Originally posted by Proper KnobIt's one of his main arguments.
Have you lost leave of your senses? You're equating blood transfusions, a practice which saves countless lives each year (following proper procedures), with the taking of a highly addictive drug which kills countless people and destroys countless lives each year.
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobThe illustration is not made with the intent of comparing the dangers of blood transfusion and herion its made to illustrate a principle. The principle being that if you are advised not to eat something how can you then construe that its permissable to intravenously inject it. Man do I need to spell it out every time.
Have you lost leave of your senses? You're equating blood transfusions, a practice which saves countless lives each year (following proper procedures), with the taking of a highly addictive drug which kills countless people and destroys countless lives each year.
Originally posted by FMFThats correct effhim because I know you have no real understanding of the principles otherwise you would not have made the silly statement that you did. No need to debate anything for it becomes not a debate but a battle against ignorance.
No need to debate it with me, robbie. SwissGambit absolutely zinger'd you on this topic a couple of years ago, right here on this forum. No more debate with you on it is required as far as my understanding of the issue is concerned. I am sure your organisation will change its mind on the topic at some point in the future anyway.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt's quite simple really, surely you look at the verse and the context ie, the time it was written. The notion that your all knowing, all loving God would ban a procedure which saves countless of lives each year is perverse in the extreme.
The illustration is not made with the intent of comparing the dangers of blood transfusion and herion its made to illustrate a principle. The principle being that if you are advised not to eat something how can you then construe that its permissable to intravenously inject it. Man do I need to spell it out every time.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThere was a big set piece thread about this a couple of years ago in which you and galveston75 totally had the chance to make the argument [and I learnt a lot] and yet you totally lost the argument in my view. Believe what you want on this topic robbie. I have heard everything you have got to offer on it and it just doesn't work.
Thats correct effhim because I know you have no real understanding of the principles otherwise you would not have made the silly statement that you did. No need to debate anything for it becomes not a debate but a battle against ignorance.
Originally posted by Proper KnobAnd yet you cannot bring yourself to address the point if it is forbidden to eat why it then becomes permissable to inject it intravenously.
It's quite simple really, surely you look at the verse and the context ie, the time it was written. The notion that your all knowing, all loving God would ban a procedure which saves countless of lives each year is perverse in the extreme.
Originally posted by FMFThays not my argenent at all what my argument actually is that if a substance is forbidden to eat how it suddenly becomes permissable to inject it intravenously and if you continue to misrepresent my stance I will simply ignore your dishonest portrayals for they are not worth the effort.
I grasp your it'd be like injecting heroin argument without any trouble whatsoever.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI just did. The practice of injecting blood intravenously saves lives, why would God wish to ban a practice which saves lives?
And yet you cannot bring yourself to address the point if it is forbidden to eat why it then becomes permissable to inject it intravenously.
Originally posted by FMFI am uninterested in your retrospective trolling for it is clear to me that uou have absolutely no idea of the principles that our stance is based upon otherwise you would not have incriminated yourself by betraying your ignorance by stating that it was based on a single verse.
There was a big set piece thread about this a couple of years ago in which you and galveston75 totally had the chance to make the argument [and I learnt a lot] and yet you totally lost the argument in my view. Believe what you want on this topic robbie. I have heard everything you have got to offer on it and it just doesn't work.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou mentioned smack. That is heroin. "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."
Thays not my argenent at all what my argument actually is that if a substance is forbidden to eat how it suddenly becomes permissable to inject it intravenously and if you continue to misrepresent my stance I will simply ignore your dishonest portrayals for they are not worth the effort.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI do understand the principles you espouse after that big set piece thread about this a couple of years ago in which you and galveston75 totally had the chance to lay them out and explain them.
I am uninterested in your retrospective trolling for it is clear to me that uou have absolutely no idea of the principles that our stance is based upon otherwise you would not have incriminated yourself by betraying your ignorance by stating that it was based on a single verse.