'm relieved my organs cannot be donated, and that I hope I'm never in the situation where I have to make that decision on behalf of my loved ones.
Lexilogio

I give blood.

Many people are queasy about the idea of organ donation. I don't mind - but I wouldn't like to be a brain dead donor. I'd rather they wait until my heart had stopped.
cymrudynnion

Re: Organ Donation

Lexilogio wrote:
Organ donation is something that can provoke strong emotions.

Would you be an organ donor?
Absolutely not under no circumstances whatsoever.
Shaker

I aready carry an organ donation card and have done for years. Once I'm dead I'll have no further use for any of my bits, and if anything at all is even remotely usable (the eyes aren't much use but only insofar as I'm short-sighted: my corneas might be very welcome to somebody who's almost blind: I think they can forget about my liver ...) they're welcome to have it - refusing is the very height, or I should rather say the very depth of utter selfishness.

Given the amount of usable organs which are either buried or burnt every single day and the crying need for them it's high time we introduced a system of presumed consent anyway. Those selfish enough to see a need to hang on to their organs post mortem are perfectly free to opt out if they really want to be a dick about it.
Ketty

Shaker it's not always about 'selfishness'.
Shaker

Ketty wrote:
Shaker it's not always about 'selfishness'.

I disagree: I think it's never about anything other than selfishness. I'm not referring to people who would like to donate if they could but can't for medical reasons (you and Jim), I mean people who have perfectly usable organs that they would no longer need (being dead) which could do somebody else a huge amount of good but refusing to donate them. That's pure selfishness of the kind usually only associated with very small children.
Pukon_the_Treen

Some religious types believe in a literal bodily resurrection, so they think they'll need all their bits or something. Isn't that what the JW's believe?
Leonard James

If any part of my ancient body will help somebody who is still alive, they can have it with my best wishes.
gone

Re: Organ Donation

cymrudynnion wrote:
Lexilogio wrote:
Organ donation is something that can provoke strong emotions.

Would you be an organ donor?
Absolutely not under no circumstances whatsoever.


Why?
cymrudynnion

Re: Organ Donation

floo wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
Lexilogio wrote:
Organ donation is something that can provoke strong emotions.

Would you be an organ donor?
Absolutely not under no circumstances whatsoever.


Why?
Because of my knowledge of the medical world and how it opperates, knowledge gained through my wife who is in the set-up
gone

Re: Organ Donation

cymrudynnion wrote:
floo wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
Lexilogio wrote:
Organ donation is something that can provoke strong emotions.

Would you be an organ donor?
Absolutely not under no circumstances whatsoever.


Why?
Because of my knowledge of the medical world and how it opperates, knowledge gained through my wife who is in the set-up


Is your wife a doctor? My family is littered with medics, doctors, nurses etc and none of them are worried about organ donation.
bnabernard

Yer but flo, your family is also littered with christians inniit?

bernard  
gone

bnabernard wrote:
Yer but flo, your family is also littered with christians inniit?

bernard  


Fortunately most of the younger generation of Christians in my family, like my kids, aren't fundies!
bnabernard

Yer but floo that sums it up, niether groups of friends/relations take notice of what they are taught and opt for the opinions that win them freinds.  or as they say, never mind the quality, feel the width, innit

bernard  
gone

bnabernard wrote:
Yer but floo that sums it up, niether groups of friends/relations take notice of what they are taught and opt for the opinions that win them freinds.  or as they say, never mind the quality, feel the width, innit

bernard  


Our children were brought up to think for themselves. There was no pressure on them, by their father or myself, to think as we do about matters of faith.
cymrudynnion

Re: Organ Donation

floo wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
floo wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
Lexilogio wrote:
Organ donation is something that can provoke strong emotions.

Would you be an organ donor?
Absolutely not under no circumstances whatsoever.


Why?
Because of my knowledge of the medical world and how it opperates, knowledge gained through my wife who is in the set-up


Is your wife a doctor? My family is littered with medics, doctors, nurses etc and none of them are worried about organ donation.
With respect to your family and the rest of the medical world, my wife and her experience is worth more than a doctor. She is at the sharp end RGN 1
cymrudynnion

Floo in response to my previous post.
I have been in situations where I have seen D.N.R. and 201 on a patients record. i know D.N.R. is Do Not Resusitate and 201 was code for the same thing in a Welsh Hospital. The thing is the patients next of kin had no idea that was on the record nor did they request it anmd furthermore neither did teh patient. I can say this quite catagorically as one patient was my father, yes he had had a major stroke, but, there is no way possible he would have asked to be "sitched off" neither would I.
My point is in some circumstances senior members of the medical profession want to play god. as far as i am concerned if the new scheme comes in that you have to carry a card in order NOT to donate, believe me, I shall be first in the queue to get that card. There is only one person/being who shall decide when I leave this Earth and that is the God I toatlly believe in
bnabernard

