19 Sep 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI agree 100% Robbie. They wouldn't know a simple bible truth if "slapped them upside their heads".
FMF is an apostate, he has left Christianity and formed his own religion, meism and attracts other scourgy windbags like wussjeester. You are correct they are uninterested in establishing the Biblical perspective and are simply content to proffer their own opinions as substantiation for their religion of mesim. Christianity was never like that, it was all about other people.
19 Sep 14
Originally posted by galveston75A blood transfusion is not "eating blood", nor is it a pagan rite, nor does it involve a sacrifice or strangling any animals.
I'm done with this thread unless any Christians have the "you know what" to comment on my last question about their child eating blood. I'm still waiting on that......
19 Sep 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe whole point of the discussion has been that you do not seem to have established a "Biblical perspective" as neither of you have been able to point to where the Bible text prohibits blood transfusions, but instead keep pointing to stuff about eating animals' blood, pagan rites, sacrifices and the like.
You are correct they are uninterested in establishing the Biblical perspective...
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120150
20 Sep 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf you are childishly referring to me then you are incorrect. I am a Christian and have been for many years with no intention of not being one.
FMF is an apostate, he has left Christianity and formed his own religion, meism and attracts other scourgy windbags like wussjeester. You are correct they are uninterested in establishing the Biblical perspective and are simply content to proffer their own opinions as substantiation for their religion of mesim. Christianity was never like that, it was all about other people.
20 Sep 14
I think taking a blood transfusion is of one's conscience and I will accept that there is inherent risk in taking a blood transfusion but the benefit outweighs the risk in most cases. I could argue that God being all knowing could of stated in the future when blood transfusion becomes possible you are to abstain from it right ? I sincerly believe that what was meant was to not eat or drink blood and later as Paul states to abstain from things strangled and given to idols and from blood in the context of eating it. We can split hairs all day long but technically or scientifically eating (ingesting) blood is different from putting it into your veins and noone can dispute that.
Manny
20 Sep 14
Originally posted by menace71I certainly believe that JW's can believe what they want. The things I find fascinating are that [a] they ~ by whom I mean those who advocate the prohibition here ~ do not have the ability to substantiate their view with passages in the Bible that refer to blood transfusions, [2] they then refer to their own idiosyncratic interpretation as "the Word of God", and [3] they seem so brittle and fumbling in the face of scrutiny and disagreement that they are hardly able to make their argument without losing their composure. I find this behaviour and demeanour interesting and I like the fact that this forum allows these revealing interactions to occur.
I think this one is tired .....let the JW's believe what they will and Vice Versa ....it's clear what their position is and vice versa it's an entrenched position from both sides and nobody is going to change anyone's mind
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120150
20 Sep 14
3 edits
Originally posted by menace71I would never question a person's right to believe whatever nonsense they choose to believe (my own theism included), except when the propagation of that belief endangers the lives of other people.
I think this one is tired .....let the JW's believe what they will and Vice Versa ....it's clear what their position is and vice versa it's an entrenched position from both sides and nobody is going to change anyone's mind
Manny
Perhaps some here misinterpret my criticism of the Jehovah Witness corporation, it's doctrines and it's pernicious execution of those doctrines, with a dislike of robbie carrobie and Galveston75. This is a misconception which I take responsibility for because often my exchanges with them will become more about their intellectual dishonesty in defending those beliefs, rather than the beliefs themselves.
Nevertheless, I maintain that the (then new) Jehovah's Witness directive in 1945 to abstain from blood transfusions is a menace (pun intended) to human life and those most at risk are children (minors). I have posted evidence to support my point of view; links giving an example of the state in SA intervening to save a child's life and a wiki page indicating that the receiving of blood is NOT a matter of personal conscience, as robbie carrobie once said on this forum.
So yes, I will continue to contend against the dangerous doctrines of the Jehovah's Witness cult notwithstanding their continued poor forum etiquette of ignoring my considered posts in this thread.