26 Sep 10
Originally posted by Conrau K[/b]I haven't claimed that your view falls apart. Certainly if you value life at all stages, at the same time rejecting abortion and permitting blood transfusions to children, then you have a perfectly consistent view. What you cannot say, however, is that others have inconsistent views.[/b]
[b]Why can't I argue there is a logical inconsistency?
I haven't denied your right to argue a logical inconsistency; I simply have denied that you have done so. What you need to do is show how those supporting abortion but condemning the refusal of blood transfusions somehow hold contradictory beliefs. All you have done at the moment is how their bel ...[text shortened]... ly consistent view. What you cannot say, however, is that others have inconsistent views.[/b]
Their views are consistent with the sliding scale of values, with life they drop the
ball, as they do with choice.
Kelly
26 Sep 10
Originally posted by KellyJayactually Kelly it is for this very reason, that life is viewed as being sacred to God, that from conception through adulthood, the father being the originator of life, it belongs to him. It does not belong to us to give and take life, no human has that right. By taking blood, representative of life, we are transgressing that right, as with the life of an unborn human.
I haven't claimed that your view falls apart. Certainly if you value life at all stages, at the same time rejecting abortion and permitting blood transfusions to children, then you have a perfectly consistent view. What you cannot say, however, is that others have inconsistent views.[/b]
Their views are consistent with the sliding scale of values, with life they drop the
ball, as they do with choice.
Kelly[/b]
26 Sep 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieActually saving lives is something God approves of, I'm not sure how you justify
actually Kelly it is for this very reason, that life is viewed as being sacred to God, that from conception through adulthood, the father being the originator of life, it belongs to him. It does not belong to us to give and take life, no human has that right. By taking blood, representative of life, we are transgressing that right, as with the life of an unborn human.
not saving a life if that is the call. Even the Sabbath was 2nd place to saving a
donkey and you think saving a life of another human being family or no should
be ignored, to satisfy a regulation upon food by sharing one's blood? It is a matter
of priorities, laying down one's life for another is sharing one's own blood to save
another, even Jesus' example should show you God was willing! People shed their
blood for others, they lay down their lives for others, this is compassion and the
highest example of loving one another and you are treating it like ordering a
hamburger rare.
Kelly
26 Sep 10
Originally posted by KellyJayfirstly its not to satisfy a regulation about eating food, that is not a correct evaluation, if you really think that is the case then it is you in fact who have reduced it to buying a hamburger, not us. It is about a principle that life originates with and belongs to God and we shall not overstep that principle, even at the cost of our own lives. Indeed the Christ himself stated, 'what if a man gains the whole world yet forfeits his soul (his life), we are simply unwilling to transgress what we feel is something sacrosanct to God. To reduce it in the most derogatory manner possible to a food ordinance is to fail to understand the principles involved.
Actually saving lives is something God approves of, I'm not sure how you justify
not saving a life if that is the call. Even the Sabbath was 2nd place to saving a
donkey and you think saving a life of another human being family or no should
be ignored, to satisfy a regulation upon food by sharing one's blood? It is a matter
of priorities, laying down on ...[text shortened]... ample of loving one another and you are treating it like ordering a
hamburger rare.
Kelly
26 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasWhen will Christians unite under one religion? - Fabian
One christian against another. Who will win? Who will win?
One of them is right, the other one is wrong. Either one thinks he, and he only, is a true christian, and the other one not.
When will christians unite under one religion?
We already have, the organisation is called Jehovahs Witnesses, Christians from all over the world, who live together in unity.
26 Sep 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAnd when such JW's wish to leave the organisation they are shunned by their former fellow family members. Gotta love the unity.
When will Christians unite under one religion? - Fabian
We already have, the organisation is called Jehovahs Witnesses, Christians from all over the world, who live together in unity.
26 Sep 10
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knobactually if they have acted in a manner that is unworthy of the good news they bring ostracism upon themselves,
And when such JW's wish to leave the organisation they are shunned by their former fellow family members. Gotta love the unity.
(Matthew 10:34-37) . . .Do not think I came to put peace upon the earth; I came to put, not peace, but a sword. For I came to cause division, with a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a young wife against her mother-in-law. Indeed, a man’s enemies will be persons of his own household. He that has greater affection for father or mother than for me is not worthy of me; and he that has greater affection for son or daughter than for me is not worthy of me. . .
none of my immediate family is a Jehovahs Witness, yet my brother was here today, my two nieces stayed Friday to Sunday, and my mum visited, yet not one of them is a Jehovahs witness, your point is therefore quite unfounded, but being the all seeing eye you can of course know every detail of every circumstance, can you not?
26 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI know about your particular 'setup', but is every JW's the same?
actually if they have acted in a manner that is unworthy of the good news they bring ostracism upon themselves,
(Matthew 10:34-37) . . .Do not think I came to put peace upon the earth; I came to put, not peace, but a sword. For I came to cause division, with a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a young wife against he ...[text shortened]... being the all seeing eye you can of course know every detail of every circumstance, can you not?
I'm not talking about non JW's, i'm talking about the practise of shunning former JW members.
26 Sep 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe verses used to justify your position I saw were about diet, please give me
firstly its not to satisfy a regulation about eating food, that is not a correct evaluation, if you really think that is the case then it is you in fact who have reduced it to buying a hamburger, not us. It is about a principle that life originates with and belongs to God and we shall not overstep that principle, even at the cost of our own lives. ...[text shortened]... erogatory manner possible to a food ordinance is to fail to understand the principles involved.
others if you have them or point out my error, I know I can make mistakes. My
point remains the same the "princibles" that life belongs to God is not a question,
the "princible" that life is in the blood is not a question, but what we do and why
is if we are to go by scripture, it is there we should settle this! If saving lives is
a "princible" you believe God backs I suggest you argue the points that show
what is more important and why. I'm not trying to be insulting but diet and BT
are not the same thing, I've also pointed out to you why I believe God would be
okay with BT with how Jesus saved us, He did it with the shedding of His blood.
Scripture also talks about how there is no greater love than we lay down our lives
for others, so why would sharing the life within us be sin?
Kelly
26 Sep 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI agree if you forfeit you soul no matter what you get for it is not worth it; however,
firstly its not to satisfy a regulation about eating food, that is not a correct evaluation, if you really think that is the case then it is you in fact who have reduced it to buying a hamburger, not us. It is about a principle that life originates with and belongs to God and we shall not overstep that principle, even at the cost of our own lives. ...[text shortened]... erogatory manner possible to a food ordinance is to fail to understand the principles involved.
you have not addressed my point about diet and saving lives. Saving lives is also
a principle that I can trace to God, so we have a conflict here, you are pushing
a rule about diet over lives. I suggest you either show me how this isn't a dietary
restriction rule and how it also how this principle still must be honored over the
saving lives principle, the laying down one's life for others principle and so on.
Kelly
26 Sep 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDoes the Pope agree on this? Or are JW a small group pretending that they, and noone else, are the true christians?
When will Christians unite under one religion? - Fabian
We already have, the organisation is called Jehovahs Witnesses, Christians from all over the world, who live together in unity.
26 Sep 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasyes the Pope agrees that we are the true Christians and its not a pretence, our actions indicate that we are true Christians.
Does the Pope agree on this? Or are JW a small group pretending that they, and noone else, are the true christians?
26 Sep 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou bring up the Pope, but my question is, if the Pope is a God reverenced symbol to stand by, then why does he go about in a bubble-like shield to reflect off any weapon that were shot at him? What would Christ Jesus do?
yes the Pope agrees that we are the true Christians and its not a pretence, our actions indicate that we are true Christians.