- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
02 Dec 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAs for your assertion as was pointed out to Conrau
Let's turn this around, lets not! 😛 As for your assertion as was pointed out to Conrau
smonrau, you have no way of knowing if any number of those persons would not have
also recovered if alternatives had been offered to them, the argument therefore is
logically flawed! In the singular instance of blood transfusions do we have the right of ...[text shortened]... try Amii
Stewart and we shall be grooving our way to success next year, can ya dig it, ya'l!
smonrau, you have no way of knowing if any number of those persons would not have
also recovered if alternatives had been offered to them, the argument therefore is
logically flawed!
We can reasonably deduce that in a number of cases blood transfusion was an immediate necessity. This is a simple matter of medical science.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
02 Dec 11
Originally posted by galveston75No doubt everyone here understands what the word 'blood' means. There is no need for you to draw attention to it. What needs to be addressed here is the word 'abstain'. I believe that both the Greek 'apechesthai', the Latin 'abstinere' and the English 'abstain' generally always refer to absistence specifically from food. The instruction in Acts 15.29 is specifically prohibiting consumption of blood. We do not talk about 'abstinence from blood transfusions' because abstinence does not refer to that kind of thing. You have to explain here why you think that abstinence from blood extends beyond the mere consumption of blood and includes sound medical uses of blood.
Geeez such common sense you have on this. Uh God did not tell us not to abstain from food did he? What did he tell us to ABSTAIN from???????????????
BLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD!!!!!!!!
02 Dec 11
Originally posted by Conrau KThat is a good point.
No doubt everyone here understands what the word 'blood' means. There is no need for you to draw attention to it. What needs to be addressed here is the word 'abstain'. I believe that both the Greek 'apechesthai', the Latin 'abstinere' and the English 'abstain' generally always refer to absistence specifically from food. The instruction in Acts 15.29 is spe ...[text shortened]... tends beyond the mere consumption of blood and includes sound medical uses of blood.
02 Dec 11
Originally posted by Conrau Kreasonably deduce??, no you cannot, did you try cell salvage, volume expansion, any alternatives, no you did not.
[b] As for your assertion as was pointed out to Conrau
smonrau, you have no way of knowing if any number of those persons would not have
also recovered if alternatives had been offered to them, the argument therefore is
logically flawed!
We can reasonably deduce that in a number of cases blood transfusion was an immediate necessity. This is a simple matter of medical science.[/b]
02 Dec 11
Originally posted by 667joebut then again, those men didn't administer 3000 haemophiliacs with contaminated
Since there is no god, god did not tell people not to get blood transfusions. The men who wrote the bible are the ones who said it. It is safe to say these men were not MDs.
blood, in a single instance, did they.
02 Dec 11
1 edit
Originally posted by 667joeThe men in the Holy Bible probably did not know what blood transfusions
Since there is no god, god did not tell people not to get blood transfusions. The men who wrote the bible are the ones who said it. It is safe to say these men were not MDs.
were? I never heard of a blood transfusion that far back in history.
P.S. If the atheists new of such a practice they would be sure to claimed
Jesus was revived by a blood transfusion.
02 Dec 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KOk, again I know this is a very emotional issue and I know it personally as my wife when in labor with my son was told she would be dead within a couple hours from complications IF she didn't take a blood transfusion. They all swore she would positivley die if not. And thios was said with their infinite medical wisdom. Well she didn't and fully recovered. Long story to say the least but I have been in the middle of this and probably know more then anyone here what it's like.
No doubt everyone here understands what the word 'blood' means. There is no need for you to draw attention to it. What needs to be addressed here is the word 'abstain'. I believe that both the Greek 'apechesthai', the Latin 'abstinere' and the English 'abstain' generally always refer to absistence specifically from food. The instruction in Acts 15.29 is spe tends beyond the mere consumption of blood and includes sound medical uses of blood.
The important point here is none of us want any of our loved ones to die "EVER". We all hate death and if we could never die that would be a dream. And it's a promise that God tells us that will happen one day in the future.
The Bible says this life is only temporary, which is terrible, but how we respond to Gods word not matter how out of date we think it is a humans, it's still God's word.
And I'm not aware of anyone here that has recieved a new proclamation from God that he has changed this law. Have you?
Now you can play with this word ABSTAIN all you want but as a sinful and imperfect human I don't see where you have the authority or have been given the authority to change the meaning of this command or anything else in the Bible. Have you? It appears to me since you don't agree with it your trying to water it down to lose it's menaing. Am I wrong?
02 Dec 11
Originally posted by galveston75Why must you lie like this?
Ok, again I know this is a very emotional issue and I know it personally as my wife when in labor with my son was told she would be dead within a couple hours from complications IF she didn't take a blood transfusion. They all swore she would positivley die if not. And thios was said with their infinite medical wisdom. Well she didn't and fully recovered ...[text shortened]... don't agree with it your trying to water it down to lose it's menaing. Am I wrong?
02 Dec 11
Originally posted by RJHindsOf course they didn't. Silly statement to make but do you think that God in his infinite wisdom would not know that someday in the future that man would progress and would possibly gain more knowledge of the human body and how it works and possibly would want to take care of it better then they did then? Do you really think God is stupid or blind to his creation and our given abilities to learn?
The men in the Holy Bible probably did not know what blood transfusions
were? I never heard of a blood transfusion that far back in history.
P.S. If the atheists new of such a practice they would be sure to claimed
Jesus was revived by a blood transfusion.
And now that we have progressed to some extent and if it were really safe to use blood in this way why hasn't he told us to go ahead and do this? Where is this message from him to do transfusions? Show me.
Geeeez, read your Bible and learn God's ways and thoughts....................
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
02 Dec 11
Originally posted by galveston75I am going to ignore pretty much your whole post because it fails to address any of my points. Again, I ask you why you think 'to abstain' means more than simply refraining from eating blood. Since this in fact has been the common reading throughout history, I believe you who are changing meanings here.
Ok, again I know this is a very emotional issue and I know it personally as my wife when in labor with my son was told she would be dead within a couple hours from complications IF she didn't take a blood transfusion. They all swore she would positivley die if not. And thios was said with their infinite medical wisdom. Well she didn't and fully recovered ...[text shortened]... don't agree with it your trying to water it down to lose it's menaing. Am I wrong?
I am not asking for personal anecdotes, nor I am questioning the necessity of obedience to God. These are tangential points. What I am asking is for a phililogical justification for your interpretation of the prohibition on blood.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
02 Dec 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI have considered all these things. In fact, I have addressed this point already. The problem is that these alternatives do not provide haemoglobin, the oxygen-carriers in our red blood cells. Without a sufficient haemoglobin count, our body begins to degenerate. No amount of saline solutions is going to remedy this problem in the case of someone who has sustained serious blood loss. Therefore, in these cases, a refusal to receive a blood transfusion would result in death. We only need then to look at the number of such cases (quite high I expect) to deduce how many people would die without blood transfusions.
reasonably deduce??, no you cannot, did you try cell salvage, volume expansion, any alternatives, no you did not.