26 Jun 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing,” and “The laborer is worthy of his wages.”
Whats the salary of a congregation elder Gman? Your father is an Elder right? He must be rich on that salary? can you compare it to the salary of a clergyman of Christendom?
Led Zepplin four the album has hidden occult signs on the inside of the cover, simply hold it up to a mirror and the formation of the rocks upon which the hermit with the lamp stands displays its true imagery.
(1 Timothy 5:17-18 NASB)
The Instructor
26 Jun 13
Originally posted by RJHindsIt is absolutly not a lie and you know it. My mother was raised a baptist and she said the exact thing I posted and many, many JW's that were also of other religions have said the same.
You know that is a lie. Christian churches do not collect dues. They collect tithes and offerings. There are no dues required to be a member of a Christian church. Members do not even have to give tithes and offerings if they can't afford to or really don't want to.
The Instructor
Plus my wife's father was a baptist preacher for many years before he died and mentioned that was done in his church as much as he hated it.
Plus an interesting thing he also mentioned when she asked him why he never used Jehovah's name in his sermons when she used to go as a child and before she became a JW. First she asked if he even knew what it was and he said yes, it really is Jehovah and he never used it in his sermons because he was not allowed to by the church and that no one there wanted to hear it anyway.
How sad that is and to deny using the name of our very God.
26 Jun 13
Originally posted by menace71No it's called not wanting to waist the time trying to defend stupid lies by haters of Jehovah.
JW strategy LOL
it's text book
Evasive when ask hard questions.....Become defensive.....Shift blame and or change subject....become angry and call names...while never answering original questions
Manny
You have no need for Jehovah and as a reward for that we have no time to waist on ones who hate him.
The only reason you attack us is because you cannot touch Jehovah and that is the same reason satan does what he does.
26 Jun 13
Originally posted by RJHindsDouble honor huh? Show that scripture please and the elders are the congregations servants. You have absolutly no idea about anything do you?
[b]The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing,” and “The laborer is worthy of his wages.”
(1 Timothy 5:17-18 NASB)
The Instructor[/b]
26 Jun 13
Originally posted by galveston75You better repent for all liars will have their part in the Lake of Fire.
It is absolutly not a lie and you know it. My mother was raised a baptist and she said the exact thing I posted and many, many JW's that were also of other religions have said the same.
Plus my wife's father was a baptist preacher for many years before he died and mentioned that was done in his church as much as he hated it.
Plus an interesting thi ...[text shortened]... there wanted to hear it anyway.
How sad that is and to deny using the name of our very God.
The Instructor
26 Jun 13
Originally posted by galveston75One must be approved by the Son of God.
Now the ignorance is really coming out..
I see you have not commented on my post about the requirements of being a citizen of God's Kingdom. Why not? No ideas?
HalleluYah !!! Praise the LORD! Glory be to God! Holy! Holy! Holy!
The Instructor
Originally posted by stellspalfiewow, the total summation of your spirituality, 'you are an idiot', brilliant, why dont you stick to voyeurism, or fantasising about looking into Karoly Polys eyes in your sexual fantasies, or starting deeply spiritual threads about masturbation?
im sure there are things i dont understand about you and i would refrain from insulting you over such things. but i did understand when you -
said blood transfusions do more harm than good.
said children are better off in care than with gay dads
those two comments make you an idiot in my opinion.
1. you could not tell us why those hundreds of thousands of persons who have died as a consequence of infected blood were the recipients of more good than harm
2. you cannot tell us why, despite the evidence that a stable married heterosexual family is the best standard that a second rate adoption to a gay family, which deprives the child of either a mother figure or a father figure should be preferred.
simply because you hold different views, I will not term you an idiot, to do so would be to reduce myself to your level and sorry, but I am better than that. I am sure your opinions have meaning to someone, somewhere.
26 Jun 13
Originally posted by galveston75Indeed , let them howl, the little caravan trundles on.
No it's called not wanting to waist the time trying to defend stupid lies by haters of Jehovah.
You have no need for Jehovah and as a reward for that we have no time to waist on ones who hate him.
The only reason you attack us is because you cannot touch Jehovah and that is the same reason satan does what he does.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
26 Jun 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobie"1. you could not tell us why those hundreds of thousands of persons who have died as a consequence of infected blood were the recipients of more good than harm"
wow, the total summation of your spirituality, 'you are an idiot', brilliant, why dont you stick to voyeurism, or fantasising about looking into Karoly Polys eyes in your sexual fantasies, or starting deeply spiritual threads about masturbation?
1. you could not tell us why those hundreds of thousands of persons who have died as a consequence of i ...[text shortened]... sorry, but I am better than that. I am sure your opinions have meaning to someone, somewhere.
this was your response to my question "does taking blood to more harm than good"
firstly, you dont actually answer the question. you rudely ask a question of your own.
secondly your question is too vague. there are to many unknowns that are needed to answer the question properly such as - why did they need blood, what would happen if they didnt get it, how bad were the infections, did people die because of the blood, did people live because of the blood?
thirdly. even if i had that information and answered your question it would still not answer my question, a positive or negative result for taking blood in that group is not a reflection of the global statistics.
i dont know if you read it but i provided a nhs document covering all aspects of blood donation and transfusion. in which it was very clear the risks in the uk are minuscule.
i would also point out, you complain about me not answering your question. neither did you answer my original question nor my question about my (non drink driving) friend, should he have not taken blood in case it was infected? (this is not to prove blood is always good, but to show that there are times when it is a necessity).
i called you an idiot, because blood has saved soooooooo many lives it is one of the greatest medical achievements in history. thats not to say i dont welcome alternatives, but until they alternatives are as freely available globally as blood both are needed.
2. you cannot tell us why, despite the evidence that a stable married heterosexual family is the best standard that a second rate adoption to a gay family, which deprives the child of either a mother figure or a father figure should be preferred.
again you are answering questions with a question. when i asked you if a child would be better off in care than with gay dads you replied with that. it was pointed out to you that at a certain point (around 10 or 11) the chances of adoption drop to almost zero, so a child is normally destined to stay in care which has catastrophic effects on the rest of their life.
regardless of who is better hetro or gay parents isnt really the issue. the issue is that you would rather see a child have no parents than gay parents. which is just plain sick and im pretty sure not in the bible.
"simply because you hold different views, I will not term you an idiot, "
well actually robbie its not that simple is it. you have lots of views that are different to mine but i dont call you an idiot (i dont like your attitude about abortion, but i can respect where you are coming from). i call you an idiot on those two points due to the combination of your views being immoral and down right stupid and ive explained why i think they are stupid.
26 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by stellspalfietell that to the hundreds of thousands of persons who have died as a direct result of being intravenously transfused with infected blood, oh, wait, you cannot, they are dead, oops, sorry my bad. . . . . the world is bigger than the UK NHS. You proffered the ludicrous assertion that cancer kills people therefore chemotherapy is bad, an epic failure and a ludicrous argument, for chemotherapy, that is the treatment itself is not killing them, their cancer is! a completely different scenario to the one where it is the actual treatment that has killed the person being administered that treatment as in the case of those being transfused with infected blood.
[b]"1. you could not tell us why those hundreds of thousands of persons who have died as a consequence of infected blood were the recipients of more good than harm"
this was your response to my question "does taking blood to more harm than good"
firstly, you dont actually answer the question. you rudely ask a question of your own.
secondly you r views being immoral and down right stupid and ive explained why i think they are stupid.[/b]
Your friend has free will and the right of self determination, the same as I do, if he wants to take blood that is his own personal affair, it has nothing to do with me, i will not call him an idiot for exercising his human rights and if a Jehovahs Witness doctor is present they will also comply with the patients rights and administer blood if that is what the patient wishes.
We have different standards and principles, some of which may call for us to forfeit our lives, its not idiotic as you have slanderously assumed, Christians have always been willing to forfeit their lives for principles that they held to be higher than life itself.
I suggest you read the account of Vibia Perpetua, a second century Christian who was on trial for being a Christian, all she had to do was offer up a little incense to the emperor and she would be spared her fate, but she refused because there were higher principles at work, an 'idiot', in your estimation.
26 Jun 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDo you think on balance blood transfusions have been detrimental or beneficial to humanity? On the merit of saving lives.
tell that to the hundreds of thousands of persons who have died as a direct result of being intravenously transfused with infected blood, oh, wait, you cannot, they are dead, oops, sorry my bad. . . . . the world is bigger than the UK NHS. You proffered the ludicrous assertion that cancer kills people therefore chemotherapy is bad, an epic failure an ...[text shortened]... but she refused because there were higher principles at work, an 'idiot', in your estimation.
26 Jun 13
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knobits like saying do you think technology has benefited humanity, yes and no, certainly they may have preserved the lives of those who would have died otherwise due to massive blood loss (but even here you can get treatment which simply replaces the lost volume with a solution), but then again, there are also others who have been killed as a direct consequence.
Do you think on balance blood transfusions have been detrimental or beneficial to humanity? On the merit of saving lives.
26 Jun 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThat's why I asked you 'on balance'. Beneficial or deterimental?
its like saying do you think technology has benefited humanity, yes and no, certainly they may have preserved the lives of those who would have died otherwise due to massive blood loss (but even here you can get treatment which simply replaces the lost volume with a solution), but then again, there are also others who have been killed as a direct con ...[text shortened]... aster than probably any other field, blood transfusions i think will become a thing of the past.