Originally posted by galveston75amazing isn't it, Zippy here telling us why we take a particular stance on a religious issue. Never been a Jehovah's witness in his life. Its not only arrogant, its ill informed and his reasons are demonstrably false, but stabbing and spearing really is the best he can do, for him and other like him, what else is there?
If you say so.....
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell to me he fits the clear description of an anti christ. He cannot see the truths in the bible because of his own hatred of God, his son and his organization which is directed by Jesus. We are doing exactly as the bible says on the blood issue by God's own words and yet he has the nerve to condemn those words from God. How incredibly stupid.
amazing isn't it, Zippy here telling us why we take a particular stance on a religious issue. Never been a Jehovah's witness in his life. Its not only arrogant, its ill informed and his reasons are demonstrably false, but stabbing and spearing really is the best he can do, for him and other like him, what else is there?
In the future he will truly come to know who Jehovah is and will pay the price for condemning God himself and putting his feeble opinions above Gods..
15 Sep 14
Originally posted by galveston75What is the relevance of the page on animal sacrifice in Hinduism? They kill some of the animals by strangulation. This is a religious practice and not standard practice for non-sacrificial slaughter. So the page reinforces my point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sacrifice_in_Hinduism
http://islam.about.com/od/dietarylaw/a/diet_law.htm
You should educate yourself more on this subject.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI never said it was a standard practice or strickly a religious one either but one that has been used by man since man was given the word from God that one could now eat meat from animals.
What is the relevance of the page on animal sacrifice in Hinduism? They kill some of the animals by strangulation. This is a religious practice and not standard practice for non-sacrificial slaughter. So the page reinforces my point.
This is why God told Noah not to eat meat that was strangled because of the blood still being in the fleash. The blood was to be poured out to the ground first.
Probably no one in most parts of the world does this but we know it still happens unless you have some proof it doesn't.
The point is God says not to eat from an animal that has been strangled, no matter what the reason.
16 Sep 14
Originally posted by galveston75But you haven't established that the Bible forbids blood transfusions ~ far from it ~ and, if anything has been "condemned" here, it's your idiosyncratic interpretation ~ and its consequences ~ and not 'the words of God'.
We are doing exactly as the bible says on the blood issue by God's own words and yet he has the nerve to condemn those words from God.
16 Sep 14
2 edits
Originally posted by galveston75I'll point out to you what is "anti-Christ" and is "incredibly stupid" and is "exactly (NOT) as the bible says on the blood issue": Jehovah's Witness parents letting their children die rather than permit them to have a blood transfusion.
Well to me he fits the clear description of an anti christ. He cannot see the truths in the bible because of his own hatred of God, his son and his organization which is directed by Jesus. We are doing exactly as the bible says on the blood issue by God's own words and yet he has the nerve to condemn those words from God. How incredibly stupid.
In the ...[text shortened]... s and will pay the price for condemning God himself and putting his feeble opinions above Gods..
You lack the courage to face up to the fact that there are incidents where your governing body's leadership in this extreme, erroneous and dangerous doctrine is endangering lives. Thank goodness the state was able to intervene to stop these poor deluded people killing their child.
16 Sep 14
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFYou must be another "incredibly stupid" "antichrist" for not seeing what is obviously laid out in the bible.
But you haven't established that the Bible forbids blood transfusions ~ far from it ~ and, if anything has been "condemned" here, it's your idiosyncratic interpretation ~ and its consequences ~ and not 'the words of God'.
16 Sep 14
Originally posted by galveston75
I never said it was a standard practice or strickly a religious one either but one that has been used by man since man was given the word from God that one could now eat meat from animals.
This is why God told Noah not to eat meat that was strangled because of the blood still being in the fleash. The blood was to be poured out to the ground first.
Pr ...[text shortened]... point is God says not to eat from an animal that has been strangled, no matter what the reason.
Probably no one in most parts of the world does this but we know it still happens unless you have some proof it doesn't.The caveat at the end of this sentence invalidates the phrase "but we know it still happens" - if we knew it still happened then there could be no proof that it didn't. We don't know that anyone ever strangled an animal for food outside of a sacrificial context. Given the implausibility of strangulation as a method of killing domestic stock I think the burden of proof is on you.
16 Sep 14
Originally posted by ZahlanziI could take JW out of that and insert any other religion.
the reasons JW's stand firm in not accepting blood transfusions
zealotry
superstition
ignorance
fear
an almost fanatical devotion to the ....
OK forbidding blood transfusions is more serious than circumcision,
dunking babies in water or enforcing certain apparel ... but all
religious practice is driven by the same engine - no matter what flavour.
16 Sep 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobie"Never been a Jehovah's witness in his life."
amazing isn't it, Zippy here telling us why we take a particular stance on a religious issue. Never been a Jehovah's witness in his life. Its not only arrogant, its ill informed and his reasons are demonstrably false, but stabbing and spearing really is the best he can do, for him and other like him, what else is there?
because i find your stances idiotic. which is the whole point of this thread. what kind of an argument is this? i can't comment on something being wrong unless i experience that thing personally?
"its ill informed and his reasons are demonstrably false"
by people other than the overwhelming majority of the medical world.
"what else is there?"
lobbying to the government to enact laws to make sure every jehovah witness' child who is in mortal danger and needs a blood transfusion get one.
16 Sep 14
Originally posted by wolfgang59except you don't die because an orthodox priest makes you nauseous with incense.
I could take JW out of that and insert any other religion.
OK forbidding blood transfusions is more serious than circumcision,
dunking babies in water or enforcing certain apparel ... but all
religious practice is driven by the same engine - no matter what flavour.
let the jw's preach that only 144k people will get into god's vip party. let them preach jesus was "crucified" on a pole (who cares).
let them refuse treatment for themselves and die if that is their wish. they however don't get to kill their children and make accomplices out of the doctors.
Originally posted by Zahlanziwhy you think your opinions have any value to anyone but you i cannot say, to me they are essentially meaningless. what else is there.
"Never been a Jehovah's witness in his life."
because i find your stances idiotic. which is the whole point of this thread. what kind of an argument is this? i can't comment on something being wrong unless i experience that thing personally?
"its ill informed and his reasons are demonstrably false"
by people other than the overwhelming majority of t ...[text shortened]... sure every jehovah witness' child who is in mortal danger and needs a blood transfusion get one.