New Testament

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Paul related how the Jewish system relates to Christianity, in order to understand how it
relates is a more advanced concept than understanding elementary doctrines for it
takes knowledge of the temple, the priesthood, etc, this led to a new understanding for
Christians. Today as say medical science advances principles which may have had
lit ...[text shortened]... advanced concepts'.

btw do you only ask questions? have you nothing of your own to proffer?

ill phrase this so it not a question!!!

it seems to me that what you are saying (maybe inadvertently) that your 'understandings' are coming from the zeitgeist rather than god. if a new way in scientific thinking springs forth and then scholars follow with ' ahhh so thats what the bible is referring to' is not finding new understandings to the bible, its making the bible fit. you cannot be sure that something else isnt going to come along a few years latter that fits the bible even better.
as far as an educational tool used to educate the masses in the ways of god, it seems like a rather convoluted and arbitrary method and with the pending end of the world senario, ultimately a waste of time.

hows that.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
ill phrase this so it not a question!!!

it seems to me that what you are saying (maybe inadvertently) that your 'understandings' are coming from the zeitgeist rather than god. if a new way in scientific thinking springs forth and then scholars follow with ' ahhh so thats what the bible is referring to' is not finding new understandings to the bible, ...[text shortened]... od and with the pending end of the world senario, ultimately a waste of time.

hows that.

no, what i am saying is that new challenges present themselves to Christians which call
for a new understanding of principles. For example, blood fractions. It was
demonstrated that a fraction may no longer be constituted as whole blood, because,
due to the advancement of medical science blood can be divided into its constituent
parts and then subdivided, therefore the admonition to 'abstain from blood', would call
for a new understanding of the application of this principle in this context.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no, what i am saying is that new challenges present themselves to Christians which call
for a new understanding of principles. For example, blood fractions. It was
demonstrated that a fraction may no longer be constituted as whole blood, because,
due to the advancement of medical science blood can be divided into its constituent
parts and t ...[text shortened]... d', would call
for a new understanding of the application of this principle in this context.

But you have been conspicuously unable to demonstrate how the 'abstain from blood' reference to animal sacrifice in the Bible can be claimed to translate into 'no blood transfusions'. So it would seem that parsing 'blood fractions' is just "theological" jiggery pokery based on a blatant misunderstanding of the context and intention of a few words in the Bible.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no, what i am saying is that new challenges present themselves to Christians which call
for a new understanding of principles. For example, blood fractions. It was
demonstrated that a fraction may no longer be constituted as whole blood, because,
due to the advancement of medical science blood can be divided into its constituent
parts and t ...[text shortened]... d', would call
for a new understanding of the application of this principle in this context.

its not possible to get a new understanding about what constitutes as blood from the bible. show me in the bible how its possible to know if red/white blood cells, platlets and plasma are the exact ingredients to blood? and that immunoglobulins produced by white blood cells are not??? how on earth can you make an accurate judgement from a few lines of text. its the perfect example of j.w. understandings being dictated by what was happening in the world.

its too much of a coincidence that the no blood transfusion decision came at the exact same time as there was a mass out cry and lots of public pressure from government for people to give blood.
its too much of a coincidence that an anti-violence and war organisation would introduce this at the time they did, especially considering the pressure was from government and the j.w's are also anti-politics.

which seems more likely, finding hidden truths that for some reason albumin is not part of blood, even though it is. or that it way of not supporting the war? mmnnnnn.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
its not possible to get a new understanding about what constitutes as blood from the bible. show me in the bible how its possible to know if red/white blood cells, platlets and plasma are the exact ingredients to blood? and that immunoglobulins produced by white blood cells are not??? how on earth can you make an accurate judgement from a few lines of t min is not part of blood, even though it is. or that it way of not supporting the war? mmnnnnn.

sigh, look at this statement,

its not possible to get a new understanding about what constitutes as blood from the
bible.

No one is saying that its possible, what I am saying is that as challenges are created
(due in this instance to the advancement of medical science), then how ones
understanding of Biblical principles and their application is also challenged which may
result in a new understanding, the Bible is not a scientific text book, just sayin.

Neutrality was not also so clear cut an issue, for example it was deemed that one
could apply to work in the medical core, a stretcher bearer or something like that
and yet as understanding increased it was deemed not to be the case, the christian
must remain entirely neutral.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Neutrality was not also so clear cut an issue, for example it was deemed that one could apply to work in the medical core, a stretcher bearer or something like that and yet as understanding increased it was deemed not to be the case, the christian must remain entirely neutral.

In what year did the "understanding increase" about "stretcher bearers" and did any JWs at any level oppose the announced "increase" of "understanding"?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sigh, look at this statement,

its not possible to get a new understanding about what constitutes as blood from the
bible.

No one is saying that its possible, what I am saying is that as challenges are created
(due in this instance to the advancement of medical science), then how ones
understanding of Biblical principles and their applica ...[text shortened]... anding increased it was deemed not to be the case, the christian
must remain entirely neutral.

