Originally posted by Proper Knobyeah he did!
He did, finally, answer this on the previous page -
'No my objection is not whether it is safe or not, but based on a religious principle (abstain from blood) and philosophical (the right of self determination) , safety of procedure is meaningless in this context.'
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120150
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt was in a mixed in with reply to someone else as you are, for some reason better known to yourself, ignoring me ...again.
yeah he did!
Perhaps if you stopped behaving like a little girl and engaged with my questions you would spare me the ignominy of having to trawl through your ramblings looking for clues.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120150
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou have admitted that the health factors are irrelevant and that it is purely on religious grounds - do you agree with what the watchtower posted ; that the taking of blood carries with it the risks of the recipient assuming the characteristics of the donor e.g. lust, cravings, addictions, even the desire to murder?
yeah he did!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNot millions at all .........maybe 1000's ? but not millions and I bet as medical technology gets better that number would be even less ......I admit and agree there is a small risk for one receiving a blood transfusion but I would wager that people die going to the dentist or getting their tonsils pulled so do we altogether not go to the dentist anymore ? No
FMF the apostate, bwahahaha, he cannot be trusted and neither can cabbagejeester
answer the question,
have thousands and possibly millions of people died as a direct or indirect consequence of blood transfusions?
Manny
Originally posted by menace71robbie has shown himself to be unwilling/unable to discuss or defend his posts about the level of safety (or otherwise) of blood transfusions. He has essentially admitted that he has been spamming the thread [the "safety of procedure is meaningless in this context"] and I deduce that this has been him trying to deflect attention away from the issue of human sacrifice (and the JW stance on it) which was raised by the OP.
Not millions at all .........maybe 1000's ?
Originally posted by divegeesterGood point the Old testament is full of Blood and the Levites were to sprinkle the blood all over the alter also in the plagues of Egypt the final plague God told them to smear or place Blood on and over their door post ....They were in contact with the Blood ......
Can you explain how "even touching blood" is dangerous? You claim god commands not to "touch blood" - ok so were the priests wearing rubber gloves and body suits when they slaughtered the animals for sacrifice?
Manny
The principle in the New Testament was that Gentiles and Jews were becoming one in the Christian Faith ...And the Abstain from blood was to appease the Jewish Christians. I would a step further and say one could actually eat food and not be sinning at all ....The principle of Christian Liberty is that all things are permissible in there place but not all things beneficial......
1 Timothy 4 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Apostasy
4 But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, 3 men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude; 5 for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer.
Colossians 2:16--
16 Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day— 17 things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.
Colossians 2:20----
20 If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, 21 “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” 22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? 23 These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.
These scriptures refute the JW doctrine of don't touch blood or technically any food and there are more....The other principal which Paul teaches is not to destroy your brothers conscience in the matter of things like this ....as some have faith that they may do all things
Manny
The Heart of Man Matthew 15:15----
15 Peter said to Him, “Explain the parable to us.” 16 Jesus said, “Are you still lacking in understanding also? 17 Do you not understand that everything that goes into the mouth passes into the stomach, and is eliminated? 18 But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders. 20 These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man.”
Jesus says it is not what enters the man that defiles but comes out of the heart
Manny
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120150
Originally posted by FMFI agree, and I'd also like to make a point about forum etiquette (again).
robbie has shown himself to be unwilling/unable to discuss or defend his posts about the level of safety (or otherwise) of blood transfusions. He has essentially admitted that he has been spamming the thread [the "safety of procedure is meaningless in this context"] and I deduce that this has been him trying to deflect attention away from the issue of human sacrifice (and the JW stance on it) which was raised by the OP.
I've made a point of calling out the fact that Galveston75 and robbie carrobie strategically (i.e. planned) ignored all my questions in this thread. Every post I made was on topic and based on either research into the JWs or was reasonable constructed argument.
So why do they ignore these points? Here's my take on it:
It is intellectual dishonestly again. Pretending that I'm an antichrist (yes I was accused of this by one of them recently) because I challenge their beliefs. They seem to have convinced themselves that the best way to deal with my posts is not to argue or deflect but to ignore and they justify this by claiming I am an antichrist.
