13 Sep 12
4 edits
Originally posted by galveston75What am I confused about?
Sorry you are so confused...
Let's recap your view. According to you, the loving, just, righteous, all-knowing man in the sky has said to abstain from blood, excepting cases where you slaughter innocent animals in order to bring Him glory (I'm not sure how that brings him actual glory, but let's go with it for a second).
So, it follows that if there are medical procedures involving the use of blood that are in fact life-saving, you are to abstain from using blood in such ways; remember, only use blood when brutally slaying innocent animals.
I don't think I am confused here. According to your view, we should never use blood when it entails saving or prolonging the lives of sentient beings; rather, we should only use blood when it entails their brutal suffering and death. Like I said: makes sense to me that a perfectly loving and righteous God would instruct us thusly.
13 Sep 12
Originally posted by LemonJelloI haven't slayne any animals.
What am I confused about?
Let's recap your view. According to you, the loving, just, righteous, all-knowing man in the sky has said to abstain from blood, excepting cases where you slaughter innocent animals in order to bring Him glory (I'm not sure how that brings him actual glory, but let's go with it for a second).
So, it follows that if there a ...[text shortened]... said: makes sense to me that a perfectly loving and righteous God would instruct us thusly.
13 Sep 12
Originally posted by galveston75How is that relevant? I didn't claim that you have.
I haven't slayne any animals.
Care to comment on the actual content of my post? The actual content is the following. According to your view, a perfectly loving and righteous God has provided instructions that imply that one should never use blood when this use entails the saving or prolonging of life for sentient beings; and that one should only use blood when doing so entails the suffering and death of sentient beings. Does that not sound rather bizarre? Care to explain how that makes any sense?
14 Sep 12
Originally posted by LemonJelloNot to me. God used animal sacrifices for a reason. So again, if you have a problem with that, give him a jingle.
How is that relevant? I didn't claim that you have.
Care to comment on the actual content of my post? The actual content is the following. According to your view, a perfectly loving and righteous God has provided instructions that imply that one should never use blood when this use entails the saving or prolonging of life for sentient beings; and th ...[text shortened]... entient beings. Does that not sound rather bizarre? Care to explain how that makes any sense?
14 Sep 12
Originally posted by galveston75My point is the Old testament and the Leviticus Priesthood was a bloody affair but I really don't think you really read much of the bible other than what your dudes in Brooklyn allow you to read. Dude with half my brain tied behind my back I can still pay attention LOL 🙂 On one hand it's abstain from blood on the other hand as I've shown you in scripture it shows a bloody affair so either your god is whacked or there is a different correct understanding which transcends your dudes in Brooklyn comprehension.
And you obviously don't read all my posting as I mentioned this. I know your not paying attention as usual.
Manny
14 Sep 12
Originally posted by galveston75Can you give Lemon a coherent answer for what he is asking you? Why would a god allow the slaughter of animals for sacrifice yet not allow blood transfusion?
Not to me. God used animal sacrifices for a reason. So again, if you have a problem with that, give him a jingle.
Manny
14 Sep 12
Originally posted by galveston75Hello! Quoting the same verse 6 times from 6 different translations is still one verse. And it still talks about 'eating' blood not transfusions.
Not so in these and MOST versions of the Bible. Need to see more?
Acts 15:20
Today's New International Version (TNIV)
20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.
Acts 15:20
King James Version (KJV)
20 But that we write ...[text shortened]... abstain from things polluted by idols, from fornication, from what is strangled and from blood.
You lot really are nuts; you must realise this sometimes, in your dreams maybe.
14 Sep 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI find it ultimately ironic that one who often chides others for their apparent ignorance should harp back to a medical procedure which has a well documented history of fatality.
As technology has increased the need for whole blood products has diminished, for
many alternative procedures and recombinant alternatives are now available. I find it
ultimately ironic that one who often chides others for their apparent ignorance should
harp back to a medical procedure which has a well documented history of fatality, then
a ...[text shortened]... ted one professes to be, a willingness to look at
alternatives seems to be the remit of a few.
I think you'd find that nearly every medical procedure has a 'well documented history of fatality', that's the nature of medicine. But as LemonJello pointed out, which of course you ignored, this is a red herring from you. Even if blood transfusions were 100% safe you still wouldn't use them. Safety isn't the issue here, the issue is that in 1944 the Governing Body decided that blood transfusions were not be used by JW's and that was that.
A question for you, what happened in 1944? How come the change with regard to blood transfusions?
14 Sep 12
Originally posted by Proper Knobgalveston75 used the word "discovered". They "discovered" something in 1944. But I asked him over and over again what it was or what he meant. But refused to answer.
[b]I find it ultimately ironic that one who often chides others for their apparent ignorance should harp back to a medical procedure which has a well documented history of fatality.
I think you'd find that nearly every medical procedure has a 'well documented history of fatality', that's the nature of medicine. But as LemonJello pointed out, which ...[text shortened]... on for you, what happened in 1944? How come the change with regard to blood transfusions?[/b]
14 Sep 12
3 edits
Galveston acts as though he has been broken down and built back together again by the Jehovas Witness organisation. Indeed it seems he's drilled only to give prepared answers in response to standard challenges. Anything outside his gamut of known enquiry, something that will require him to actually think for himself and he cannot cope. Sometimes he'll answer a different question by choosing what he thinks is his best-fit stock solution to a question he only vaguely understands, other times he'll simply decline to answer the question, or otherwise he'll just insult or ignore the person asking them.
It is really quite tragic 🙁