Incarnations of the "Beast"

Originally posted by divegeester
That's not really submitting then is it? What if the authority you were "submitting" to decided that preaching against blood transfusions was prohibited, would you obey that edict?

We don't preach against blood transfusions. We individually choose not to take blood. It's a conclusion we reach on our own.

(sorry for the spelling. sometimes my "a" doesn't come through)

The prohibition on "blood" was a replacement "house rule" by our Heavenly Father for the "house rule" on the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil' because that Tree and/or access to it were not available after the Flood of Noah's day.
Jehovah replaced that original rule in order to have a way to see which of His children would be obedient.
For Robbie, see p. 75 of Reasoning book.

Originally posted by roigam
We don't preach against blood transfusions. We individually choose not to take blood. It's a conclusion we reach on our own.

(sorry for the spelling. sometimes my "a" doesn't come through)

The prohibition on "blood" was a replacement "house rule" by our Heavenly Father for the "house rule" on the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil' because that Tree an ...[text shortened]... a way to see which of His children would be obedient.
For Robbie, see p. 75 of Reasoning book.

Robbie pays attention to the false prophets and teachers of the Watchtower Society. Why not be wiser than that?

Originally posted by roigam
We don't preach against blood transfusions. We individually choose not to take blood. It's a conclusion we reach on our own.

(sorry for the spelling. sometimes my "a" doesn't come through)

The prohibition on "blood" was a replacement "house rule" by our Heavenly Father for the "house rule" on the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil' because that Tree an ...[text shortened]... a way to see which of His children would be obedient.
For Robbie, see p. 75 of Reasoning book.

Then why are JW's who have blood transfusions excommunicated (sorry can't remember the term you use for chucking out aberrant members)? This is not sounding like a matter of individual conscience to me.

Originally posted by roigam
We don't preach against blood transfusions. We individually choose not to take blood. It's a conclusion we reach on our own.

Oh, really.

Then why the shunning behavior and dividing families when a member does have a transfusion?

Originally posted by roigam
We don't preach against blood transfusions. We individually choose not to take blood. It's a conclusion we reach on our own.

But your "brother" Galveston75 is absolutely adamant that it is NOT personal choice. He says that abstaining from blood, including blood transfusions is a clear command of god and not open to interpretation.

How come you and he can hold such differing views on such an emotive and controversial topic?

Originally posted by Suzianne
Oh, really.

Then why the shunning behavior and dividing families when a member does have a transfusion?

I wish @beauroberts was here now.

Of course roigam will now duck out of this thread in true "JW pants down on the internet" form.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Then why are JW's who have blood transfusions excommunicated (sorry can't remember the term you use for chucking out aberrant members)? This is not sounding like a matter of individual conscience to me.

I don't know where you get your info from but it is inaccurate.

Originally posted by divegeester
But your "brother" Galveston75 is absolutely adamant that it is NOT personal choice. He says that abstaining from blood, including blood transfusions is a clear command of god and not open to interpretation.

How come you and he can hold such differing views on such an emotive and controversial topic?

That's exactly the conclusion we reach that leads us to avoid Blood.
We just don't conclude anything for others. It's up to each one's conscience
to do what's right.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Oh, really.

Then why the shunning behavior and dividing families when a member does have a transfusion?

Your information is also incorrect.

Originally posted by divegeester
I wish @beauroberts was here now.

Of course roigam will now duck out of this thread in true "JW pants down on the internet" form.

I don't know BR but he is not telling you the whole truth if he said he was DF'd for taking blood. I assure you there is more to his situation than he is revealing if he every was a Jehovah's Witness. After being on this forum for aa while, I could easily think he's a red herring.

Originally posted by roigam
I don't know where you get your info from but it is inaccurate.

Try reading through @beauroberts threads again; I think you know exactly what he is talking about.

Originally posted by roigam
That's exactly the conclusion we reach that leads us to avoid Blood.

What is that supposed to mean? Deliberate obfuscation.

Your opinion on this matter (a matter of conscience or not) is directly opposed to Galveston75; how can you explain that?

Originally posted by roigam
I don't know BR but he is not telling you the whole truth if he said he was DF'd for taking blood. I assure you there is more to his situation than he is revealing if he every was a Jehovah's Witness. After being on this forum for aa while, I could easily think he's a red herring.

Are you Jehovah's Witnesses all pathological liars; you were actively engaged in this thread which was started by him. Posters here have long memories mate.

Thread 162020

Originally posted by divegeester
Are you Jehovah's Witnesses all pathological liars; you were actively engaged in this thread which was started by him. Posters here have long memories mate.

Thread 162020

As i said "ob smatz ker patz". If you are a chess player, you have no doubt heard that before.

Originally posted by roigam
As i said "ob smatz ker patz". If you are a chess player, you have no doubt heard that before.

Nevermind the deflection tactics; so you are unable to explain why you hold an opposing opinion to galveston75?