Originally posted by stellspalfiebecause its use in the Bible its strictly prohibited except for those occasions in which its use is deemed to be sacrosanct.
why?
.....and you never told me if you would suck poison from a snake bite on your childs leg if it was required to save their life.
We dont have poisonous snakes in Scotland, just sayin.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFIf you want to know the respective numbers so as to make a comparison then i suggest that you do some research. Third time asking you to do your own research.
You said "[blood transfusions have] resulted in tens of thousands of people dying possibly hundreds of thousands". Would that be more than or less than the number of lives saved in your estimation?
Originally posted by Proper KnobIf those hundreds of thousands of person who died as a direct consequence of an intravenous blood transfusion had applied the Bible principle to abstain from blood, would it have saved them from dieing as a direct consequence of taking a blood transfusion?
It's not meant to be comforting. I'm pointing out that no medical procedure is safe, yet you only harp on about the risks of blood transfusions. You're blatantly cherry picking again.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe 'problems with blood transfusions' thing is your argument not mine. Millions upon millions of people's lives have been saved.
If you want to know the respective numbers so as to make a comparison then i suggest that you do some research.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDoes the bible have anything to say about the medical dangers related to blood transfusions?
If those hundreds of thousands of person who died as a direct consequence of an intravenous blood transfusion had applied the Bible principle to abstain from blood, would it have saved them from dieing as a direct consequence of taking a blood transfusion?
Originally posted by FMFI dont have any problem nor issue with it, its a non issue for me, how you could possibly have misconstrued this, i cannot say.
The 'problems with blood transfusions' thing is your argument not mine. Millions upon millions of people's lives have been saved.
Originally posted by FMFNo not that I am aware of, but then again, our stance is not based on the dangers or otherwise of blood transfusion, its a religious stance, just saying in case you failed to grasp it for about i dunno, the seventh or eighth time.
Does the bible have anything to say about the medical dangers related to blood transfusions?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo blood transfusions are OK according to the bible but blood sacrifice and eating blood from slaughtered animals is taboo? Is that right?
No not that I am aware of, but then again, our stance is not based on the dangers or otherwise of blood transfusion, its a religious stance, just saying in case you failed to grasp it for about i dunno, the seventh or eighth time.
Originally posted by FMFIf you think they are Ok, then you think they are OK, we have our understanding which prohibits their use, you need not agree nor acquiesce.
So blood transfusions are OK according to the bible but blood sacrifice and eating blood from slaughtered animals is taboo? Is that right?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo we can say that you have no opinion on the medical risks associated with blood transfusions and those risks have no bearing on any discussion about your "principles" about blood transfusions?
No I dont take blood transfusions. Just sayin.