I don't know what other posters think of his behaviour but for me it underlines their dishonestly and insecurity as well as reinforcing my argument against them.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120150
Originally posted by menace71As is often pointed out to the JWs, one has to take the bible texts in full context. For Galveston75 to claim that god has commanded to "not even touch blood" is a lie frankly; the bible neither states this nor demonstrates this at any point.
Good point the Old testament is full of Blood and the Levites were to sprinkle the blood all over the alter also in the plagues of Egypt the final plague God told them to smear or place Blood on and over their door post ....They were in contact with the Blood ......
Manny
I'm an antichrist though, so probably under the influence of satan.
Originally posted by divegeesterI can assure you that there is nothing wriiten in scripture that says not to touch blood or to refrain from ever having a blood transfusion. See Leviticus 12.
As is often pointed out to the JWs, one has to take the bible texts in full context. For Galveston75 to claim that god has commanded to "not even touch blood" is a lie frankly; the bible neither states this nor demonstrates this at any point.
I'm an antichrist though, so probably under the influence of satan.
Originally posted by menace71what is it about
Not millions at all .........maybe 1000's ? but not millions and I bet as medical technology gets better that number would be even less ......I admit and agree there is a small risk for one receiving a blood transfusion but I would wager that people die going to the dentist or getting their tonsils pulled so do we altogether not go to the dentist anymore ? No
Manny
hundreds of thousands up to millions of farmers and peasants were infected with HIV through participation in state-run blood collection programs in which contaminated equipment was reused!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_China
that is difficult to understand? did I make that up, is it fictional, uncorroborated, a fantasy, tell us Manfred my friend, on what is your estimation of, and I quote, 'thousands', based upon, for you have provided no link, no substantiation, no corroborating evidence, I say to you, you simply made it up.
I will hear your confessions now.
Originally posted by menace71on the contaray the reasoning that you seem to be haviong diffculty with is this,
The principle in the New Testament was that Gentiles and Jews were becoming one in the Christian Faith ...And the Abstain from blood was to appease the Jewish Christians. I would a step further and say one could actually eat food and not be sinning at all ....The principle of Christian Liberty is that all things are permissible in there place but not all th ...[text shortened]... e in the matter of things like this ....as some have faith that they may do all things
Manny
if the Bible states that its forbidden to eat blood or drink blood then on what basis is it permissible to inject it intravenously? that eating is not the same as injecting, wow.
'One who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much' - Luke 16:10
Here is the simple reasoning and logic, if someone forbids you to drink whisky would you then conclude that it is permissible to inject it into your veins? No then your assertions regarding the stance of Jehovash witnesses and the use of blood is overturned and your arguments refuted,
tell us why if its not permissible to drink or eat something (and the Bible clearly states that it is not) why it is permissible to inject it into your body? (that eating drinking and injecting are not the same is simply not going to hold, because clearly injecting is much more serious and much more deadly) otherwise your assertions of apostasy and not upholding biblical standards completely without foundation.
In other words those who say that eating and injecting are not one and the same thing are straining out the gnat and gulping down the camel - thank you Jesus
I will hear your confessions now.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieInjecting blood into your veins can, and does save people lives. Injecting whisky into your veins will almost certainly kill you. That is the difference.
on the contaray the reasoning that you seem to be haviong diffculty with is this,
if the Bible states that its forbidden to eat blood or drink blood then on what basis is it permissible to inject it intravenously? that eating is not the same as injecting, wow.
'One who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much' - Luke 16:10
Here ...[text shortened]... g out the gnat and gulping down the camel - thank you Jesus
I will hear your confessions now.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieignore.
what is it about
hundreds of thousands up to millions of farmers and peasants were infected with HIV through participation in state-run blood collection programs in which contaminated equipment was reused!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_China
that is difficult to understand? did I make that up, is it fictional, uncorroborated, ...[text shortened]... roborating evidence, I say to you, you simply made it up.
I will hear your confessions now.