02 Oct 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou have already conceded that, in terms of this thread and its OP, the "safety of procedure is meaningless in this context".
hundreds of thousands up to millions of farmers and peasants were infected with HIV through participation in state-run blood collection programs in which contaminated equipment was reused!
02 Oct 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieProhibition on eating animal blood, engaging in pagan rites, and blood sacrifices clearly have nothing to do with saving lives with blood transfusions.
if the Bible states that its forbidden to eat blood or drink blood then on what basis is it permissible to inject it intravenously? that eating is not the same as injecting, wow.
02 Oct 14
Originally posted by Proper Knobsigh, its the principle, try and get into the metaphysics and go beyond what is merely material.
Injecting blood into your veins can, and does save people lives. Injecting whisky into your veins will almost certainly kill you. That is the difference.
03 Oct 14
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThat alcohol analogy is faulty .......as first of all it does not belong in ones veins ....However one can have a problem with alcohol and should abstain from drinking it ......but alcohol is not injected into the veins ......I admited that there is risk with transfusion and honestly I don't know the numbers on people who have died or been saved for that matter
on the contaray the reasoning that you seem to be haviong diffculty with is this,
if the Bible states that its forbidden to eat blood or drink blood then on what basis is it permissible to inject it intravenously? that eating is not the same as injecting, wow.
'One who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much' - Luke 16:10
Here ...[text shortened]... g out the gnat and gulping down the camel - thank you Jesus
I will hear your confessions now.
Manny
03 Oct 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieColossians 2:16--
on the contaray the reasoning that you seem to be haviong diffculty with is this,
if the Bible states that its forbidden to eat blood or drink blood then on what basis is it permissible to inject it intravenously? that eating is not the same as injecting, wow.
'One who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much' - Luke 16:10
Here ...[text shortened]... g out the gnat and gulping down the camel - thank you Jesus
I will hear your confessions now.
16 Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day— 17 things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.
Manny
03 Oct 14
Originally posted by menace71its is an excellent analogy, perfect and suited, apt and succinct, I heard your confessions tis enough for me. 😀
That alcohol analogy is faulty .......as first of all it does not belong in ones veins ....However one can have a problem with alcohol and should abstain from drinking it ......but alcohol is not injected into the veins ......I admited that there is risk with transfusion and honestly I don't know the numbers on people who have died or been saved for that matter
Manny
03 Oct 14
Originally posted by menace71?
Colossians 2:16--
16 Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day— 17 things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.
Manny
03 Oct 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe 'alcohol transfusion' analogy doesn't work at all. Nobody puts alcohol into someone's veins to in order to save their life. But people do have blood transfusions which save their lives.
its is an excellent analogy, perfect and suited, apt and succinct, I heard your confessions tis enough for me. 😀
03 Oct 14
All of the analogies and supposed evidences are irrelevant smoke and mirrors by the two JWs in order to deflect from the real internal reason that they rationalise the forbidding of blood transfusions; as per he links earlier in the thread about the Watchtower explaining that the blood carries in it the negative personality/character traits from the doner e.g. Addiction, lusts, cravings, even the desire to murder.
It is mystical mumbo-jumbo of the highest order, published without scriptural evidence, in short Jehovah's Witness self-certified opinion. Which is why neither robbie carrobie nor Galveston75 will address it in this thread - it is indefensible, and so they try to drag the thread into contemporary Heath statistics.
03 Oct 14
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYour organisation's literature quoted someone as claiming that blood transfusions were followed by "...moral insanity, sexual perversions, repression, inferiority complexes, petty crimes" and someone else as claiming that "the impulse to commit suicide, murder, or steal are in the blood."
sigh, its the principle, try and get into the metaphysics and go beyond what is merely material.
Are these kinds of ideas what you mean by "metaphysics"?
Originally posted by FMFoh dear someone else that cannot see beyond what is merely physical, how spiritually myopic, try getting into the metaphysics, who knows, you may do better, as for the analogy itself, its was not dependent upon what substances were used, it demonstrates admirably and excellently how the prohibition not to eat or drink a substance palls into insignificance when the much more serious procedure of intravenously injecting it into ones veins is proposed, how you could have FAILED to gauge this i suspect is an indication of your spiritually myopic condition.
The 'alcohol transfusion' analogy doesn't work at all. Nobody puts alcohol into someone's veins to in order to save their life. But people do have blood transfusions which save their lives.
All who adhere to the prohibition not to eat or drink a substance but to inject it intravenously are straining our gnats and gulping down camels, oh wait, you cannot actually gulp down a camel making the analogy effective, oh dear, was Jesus really talking about gulping down camels?? what a failure the scourgy windbag and his sidelick cabbagejeester purport to be. I laugh and openly mock you!
Blood has killed or infected millions of people with life threatening diseases, your words that it saves lives are empty and meaningless in their respect.
03 Oct 14
Originally posted by FMFthat peoples personalities haver changed as a direct consequence of an intravenous blood transfusion i cannot say for sure, that people have developed allergies is corroborated, what this has to do with metaphysics I cannot say, is appears to me that your attempt to link the two is slobbery drool, the kind of which you foam up day to day, you being in my opinion, incapable of rational thought.
Your organisation's literature quoted someone as claiming that blood transfusions were followed by "...moral insanity, sexual perversions, repression, inferiority complexes, petty crimes" and someone else as claiming that "the impulse to commit suicide, murder, or steal are in the blood."
Are these kinds of ideas what you mean by "metaphysics"?
03 Oct 14
Originally posted by divegeesterhave you tried boohoo.com, try it, buy yourself a dress.
All of the analogies and supposed evidences are irrelevant smoke and mirrors by the two JWs in order to deflect from the real internal reason that they rationalise the forbidding of blood transfusions; as per he links earlier in the thread about the Watchtower explaining that the blood carries in it the negative personality/character traits from the done ...[text shortened]... ead - it is indefensible, and so they try to drag the thread into contemporary Heath statistics.