Originally posted by FMFI should stop asking for evidence and become a trader of opinion like you - no thanks, but hey good luck with at.
Then you should stop asking for "evidence" that people 'don't endorse it', or asking for "evidence" that divegeester is 'not equally hateful' as the murderers, or asking for "evidence" that the teachings of "nominal Christians" are 'not reflected' in these murders. It is not me who is being silly on this thread.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHow is anyone here supposed to provide you with "evidence" that they are NOT "equally as hateful" as the murdering lynch mob? If you like "evidence" in matters like this, where is your "evidence" that proves that anyone here is "equally as hateful" as the murderers?
I should stop asking for evidence and become a trader of opinion like you - no thanks, but hey good luck with at.
Originally posted by FMFevidence of a loving or compassionate statement, how else? a piece of encouragement given, empathy shown, how hard can it be? I have already retracted the statement of equally you silly man and yet you can provide not a single iota of your friend encouraging anyone, of consoling anyone, of demonstrating compassion or empathy.
How is anyone here supposed to provide you with "evidence" that they are NOT "equally as hateful" as the murdering lynch mob? If you like "evidence" in matters like this, where is your "evidence" that proves that anyone here is "equally as hateful" as the murderers?
13 Apr 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhere is your "evidence" that suggests that anyone here is "equally as hateful" as the murderers in the OP?
evidence of a loving or compassionate statement, how else? a piece of encouragement given, empathy shown, how hard can it be?
Originally posted by FMFYou were telling us about the moral reprehensibility of blood transfusions, you will now tell us about the morality of those tens of thousands of persons who died as a direct consequence of taking an intravenous blood transfusion. Were they also morally reprehensible because the transfusion resulted in their deaths?
Where is your "evidence" that suggests that anyone here is "equally as hateful" as the murderers in the OP?
Originally posted by FMFI have retracted that he was equally as hateful, he still appears to me to be hateful, to what extent I cannot say. Will he retract his assertion that I and my friends let children die?
OK, so are you willing to retract ALL the personal remarks you have made on this thread where you sought to link divegeester to the murders in the OP?
13 Apr 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieParents deliberately letting their children die in order not to displease their God figure is certainly morally reprehensible in my book. As for the rest of the debate about blood transfusions it was covered not so long ago here Thread 160899.
You were telling us about the moral reprehensibility of blood transfusions, you will now tell us about the morality of those tens of thousands of persons who died. Were they also morally reprehensible because they took a blood transfusion which directly resulted in the deaths?
Originally posted by FMFSo people who have taken a blood transfusion and die as a direct consequence are still morally reprehensible? but not to the same degree?
Parents deliberately letting their children die in order not to displease their God figure is certainly morally reprehensible in my book. As for the rest of the debate about blood transfusions it was covered not so long ago here Thread 160899.
13 Apr 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou have defended the right of JWs to let their children die for want of medical treatment in order to not displease your God figure. If you explain that this somehow does NOT involving innocent children, who could be saved, being allowed to die, then I am sure he will retract it.
Will he retract his assertion that I and my friends let children die?
13 Apr 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf anyone was given a blood transfusion so as to deliberately kill them or if there was criminal negligence and innocents died, then of course it would be morally reprehensible.
So people who have taken a blood transfusion and die as a direct consequence are still morally reprehensible? but not to the same degree?
Originally posted by FMFIt is legally and therefore impossible for me to let a child die from a lack of blood. How are you now saying that I have defended that right? Neither you nor your friend are making much sense?
You have defended the right of JWs to let their children die for want of medical treatment in order to not displease your God figure. If you explain that this somehow does NOT involving innocent children, who could be saved, being allowed to die, then I am sure he will retract it.
13 Apr 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieRefuse a blood transfusion by all means, end your life in any way you want, but allowing a child to die for want of one seems to me to be clearly morally reprehensible. If your personal suicidal decision brings suffering to those who survive you, then I would consider it morally unsound. If you refused to save another's life with a donation of blood then I would not take seriously any subsequent pronouncements you'd make on morality, love for your fellow man, or any mumbo jumbo justification you might attempt for letting that person die.
To state that refusing a blood transfusion is morally reprehensible and akin to watching a lynching is ludicrous ...