JWs and blood transfusions

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
oh dear not a very convincing argument.

That you think i have to make an argument to justify what I find funny is funny in itself.

Originally posted by galveston75
Look it up yourself as you both seem to "know it all anyway". No matter how I answer you and "dumbo dive dude", you two are not looking for anything but what you two can razz others about.
The more you two keep posting this sillyness the more you expose your motives which is pure evil.

Have you got a link to where you answered the question about whether you are bound by Mosaic Law regarding blood transfusions?

Originally posted by galveston75
If the ones here are truly concerned and upset and would like to voice their opinions on the abuse children recieve from their parents, check out these sites and maybe throw your energy and hatred for parents abusing their children:

Just a few of hundreds of sites with info on what children go thru either directly or indirectly from their parents.
...[text shortened]... oved from the congregation, unlike most so called christian churches today who would not remove

Surely sacrifice of a child for want of medical treatment to save its life in order to please a God figure is an ultimate kind of child abuse?

Originally posted by galveston75
Look it up yourself as you both seem to "know it all anyway". No matter how I answer you and "dumbo dive dude", you two are not looking for anything but what you two can razz others about.
The more you two keep posting this sillyness the more you expose your motives which is pure evil.

"Pure evil" ??

And yet YOU are the one who would let the child die.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I think it may be very valid depending on your definition of evil, its not always used in a supernatural sense, but may be used to describe immorality, or hurtfulness, something that causes pain or sorrow.

For example in a Biblical context

That which results in pain, sorrow, or distress. In order to convey the correct thought in English, the ve ...[text shortened]... sence incarnate etc etc etc Now you will tell us why they are not to be considered 'pure evil'.

Letting a child die to appease a god is evil.

Originally posted by galveston75
These are things JW parents would never do to their children. But if they did they would be removed from the congregation, unlike most so called christian churches today who would not remove them.

Has your organisation ever been found guilty of covering up child abuse by its members?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
That you think i have to make an argument to justify what I find funny is funny in itself.

fine you don't need to have an argument to justify what you find amusing.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
clearly by definition [FMF and divegeester] are the very embodiment of evil, its personification, its essence incarnate etc etc etc Now you will tell us why they are not to be considered 'pure evil'.

I think you are trying a little bit too hard to be funny, robbie.

Originally posted by FMF
I think you are trying a little bit too hard to be funny, robbie.

ad hominem

adj.

Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motive

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ad hominem

adj.

Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motive

I think you are trying really hard to be funny. And I think it is your motivation for what you posted about "pure evil". What else could be other than an attempt to get a laugh? galveston75 suggested that my motivation for asking him about child abuse in his organisation ~ after he himself had raised the issue of this kind of abuse ~ was "pure evil". Was his an 'ad hominem' too?

Originally posted by FMF
I think you are trying really hard to be funny. And I think it is your motivation for what you posted about "pure evil". What else could be other than an attempt to get a laugh? galveston75 suggested that my motivation for asking him about child abuse in his organisation ~ after he himself had raised the issue of this kind of abuse ~ was "pure evil". Was his an 'ad hominem' too?

It's just another tactic to avoid the blunt issue in hand, that in the given scenario both robbie carrobie and galveston75 would choose to allow a hold to die rather than permit a blood transfusion. All the other stuff about health and statistics is smoke and mirrors.

These two should just stop an reflect on what terrible doctrines their church leadership are teaching.