Bloodless surgery wanted by the army......

Originally posted by roigam
Also, JW s do not disfellowship for having a blood transfusion.

Can you comment on this example then?

http://freethinker.co.uk/2010/05/04/jehovah%e2%80%99s-witness-disowns-son-aged-five-who-received-life-saving-blood/

Originally posted by divegeester
Can you comment on this example then?

http://freethinker.co.uk/2010/05/04/jehovah%e2%80%99s-witness-disowns-son-aged-five-who-received-life-saving-blood/

You cannot be disfellowshipped at 5 years of age. In order to be disfellowshipped you need to have been a dedicated and baptised witness. For that you need to study the Bible and make a conscious decision. I would pretty much say your source is BS. If you are going to feed your mind on BS you are inevitability going to think in the same terms.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You cannot be disfellowshipped at 5 years of age. In order to be disfellowshipped you need to have been a dedicated and baptised witness. For that you need to study the Bible and make a conscious decision. I would pretty much say your source is BS. If you are going to feed your mind on BS you are inevitability going to think in the same terms.

I'll come back to that when I've looked into the case further.

Meanwhile, are you going to answer my question about free moral agency?

Originally posted by divegeester
I'll come back to that when I've looked into the case further.

Meanwhile, are you going to answer my question about free moral agency?

looked into the case further? Get a BS meter and measure your sources. I have explained what free moral agency is to my satisfaction, i don't know why you cannot grasp it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
looked into the case further? Get a BS meter and measure your sources. I have explained what free moral agency is to my satisfaction, i don't know why you cannot grasp it.

But you haven't explained it to my satisfaction and I'm the one you keep pointing it at.

My question is: how can "free moral agency" be reconciled with disobeying a "command of God"?

This is an important element in understanding how you JW's feel you can take a blood transfusion, feel morally free about disobeying your God and not be disfellowshiped for it.

Originally posted by divegeester
But you haven't explained it to my satisfaction and I'm the one you keep pointing it at.

My question is: how can "free moral agency" be reconciled with disobeying a "command of God"?

This is an important element in understanding how you JW's feel you can take a blood transfusion, feel morally free about disobeying your God and not be disfellowshiped for it.

its easy you have latitude to obey or disobey.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its easy you have latitude to obey or disobey.

Not easy for a JW to disobey,takes a huge amount of courage..
These poor benighted swines have been indoctrinated into a cult and will get disfellowshipped by the cult leaders.
That's about as bad as it gets for a JW or so they are told to believe.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its easy you have latitude to obey or disobey.

Yes, you and roigam have already tried that dodge but it doesn't account for "moral freedom" because to disobey God must by definition compromise your "free moral agncy".

Could you please clarify how you are a "morally free" when you disobey Jehovah?

Originally posted by FMF
Blood allows humans to live. Without blood we die. Blood transfusions save lives. If your God figure wanted to forbid blood transfusions in the same way He apparently wanted to forbid animal sacrifice, blood rites and uses of animal blood as food, then surely He would have placed the prohibition in the Bible in a way that did not require you to extract and isola ...[text shortened]... complete sentence they belong in - and present them out of their obvious and historical context.

Look at Acts 15:29 again but lets try something different.

Acts 15:29 English Standard Version (ESV)

29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”

Now lets take out the other 3 commands that are stated here but lets leave the one in we are discussing which is: " , and from blood," Do you not notice the commas? There is one before this command and one after it. So this statement stands on it's own just as the command to not commit fornication stands on it's own and the others do too.
The command on blood is to abstain, avoid, do not use in anyway one can think of either then or up to this day. God has not as of yet changed his mind on this command and told us in any form that this command on blood has changed.
Of course blood transfusions were not directly mentioned because it did not exist then. Fornication is fornication no matter how you change or alter the actions involved. Sexual abuse of children was not specifically mentioned in this scripture was it? But yet it is still fornication is it not and would still be condemned by god? Of course.

******** For divi dude, I will comment when I feel the need and have the time. I do not answer to him for any reason or to his time schedule...**********

Originally posted by galveston75
Look at Acts 15:29 again but lets try something different.

Acts 15:29 English Standard Version (ESV)

29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”

Now lets take out the other 3 commands that ...[text shortened]... s it? But yet it is still fornication is it not and would still be condemned by god? Of course.

As I said to roigam, when asked to quote the bible on blood transfusions, you can't. You just point to something about animal sacrifices and blood rites but start talking about if out of that context ~ good grief, robbie even left the words and the context out - deliberately omitted them - when he quoted it, and replaced them with an ellipsis!

Originally posted by divegeester
Yes, you and roigam have already tried that dodge but it doesn't account for "moral freedom" because to disobey God must by definition compromise your "free moral agncy".

Could you please clarify how you are a "morally free" when you disobey Jehovah?

Knock for Robbie carrobie.

Originally posted by divegeester
Knock for Robbie carrobie.

Are you morally free to jump from a tall building divegeester? One would have to answer yes. Why don't you climb a tall building and exercise your moral freedom by jumping off? because gravity would accelerate you to a velocity of roughly 9.6 meters per second and as you hit the ground its would be detrimental to your health, possibly killing you. In the same respect we as Jehovah's Christian witnesses are also free to exercise our morality with regard to Gods perceived directions and advice as outlined in scripture but realize that doing so in an absolute sense may be detrimental to our spiritual and physical health.

If after explaining and illustrating the concept you are still confused then I am sorry I cannot help you any further and you may be best asking someone else for help.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Are you morally free to jump from a tall building divegeester? One would have to answer yes. Why don't you climb a tall building and exercise your moral freedom by jumping off? because gravity would accelerate you to a velocity of roughly 9.6 meters per second and as you hit the ground its would be detrimental to your health, possibly killing you. ...[text shortened]... then I am sorry I cannot help you any further and you may be best asking someone else for help.

You are explaining free will, not moral freedom to disobey your God. Refusing to discuss it is just silly and is just you avoiding having to address it properly.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Are you morally free to jump from a tall building divegeester? One would have to answer yes. Why don't you climb a tall building and exercise your moral freedom by jumping off? because gravity would accelerate you to a velocity of roughly 9.6 meters per second and as you hit the ground its would be detrimental to your health, possibly killing you. ...[text shortened]... then I am sorry I cannot help you any further and you may be best asking someone else for help.

It seems to me that you do not have the "free moral agency" you are often talking about in defence of your religious litigious stance on blood transfusions. It is also still not clear how a JW can disobey Jehovah's command on blood and yet not be disfellowshipped.

Originally posted by divegeester
You are explaining free will, not moral freedom to disobey your God. Refusing to discuss it is just silly and is just you avoiding having to address it properly.

I have explained the matter adequately so that any rational sentient being can understand the concept. I cannot compensate for your inability to grasp simple concepts. Maybe someone else can help you, either way I'm, done here. My reasoning is logical, my illustration brilliant, its not my fault you are as very poor student.