What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

When was This Decided??

Pebbles said:
Only for 12 months.

I myself am disbarred from donationg blood because nobody wants dirty tranny blood dispite me never having had sex.

When I ask why I can't each place I asked came up with seperate reasons. Any excuse really.
Click to expand...


uh, thats odd, that isnt the case here in america. i am banned for life as well as my wife. the reason i had relations with a man(though tested time and time again for aids and never had any positives)

its a six month ban on that not permanent. just any who go to haiti cant give for a while, or africa. depending on peebles age and she cant give blood here due to mad cow disease.
 
jasoncran said:
uh, thats odd, that isnt the case here in america. i am banned for life as well as my wife. the reason i had relations with a man(though tested time and time again for aids and never had any positives)

its a six month ban on that not permanent. just any who go to haiti cant give for a while, or africa. depending on peebles age and she cant give blood here due to mad cow disease.
Click to expand...
They are only polotically motivated in reasoning and have no basis in health iat all. very much like laws regarding a sizable section of illegal drugs.

FYI If you get a tattoo your banned for 12 months.

I'm asked wheather I'm eligable awhile back. I'm banned on the following reasons.

1: My estrogen is injectable and I administered it myself (Lifetime ban)
2: They incorrectly assumed I'm a prostitute (Lifetime ban)
3: They incorrectly assumed I've had gay sex. (Lifetime ban)
4: Eletrolysis proceedures I undergo involve needles (12 month ban)

5: *USA only* your british (Lifetime ban)

Every sample is tested for Hep C and HIV. The limits on these tests are that
Hep C tests can only detect infection 6 months after you were intitally exposed
HIV tests can only detect infection 1 months after you were intially exposed.

So it's possible for contaminated blood to slip through the net in those windows.

But the rules are silly... If you a normal woman or man who has unprotected sex with 50 of the opposite sex in a month, your allowed to then donate blood immediately as long as you didn't explicitly "Sell" sex to any of them. This is obviously absurdly reckless and shouldn't be allowed but it is.

Where as the other mentioned absurdity is jason who had gay sex probably decades ago. Clearly dosen't have HIV or Hep C is still banned.

If I could write the rules I'd ban anyone gay or straight who's had unprotected (Without a condom) sex for 9 months. That would be the safest option.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jasoncran said:
in my days of sinnin, ie lying, conning, i had an ear piercing on my left ear and i may have if i was still a sinner a tatoo. but then in 1996 or back , certainly not.

its not that they bother me just that as christians we shouldnt act the like the world.
Click to expand...

I don't see tatoos as a "sin" or "worldly". It's just a personal thing and it is on the "outside" of man. We should just be concerned about what's on the "inside". :)

I have been thinking about getting a pink breast cancer ribbon on my wrist because I am a breast cancer survivor. As for personal preference, I don't like tatoos all over the place! But to each his own.
 
reba said:
Wouldn't the funds be better spent donated to the cancer foundation?
Click to expand...

IDK. I would not know how and where the funds were being spent. I think a lot of so-called foundations (not necessarily the cancer foundation) misappropriate funds. I think that for me I would rather be a living testimony to others. When they see the tatoo, it opens up conversation. Maybe, just maybe, it would open up conversation with someone who was just diagnosed with breast cancer and I could inspire them. :yes
 
Pebbles said:
They are only polotically motivated in reasoning and have no basis in health iat all. very much like laws regarding a sizable section of illegal drugs.

FYI If you get a tattoo your banned for 12 months.

I'm asked wheather I'm eligable awhile back. I'm banned on the following reasons.

1: My estrogen is injectable and I administered it myself (Lifetime ban)
2: They incorrectly assumed I'm a prostitute (Lifetime ban)
3: They incorrectly assumed I've had gay sex. (Lifetime ban)
4: Eletrolysis proceedures I undergo involve needles (12 month ban)

5: *USA only* your british (Lifetime ban)

Every sample is tested for Hep C and HIV. The limits on these tests are that
Hep C tests can only detect infection 6 months after you were intitally exposed
HIV tests can only detect infection 1 months after you were intially exposed.

So it's possible for contaminated blood to slip through the net in those windows.

But the rules are silly... If you a normal woman or man who has unprotected sex with 50 of the opposite sex in a month, your allowed to then donate blood immediately as long as you didn't explicitly "Sell" sex to any of them. This is obviously absurdly reckless and shouldn't be allowed but it is.

Where as the other mentioned absurdity is jason who had gay sex probably decades ago. Clearly dosen't have HIV or Hep C is still banned.

If I could write the rules I'd ban anyone gay or straight who's had unprotected (Without a condom) sex for 9 months. That would be the safest option.
Click to expand...


i was able to donate,they redifined what bill clinton recieved to be sex, thus the ban but yes those rules are bit silly.

stats here do show that the msm is the highest in stds ratio. thats probably why.
 
When it comes to "body modification" it's all about intent (not to mention financial stewardship).

Altering ones body through tattoos, piercings, cosmetic plastic surgery (breast augmentations, liposuction, rhinoplasty ect) for the sole reason of being unsatisfied with the vessel God gave us is sinful behavior.