Thats realy got me scratching me 'ead. Don't agree with being switched off but does realy on God to make the discision?

er what exactly am I missing here  

bernard  
genghiscant

Quote:
There is only one person/being who shall decide when I leave this Earth and that is the God I toatlly believe in


If your God is Omniscient & Omnipotent then he is guiding the doctors to his will. If you deny your God's will, then he might get pissed off with you.
bnabernard

Did God creat life

bernard  
Leonard James

bnabernard wrote:
Did God creat life

bernard  

Depends which god you are talking about, although most of them are supposed to have done so, I believe.
Paul

Pukon_the_Treen wrote:
Some religious types believe in a literal bodily resurrection, so they think they'll need all their bits or something. Isn't that what the JW's believe?


I can't speak for JW's: they're not orthodox. All orthodox Christians, however, believe in a literal resurrection of the body, something which we confess in the Creed. There is no "need" for all our bits and bobs to remain together. Even if one were chopped up into a million pieces and spread around the earth, God would still raise up the same person on the last day. It's more a question of the act reflecting the faith, which begins with burial as opposed to cremation etc. This is also why many Christians do not like the idea of donating their organs after death.

I do not believe organ donation should be presumed. Another step towards modern state serfdom. As for myself, I certainly insist on being buried when I die, as for my organs I would prefer them to remain intact.
Farmer Geddon

Re: Organ Donation

Lexilogio wrote:
Organ donation is something that can provoke strong emotions.

Would you be an organ donor?



I've got an old Hammond that I no longer play with if anyone is interested!
Leonard James

Re: Organ Donation

Farmer Geddon wrote:
Lexilogio wrote:
Organ donation is something that can provoke strong emotions.

Would you be an organ donor?



I've got an old Hammond that I no longer play with if anyone is interested!

Are you sure you don't mean Hampton?

Hold on to it, man, you may rejuvenate and need a J. Arthur!
gone

Re: Organ Donation

cymrudynnion wrote:
floo wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
floo wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
Lexilogio wrote:
Organ donation is something that can provoke strong emotions.

Would you be an organ donor?
Absolutely not under no circumstances whatsoever.


Why?
Because of my knowledge of the medical world and how it opperates, knowledge gained through my wife who is in the set-up


Is your wife a doctor? My family is littered with medics, doctors, nurses etc and none of them are worried about organ donation.
With respect to your family and the rest of the medical world, my wife and her experience is worth more than a doctor. She is at the sharp end RGN 1


Riiiiiiiiiiiiight!
gone

cymrudynnion wrote:
Floo in response to my previous post.
I have been in situations where I have seen D.N.R. and 201 on a patients record. i know D.N.R. is Do Not Resusitate and 201 was code for the same thing in a Welsh Hospital. The thing is the patients next of kin had no idea that was on the record nor did they request it anmd furthermore neither did teh patient. I can say this quite catagorically as one patient was my father, yes he had had a major stroke, but, there is no way possible he would have asked to be "sitched off" neither would I.
My point is in some circumstances senior members of the medical profession want to play god. as far as i am concerned if the new scheme comes in that you have to carry a card in order NOT to donate, believe me, I shall be first in the queue to get that card. There is only one person/being who shall decide when I leave this Earth and that is the God I toatlly believe in


There are many cases where it would be far better not to resuscitate, especially if the patient has an unpleasant illness which is likely to lead to death sooner rather than later, what is the point of bringing them back for crying out loud? I don't believe God has anything to do with it, but surely by resuscitating them the doctor is overruling the deity, therefore your argument doesn't hold water!
Leonard James

floo wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
Floo in response to my previous post.
I have been in situations where I have seen D.N.R. and 201 on a patients record. i know D.N.R. is Do Not Resusitate and 201 was code for the same thing in a Welsh Hospital. The thing is the patients next of kin had no idea that was on the record nor did they request it anmd furthermore neither did teh patient. I can say this quite catagorically as one patient was my father, yes he had had a major stroke, but, there is no way possible he would have asked to be "sitched off" neither would I.
My point is in some circumstances senior members of the medical profession want to play god. as far as i am concerned if the new scheme comes in that you have to carry a card in order NOT to donate, believe me, I shall be first in the queue to get that card. There is only one person/being who shall decide when I leave this Earth and that is the God I toatlly believe in


There are many cases where it would be far better not to resuscitate, especially if the patient has an unpleasant illness which is likely to lead to death sooner rather than later, what is the point of bringing them back for crying out loud? I don't believe God has anything to do with it, but surely by resuscitating them the doctor is overruling the deity, therefore your argument doesn't hold water!


