14 Dec 11
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75Glad to see that considerations of safety are so important to you. Obviously, then, if hypothetically blood transfusions were to become perfectly safe, you would have no problem with them, right?
It's good to know who in your area does this as it is so much safer then using blood.
14 Dec 11
Originally posted by LemonJelloYes the safety of bloodless surgery is a very good thing and I hope all will remember that if this issue comes up.
Glad to see that considerations of safety are so important to you. Obviously, then, if hypothetically blood transfusions were to become perfectly safe, you would have no problem with them, right?
But until God tells us differently we will have to do what has said in the Biible and that it to abstain from blood. Again in his wisdom he knew it's a dangerous substance to deal with and even more importantly it belongs to him. We have not been told by him that we can use it for anything other then to pour it on the ground.
14 Dec 11
Originally posted by galveston75I'll ask again. If, hypothetically, blood transfusions were to become perfectly safe, would you or would you not still have issue with them? Of course, the answer is that you would still have issue with them. That's because you're a superstitious, irresponsible fundamentalist on this issue. So too is Robbie.
Yes the safety of bloodless surgery is a very good thing and I hope all will remember that if this issue comes up.
But until God tells us differently we will have to do what has said in the Biible and that it to abstain from blood. Again in his wisdom he knew it's a dangerous substance to deal with and even more importantly it belongs to him. We have not been told by him that we can use it for anything other then to pour it on the ground.
See, this is a perfect example of harrowing fundamentalism in action. The problem with fundamentalism lies with the normative priority that is given to doctrinal conformity merely for the sake of doctrinal conformity, at pain of our better interests. In fundamentalism, the mere conformity to doctrine is elevated even above the obvious recommendations of the virtues those doctrines putatively embody, in a painful contortion of one's rationality. If medical experts advise that someone needs a blood tranfusion to survive; and if such a procedure were immune from mishap (as taken on supposition in the hypothetical); then love, compassion, prudence, etc and the like, would surely recommend the blood transfusion. But, in a fundamentalist world, such can be trumped merely by the idea of conformity to doctrine...doctrine which is supposed to be the embodiment of such things as love, compassion, etc. Fundamentalism is insane like that.
15 Dec 11
Originally posted by LemonJelloThat's your viewpoint and that's fine for you. We listen to God and to God only.................
I'll ask again. If, hypothetically, blood transfusions were to become perfectly safe, would you or would you not still have issue with them? Of course, the answer is that you would still have issue with them. That's because you're a superstitious, irresponsible fundamentalist on this issue. So too is Robbie.
See, this is a perfect example of harrow ...[text shortened]... the embodiment of such things as love, compassion, etc. Fundamentalism is insane like that.
15 Dec 11
Originally posted by 667joeAnd yes it might, But God assures a resurrection to life again. This life is only temporary to us all. How we obey God in this life and remain fathfull to him is how we will be judged.
Your delusion could cost you your life.😳
If Jesus had been fearful of death and not have followed the will of his Father as we do about his command to keep free from blood, we would have no hope of a future.
So thankfully he did not listen to men and there faithless talk.
But if you have no faith in God and his promise of this then I feel sorry for you and the fear of death that you have.
15 Dec 11
2 edits
Originally posted by galveston75But you are actually remaining faithful to the Watchtower Society not God.
And yes it might, But God assures a resurrection to life again. This life is only temporary to us all. How we obey God in this life and remain fathfull to him is how we will be judged.
If Jesus had been fearful of death and not have followed the will of his Father as we do about his command to keep free from blood, we would have no hope of a future.
...[text shortened]... th in God and his promise of this then I feel sorry for you and the fear of death that you have.
P.S. I think Jesus would say to you, "I never knew you."
Accept Christ by faith and depart from legalism. These
works do not save you.
15 Dec 11
Originally posted by RJHindsDoes your Bible not say to Abstain from blood? We didn't write the bible so how are we not following Gods command?
But you are actually remaining faithful to the Watchtower Society not God.
P.S. I think Jesus would say to you, "I never knew you."
Accept Christ by faith and depart from legalism. These
works do not save you.
Are these scriptures not in your Bible? Have you even ever looked them up?
