Originally posted by Agerg
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 ...[text shortened]... therwise he'll just insult or ignore the person asking them.

It is really quite tragic 🙁

You hit it right on the nail that is his pattern


Manny

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[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]

Now Your back Rob from your hiatus, the question that Galveston couldn't answer -

'A question for you, what happened in 1944? How come the change with regard to blood transfusions?'

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Now Your back Rob from your hiatus, the question that Galveston couldn't answer -

'A question for you, what happened in 1944? How come the change with regard to blood transfusions?'

The only reason i am able to post was that the moderators seen the unjst nature of my banning and commuted my ban to something less severe, another miscarriage of justice! which seems to plague our society.

as to your question, its simply a matter of understanding how a principle , in this instance, to abstain from blood, applies to various real life situations, in this case to intravenous blood transfusions. Just to illustrate, another example was in the manner of smoking tobacco, it was deemed to be both unclean and harmful to other people, violating the principle if cleanliness and love for ones neighbor, this was implemented in 1970, i think, its simply a gain in understanding of Biblical principles.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The only reason i am able to post was that the moderators seen the unjst nature of my banning and commuted my ban to something less severe, another miscarriage of justice! which seems to plague our society.

as to your question, its simply a matter of understanding how a principle , in this instance, to abstain from blood, applies to various real l ...[text shortened]... his was implemented in 1970, i think, its simply a gain in understanding of Biblical principles.

I understand that, what i'm trying to ascertain is how the understanding came about. Does anybody know? The change is policy is dramatic, blood transfusions went from being something that was commendable to then being something which was a disfellowshipping offence. That's a serious u-turn.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I understand that, what i'm trying to ascertain is how the understanding came about. Does anybody know? The change is policy is dramatic, blood transfusions went from being something that was commendable to then being something which was a disfellowshipping offence. That's a serious u-turn.

galveston75 at one point, on one of the 3 or 4 threads he started on this, all at around the same time, seemed to suggest that something was "discovered" in 1944, but he refused to say what.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I understand that, what i'm trying to ascertain is how the understanding came about. Does anybody know? The change is policy is dramatic, blood transfusions went from being something that was commendable to then being something which was a disfellowshipping offence. That's a serious u-turn.

It was the same with smoking tobacco, our understanding of Biblical principles and how they affect a Christians choices in life are constantly undergoing revision. For example take the matter of blood fractions, it had never before been an issue because of the state of medical science, in the issue of blood transfusions someone obviously thought that it transgressed the Biblical principle to abstain from blood and the matter was reviewed and a decision rendered. Its been the same with many issues, christian neutrality for example. Many of these issues were little understood at the time. As per the model of the first century congregation these issues are put before the governing body and a decision rendered on behalf of the congregations.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
For example take the matter of blood fractions, it had never before been an issue because of the state of medical science, in the issue of blood transfusions someone obviously thought that it transgressed the Biblical principle to abstain from blood and the matter was reviewed and a decision rendered.

What was "the state of medical science" in terms of "the issue of blood transfusions" in 1944?

Originally posted by FMF
What was "the state of medical science" in terms of "the issue of blood transfusions" in 1944?

this is an irrelevancy, the reason why fractions were cited was to demonstrate that the advancement of technology may create issues. In the instance of intravenous blood transfusions, what changed was our understanding of Biblical principles, not the technology itself as you have erroneously assumed on the basis of the statement with regard to blood fractions. To answer your question, i have no idea what the state of affairs was in 1944, suffice to say, it did not significantly improve until countless thousands has suffered the tragedy of contaminated blood, until well after the nineteen eighties and even now it cannot be guaranteed as risk free.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
this is an irrelevancy, the reason why fractions were cited was to demonstrate that the advancement of technology may create issues. In the instance of intravenous blood transfusions, what changed was our understanding of Biblical principles, not the technology itself as you have erroneously assumed on the basis of the statement with regard to blood ...[text shortened]... blood, until well after the nineteen eighties and even now it cannot be guaranteed as risk free.

Didn't blood transfusions start long before 1944? What was significant about that year?

what changed was our understanding of Biblical principles

What about all Christians whose "understanding of Biblical principles" did not change in 1944?

Originally posted by FMF
Didn't blood transfusions start long before 1944? What was significant about that year?

yes the started way back in like the 1500's, one Pope having died as well as the donors, two young boys. I don't know what is significant about the year 1944, evidently we changed our understanding with regard to blood transfusions as our understanding of Biblical principles broadened, as we did in 1900's with regard to christian neutrality and in 1970 with regard to smoking. You would of course be as well as asking, hasn't smoking been around for longer than 1970, what was significant about that year, if you are planning on trying to make an issue of it.

Originally posted by FMF
Didn't blood transfusions start long before 1944? What was significant about that year?

[b]what changed was our understanding of Biblical principles

What about all Christians whose "understanding of Biblical principles" did not change in 1944?[/b]

what about them? they are still clinging to doctrines that have not been revised since AD 325.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what about them? they are still clinging to doctrines that have not been revised since 1325.

Have other Christians' beliefs/practices [in this matter] become immoral in your eyes as a result of a decision made by the Jehovah's Witness Organization in 1944?

Originally posted by FMF
What about all Christians whose "understanding of Biblical principles" did not change in 1944?

what about them?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what about them?

see above, our posts crossed in the ether

Originally posted by FMF
Have other Christians' beliefs/practices [in this matter] become immoral in your eyes as a result of a decision made by the Jehovah's Witness Organization in 1944?

Who am I to judge the house servant of another? to his own master he stands or falls.