- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120150
17 Sep 14
Originally posted by galveston75Firstly, you are being dishonest; it's not scriptures it's a single scripture and you remove it from context and make a doctrine out of it.
I know the answers I'll get but a question to all Christians about blood. You all know the scriptures that speak of blood and the command to abstain from eating it. You also know that God condemns that and it was even reinforced by the apostles referring to those original commands to Noah. So up to the time of the apostles that law still stood and it sti ...[text shortened]... to obey God and let that child eat that blood?
What could one learn from Abraham and his son?
Secondly I would question any religious dogma that causes or permits another human being to be harmed, because I could be wrong about the dogma - get it??
Thirdly, your pathetic efforts to rationalise and justify the death of a child in even a hypothetical situation, reveal the depths to which you have sunk to in your own mind.
17 Sep 14
Originally posted by galveston75"What could one learn from Abraham and his son?"
I know the answers I'll get but a question to all Christians about blood. You all know the scriptures that speak of blood and the command to abstain from eating it. You also know that God condemns that and it was even reinforced by the apostles referring to those original commands to Noah. So up to the time of the apostles that law still stood and it sti ...[text shortened]... to obey God and let that child eat that blood?
What could one learn from Abraham and his son?
that abe failed his test miserably and he is a psychopath. apparently he would murder his son without thought whenever a voice in his head tells him to.
"What would you choose? Obey that clear law in the Bible from God, or would you choose not to obey God and let that child eat that blood?"
you people (witnesses i mean) are truly insane. whenever i ask why you don't stone adulterers to death you keep saying that jesus changed those laws. but not this blood thing. it is now ok to plant different crops in the same field, wear clothes made from different materials, eat shellfish , but not the blood thing. it is now NOT ok to sell your daughter into slavery.
but the blood thing remains.
how do you decide on what to follow and what not? do you have a holy goat that chews dictionaries and whatever it craps out, is a new watchtower policy?
17 Sep 14
Originally posted by DeepThoughtYes you are right, we would still refuse them.
But it is not because of the risks of transfusions that you refuse them is it. Where they invariably successful then you would still refuse transfusions.
All medical procedures involve risk, but if someone has lost too much blood then they will die without a transfusion, so a failure of the procedure isn't actually a harm.
Speaking for myself and now knowing what I now know about the dangers of either possibly dying anyway or contacting some disease that would make the life afterwards miserable with some sickness, I would still refuse blood and opt for other bloodless treatments.
But everyone here gets all up in arms because we don't accept them and yes one or two will die. But looking at the facts of those who do and the much larger amount that do die from transfusions compared to the JW's, it's obvious that most do not know the facts of the number of deaths and only react unfairly to our stand and yell religious unjustice to us.
All need to get their head out of the sand and see the facts of transfusions and should educate themselves to the other options if they are faced with this themselves and never put the blood of another human into their veins and the dangers that could be done to their bodies.
The other options are there and have progressed greatly for our health and life, to not take advantage of.
17 Sep 14
Originally posted by ZahlanziWow, your out their dude........
"What could one learn from Abraham and his son?"
that abe failed his test miserably and he is a psychopath. apparently he would murder his son without thought whenever a voice in his head tells him to.
"What would you choose? Obey that clear law in the Bible from God, or would you choose not to obey God and let that child eat that blood?"
you people ...[text shortened]... have a holy goat that chews dictionaries and whatever it craps out, is a new watchtower policy?
17 Sep 14
Originally posted by galveston75Do you believe a Christian letting a child die for the want of a blood transfusion pleases or displeases your God figure?
Yes you are right, we would still refuse them.
Speaking for myself and now knowing what I now know about the dangers of either possibly dying anyway or contacting some disease that would make the life afterwards miserable with some sickness, I would still refuse blood and opt for other bloodless treatments.
But everyone here gets all up in arms bec ...[text shortened]... options are there and have progressed greatly for our health and life, to not take advantage of.
17 Sep 14
Originally posted by FMFDo you think he finds pleasure in a human dying? No he doesn't in case you don't know. In fact it is because of his love for humans and knowing all the dangers of taking another humans blood into their bodies that he gave the command to abstain from it.
Do you believe a Christian letting a child die for the want of a blood transfusion pleases or displeases your God figure?
And if a human should die for not taking blood, he will resurrect that person back to life in the future. That human is not lost off into oblivian somewhere to never be seen again. There is a much bigger picture then ones immediate life now where we all die anyway in the end from old age.
The ones resurrected will have the chance to live forever and that more then makes up for us dying now from whatever takes our life.
17 Sep 14
Originally posted by galveston75That wasn't really what I asked you. My question was about whether you think that obeying what you claim is a prohibition on blood transfusions ~ at whatever personal cost to you, like a child dying as a result ~ would please or displease your God figure.
Do you think he finds pleasure in a human dying? No he doesn't in case you don't know.
17 Sep 14
Originally posted by FMFI'll post this again......"Do you think he finds pleasure in a human dying? No he doesn't in case you don't know. In fact it is because of his love for humans and knowing all the dangers of taking another humans blood into their bodies that he gave the command to abstain from it".
That wasn't really what I asked you. My question was about whether you think that obeying what you claim is a prohibition on blood transfusions ~ at whatever personal cost to you, like a child dying as a result ~ would please or displease your God figure.
17 Sep 14
Originally posted by galveston75In what other ways does your "we all die anyway" aphorism influence your attitude to the protection of children from mortal threats?
There is a much bigger picture then ones immediate life now where we all die anyway in the end from old age.
The ones resurrected will have the chance to live forever and that more then makes up for us dying now from whatever takes our life.
17 Sep 14
Originally posted by galveston75That is not an answer to the question I asked you.
I'll post this again......"Do you think he finds pleasure in a human dying? No he doesn't in case you don't know. In fact it is because of his love for humans and knowing all the dangers of taking another humans blood into their bodies that he gave the command to abstain from it".
17 Sep 14
Originally posted by galveston75Where is there anything in the Bible about the dangers of blood transfusions?
...it is because of his love for humans and knowing all the dangers of taking another humans blood into their bodies that he gave the command to abstain from it.