Originally posted by Conrau KI'm not being condescending, I'm trying to reason with you about this scripture.
It would mean to not eat strangled animals. I have already said as much. You needn't be condescending here. Just put your argument forward now and save your time.
So the word abstain simply means do not touch or eat or have anything to do with these three other things I've mentioned, right?
But now when it comes to blood you seem to forget what that word means according to your answers and now with blood it becomes vague to you and you say it doesn't mean the same....
Anyway I give up and should have days ago.
You are willing to obey ceretian laws that fit your life but others you don't when it isn't comfortable.
Oh well, Jesus described this type of so called followers so it's no suprise to see it here..... If you choose to remain blind to this simple bible truth, god will never let you understand it no matter what ones who do see it say. Good day!!!!
Originally posted by RJHindsYeah it is kinda stupid for me to keep going in circles with you on just about anything much less the Bible.. Your so stuck in some spiritless vacuum that even if Jehovah spoke to you, you'd still argue with him about anything and I'm sure about his name too....Ha!
Forget it. He has only circular arguments.
I've also noticed that not one person has commented on the links I gave a few pages ago about the bloodless surgery and the fantastic benifits it offers.
No longer would anyone need blood and all it's problems, injected into their body.
But as I said I haven't noticed one single comment but yet most here have done nothing but rip the JW's stand on not using blood.
And as the articles bring out this progress that benifits us all was mostly brought to the front by the Witnesses because of their stand which forced doctors to look at other ways to treat ones who do not accept blood.
So now all you here who have just ripped us apart with foolish talk can have a surgery or emergancy room issue and be assured you will not have the complications that a blood transfusion would haunt you with.
I hope it never happens to any of you or your family but if it does and if you elect to go bloodless, I hope in your "thick skulls" you'll remember why this is an option for you and your family and who was behind this becoming widespread in use.................
Ok the word blood transfusion is not in the bible yet JW's build a whole doctrine around it saying it's the same as actually eating the blood (JUST SILLY) Yet the bible is silent about blood transfusions because they did not exist 2000 years ago. The irony is the JW's jump all over trinitarians saying the word trinity is not in the bible yet they build a doctrine on this concept. Just stupid @$$ Logic
Manny
Originally posted by menace71This is your problem. Your still stuck in the simple things of the Bible and have not gone beyond that and matured in knowledge. And to make it worse you let pagan/man made doctrines enter in and they have now blinded your eyes to the clear truth of the Bible such as the trinity. What a joke......
Ok the word blood transfusion is not in the bible yet JW's build a whole doctrine around it saying it's the same as actually eating the blood (JUST SILLY) Yet the bible is silent about blood transfusions because they did not exist 2000 years ago. The irony is the JW's jump all over trinitarians saying the word trinity is not in the bible yet they build a doctrine on this concept. Just stupid @$$ Logic
Manny
Proverbs 1:22
New Life Version (NLV)
22 “O foolish ones, how long will you love being foolish? How long will those who laugh at others be happy in their laughing? How long will fools hate much learning?
Now the problem that comes up is this.....We have strived to mature and have progressed to the deeper things in the Bible that infant's cannot understand and as a result the second question in this scripture now applies to you and the other 3 spiritual infants here at RHP. Any half witted fool knows what the command to abstain means. It has to take someone way down on the nitt-witt scale to miss that one.
The Jehovah Witness organisation will relax thier stance on blood transfussions as and when it becomes sufficiently socially, politically and importantly, fiscally expedient to do so. If the membership had the moral backbone to oppose in solidarity and threaten to exit the group, the senior leadership would change it tomorrow.
The rule is morally abhorant and completely ridiculous; I feel so sorry for the poor people who lose loved ones because of this bondage. I suppose JW's never eat any meat - never bbq a steak!
Idiotic nonsense that will keep this cult (thankfully) in the margins of their alledged Christianity.
