2 edits
Originally posted by AgergLol, i was only messing with you Agers, nothing intended, as for abstaining from blood, its my stance, you don't need to agree with it, you may argue against it until you are a blue bummed fly, its a religious belief, you need not agree with nor accept it.
I fail to see the accuracy of your charge that I'm a Judas robbie carrobie...I've always been consistent in that I never take your side :]
Anyway, you failed to challenge my main point that you don't abstain from your own blood. If from "abstain from blood" it is reasonable to infer (on the grounds that it is a global statement) one should avoid transfusion people who die due to critical blood loss fail to be healthy. Perhaps you missed that.
Originally posted by galveston75thanks dear Brother, its good to hear words of encouragement, it really is. Crazier than a junk yard dawg!
Lol...your crazy Robbie. But I still love ya man!!!
But we are beautiful my friend, a people from all tribes and nations, from all walks of life, from all different educational and economic backgrounds, united in worship of the most High, how can you touch that?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHmm...I'll chalk that one up as another debate point for me then :]
Lol, i was only messing with you Agers, nothing intended, as for abstaining from blood, its my stance, you don't need to agree with it, you may argue against it until you are a blue bummed fly, its a religious belief, you need not agree with nor accept it.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDumb and dumber patting each other on the back and laughing at the rest of the world. What a pair ... 😀
thanks dear Brother, its good to hear words of encouragement, it really is. Crazier than a junk yard dawg!
But we are beautiful my friend, a people from all tribes and nations, from all walks of life, from all different educational and economic backgrounds, united in worship of the most High, how can you touch that?
Originally posted by Agergchalk it up, chalk it up, it is naught but the marks on a prison wall of self imposed egoism, release yourself from yourself, then you shall see, that it is a ragged clown that you are contending with and he skips to reels of rhyme 🙂
Hmm...I'll chalk that one up as another debate point for me then :]
3 edits
Originally posted by Rajk999we are not laughing at the rest of the world, just you, cause you started a thread with the intent of discrediting us and look, we've had more opportunity to explain our beliefs than if we walked around with placards, what a double dog ultra noob you are! with extra cheese and chillies and tabasco sauce!
Dumb and dumber patting each other on the back and laughing at the rest of the world. What a pair ... 😀
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYour explanations sank you deeper into the mud, and made you look worse.
we are not laughing at the rest of the world, just you, cause you started a thread with the intent of discrediting us and look, we've had more opportunity to explain our beliefs than if we walked around with placards, what a double dog ultra noob you are! with extra cheese and chillies and tabasco sauce!
1 edit
Originally posted by Rajk999actually i thought we did rather well, considering how highly emotive the subject was, indeed i doubt people realised just how many lives have been claimed by blood transfusion prior to your bringing it up,
Your explanations sank you deeper into the mud, and made you look worse.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOne has to wonder how thick you really are. The issue is not how many lives were lost because of blood transfusions; the issue is how many were saved compared to lost and whether anyone died needlessly when blood transfusions could have saved them. Considering that thousands of lives are saved each week because of blood transfusions, you have failed abysmally to demonstrate any compelling case for your prohibition of blood transfusions.
actually i thought we did rather well, considering how highly emotive the subject was, indeed i doubt people realised just how many lives have been claimed by blood transfusion prior to your bring it up,
And as I have tirelessly pointed out, you have quite heartily lauded the usefulness of blood fractions. In fact, you recommended that they should be used often as an alternative to blood transfusions. Yet you yourself gave very strong evidence that blood fractions are responsible for hundreds of deaths. Your hypocrisy is simply amazing.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou dont give this forum enough credit. They are far smarter than the average simpleton gullible JW. They are all aware that for every life claimed by transfusions, 1000 are saved because of it.
actually i thought we did rather well, considering how highly emotive the subject was, indeed i doubt people realised just how many lives have been claimed by blood transfusion prior to your bringing it up,
2 edits
Originally posted by Rajk999i am going to treat you statement with the contempt that it deserves! no wonder, all the forum could muster was tabloid press cuttings. They had not even heard of alternative treatments, noobs!
You dont give this forum enough credit. They are far smarter than the average simpleton gullible JW. They are all aware that for every life claimed by transfusions, 1000 are saved because of it.
Originally posted by Conrau Ki got to the bit about thick and read no more, usual spam, waiter, could you remove this spam from my plate, i ordered steak please!
One has to wonder how thick you really are. The issue is not how many lives were lost because of blood transfusions; the issue is how many were saved compared to lost and whether anyone died needlessly when blood transfusions could have saved them. Considering that thousands of lives are saved each week because of blood transfusions, you have failed abysmal ...[text shortened]... e that blood fractions are responsible for hundreds of deaths. Your hypocrisy is simply amazing.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWho is spamming? I have presented you two very cogent arguments against your prohibition of blood transfusions. In fact, you have never responded to either argument, except to compare me to Mengel and suggest I am a Nazi sympathiser. You are the spammer.
i got to the bit about thick and read no more, usual spam, waiter, could you remove this spam from my plate, i ordered steak please!
3 edits
Originally posted by Conrau Kyou continue to use derogatory and spiteful remarks, therefore i refuse to read further. Were those remarks necessary to your argument, no? then why did you put them in? spammer! secondly, it is our religious belief, i need not substantiate it to you nor anyone else, although i did provide extensive reasons as to why we believe as we do, both medical and scriptural and the point that was not touched upon our right of self determination, you are under no duress to agree with nor accept those reasons. You are at liberty to transfuse as much blood as your hearts desire, let us live the way we do, in good conscience that we are not transgressing the principles in Gods word.
Who is spamming? I have presented you two very cogent arguments against your prohibition of blood transfusions. In fact, you have never responded to either argument, except to compare me to Mengel and suggest I am a Nazi sympathiser. You are the spammer.
I dare say that transfusion has killed more persons than Mengeles could hoped to have achieved.