Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou asked me to provide evidence needed to support YOUR argument. It is surely you that should have this evidence available if you are going to advocate that alternative methods are used instead of blood transfusions, right?
you dont have to do anything but your own research, is that not what I admonished you to do?
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFno why should I my stance is not based on medical reasons. (only repeated now for the fourth time)
You asked me to provide evidence needed to support YOUR argument. It is surely you that should have this evidence available if you are going to advocate that alternative methods are used instead of blood transfusions, right?
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFno you asked how many people had been saved by blood transfusions, to which i admonished you to do your own research. What could be difficult to understand about that I cannot say.
You asked me to provide evidence needed to support YOUR argument. It is surely you that should have this evidence available if you are going to advocate that alternative methods are used instead of blood transfusions, right?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI know for a fact that blood transfusions have saved many millions of lives. The question you apparently have no answer for is how does the efficacy of the alternative methods you favour stack up against blood transfusions in terms of the scale of life saving they have done, are doing and will do.
no you asked hoy many people had been saved by blood transfusions, to which i admonished you to do your own research.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYour equating the establishment of a doctrine, which has led to the loss of peoples lives, with listening to a piece of music. 😲
the same way that we came to an understanding about smoking tobacco, we read the scriptures and things we had not known or thought of comes to light, kind of like listening to a piece of music, after you do it several times, excerpts start to stand out, like a bass line you never noticed before, or a funky background beat, or some fx that are used in an artful way.
Wishy-washy is the term that springs to mind.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI am addressing your argument about the efficacy of blood transfusions compared to alternative methods. You can debate your "religious stance" with others.
no my case is not dependent on medical factors (repeated now for the fifth time) Its a religious stance.
Originally posted by FMFyes but what you do not know no is how many would or could have been saved if given alternative treatment, do you!
I know for a fact that blood transfusions have saved many millions of lives. The question you apparently have no answer for is how does the efficacy of the alternative methods you favour stack up against blood transfusions in terms of the scale of life saving they have done, are doing and will do.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis is cock-a-hoop reasoning.
God forbids drinking whisky therefore its ok to inject it into your veins.
God forbids eating blood therefore its ok to inject it into your veins!
can you see our point? I am not asking you to accept it, but can you see the reasoning behind our stance regardless of whether you think its a valid stance?
Injecting whiskey into your veins will kill you, injecting blood into your veins will not (as long as the required safety procedures have been followed).
Originally posted by Proper KnobIts a brilliant illustration and yes the words of the bible are like music to our ears and you know its true because you are a musician and must listen to lots of music sometimes the same pieces time and again and know that some excerpts from tracks become noticeable only after many listens.
Your equating the establishment of a doctrine, which has led to the loss of peoples lives, with listening to a piece of music. 😲
Wishy-washy is the term that springs to mind.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by robbie carrobiei can see how a basic society thousands of years ago could make the connection between eating something and putting it in your blood.
God forbids drinking whisky therefore its ok to inject it into your veins.
God forbids eating blood therefore its ok to inject it into your veins!
can you see our point? I am not asking you to accept it, but can you see the reasoning behind our stance regardless of whether you think its a valid stance?
i cannot see how a religion that prides itself on following the word of god accurately could so blatantly not follow the word of god accurately. if i were in your position i would be fuming at the elders for 'guessing' and 'assuming' what god meant on a subject so important. a subject that has cost the lives of so many people. for a subject so serious the elders should have crystal clear directions from the bible. do you think it is crystal clear?
Originally posted by FMFno i will discuss my stance on a religious basis, if you want to discuss the efficay of blood transfusions as a mode of treatment with themselves then perhaps someone else will oblige you.
If that is your argument, then it is you that has to present the evidence, not me.
4 edits
@Proper Knob
ok what about drugs, Jehovahs says you must not smoke smack, do you then conclude that since he forbids you smoking smack that its ok to intravenously inject it into your vein.
wow i just produced a clickable link!