Originally posted by divegeesterThe Jehovah Witness organisation will relax thier stance on blood transfussions as
The Jehovah Witness organisation will relax thier stance on blood transfussions as and when it becomes sufficiently socially, politically and importantly, fiscally expedient to do so. If the membership had the moral backbone to oppose in solidarity and threaten to exit the group, the senior leadership would change it tomorrow.
The rule is morally abh c nonsense that will keep this cult (thankfully) in the margins of their alledged Christianity.
and when it becomes sufficiently socially, politically and importantly, fiscally
expedient to do so
wrong! i cannot think of one instance where we have succumbed to the popular
opinion of the heaving turbulent masses, we are no part of this world, politically
neutral and could not care less what those loaded down with issues think of us, we
are awesome and we are beautiful, no one can touch us for integrity to our beliefs
nor in carrying out the perceived will of God, send you donations to your charities,
appease your consciences, as for us, i think the words of Robert Burns, who has
been quoted more than once in our articles shall suffice on the matter of worldly issues,
But gie me a cannie hour at e'en
My arms about my Dearie, O
An' warly cares, an' warly men
May a' gae tapsalteerie, O
(warly: wordly, e'en: evening, tapsalteerie: topsy-turvy.)
Originally posted by divegeesterThey have chosen that bondage.
The Jehovah Witness organisation will relax thier stance on blood transfussions as and when it becomes sufficiently socially, politically and importantly, fiscally expedient to do so. If the membership had the moral backbone to oppose in solidarity and threaten to exit the group, the senior leadership would change it tomorrow.
The rule is morally abh ...[text shortened]... c nonsense that will keep this cult (thankfully) in the margins of their alledged Christianity.
Originally posted by Rajk999yes because exercising the right of self determination , that is the right to do with ones
They have chosen that bondage.
own body as one sees fit according to the dictates of conscience, is a bondage???,
you noobs are clueless, really, absolutely thick as mince!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIn your self proclaimed awesomeness - do you or other JWs eat steak? Or other meat?
The Jehovah Witness organisation will relax thier stance on blood transfussions as
and when it becomes sufficiently socially, politically and importantly, fiscally
expedient to do so
wrong! i cannot think of one instance where we have succumbed to the popular
opinion of the heaving turbulent masses, we are no part of this world, politically ...[text shortened]...
May a' gae tapsalteerie, O
(warly: wordly, e'en: evening, tapsalteerie: topsy-turvy.)
Originally posted by divegeesterAha, i see where you are trying to go with this, never the less, one cannot expect to
In your self proclaimed awesomeness - do you or other JWs eat steak? Or other meat?
drain every vestige of blood from an animal, therefore its a matter of conscience. I
was vegetarian for years, even now i dont really like eating meat. If steak is your
thing then so be it, personally i d rather have a spinach and cheese curry 🙂
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOf course, but how much blood is considered a sin? A rare steak? A well done steak where actually the blood is still there but it's cooked? If consuming blood is a no-no then eating any meat should be a no-no too surely?
Aha, i see where you are trying to go with this, never the less, one cannot expect to
drain every vestige of blood from an animal, therefore its a matter of conscience. I
was vegetarian for years, even now i dont really like eating meat. If steak is your
thing then so be it, personally i d rather have a spinach and cheese curry 🙂
What is a matter of conscience? Is this JW speak for 'make your own mind up'. I'd be impressed if it was, but somehow I don't think so.
Originally posted by divegeesterActually all that Gods law stipulated to the Israelites was that the animal was properly
Of course, but how much blood is considered a sin? A rare steak? A well done steak where actually the blood is still there but it's cooked? If consuming blood is a no-no then eating any meat should be a no-no too surely?
What is a matter of conscience? Is this JW speak for 'make your own mind up'. I'd be impressed if it was, but somehow I don't think so.
bled, they were not to eat the blood but pour it out, now obviously a residue would
have been left. Yes its entirely up to the individual, that is what exercising ones
conscience means.