It's astonishing how callous some people can be because of their religious beliefs.
Farmer Geddon

Leonard James wrote:
...

Are you sure you don't mean Hampton?

Hold on to it, man, you may rejuvenate and need a J. Arthur!


Ahhh - you can take the man out of Kent, but not the Kent out the man eh Len?

gone

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15242675

It seems like a good idea, but surely the NHS couldn't afford the expense in during a recession.
Leonard James

Farmer Geddon wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
...

Are you sure you don't mean Hampton?

Hold on to it, man, you may rejuvenate and need a J. Arthur!


Ahhh - you can take the man out of Kent, but not the Kent out the man eh Len?


Are you suggesting I'm a Berkshire? That's daggers at dawn stuff, me joy.
(See what I did there?   )
Farmer Geddon

To be fair Len - No, I didn't; but it still made me chuckle anyways!!

I can sort of understand Cymru's point though - if I went to visit my terminally ill father and noticed they had put a "DNR" on his chart without discussing it with me I think I would be upset at first...  but then my pragmatic side would kick-in and I would realise it was probably for the best.
Shaker

While we're on the subject ...
Farmer Geddon

I kinda miss those link editing on the other forum..

I do get kinda disheartened when a link goes:


http//www.google.search/look up a word%%why**do && they** do >> this /// _and_ take_ you_ to_ another_ site%% http//www.theothersite/butnotrelated _to-the-search@%//$ oh-look-there-it-is//lets_try_here_instead//http//www.nope/that's//not//it//either%%& ~ there-it-is##-http://nglreturns.myfreeforum.org/posting.php?mode=reply&t=3003.##



What is wrong with these people??
cymrudynnion

floo wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
Floo in response to my previous post.
I have been in situations where I have seen D.N.R. and 201 on a patients record. i know D.N.R. is Do Not Resusitate and 201 was code for the same thing in a Welsh Hospital. The thing is the patients next of kin had no idea that was on the record nor did they request it anmd furthermore neither did teh patient. I can say this quite catagorically as one patient was my father, yes he had had a major stroke, but, there is no way possible he would have asked to be "sitched off" neither would I.
My point is in some circumstances senior members of the medical profession want to play god. as far as i am concerned if the new scheme comes in that you have to carry a card in order NOT to donate, believe me, I shall be first in the queue to get that card. There is only one person/being who shall decide when I leave this Earth and that is the God I toatlly believe in


There are many cases where it would be far better not to resuscitate, especially if the patient has an unpleasant illness which is likely to lead to death sooner rather than later, what is the point of bringing them back for crying out loud? I don't believe God has anything to do with it, but surely by resuscitating them the doctor is overruling the deity, therefore your argument doesn't hold water!
No quite the opposite, any Doctor can try to revive, safe me, at any time. when God decides He wants me nothing on Earth will prevent that.
cymrudynnion

Leonard James wrote:
floo wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
Floo in response to my previous post.
I have been in situations where I have seen D.N.R. and 201 on a patients record. i know D.N.R. is Do Not Resusitate and 201 was code for the same thing in a Welsh Hospital. The thing is the patients next of kin had no idea that was on the record nor did they request it anmd furthermore neither did teh patient. I can say this quite catagorically as one patient was my father, yes he had had a major stroke, but, there is no way possible he would have asked to be "sitched off" neither would I.
My point is in some circumstances senior members of the medical profession want to play god. as far as i am concerned if the new scheme comes in that you have to carry a card in order NOT to donate, believe me, I shall be first in the queue to get that card. There is only one person/being who shall decide when I leave this Earth and that is the God I toatlly believe in


There are many cases where it would be far better not to resuscitate, especially if the patient has an unpleasant illness which is likely to lead to death sooner rather than later, what is the point of bringing them back for crying out loud? I don't believe God has anything to do with it, but surely by resuscitating them the doctor is overruling the deity, therefore your argument doesn't hold water!


It's astonishing how callous some people can be because of their religious beliefs.
Len if that is aimed at me I can assure you my stance has got nothing to do with my Faith it is my personal choice
Leonard James

cymrudynnion wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
floo wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
Floo in response to my previous post.
I have been in situations where I have seen D.N.R. and 201 on a patients record. i know D.N.R. is Do Not Resusitate and 201 was code for the same thing in a Welsh Hospital. The thing is the patients next of kin had no idea that was on the record nor did they request it anmd furthermore neither did teh patient. I can say this quite catagorically as one patient was my father, yes he had had a major stroke, but, there is no way possible he would have asked to be "sitched off" neither would I.
My point is in some circumstances senior members of the medical profession want to play god. as far as i am concerned if the new scheme comes in that you have to carry a card in order NOT to donate, believe me, I shall be first in the queue to get that card. There is only one person/being who shall decide when I leave this Earth and that is the God I toatlly believe in


There are many cases where it would be far better not to resuscitate, especially if the patient has an unpleasant illness which is likely to lead to death sooner rather than later, what is the point of bringing them back for crying out loud? I don't believe God has anything to do with it, but surely by resuscitating them the doctor is overruling the deity, therefore your argument doesn't hold water!


