Originally posted by FMFThere are no situations like that because there are always better treatments available.
If in a certain situation, if the "best for their child" was a blood transfusion ~ in order to save their life ~ you would condone it, right?
We certainly want our child to live but we would choose the best possible way to accomplish that end.
Because of the risk alone blood tranafusion is less than the best choice.
Because of the house rule of our heavenly Father, our Creator, blood transfusion is not even in the running.
Originally posted by FMFThe verse does not distinguish between animal blood and human blood. Blood is blood whether it is animal or human.
What I see as "improper" is taking a verse about animal sacrifice and blood rites and extracting the word "blood" from it and then applying a prohibition to blood transfusions ~ a medical procedure that has absolutely nothing to do with animal sacrifice and blood rites and absolutely nothing to do with what Acts 15: 28,29 is actually about.
FMF: If in a certain situation, if the "best for their child" was a blood transfusion ~ in order to save their life ~ you would condone it, right?What if your child was in an accident and the need for surgery and blood transfusion was urgent? You can't possibly just claim "there are no situations like" emergencies.
Originally posted by roigam
There are no situations like that because there are always better treatments available.
Originally posted by roigamWhy do you think your God figure would communicate (what you see as) such an important thing to you in such a tenuous, opaque, ill-defined way which makes you sound like an unscrupulous lawyer playing with a couple of words from a fragment of one verse in a massive book?
The verse does not distinguish between animal blood and human blood. Blood is blood whether it is animal or human.
Originally posted by roigamSo you would let a child die for want of a blood transfusion if that were the only option in an emergency, is that right?
Because of the house rule of our heavenly Father, our Creator, blood transfusion is not even in the running.
And you would this in order to please your "heavenly Father" or, perhaps, not to displease Him. is that so?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis is not much of an 'argument' in defence of a key belief based on a peculiar reading of the bible text and which undermines your supposed principle regarding the sanctity of life.
They will split hairs and knit pick all day long, its what they do. Personally i find it rather tedious to be honest.
From Today's Bible study printed in the Watchtower magazine, Let your Bible trained conscience Guide you, paragraphs 6,7.
Branch offices regularly receive letters from brothers and sisters who are considering one form of treatment or another. Many ask, “Can a servant of Jehovah accept such treatment?”
Neither a branch office nor the local congregation elders are authorized to make health-care decisions for a Witness, even if he asks what to do. (Gal. 6:5) They can, of course, call attention to what Jehovah has said that may have a bearing on the decision. For example, a Christian needs to remember the Biblical command “to keep abstaining from . . . blood.” (Acts 15:29) That would clearly rule out medical treatments that involve taking in whole blood or any of its four major components. This knowledge could even influence a Christian’s conscience when he makes a personal decision regarding minor fractions derived from one of those four components.
The brothers telling it like it is.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAnd what do the three dots signify ~ the ellipsis? Oops. . . . That's right. Omitted words. A deliberate ploy to justify your bizarre interpretation of the whole verse, which - surprise, surprise - you rarely/if ever type out, inconvenient as it is. It's almost comical. 😕
a Christian needs to remember the Biblical command “to keep abstaining from . . . blood.” (Acts 15:29)
Originally posted by FMFWow once a knife wielding grammar prigg, now your propaganda is based on counting dots. Its only a matter of time before you evolve in to stiletto wearing edit Nazi, you could pick knits while you are up there and stand on the hands of anyone that abbreviates a sentence at the same time. Yes you are correct, its hilarious to see you reduced to this.
And what do the three dots signify ~ the ellipsis? Oops. [b]. . . That's right. Omitted words. A deliberate ploy to justify your bizarre interpretation of the whole verse, which - surprise, surprise - you rarely/if ever type out, inconvenient as it is. It's almost comical. 😕[/b]