Truth .. JW Style

Originally posted by Conrau K
I am just saying that principles are still important. Christian exegetes should look for the underlying moral principles. That's all.

Principles also put to test our christian trained conscienses. Anyone can read and follow a law even if just out of fear. But a principle makes one have to search the Bible for the spiritual knowledge needed to understand it.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I am just saying that principles are still important. Christian exegetes should look for the underlying moral principles. That's all.

come come Conrau, your scriptural inferences please, fess up and i will see if i can give you absolution for your crimes against reason.

Originally posted by galveston75
Lets look at these scriptures here for a minute..... No where here does it specifally mention such things as blood transfusions, homosexuality, sexual child abuse, stealing, murder, rape, adultry, drunkeness, paganistic practices, witchcraft, etc, etc.
For example homosexuality, adultry, rape, sexual child abuse would all fall under the command not t ...[text shortened]... your strength and with all your mind'[a]; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[b]"

Lets look at these scriptures here for a minute..... No where here does it specifally mention such things as blood transfusions, homosexuality, sexual child abuse, stealing, murder, rape, adultry, drunkeness, paganistic practices, witchcraft, etc, etc.
For example homosexuality, adultry, rape, sexual child abuse would all fall under the command not to commit fornication. Would they not?[/b]
No!
fornication
[fawr-ni-key-shuhn]
–noun
1.
voluntary sexual intercourse between two unmarried persons or two persons not married to each other.
2.
Bible . idolatry.

It doesn't specifally say not to steal and take things from your neighbor, or burn his house down, use his car without permission, etc. But the law to love your neighbor as yourself would make this type action completely wrong. Would it not?
Actually I would never agree with you on the "completely wrong" bit, but then I don't accept the notion of absolute morality as you do.

So in turn the term blood transfusion is not specifically mentioned but it's clearly says to "Abstain from blood." We all know blood transfusions did not exist then, but then neither did automobiles. But since automobiles were not mentioned or even existed then, does that give some type of silly reasoning that it's ok to take your neighbors car?
Think, reason, meditate on this!!!
Stealing cars falls under the gamut of theft. Blood transfusions fall under the gamut of medical procedures; it doesn't fall under the gamut of failing to love your neighbour, coveting their possessions, theft, murder, bearing false witness, fornication, etc... Your extrapolation from the context is ludicrous. As I said it is no less valid for me to suggest that "abstain from blood" means to reject *all blood* even your own if we are to take you guys seriously.

For all I'm an atheist and like to argue against religious organisations; I say that perverted and twisted as your belief set is, you do more to undermine the credibility of Christian faith than I or any other atheist could possibly aspire to.

Originally posted by Agerg
Lets look at these scriptures here for a minute..... No where here does it specifally mention such things as blood transfusions, homosexuality, sexual child abuse, stealing, murder, rape, adultry, drunkeness, paganistic practices, witchcraft, etc, etc.
For example homosexuality, adultry, rape, sexual child abuse would all fall under the command not to comm credibility of Christian faith than I or any other atheist could possibly aspire to.

For all I'm an atheist and like to argue against religious organisations; I say that perverted and twisted as your belief set is, you do more to undermine the credibility of Christian faith than I or any other atheist could possibly aspire to. - Agers Smagers

Actually we have been fighting nominal Christianity for years, but you never knew that, did you, and i deny your definition of Christianity and what a Christian is, indeed, why should our beliefs be judged on the basis of values you state are the defining aspects of Christianity?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
For one, I wasn't "suggesting" anything. If you reread my post, you'll notice that I was merely asking you a question that would help clarify your position. So if anyone has a "warped brain", it is someone who'd pitch a hissy fit based on his own erroneous inferences.

I'll take your response to be "No". That you would not also "fail to see why everyon ...[text shortened]... ild is dead and the parent is responsible. Your position is logically inconsistent.

I hope your referring to this post, if not I'll ask you to repost it so I know what
you want.


If it is this post:

I'm in agreement with you that I would not deny BT for a life saving procedure.
I again go back to the point about forcing someone to do something against their
will. I don't have to like it, but choices are made all the time that I disagree with.
You can have someone make a choice about saving their dad or mom or let them
pass away, if they choose let them pass away are they no different than someone
who for whatever reason say they are against BT? If we are worried about choices
again, we allow the unborn to be killed off daily and masses of them die all the
time. You guys are against this belief about BT; I'm in disagreement with it as well
but if it goes against someone beliefs why force them? We don't force a lot of
things on people that could not only harm themselves but also put the populace at
risk, and in some cases we celebrate some of these actions.
Kelly

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
come come Conrau, your scriptural inferences please, fess up and i will see if i can give you absolution for your crimes against reason.