It's astonishing how callous some people can be because of their religious beliefs.
Len if that is aimed at me I can assure you my stance has got nothing to do with my Faith it is my personal choice

OK man, but your post seemed to indicate otherwise. You seemed to be saying that you were more concerned about God's will.
cymrudynnion

Leonard James wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
floo wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
Floo in response to my previous post.
I have been in situations where I have seen D.N.R. and 201 on a patients record. i know D.N.R. is Do Not Resusitate and 201 was code for the same thing in a Welsh Hospital. The thing is the patients next of kin had no idea that was on the record nor did they request it anmd furthermore neither did teh patient. I can say this quite catagorically as one patient was my father, yes he had had a major stroke, but, there is no way possible he would have asked to be "sitched off" neither would I.
My point is in some circumstances senior members of the medical profession want to play god. as far as i am concerned if the new scheme comes in that you have to carry a card in order NOT to donate, believe me, I shall be first in the queue to get that card. There is only one person/being who shall decide when I leave this Earth and that is the God I toatlly believe in


There are many cases where it would be far better not to resuscitate, especially if the patient has an unpleasant illness which is likely to lead to death sooner rather than later, what is the point of bringing them back for crying out loud? I don't believe God has anything to do with it, but surely by resuscitating them the doctor is overruling the deity, therefore your argument doesn't hold water!


It's astonishing how callous some people can be because of their religious beliefs.
Len if that is aimed at me I can assure you my stance has got nothing to do with my Faith it is my personal choice

OK man, but your post seemed to indicate otherwise. You seemed to be saying that you were more concerned about God's will.
No Len my own personal belief is one day the doctors nurses and uncle Tom Cobly and all can try to save me but if God has decided it is my turn to come Home then there will be nothing any medic could do to prevent it.
Conversly, there have been times when I have been told someone will not be resusitated and neither the patient nor their family are aware of this. Now to me that is the medical profession playing god.
gone

Cymru you are entitled to your personal belief, not one I share of course.
cymrudynnion

floo wrote:
Cymru you are entitled to your personal belief, not one I share of course.
Naturally
Leonard James

cymrudynnion wrote:
No Len my own personal belief is one day the doctors nurses and uncle Tom Cobly and all can try to save me but if God has decided it is my turn to come Home then there will be nothing any medic could do to prevent it.

Yes, I understand that is your belief, whereas I believe that whether you die or not in such a circumstance will depend entirely on whether the aid they are able to offer is sufficient to save your life.
Code:
Conversly, there have been times when I have been told someone will not be resusitated and neither the patient nor their family are aware of this. Now to me that is the medical profession playing god.

A colourful and dramatic way of saying that you don't agree with what they are doing. I have no doubt the doctors concerned don't even consider "playing God", they just take the decision which appears best for the patient, and that is their job.
gone

Leonard James wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
No Len my own personal belief is one day the doctors nurses and uncle Tom Cobly and all can try to save me but if God has decided it is my turn to come Home then there will be nothing any medic could do to prevent it.

Yes, I understand that is your belief, whereas I believe that whether you die or not in such a circumstance will depend entirely on whether the aid they are able to offer is sufficient to save your life.
Code:
Conversly, there have been times when I have been told someone will not be resusitated and neither the patient nor their family are aware of this. Now to me that is the medical profession playing god.

A colourful and dramatic way of saying that you don't agree with what they are doing. I have no doubt the doctors concerned don't even consider "playing God", they just take the decision which appears best for the patient, and that is their job.


I agree.
cymrudynnion

floo wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
No Len my own personal belief is one day the doctors nurses and uncle Tom Cobly and all can try to save me but if God has decided it is my turn to come Home then there will be nothing any medic could do to prevent it.

Yes, I understand that is your belief, whereas I believe that whether you die or not in such a circumstance will depend entirely on whether the aid they are able to offer is sufficient to save your life.
Code:
Conversly, there have been times when I have been told someone will not be resusitated and neither the patient nor their family are aware of this. Now to me that is the medical profession playing god.

A colourful and dramatic way of saying that you don't agree with what they are doing. I have no doubt the doctors concerned don't even consider "playing God", they just take the decision which appears best for the patient, and that is their job.