Acts 15:28-29
New International Version - UK (NIVUK)
28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements:
29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, ((((((((((((((((((((((((((from blood)))))))))))))))))))))))))))), from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.
Leviticus 17:10
New International Version - UK (NIVUK)
10 'Any Israelite or any alien living among them who eats any blood— I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people.
This says eating of blood, But if a person was not able to eat they would have to fed thru a needle to sustain their life. Why is a blood tranfusion any different? They would both be used to save your life. God does not condemn taking food in such a way, does he? But he condemns anyones or anythings blood from going into your body to sustain life.
But then that's a pretty hard consept for you to understand.
A dumb question I know for I know your non answer but Oh welll
15 Dec 11
Originally posted by galveston75If you receive a blood transfusion you are not eating or drinking anything
Does your Bible not say to Abstain from blood? We didn't write the bible so how are we not following Gods command?
Are these scriptures not in your Bible? Have you even ever looked them up?
Acts 15:28-29
New International Version - UK (NIVUK)
28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following ...[text shortened]... d.
A dumb question I know for I know your non answer but Oh welll
sacrificed to idols.
15 Dec 11
Originally posted by RJHindsLets try another Bibles version. I have no idea why the section that simply says blood is something you cant understand.
If you receive a blood transfusion you are not eating or drinking anything
sacrificed to idols.
Acts 15:29
King James Version (KJV)
29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, """"""and from blood""""", and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
Notice it says" and from blood". Food was mentioned first "meats offered to idols" then after "and from things strangled" , then it finally says keep from fornication. (4) things mentioned here.
1... things sacrificed to animal.
2... from blood.
3... no strangled food.
4... fornication.
Do you seriously not see that command in your bible "from Blood "? It's in black and white in every bible I look in or does it look blurry to you or something in your bible? Maybe out of focus to you or I bet it's God not letting you see it. I would think so..
15 Dec 11
Originally posted by galveston75I see it in black and white. But we always have blood flowing through
Lets try another Bibles version. I have no idea why the section that simply says blood is something you cant understand.
Acts 15:29
King James Version (KJV)
29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, """"""and from blood""""", and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
...[text shortened]... f focus to you or I bet it's God not letting you see it. I would think so..
or veins. We need this blood to live. If we lose too much blood we die.
Why would this abstaining from blood mean we should not take blood
into our veins so we can live. How does that help God? Don't you think
God wants us to live? God said the life is in the blood. I think He means
we must have blood for life. I think the Watchtower Society is reading
something extra into the text.
15 Dec 11
Originally posted by RJHindsAre you really serious? You've got to be kidding with this reasoning you produce....
I see it in black and white. But we always have blood flowing through
or veins. We need this blood to live. If we lose too much blood we die.
Why would this abstaining from blood mean we should not take blood
into our veins so we can live. How does that help God? Don't you think
God wants us to live? God said the life is in the blood. I think He me ...[text shortened]... have blood for life. I think the Watchtower Society is reading
something extra into the text.
I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall here.
Of course we need our own blood but this is extremly easy to understand I would think but I guess not.
Why would God tell us to abstain from our own blood? Oh my gosh buddy, are you really, really serious here?
Do you think he could be speaking of someones elses blood???????????
15 Dec 11
2 edits
Originally posted by LemonJelloDo we have the right of self determination, yes?, well shut up a yo face! clearly the only shameful aspect about this thread is your ignorance,
Pretty much, but what does that really have to do with anything? Did you not understand the point of my post? My point is that robbie should quit giving the impression that his stance against blood transfusions is based in any substantive way on considerations regarding their medical efficacy, or lack thereof -- since it is just disingenuous for him to way and (2) it just goes to show how he shamelessly cherry-picks his evidential considerations.
"Approximately 1 in 100 transfusions are accompanied by fever, chills, or urticaria
[hives]. . . . Approximately 1 in 6,000 red cell transfusions results in a hemolytic
transfusion reaction. This is a severe immunologic reaction that may occur acutely or
in a delayed fashion some days after the transfusion; it may result in acute [kidney]
failure, shock, intravascular coagulation, and even death."—National Institutes of
Health (NIH) conference, 1988.
suck it up Doctor Spok!