"No one is saying that its possible, what I am saying is that as challenges are created
(due in this instance to the advancement of medical science), then how ones
understanding of Biblical principles and their application is also challenged which may
result in a new understanding, the Bible is not a scientific text book, just sayin."

siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh (even longer sigh, with a hint of disappointment)

if the bible doesnt give you the information you are not finding a new 'understanding' because its not there in the text. for it to be a 'new understanding' you would have to decipher the text in a new way that gives you direction. other wise you are just making things up and as long as they do not contridict the bible then you are describing them as 'new understandings'.

the bible says - no animal blood. who has the ability to judge what exactly god constitutes as blood?

is it not odd that as the moral outrage put pressure on the church for letting children die that could be saved, that the church suddenly finds a new understanding. in the same way it found the initial understanding in 1945 when it suited them not to give blood.

when you think about it, why on earth would a super intelligent being care if blood was exchanged. why so many petty little rules?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
[b]"No one is saying that its possible, what I am saying is that as challenges are created
(due in this instance to the advancement of medical science), then how ones
understanding of Biblical principles and their application is also challenged which may
result in a new understanding, the Bible is not a scientific text book, just sayin."

si d a super intelligent being care if blood was exchanged. why so many petty little rules?[/b]

if the bible doesnt give you the information you are not finding a new 'understanding'

EPIC FAIL

why?

principles are so far reaching that they apply to seemingly unrelated circumstances!

letting children die? now you are simply havering, in the UK, the church has no
jurisdiction over a minor your assertion of letting children die is therefore totally
ignorant one, one can question the morality of giving almost 3,000 hemophiliacs
contaminated blood and you don't here so much as a whimper from haters although
it actually happened. Ive had enough of this, same negativity every time, not a
positive word to say, cya.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
if the bible doesnt give you the information you are not finding a new 'understanding'

EPIC FAIL

why?

principles are so far reaching that they apply to seemingly unrelated circumstances!

the text contains a limited amount of information. new information from out side the bible does not mean the bible can give you a new understanding. a new understanding means the information is there in the text but was previously not understood.

reading what it says in the bible it is impossible to judge if you have gotten your blood doctrine correct. if you have gotten it correct, its not come from the bible, as the information is not there. therefore you cannot have a new understanding of what the text means, because the text can never mean what you want, as the information is simply not there.

you are not finding a new understanding, you are adding more information adding more meaning.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
LOL, still hung up in the flood and your lovey dovey God who has not the will to
administer divine justice and who says they were innocent? the scriptures state that the
heart of man was always bad from his youth up and that the reason was that the earth
became filled with violence? clearly it was irredeemable, as far as I am aware God
has n ...[text shortened]... an earth quake and your house collapses
around you. It just about sums up your position Zippy!

children

are

always

innocent

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
children

are

always

innocent

really

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/the-bulger-murder-police-say-boys-were-evil-freaks-fixated-on-killing-1506477.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
really

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/the-bulger-murder-police-say-boys-were-evil-freaks-fixated-on-killing-1506477.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger

children

are

always

innocent



to be evil you must understand what you are doing. saying that a child is evil is to be lazy and refuse to admit that someone at some point messed that child up.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
really

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/the-bulger-murder-police-say-boys-were-evil-freaks-fixated-on-killing-1506477.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger

looking at this from a different point, you offer 2 examples that in your twisted little mind, justify the killing of all the children from noah's time. all those children constantly killed 2 year olds. not once does it occur to you that evil cannot exist on its own, that no matter how corrupt that society was there would have been good people or at least decent. or that in a society that corrupt, the only "righteous" man, noah, would have been killed before he reached 2 years old.


thumbs up for impressive psychosis.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
looking at this from a different point, you offer 2 examples that in your twisted little mind, justify the killing of all the children from noah's time. all those children constantly killed 2 year olds. not once does it occur to you that evil cannot exist on its own, that no matter how corrupt that society was there would have been good people or at leas ...[text shortened]... uld have been killed before he reached 2 years old.


thumbs up for impressive psychosis.

Genesis 8:21
New Living Translation (NLT)

21 And the Lord was pleased with the aroma of the sacrifice and said to himself, “I will never again curse the ground because of the human race, even though everything they think or imagine is bent toward evil from childhood. I will never again destroy all living things.


Romans 5:12
Good News Translation (GNT)

12 Sin came into the world through one man, and his sin brought death with it. As a result, death has spread to the whole human race because everyone has sinned.

We all sin and will sin. The influance form others and society can influance it to be worse but we all sin and can sin badly, even the youth. Jehovah saw and understood the situation before the flood more then any human can know including you of that society and how depraved they were.
If there had been more then the eight that God saw was good he would have let them live on the ark with Noah's family as he left the door open until the last second in case anyone on the outside would have had a change in heart. Never thought of that huh?
You are no judge of God and pretty bold to think so and have never thought this situation out at all it seems.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
looking at this from a different point, you offer 2 examples that in your twisted little mind, justify the killing of all the children from noah's time. all those children constantly killed 2 year olds. not once does it occur to you that evil cannot exist on its own, that no matter how corrupt that society was there would have been good people or at leas ...[text shortened]... uld have been killed before he reached 2 years old.


thumbs up for impressive psychosis.

empirical evidence hard to take, suck it up Zippy.