I agree.
No one has the Right to play God except God.
If a patient is so ill that it is the medical teams view they should not be resusitated then fine but tell the patient or their family first and let them be given the choice. If they don't the numbers volunteering to be organ donors will fall due to fear of being bumped off
Leonard James

cymrudynnion wrote:
No one has the Right to play God except God.

With respect, Cym, I don't think that is a sensible way to talk about the situation, since many of them probably don't believe in your God.
Quote:
If a patient is so ill that it is the medical teams view they should not be resusitated then fine but tell the patient or their family first and let them be given the choice.

They should certainly inform all concerned, but whether there should be a choice is for another thread.
Quote:
If they don't the numbers volunteering to be organ donors will fall due to fear of being bumped off

That is a risk to be taken into consideration, of course.
FastFlint

Leonard James wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
No one has the Right to play God except God.

With respect, Cym, I don't think that is a sensible way to talk about the situation, since many of them probably don't believe in your God.
Quote:
If a patient is so ill that it is the medical teams view they should not be resusitated then fine but tell the patient or their family first and let them be given the choice.

They should certainly inform all concerned, but whether there should be a choice is for another thread.
Quote:
If they don't the numbers volunteering to be organ donors will fall due to fear of being bumped off

That is a risk to be taken into consideration, of course.


Well, I can't play god as I dont accept it as a valid position, ree choice, if I have given a living will position then its no concern of my family as to what I want and do we have any evidence of people being harvested for their organs (in the UK, in hospital)?
genghiscant

I'm a bit confused here. I thought Christians believed that the body & the spirit were two different things. Isn't it supposed to be the spirit that goes to heaven? If that is the case then why are Christians worried about their bodies after death?
Lexilogio

Sorry, I've been away for a couple of days.

All pre event decisions not to resuscitate (so DNR notices in notes) MUST be discussed with the patient and / or carer, and regularly reviewed. Failure to do so is a failure to meet the basic essential standards of care, and would result in action by the CQC.
Lexilogio

Shaker wrote:
While we're on the subject ...


I find this a very worrying idea.

Organ donation should be an altruistic choice, we should not be offering any sort of financial benefit.
Leonard James

FastFlint wrote:

Well, I can't play god as I dont accept it as a valid position, ree choice, if I have given a living will position then its no concern of my family as to what I want

I agree there, FF, though it isn't quite so clear cut if it is the family who are deciding and not the patient
.
Quote:
 and do we have any evidence of people being harvested for their organs (in the UK, in hospital)?

Not to my knowledge, but I suppose it isn't something they would publicise.
Lexilogio

Quote:
do we have any evidence of people being harvested for their organs (in the UK, in hospital)?


Yes, organs are harvested following brain death, where there is the consent of the next of kin.
Lexilogio

genghiscant wrote:
I'm a bit confused here. I thought Christians believed that the body & the spirit were two different things. Isn't it supposed to be the spirit that goes to heaven? If that is the case then why are Christians worried about their bodies after death?


Kind of summed up my belief. I'm not worried about my body post death. Turn it into compost if that helps....
Paul

genghiscant wrote:
I'm a bit confused here. I thought Christians believed that the body & the spirit were two different things. Isn't it supposed to be the spirit that goes to heaven? If that is the case then why are Christians worried about their bodies after death?


Christians believe in the resurrection of the body, something we confess in the Creed (I mentioned it earlier in the thread), that is, we believe we will be raised up on the last day.

God doesn't need our bodies to be intact in order to raise us up, but as Christians we choose burial etc. because it points to our faith in the resurrection and that that same body will be cloaked in immortality.
Boss Cat

Take the lot for free.
genghiscant

Quote:
Christians believe in the resurrection of the body, something we confess in the Creed (I mentioned it earlier in the thread), that is, we believe we will be raised up on the last day.




What would be the point of your body climbing out of your grave if your spirit is quite happy in heaven?
What about the people who've been cremated or the poor people who died at the World Trade Centre & who's bodies were never found?
Paul

genghiscant wrote:
What would be the point of your body climbing out of your grave if your spirit is quite happy in heaven?


Man is both a physical and spiritual being. We're not gnostics who reject the physical as an evil product of the demiurge. Whilst the souls of those who already reign with Christ are indeed happy,  they also yearn to be reunited with their body.



Quote:
What about the people who've been cremated or the poor people who died at the World Trade Centre & who's bodies were never found?


Not a problem. God has the power to raise all on the last day.
gone

Paul wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
What would be the point of your body climbing out of your grave if your spirit is quite happy in heaven?