---
- New International Version unless noted otherwise
 
hmmmm... So as I was saying... What is with all the full body tattoos and tattoos on the neck? ON THE NECK! I saw two that really frightened me; I mean I almost started to whimper. One was a tat of a bar-code covering the back of a guy's neck, and the other was a fully bald guy with a face (I'm talkin' a face) tattoo'd on the back of his noggin! Folks, dude had a face tattoo'd on the back of his head! When I saw that, I had an urge to go find a corner for myself and curl up into the fetal position; ya know, suck my thumb and all. :sad

I'm going to start up a turtle neck business, cause I'm thinking in a number of years, this style will be in HUGE demand!

Man, it was a wild, wild scene.
 
Drummer4Christ said:
When it comes to "body modification" it's all about intent (not to mention financial stewardship).

Altering ones body through tattoos, piercings, cosmetic plastic surgery (breast augmentations, liposuction, rhinoplasty ect) for the sole reason of being unsatisfied with the vessel God gave us is sinful behavior.
Click to expand...
so would you be opposed to correcting birth defects that cause loss of function.

cleft palates for exsample.

Afterall presumibly god gave them that defect. Is it sinful to be unsatisfied with begin barely able to swallow?
 
Pebbles said:
so would you be opposed to correcting birth defects that cause loss of function.

cleft palates for exsample.

Afterall presumibly god gave them that defect. Is it sinful to be unsatisfied with begin barely able to swallow?
Click to expand...

Pebbles, are determined to derail this thread? :shrug
 
Pebbles said:
so would you be opposed to correcting birth defects that cause loss of function.

cleft palates for exsample.

Afterall presumibly god gave them that defect. Is it sinful to be unsatisfied with begin barely able to swallow?
Click to expand...

I wrote "cosmetic" not "reconstructive" plastic surgery.

I should have known my post would hit a nerve with you. I apologize if I've offended you in any way.


---
- New International Version unless noted otherwise
 
So you think purely cosmetic surgery is wrong? I was just thinking about this the other day. I was reading online that elective plastic surgery procedures in the US have fallen because of the economy, but less invasive in-office procedures are up. I guess its yes to botox but no to a facelift.

Anyway, I just don't know. I knew one guy who got his whole face remodeled. He was kind of vapid and self-absorbed, but it did improve his looks a lot and people were a lot nicer to him. Its so hard sometimes to be less than attractive and/or aging in a culture that has a narrow definition of "beauty" and is obsessed with youth. This may sound terrible, but sometimes I think its a good thing that we have doctors who can help people "fit in" better with what society deems attractive; I think it might make their lives easier. On the other hand, it helps reinforce our concepts of beauty and makes it that much harder for people who don't have the time, money, or inclination to get surgery.

Do you really think its a sin?
 
it depends on the heart of the person. how far is too far? diet and exercise are goodm but what if one competes and also wants to go into beauty contests (women)?

isnt that all about vanity??
 
Mike said:
I took the family to Cedar Point this weekend. (It's an American amusement park.) When was the vote by all of the human race that EVERYONE, yes EVERYONE get either a neck and/or full back and/or full arm tattoo? When was it decided that we were all on board??

I'm not bashing tattoo's or those who have them. Personally, I would never get one, but we're all different. I get it. The point is that I go to a park like this... I must have missed the vote, or the email.

When did this happen? When I was growing in the 70's, some people had an arm tattoo. What is up with at least 90% of people from a random sample at Cedar Point have massive tattoos, many of which are not in places that can be hidden for a day-time job. :o
Click to expand...

I don't like LITTLE tattoos either.
 
Personally, there's only a couple tattoos I ever found appeasing. I think the world is just falling into sin and tattoos are not really enforced. LOTS of people at my school have them.
 
My neck and face and some on my chest too I cherish those spots of my skin that are smooth white and squishy free to scarring. Branded cream play the role to remove these spots.
 
Christ_empowered said:
I just don't know. I knew one guy who got his whole face remodeled. He was kind of vapid and self-absorbed, but it did improve his looks a lot and people were a lot nicer to him. Its so hard sometimes to be less than attractive and/or aging in a culture that has a narrow definition of "beauty" and is obsessed with youth. This may sound terrible, but sometimes I think its a good thing that we have doctors who can help people "fit in" better with what society deems attractive; I think it might make their lives easier. On the other hand, it helps reinforce our concepts of beauty and makes it that much harder for people who don't have the time, money, or inclination to get surgery.

Do you really think its a sin?
Click to expand...

I'll use myself as an example:

I am 5'5 and 135lbs. I have not grown an inch or gained significant weight since puberty.
I have a "widows peak" hairline.
I have a noticeable scar on my lip from where it was split open.

Granted, unlike my build & hairline, I was not born with a "deformed" lip. However, it does not change the fact that it affects the aesthetics of my God given outward appearance.

That being said, I have long accepted my diminutive stature and Eddie Munster hairline. My scared lip does not affect my ability to eat/communicate, so I've accepted this "defect" as well.

Clearly, God did not design me to be a super star athlete, supermodel, or movie star. However, God did endow me with other physical attributes that correspond with other gifts He has bestowed upon me:

I have long/slender fingers that enable me to play guitar/piano. I have long arms that enable me to play drums. My auditory organs enable me to play music "by ear" & my vocal chords enable me to have a three octave vocal range.

Would I not be ungrateful by lamenting indignantly about my perceived physical shortcomings?

Should I not be thankful for the gifts God has endowed upon me, so that I may utilize them for His glory?

I do not see how it is a "good thing" that people alter themselves in order to please the world. Especially a world that rejects Christ and the transformative nature of the Spirit.


---
- New International Version unless noted otherwise
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top