Originally posted by robbie carrobieyet you are prepared to kiss the ruby encrusted ring of the Pontifex Maximus, head of
Personally I think that the JW organisation is morally disgusting
yet you are prepared to kiss the ruby encrusted ring of the Pontifex Maximus, head of
an organisation that has shed more innocent blood and in the most barbarous fashion
than any other in the entire history of humanity. Your stance is not only morally
repugnant but reeks to th ...[text shortened]... pared to do so, while
allowing others the freedom to exercise their conscience in this regard.
an organisation that has shed more innocent blood and in the most barbarous fashion
than any other in the entire history of humanity. Your stance is not only morally
repugnant but reeks to the high heavens of hypocrisy.
Ummmm???? WTF?
seeing that you are so blissfully ignorant on the matter receiving blood fractions is
viewed a a matter of conscience, for not all witnesses are prepared to do so, while
allowing others the freedom to exercise their conscience in this regard.
I am quite aware of the fact that blood fractions are a matter of conscience. My post was basically to that effect. Are you so dumb you can't even tell when you are agreeing with me?
3 edits
Originally posted by Conrau KUmmmm???? WTF?
yet you are prepared to kiss the ruby encrusted ring of the Pontifex Maximus, head of
an organisation that has shed more innocent blood and in the most barbarous fashion
than any other in the entire history of humanity. Your stance is not only morally
repugnant but reeks to the high heavens of hypocrisy.[/b]
Ummmm???? WTF?
seeing that you as basically to that effect. Are you so dumb you can't even tell when you are agreeing with me?
you heard!
you make no mention of conscience and clearly you are unaware of our position when
blood leaves the body or of what is acceptable and/or unacceptable, nor of what we
are prepared to donate.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieyou heard!
Ummmm???? WTF?
you heard!
you make no mention of conscience and clearly you are unaware of our position when
blood leaves the body or of what is acceptable and/or unacceptable, nor what we are
prepared to donate.
Well, first of all, I have never kissed the Pope's ring nor do I have any intention of doing so. As you already know, I have renounced the Catholic Church. Second, I do not see why the Pope should be held accountable for the atrocities committed in the past. In the same way, I do not say that the Queen is sovereign of what was once an empire which systematically wiped out indigenous peoples. This of course is true but since the Queen is not morally responsible for this, I see little relevance in it.
you make no mention of conscience and clearly you are unaware of our position when
blood leaves the body or of what is acceptable and/or unacceptable, nor what we are
prepared to donate.
I said that the JW organisation permits the use of blood fraction and presumably allows its members to donate blood fractions. I do not at all see anything wrong or misleading about this. If you would prefer me to have used the word 'conscience' somewhere, then fine. I will add that the JW religion leaves it as a matter of conscience. But how does that in any way change or contradict what I said?
2 edits
Originally posted by Conrau Kit was used in a metaphorical sense and i had no idea that you have renounced the
[b]you heard!
Well, first of all, I have never kissed the Pope's ring nor do I have any intention of doing so. As you already know, I have renounced the Catholic Church. Second, I do not see why the Pope should be held accountable for the atrocities committed in the past. In the same way, I do not say that the Queen is sovereign of what was once an e it as a matter of conscience. But how does that in any way change or contradict what I said?[/b]
catholic church, never the less, there have been far more persons killed through the
use of contaminated blood than there have by those who have exercised the right
of self determination, nor can you use the argument that many more have been
saved as you have no way of knowing whether they would have recovered if
alternatives had been made available.
lastly as we shall not donate blood, in whole or in part, therefore iit becomes
physically impossible for us to donate any of its constituent parts. In individual
circumstances blood fractions may be unavoidable as in inoculations, some of which
are derived from animal blood. I myself will not take them unless they are
recombinant or wholly unavoidable, others have the right to exercise their
conscience as they see fit.
We can donate major organs, such as kidneys.
Originally posted by galveston75That was Paul, not God, who said that.
All of our life's belong to God. He gives us this gift and how we use it, honor it and worship and obey God with it and that will determine our future that the Bible speaks of many times.
He has made rules for us to follow in the Bible. He has shown many times in the Bible what can happen to humans who do not obey his laws especially once we've become ...[text shortened]... do all we can to help save ones life. He has no commands against CPR or other medical help.
Originally posted by karoly aczelWhen God tells us his, as you say "old ways" are out of date and that we should change that law, we'll do as he says. But so far......nope..... he hasn't.
Sounds as if you guys have just ignored some (scientific) advances since biblical times and that is the reason for your stance on blood transfusions.