Man is both a physical and spiritual being. We're not gnostics who reject the physical as an evil product of the demiurge. Whilst the souls of those who already reign with Christ are indeed happy,  they also yearn to be reunited with their body.



Quote:
What about the people who've been cremated or the poor people who died at the World Trade Centre & who's bodies were never found?


Not a problem. God has the power to raise all on the last day.


An assumption with no evidence to support it!
Paul

Christ himself is the proof.
gone

Paul wrote:
Christ himself is the proof.


There is no evidence to support the story of the resurrection either.
Paul

Except for the eye witnesses.
horsethorn

Paul wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
What would be the point of your body climbing out of your grave if your spirit is quite happy in heaven?

Man is both a physical and spiritual being. We're not gnostics who reject the physical as an evil product of the demiurge. Whilst the souls of those who already reign with Christ are indeed happy,  they also yearn to be reunited with their body.

Quote:
What about the people who've been cremated or the poor people who died at the World Trade Centre & who's bodies were never found?

Not a problem. God has the power to raise all on the last day.


Out of interest, when these bodies are raised, are they:

Ordinary physical bodies?

Made of ordinary atoms & molecules?

How will they be different to current human bodies?

I've always wondered.

ht
Paul

It is the same body but made incorruptible, just as Jesus' body was when he rose from the dead.
horsethorn

Paul wrote:
It is the same body but made incorruptible, just as Jesus' body was when he rose from the dead.


The 'same' as what?

Are the atoms that make up your body 'magically' brought back together? How does it work for people who were cremated?

ht
gone

Paul wrote:
Except for the eye witnesses.


That isn't any sort of evidence at all. How many eye witnesses have claimed to see all sorts of stuff like the appearance of the BVM for instance?
The Boyg

horsethorn wrote:
Paul wrote:
It is the same body but made incorruptible, just as Jesus' body was when he rose from the dead.


The 'same' as what?

Are the atoms that make up your body 'magically' brought back together?


Can't be the same atoms since one atom could have been part of the body of many people.

Still this should not be a problem if the resurrection is achieved miraculously rather than technologically.
cymrudynnion

floo wrote:
Paul wrote:
Except for the eye witnesses.


That isn't any sort of evidence at all. How many eye witnesses have claimed to see all sorts of stuff like the appearance of the BVM for instance?
I think some people need to remember what occurred some years ago and is in the public domain
cymrudynnion

Lexilogio wrote:
Sorry, I've been away for a couple of days.

All pre event decisions not to resuscitate (so DNR notices in notes) MUST be discussed with the patient and / or carer, and regularly reviewed. Failure to do so is a failure to meet the basic essential standards of care, and would result in action by the CQC.
CQC you have the advantage of me there. Yes I agree with your post the situation SHOULD be discussed with the pateient and family or next iof kin but for a fact I know it isn't.
Tom Cruising

cymrudynnion wrote:
Lexilogio wrote:
Sorry, I've been away for a couple of days.

All pre event decisions not to resuscitate (so DNR notices in notes) MUST be discussed with the patient and / or carer, and regularly reviewed. Failure to do so is a failure to meet the basic essential standards of care, and would result in action by the CQC.
CQC you have the advantage of me there. Yes I agree with your post the situation SHOULD be discussed with the pateient and family or next iof kin but for a fact I know it isn't.


Cymrudynnion,

A question for you - to see if living forever and ever and ever is more important than saving a child's life.

If you were dying and the doctors told you of a small child that needed your heart and lungs (that were a very rare match) or else they would die soon after you........would you still refuse to donate?
gone

cymrudynnion wrote:
floo wrote:
Paul wrote:
Except for the eye witnesses.


That isn't any sort of evidence at all. How many eye witnesses have claimed to see all sorts of stuff like the appearance of the BVM for instance?
I think some people need to remember what occurred some years ago and is in the public domain


If you are referring to the the incident which occurred on May 17th 1997 at approx 9.45pm, when I saw a figure which looked like the picture book version of Mary, I have stated many times since that I believe the vision was NOT external to my mind!
cymrudynnion

floo wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
floo wrote:
Paul wrote:
Except for the eye witnesses.


That isn't any sort of evidence at all. How many eye witnesses have claimed to see all sorts of stuff like the appearance of the BVM for instance?
I think some people need to remember what occurred some years ago and is in the public domain


If you are referring to the the incident which occurred on May 17th 1997 at approx 9.45pm, when I saw a figure which looked like the picture book version of Mary, I have stated many times since that I believe the vision was NOT external to my mind!
No I am not referring to that
cymrudynnion

Tom Cruising wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
Lexilogio wrote:
Sorry, I've been away for a couple of days.

