18 Sep 14
Another point is why didn't God add with his law on blood the exception of this: "abstain from blood unless you are starving and hungry especially if you are about to die"?
Would not the eating of blood in the case of starvation be a reasonable request from humans to God? So if you believe that, why did he not say there are exceptions to that law?
Eating it could save your life as well as transfusing it into your body, right?
Lol. Where are all the christians? No answers to this?
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120150
18 Sep 14
2 edits
Originally posted by galveston75But robbie carrobie has stated this forum that he thinks taking blood by transfusion is "a matter of personal conscience".
Another point is why didn't God add with his law on blood the exception of this: "abstain from blood unless you are starving and hungry especially if you are about to die"?
Would not the eating of blood in the case of starvation be a reasonable request from humans to God? So if you believe that, why did he not say there are exceptions to that law?
E ...[text shortened]... transfusing it into your body, right?
Lol. Where are all the christians? No answers to this?
Do you consider the taking of blood in a transfusion to be a "matter of personal conscience"?
PS I don't mind that you're ignoring me (again, bless), it just allows me to post my comments repeatedly.
🙂
18 Sep 14
Originally posted by galveston75How so? It seems pretty clear that you're just projecting something onto text that is quite clearly about something else. What year did your organisation suddenly introduce this interpretation?
All the scriptures that say abstain from blood cover that.
18 Sep 14
Originally posted by FMFWell seems we are at a stalemate on what the word abstain means. Until you understand what the explination means in every dictionary in the world, we have no reason to keep discussing this...
How so? It seems pretty clear that you're just projecting something onto text that is quite clearly about something else. What year did your organisation suddenly introduce this interpretation?
18 Sep 14
Originally posted by galveston75Look, I get the stuff about blood in pagan rites, sacrifices and other practices the Hebrews didn't like. But the rest of it is just you superimposing something different onto it.
Well seems we are at a stalemate on what the word abstain means. Until you understand what the explination means in every dictionary in the world, we have no reason to keep discussing this...
What year was it ~ when your organisation suddenly decided to project this interpretation onto the Bible text and, in so doing, set itself apart from rival organisations?
Do you know the year?
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120150
19 Sep 14
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFIt appears that even in the early years of the Watch Tower adopting this new doctrine, there was disagreement from some chapters of the organisation:
Look, I get the stuff about blood in pagan rites, sacrifices and other practices the Hebrews didn't like. But the rest of it is just you superimposing something different onto it.
What year was it ~ when your organisation suddenly decided to project this interpretation onto the Bible text and, in so doing, set itself apart from rival organisations?
Do you know the year?
"In September 1945, representatives of the Watch Tower Society in the Netherlands commented on blood transfusion in the Dutch edition of Consolation. A translation of their comments into English reads:
When we lose our life because we refuse inoculations, that does not bear witness as a justification of Jehovah's name. God never issued regulations which prohibit the use of drugs, inoculations or blood transfusions. It is an invention of people, who, like the Pharisees, leave Jehovah's mercy and love aside."
The page goes on to point out that by 1961 receiving a blood transfusion had become a disfelloshipping offence and warned that it may even impact where the Witness spends eternity. So much for it being "a matter of personal conscience". I feel desperately sad for people trapped in this cult.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions#History_of_doctrine
this has degenerated into a discussion about whether blood transfusions save lives or not. whether they are sometimes the only alternative to death or not. (it is not up for debate, at the moment it is the best and sometimes only option in many medical cases)
that wasn't my intention.
i just wanted to point out how the government CAN intervene in many countries to remove a child in danger of losing its life from murdering parents. how the authorities CAN intervene and prevent a murder.
i can't summon the strength to explain to a fundamentalist jw how his belief is moronic. i simply want to make sure that innocent children who don't have a voice (legally) aren't killed because of what some sheeple believe.
19 Sep 14
Originally posted by galveston75What year was it ~ when your organisation suddenly decided to project this interpretation onto the Bible text and, in so doing, set itself apart from rival organisations?
http://stanmed.stanford.edu/2013spring/article5.html
Read and become educated on blood.
19 Sep 14
Originally posted by FMFAs I said we have come to a stalemate so let's leave it at that. And I'm not looking for a loaded question that no matter how I answer you will be just like Dive dude and never listen to the answer and possibly learn something for your own health should you need a transfusion. You and he are only here to blindly condemn the JW's and could care less about the dangers and what God has said.
What year was it ~ when your organisation suddenly decided to project this interpretation onto the Bible text and, in so doing, set itself apart from rival organisations?
I'm done with this thread unless any Christians have the "you know what" to comment on my last question about their child eating blood. I'm still waiting on that......
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120150
19 Sep 14
Originally posted by galveston75I see, so you are going to ignore my legitimate debating questions completely. Nice way to stand up for your organisation; just ignore those who disagree with you and bury your head further into the sand of your own dogma.
As I said we have come to a stalemate so let's leave it at that. And I'm not looking for a loaded question that no matter how I answer you will be just like Dive dude and never listen to the answer and possibly learn something for your own health should you need a transfusion. You and he are only here to blindly condemn the JW's and could care less about ...[text shortened]... " to comment on my last question about their child eating blood. I'm still waiting on that......
Originally posted by galveston75FMF is an apostate, he has left Christianity and formed his own religion, meism and attracts other scourgy windbags like wussjeester. You are correct they are uninterested in establishing the Biblical perspective and are simply content to proffer their own opinions as substantiation for their religion of mesim. Christianity was never like that, it was all about other people.
As I said we have come to a stalemate so let's leave it at that. And I'm not looking for a loaded question that no matter how I answer you will be just like Dive dude and never listen to the answer and possibly learn something for your own health should you need a transfusion. You and he are only here to blindly condemn the JW's and could care less about ...[text shortened]... " to comment on my last question about their child eating blood. I'm still waiting on that......