BTW another guy just died only a week ago here because he refused a blood transfusion. His death was directly attributed to his refusal of the blood transfusion.
When ever I hear of something like this ...[text shortened]... ages ago.
After all, you seem to have "moved with the times" when it comes to other things.
We still answer to him and him only no matter how you disapprove. Sorry!!!!
Originally posted by galveston75He was giving his best advice on what they should not do and it had
Paul wrote the Bible on his own accord and not inspired by God? Is that what your saying? Hummmmm I don't think so.
nothing to do with injecting oneself with a needle. This was like
when Moses gave rules and made laws for the Israelites to go by.
According to Jesus those were guidelines made by Moses for that
time due to the hardness of their heart. In like maner, Paul gave
guidelines for the church at that time.
Originally posted by googlefudgeThat was like the last paragraph of my post in brackets-what about the rest of my post? Dont tell me you're going to do what so many others do with my, (and others posts),-just pick out one small detail that they disagree with and run with it like it was the main part of the post. Well?
I'm sorry but.... what????
serious backing up with facts and evidence needed for this.
Nobody has built anything on Mars, let alone a base that could house people.
5 edits
Originally posted by Rajk999Do you guys really believe everything you're fed through the news?
Well now Im sure. You are a 10 old kid with a computer and internet access and nothing else to do.
Seriously, there is a lot more going on than you know.
At least I'm trying to find answers, and while that story may not be true, i believe it may be (the reasons for believing it to be true are many and varied and inapropriate for me to bore you with here. I'll leave it as saying that I resonate with it)
One thing I am pretty sure of is that we have already been "invaded" (by aliens).
They are in union with the secret government (Illumunati) and have been controlling the lives of people on this planet for 5000+ years.
I'm actually 37. I've had several telepathic contacts with E.T's (I like to distinguish between an "ET" and an "alien" ) when I was around the age of 22-23. Since then I have been collecting as much info on ufo-lore as possible.
What I have found is that there is indeed a lot of crap out there regarding these matters.
What I have also found is some amazing information regarding the "evolution" of humans on this planet.
I also believe that in the near future we will make contact (physical contact) with ET's and that they will help us with advanced technology,etc. to help our mother Earth "live" as she once did again. (Yes , I refer to our planet as an entity)
Feel free to question me on these or any other points you may have regarding these issues. Well not you, Rajk, as it is clear that by calling me a ten year old you dont consider any information I would have as valuable.
I dont have all the answers, but what I do have is one piece of a huge jigsaw puzzle. I am refining my own "piece" of that "puzzle" , but am pretty confident that the info I have given here is (relatively)accurate.
BTW, I post here my own sake as much as I do for others, as I like to re-read what I have posted to cross-check to see if I am being consistent, because , after all, all I have to offer here is words, unfortunately.
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75I think this is a matter of common sense.
When God tells us his, as you say "old ways" are out of date and that we should change that law, we'll do as he says. But so far......nope..... he hasn't.
We still answer to him and him only no matter how you disapprove. Sorry!!!!
I agree. Some (of "Gods" ) laws should be upheld, as they are entirely appropriate and show us the way (back to Godhead, or whatever you guys say instead).
But some are clearly outdated and have no place in modern society,(for example the stoning of people or the torture of people that wont bow down to whoever is the priest (or whatever) at that time,etc.).
It is up to us to decide and CHOOSE (in our hearts first) what seems like a reasonable law and what doesn't.
For example, I assume you dont advocate the stoning of anyone for whatever reason. And so it goes ...
Originally posted by karoly aczelWow, didn't see that one coming. The spirituality forum has claimed another...😞
Do you guys really believe everything you're fed through the news?
Seriously, there is a lot more going on than you know.
At least I'm trying to find answers, and while that story may not be true, i believe it may be (the reasons for believing it to be true are many and varied and inapropriate for me to bore you with here. I'll leave it as saying tha ...[text shortened]... ent, because , after all, all I have to offer here is words, unfortunately.
Originally posted by karoly aczelNo we don't advocate stoning anyone to death because those laws were done away with which are clearly explained in the Bible. They were established by God for many reasons. But the law given to Noah about blood has never been changed or altered by God.
I think this is a matter of common sense.
I agree. Some (of "Gods" ) laws should be upheld, as they are entirely appropriate and show us the way (back to Godhead, or whatever you guys say instead).
But some are clearly outdated and have no place in modern society,(for example the stoning of people or the torture of people that wont bow down to whoev ...[text shortened]... ple, I assume you dont advocate the stoning of anyone for whatever reason. And so it goes ...
So as I said until he tells us differently we still obey him and his command to us............