All pre event decisions not to resuscitate (so DNR notices in notes) MUST be discussed with the patient and / or carer, and regularly reviewed. Failure to do so is a failure to meet the basic essential standards of care, and would result in action by the CQC.
CQC you have the advantage of me there. Yes I agree with your post the situation SHOULD be discussed with the pateient and family or next iof kin but for a fact I know it isn't.


Cymrudynnion,

A question for you - to see if living forever and ever and ever is more important than saving a child's life.

If you were dying and the doctors told you of a small child that needed your heart and lungs (that were a very rare match) or else they would die soon after you........would you still refuse to donate?
The answer has got nothing whatsoever to do with religion or Faith but yes I would
Tom Cruising

You'd refuse or you'd donate?

What's the reason again??
cymrudynnion

Tom if you read the posts I have made on this topic you will see on one of them I have said if the Government or any other Body in Authority brings in a rule/law that if a person is not carrying an opt out card it will be assumed they wish to have their organs used in transplanttation after tgheir death. In answer to that I said I would be near if not at the head of the queue to get such a card.
cymrudynnion

Tom Cruising wrote:
You'd refuse or you'd donate?

What's the reason again??
Refuse
FastFlint

Lexilogio wrote:
Quote:
do we have any evidence of people being harvested for their organs (in the UK, in hospital)?


Yes, organs are harvested following brain death, where there is the consent of the next of kin.


I kind of meant in a non consensual way    - once my brain stem is gone - my organs are yours - so to speak!
cyberman

FastFlint wrote:
once my brain stem is gone - my organs are yours -


I get a bit like that when I'm pissed as well.
FastFlint

cyberman wrote:
FastFlint wrote:
once my brain stem is gone - my organs are yours -


I get a bit like that when I'm pissed as well.


Just not the greatest chat up line tho....
Tom Cruising

cymrudynnion wrote:
Tom if you read the posts I have made on this topic you will see on one of them I have said if the Government or any other Body in Authority brings in a rule/law that if a person is not carrying an opt out card it will be assumed they wish to have their organs used in transplanttation after tgheir death. In answer to that I said I would be near if not at the head of the queue to get such a card.



.....so ...... in answer to my question you would rather have a child die soon after you rather than donate vital organs.......as a protest against the government (or any other authority) because they may change the law regarding donation consent....?

Have I read your posts correctly now - or am I missing something?
cyberman

Tom Cruising wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
Tom if you read the posts I have made on this topic you will see on one of them I have said if the Government or any other Body in Authority brings in a rule/law that if a person is not carrying an opt out card it will be assumed they wish to have their organs used in transplanttation after tgheir death. In answer to that I said I would be near if not at the head of the queue to get such a card.



.....so ...... in answer to my question you would rather have a child die soon after you rather than donate vital organs.......as a protest against the government (or any other authority) because they may change the law regarding donation consent....?

Have I read your posts correctly now - or am I missing something?


I'm just butting in again, but have you misread cym, Tom? He seems to be saying he would NOT want such a card - such a card being an opt-out card. So he does not want to opt out. So he DOES want to donate.

Editted - I'm talking bollocks. Forget I spoke. (I could just rub it out, of course, but that seems like cheating!)

Edited. Single T, there. Not eddittedd.
Leonard James

With respect, Cyber, I think YOU are the one who's got it wrong. He is saying he will be one of the first to get a card that opts out of organ donation.

Edit. Sorry Cyber ... I tried to delete this because I realised you had recognised your mistake, but couldn't because Gen posted straight after me!  
genghiscant

Paul wrote:
Quote:
Whilst the souls of those who already reign with Christ are indeed happy,  they also yearn to be reunited with their body.


How do you know this? Please don't tell me you read it in a book, because that's belief not knowledge.
genghiscant

Paul wrote:
Quote:
Except for the eye witnesses.


You mean the eye witnesses who can't agree on the sequence of events.

The direct descendants of the people who lived & have lived there ever since the time of the supposed resurrection ( Jews ) have no record of such an event.
cymrudynnion

cyberman wrote:
Tom Cruising wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
Tom if you read the posts I have made on this topic you will see on one of them I have said if the Government or any other Body in Authority brings in a rule/law that if a person is not carrying an opt out card it will be assumed they wish to have their organs used in transplanttation after tgheir death. In answer to that I said I would be near if not at the head of the queue to get such a card.



.....so ...... in answer to my question you would rather have a child die soon after you rather than donate vital organs.......as a protest against the government (or any other authority) because they may change the law regarding donation consent....?

Have I read your posts correctly now - or am I missing something?


I'm just butting in again, but have you misread cym, Tom? He seems to be saying he would NOT want such a card - such a card being an opt-out card. So he does not want to opt out. So he DOES want to donate.