Crimes against reason? You are such a hypocrite. If we followed your reason, we should shut down hospitals altogether, abolish families and cease water supplies because all these have been associated with thousands (indeed, millions) of deaths. You really are pathetic.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Crimes against reason? You are such a hypocrite. If we followed your reason, we should shut down hospitals altogether, abolish families and cease water supplies because all these have been associated with thousands (indeed, millions) of deaths. You really are pathetic.

i was actually only joking Conrau, you don't need to throw a flaky! so any how, now you are here, your evidence if you please, and i don't want any of your tradition, scriptural evidence that the prohibition to abstain from blood was temporary, if you can provide none, then i shall accept your recantation and seek absolution for your soul.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i was actually only joking Conrau, you don't need to throw a flaky! so any how, now you are here, your evidence if you please, and i don't want any of your tradition, scriptural evidence that the prohibition to abstain from blood was temporary, if you can provide none, then i shall accept your recantation and seek absolution for your soul.

I have already argued on the grounds of context that it was only temporary. I do not see why it should be treated as some permanent commandment.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I have already argued on the grounds of context that it was only temporary. I do not see why it should be treated as some permanent commandment.

just one itsy bitsy little verse? ok ill look myself, but i expect to see you in confession afterwards 🙂

Originally posted by Conrau K
I have already argued on the grounds of context that it was only temporary. I do not see why it should be treated as some permanent commandment.

i found this,

The Book of Acts clearly shows that many years after the Jerusalem council issued that decree, Christians continued to comply with the "decision that they should keep themselves from what is sacrificed to idols as well as from blood and what is strangled and from fornication." (Acts 21:25) They demonstrated that the requirement to abstain from blood was not merely limited to one area or for just a brief period of time.

Historical evidence is clear and abundant concerning Christians abstaining from blood throughout the following centuries. Note what early Latin theologian Tertullian (c. 160-230 C.E.) stated:

"Let your unnatural ways blush before the Christians. We do not even have the blood of animals at our meals, for these consist of ordinary food. . . . At the trials of Christians you offer them sausages filled with blood. You are convinced, of course, that the very thing with which you try to make them deviate from the right way is unlawful for them. How is it that, when you are confident that they will shudder at the blood of an animal, you believe they will pant eagerly after human blood?" -Tertullian, Apologetical Works, and Minucius Felix, Octavius, translated by Rudolph Arbesmann (1950), p. 33.

you will note that Tertullian is dated almost what two hundred? years after the events in the book of acts yet the prohibition is still binding.

and this

"According to the Council of Florence in 1442, the apostolic decree was only a temporary measure to facilitate unity among Jews and Gentiles in the early Church. The binding force of its food restrictions was relaxed once the ethnic circumstnces that made them necessary passed away." Ignatius Catholic Study Bible;commentary by Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch; Ignatius Press; San Francisco; 2002

It seems that it was as the result of a decree rather than historical evidence or any scriptural evidence that you accept the temporary nature of the prohibition, is it not the case ?
__________________

Originally posted by Agerg
Lets look at these scriptures here for a minute..... No where here does it specifally mention such things as blood transfusions, homosexuality, sexual child abuse, stealing, murder, rape, adultry, drunkeness, paganistic practices, witchcraft, etc, etc.
For example homosexuality, adultry, rape, sexual child abuse would all fall under the command not to comm credibility of Christian faith than I or any other atheist could possibly aspire to.

So what do you mean by absolute morality? You can change it to make if fit to your liking?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
For all I'm an atheist and like to argue against religious organisations; I say that perverted and twisted as your belief set is, you do more to undermine the credibility of Christian faith than I or any other atheist could possibly aspire to. - Agers Smagers

Actually we have been fighting nominal Christianity for years, but you never knew that, d ...[text shortened]... ur beliefs be judged on the basis of values you state are the defining aspects of Christianity?

Ok...I suppose I am in error for regarding your organisation as a Christian one (in some vague sense), even though the holy book representative of your faith is the Bible. As others have suggested perhaps "cult" really is a better fit.

Originally posted by galveston75
So what do you mean by absolute morality? You can change it to make if fit to your liking?

no! google "relative morality" and "objective morality"

Originally posted by Agerg
Ok...I suppose I am in error for regarding your organisation as a Christian one (in some vague sense), even though the holy book representative of your faith is the Bible. As others have suggested perhaps "cult" really is a better fit.

no you are in error for assigning values to our faith when in fact, you know next to nothing about it, its termed prejudice I think and to then to add insult to injury, you compare us to nominal Christianity who are responsible for killing millions of persons in senseless wars and suggest that we are some kind of abomination. Feel your bum Agers! wake up to reality.

As has been successfully argued we have never been nor shall ever be a cult, again assigning to us values that are inaccurate and misleading.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
umm the law is no longer binding.

then blood transfusions should be okay