13 Sep 12
Originally posted by LemonJelloI was not considering it from my perspective, but yours, as one who professes to be
Yeah, we are all aware how intellectually honest you have been in assessing the medical evidence for the efficacy of blood transfusions. 🙄
You keep doing yourself disservice by bringing this up again and again. Have you forgotten that your stance against such procedures has, in fact, nothing to do with considerations of their medical efficacy or lack thereof?
forward thinking and open minded. I thought that was obvious, not apparently, obvious
enough.
13 Sep 12
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo i don't, but then again, I am not a physician who administers it, am I. If you have neither religious convictions, nor philosophical nor medical reasons, then take blood, but you have no jurisdiction over anothers conscience nor their right to claim self determination, on religious, philosophical or medical grounds, do you understand.
So you admit that there was at one time a need for whole blood products?
13 Sep 12
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloIt made perfect sense to me. Why don't you stop being such a square and try to view
Huh? Try making sense next time.
something from anothers perspective. For that you will need empathy and compassion,
a willingness to be objective, to put aside preconceptions and to utilize your
imagination. All ideals i am sure you are capable of aspiring to, given time 🙂
13 Sep 12
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWTF are you talking about? Let's recap. I made a comment to galvo that he holds a bizarro notion of a loving God who forbids him to use blood to save lives of sentient creatures and orders him to use blood only as it relates to brutally ending lives of sentient creatures. Then you butted in with some irrelevant nonsense, which has nothing at all to do with your stance against blood transfusions in the first place. That's what happened.
It made perfect sense to me. Why don't you stop being such a square and try to view
something from anothers perspective. For that you will need empathy and compassion,
a willingness to be objective, to put aside preconceptions and to utilize your
imagination. All ideals i am sure you are capable of aspiring to, given time 🙂
And please spare me the ironic comment about others being irresponsible in their assessment of the evidence for the medical efficacy of blood transfusions. Everyone here who has discussed this with you in the past already knows that you are as shamelessly disingenuous on this issue as a person can be. And regardless, even if they were 100% safe and you had overwhelming reasons to believe this, it would not change your stance. So, any day now, you can feel free to quit pretending that such considerations have anything to do with your blanket rejection of such blood transfusions. The truth is that your stance on this is fundamentalist, pure and simple, through and through.
13 Sep 12
Originally posted by divegeesterNot so in these and MOST versions of the Bible. Need to see more?
He said don't "eat" it a couple of times; is that really your whole huge massive point? I mean, really?
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 unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
Acts 15:20
Mounce Reverse-Interlinear New Testament (MOUNCE)
20 but should write to them to abstain from the pollutions of idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.
Acts 15:20
Good News Translation (GNT)
20 Instead, we should write a letter telling them not to eat any food that is ritually unclean because it has been offered to idols; to keep themselves from sexual immorality; and not to eat any animal that has been strangled, or any blood.
Cross references:Acts 15:20 : Exod 34:15-Exod 34:17; Acts 15:20; Lev 18:6-Lev 18:23; Acts 15:20; Lev 17:10-Lev 17:16
Acts 15:20
Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
20 but instead we should write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from eating anything that has been strangled, and from blood.
Cross references:Acts 15:20 : 1Co 8:7, 13; 10:7-8, 14-28; Rv 2:14, 20
Acts 15:20
Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
20 Instead, we should write them a letter telling them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from fornication, from what is strangled and from blood.
13 Sep 12
Originally posted by LemonJelloGod is the one who uses the word "abstain" here. You need to talk to him why he's so bizarro as you say.....
WTF are you talking about? Let's recap. I made a comment to galvo that he holds a bizarro notion of a loving God who forbids him to use blood to save lives of sentient creatures and orders him to use blood only as it relates to brutally ending lives of sentient creatures. Then you butted in with some irrelevant nonsense, which has nothing at all to do ...[text shortened]... past already knows that you are as shamelessly disingenuous on this issue as a person can be.
13 Sep 12
Originally posted by LemonJelloIt's called 'JW tagging'.
WTF are you talking about? Let's recap. I made a comment to galvo that he holds a bizarro notion of a loving God who forbids him to use blood to save lives of sentient creatures and orders him to use blood only as it relates to brutally ending lives of sentient creatures. Then you butted in with some irrelevant nonsense, which has nothing at all to do with your stance against blood transfusions in the first place. That's what happened.
When one gets into trouble in a thread, the other throws counter measures.
An example is those 3 blood threads started by Galveston; have you noticed the two child sex abuse threads have drifted down the forum as a result.
13 Sep 12
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75Yeah, according to you He says to abstain from blood when it comes to proven medical procedures that can save lives; and on the other hand says "Let it rain blood!" when it comes to slaughtering innocent animals. Like I said, makes sense to me. He's obviously very smart and loving.
God is the one who uses the word "abstain" here. You need to talk to him why he's so bizarro as you say.....
13 Sep 12
Originally posted by LemonJelloSorry you are so confused...
Yeah, according to you He says to abstain from blood when it comes to proven medical procedures that can save lives; and on the other hand says "Let it rain blood!" when it comes to slaughtering innocent animals. Like I said, makes sense to me. He's obviously very smart and loving.
13 Sep 12
1 edit
Originally posted by divegeestersays FMF's trusty sidekick! Who left the thread because he was challenged to read some court transcripts, classic.
It's called 'JW tagging'.
When one gets into trouble in a thread, the other throws counter measures.
An example is those 3 blood threads started by Galveston; have you noticed the two child sex abuse threads have drifted down the forum as a result.
13 Sep 12
Originally posted by LemonJelloLOL, such a square.
WTF are you talking about? Let's recap. I made a comment to galvo that he holds a bizarro notion of a loving God who forbids him to use blood to save lives of sentient creatures and orders him to use blood only as it relates to brutally ending lives of sentient creatures. Then you butted in with some irrelevant nonsense, which has nothing at all to do ...[text shortened]... The truth is that your stance on this is fundamentalist, pure and simple, through and through.