Editted - I'm talking bollocks. Forget I spoke. (I could just rub it out, of course, but that seems like cheating!)

Edited. Single T, there. Not eddittedd.
Cyner just for The Record I DO want a card to opt out.
Paul

genghiscant wrote:
Paul wrote:
Quote:
Except for the eye witnesses.


You mean the eye witnesses who can't agree on the sequence of events.

The direct descendants of the people who lived & have lived there ever since the time of the supposed resurrection ( Jews ) have no record of such an event.


The Gospels are in harmony with one another. As for the Jews, it's hardly surprising seeing as they rejected him and put him to death.
Lexilogio

cymrudynnion wrote:
Lexilogio wrote:
Sorry, I've been away for a couple of days.

All pre event decisions not to resuscitate (so DNR notices in notes) MUST be discussed with the patient and / or carer, and regularly reviewed. Failure to do so is a failure to meet the basic essential standards of care, and would result in action by the CQC.
CQC you have the advantage of me there. Yes I agree with your post the situation SHOULD be discussed with the pateient and family or next iof kin but for a fact I know it isn't.


I agree that there are problems. But the legislation here is very clear. The CQC are the Care Quality Commission, and they will take action if they know an organisation is not properly completing and using DNACPR (the new term for DNR) forms.
genghiscant

Quote:
As for the Jews, it's hardly surprising seeing as they rejected him and put him to death.


The Jews didn't execute Jesus, the Romans did it.

Actually this is something I've never understood. Why is it that the Romans arrested, imprisoned, tried & executed Jesus, but historically get none of the blame? Why do people not point at Italians & call them Christ killers? Wouldn't have something to do with the Vatican being in Italy, would it?
Paul

No one says Pilate isn't without blame, but perhaps you should read the Gospels, especially chapters 18 and 19 of St. John's Gospel, and the Acts of the Apostles where St. Peter speaks to the Jews.
genghiscant

People blame the Jews as a race for the death of Jesus. They don't do this with the Romans. Why not?
Paul

Not as a race, no. Many Jews did convert to Christ. As a religion, yes.
genghiscant

Quote:
we believe we will be raised up on the last day.

God doesn't need our bodies to be intact in order to raise us up, but as Christians we choose burial etc. because it points to our faith in the resurrection and that that same body will be cloaked in immortality.


Do you actually believe that this is going to happen?
Paul

Yes, otherwise I wouldn't confess it.
genghiscant

Quote:
Not as a race, no. Many Jews did convert to Christ. As a religion, yes.


Oh yes they do & they always have. But you haven't answered the other part of the question. Why do the Romans & their ancestors ( Italians ) get none of the blame?
genghiscant

Quote:
The book ascribed to Matthew says, chap. xxvii, v. 45, "Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour." Ver. 51, 52, 53, "And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city and appeared unto many."


Do you believe that this actually happened?
Paul

I did answer the question: we do not blame the Jews as a race. As a religion, being the theological descendants of those refered to in the Gospels and stubborn in their unfaithfulness, the blame remains. Rome, however, converted. The elder was disinherited and made to serve the younger, so to speak.
Paul

genghiscant wrote:
Quote:
The book ascribed to Matthew says, chap. xxvii, v. 45, "Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour." Ver. 51, 52, 53, "And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city and appeared unto many."


Do you believe that this actually happened?


Yes.
genghiscant

Quote:
As a religion, being the theological descendants of those refered to in the Gospels and stubborn in their unfaithfulness, the blame remains. Rome, however, converted. The elder was disinherited and made to serve the younger, so to speak.


So you blame the Jews simply because they're not christians?
Paul

For as long as they refuse convert, yes, there is some blame, for all modern Judaism, from the most liberal to the most orthodox, comes from the same tradition which rejected and conspired to put to death their own messiah.

"Therefore let all the house of Israel know most certainly, that God hath made both Lord and Christ, this same Jesus, whom you have crucified." (St. Peter)

"You stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do you also. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? And they have slain them who foretold of the coming of the Just One; of whom you have been now the betrayers and murderers: Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it." (St. Stephen)
genghiscant

Quote:
genghiscant wrote:
Quote:
The book ascribed to Matthew says, chap. xxvii, v. 45, "Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour." Ver. 51, 52, 53, "And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city and appeared unto many."


Do you believe that this actually happened?


Yes.


So you would agree, no doubt, that all this darkness, rending, earthquakes, graves opening, long dead saints popping out of the ground & walking into the city, was a pretty remarkable event?
Why then do three other supposed eye witnesses, Mark, Luke & John not mention this fantastic happening? It's not as if it was something they saw every day. The Jews have no record of bumping into dead saints either.

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none Page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum