Why become a Jehovah's Witness?

-Removed-

Perfect proof that you don't read my post as I answered this for you yesterday..... What a waist of time you are.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes i can talk to the elders who are considered representatives of Jehovah witnesses or i can write to the branch department in London, heck, i can even fly to the branch, walk into reception and ask to see someone, or phone them if its that urgent.

I wrote the WTS many years ago about a question I had about something I did not understand and as fast as the mail could get it there and get it back they answered me and they said to call if this didn't help.
Awesome I'd say......

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
she owes us big time for all the free education, one would think she would be more appreciative.

How do you stuff all that ego inside a head that size?

I've learned more from my dog. All I've learned from you robbie is that people tell themselves some amazing stories just to make themselves feel like they've got it all correct.

Originally posted by Suzianne
How do you stuff all that ego inside a head that size?

I've learned more from my dog. All I've learned from you robbie is that people tell themselves some amazing stories just to make themselves feel like they've got it all correct.

your dog you say, perhaps it might be more productive to reason with him, please put him near to the keyboard, thanx.

Originally posted by galveston75
Oh but it is to be taken very seriously. You may not see that now but some day soon you'll see how real it is.

Oooooohhhh....scary. 😴

Anyway, feel free to take it "seriously", just don't take it literally. You know, like a passionate scholar of figurative works. Then, problem solved. After all, if persons know well enough not to take some figurative text in hyper-literal fashion, then they'll be no arguing over which hyper-literal interpretation is correct.

You are about as fundamentalist as anyone I have ever come across. Here's your fundamentalism distilled down: let's take some ancient figurative text, interpret it hyper-literally and let that inform all our decisions and actions whilst we otherwise turn our brains off. Oh yeah, and my hyper-literal interpretation, as sculpted and enshrined by my cult, is obviously the only correct one. 🙄

Yes, you JWs are just so wise. If for example some pre-Dark Ages figurative text says one ought to abstain from blood, then obviously it follows that one in the 21st century ought to reject blood transfusions, despite all the medical evidence and seeming common sense to the contrary.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Oooooohhhh....scary. 😴

Anyway, feel free to take it "seriously", just don't take it literally. You know, like a passionate scholar of figurative works. Then, problem solved. After all, if persons know well enough not to take some figurative text in hyper-literal fashion, then they'll be no arguing over which hyper-literal interpretation is correct d transfusions, despite all the medical evidence and seeming common sense to the contrary.

and all the people who have died from complications and infected blood, get yourself into the 21 century, bloodless surgery is now the gold standard, you are living in the past lemon sucker.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
and all the people who have died from complications and infected blood, get yourself into the 21 century, bloodless surgery is now the gold standard, you are living in the past lemon sucker.

Yes, we're all well aware of how your highly selective understanding of this and related topics is shaped to fit your doctrinal commitments. As I have told you time and time again, that you would even pretend that your commitments are based in evidence only underscores your disingenuity. Aren't you forgetting the most incorrigible feature of your fundamentalism? You would follow what your cult's doctrine prescribes completely regardless of what the medical evidence actually recommends. That's exactly the nature of fundamentalism.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Yes, we're all well aware of how your highly selective understanding of this and related topics is shaped to fit your doctrinal commitments. As I have told you time and time again, that you would even pretend that your commitments are based in evidence only underscores your disingenuity. Aren't you forgetting the most incorrigible feature of your fundam what the medical evidence actually recommends. That's exactly the nature of fundamentalism.

yes because lets face it, thousands of haemophiliacs and tens of thousands of others who were infected with contaminated blood dont really constitute evidence in any real sense of the word, bloodless surgery really isn't a reality, there are not really entire hospitals dedicated to it, neeext.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes because lets face it, thousands of haemophiliacs and tens of thousands of others who were infected with contaminated blood dont really constitute evidence in any real sense of the word, bloodless surgery really isn't a reality, there are not really entire hospitals dedicated to it, neeext.

As usual, you just don't grasp or understand the basic point here. "Thousands of haemophiliacs and tens of thousands of others who were infected with contaminated blood" doesn't constitute any sort of objective, holistic view of the medical evidence for/against the use of blood transfusions. As I already said, we're all already painfully aware of how your selective understanding distorts and whittles down all the relevant info into something that happens to fit your doctrinal commitments that are in turn based on pre-Dark Ages understanding; no need to hammer this home any further. The larger point, again, is that this is just ad hoc mumbo jumbo and diversion on your part. The fact of the matter is simply this: you would blindly follow your doctrinal commitments, completely regardless of such evidential considerations. Again, that's just the nature of fundamentalism. I mean, you wouldn't support blood transfusions even if, hypothetically, you had overwhelming reasons to think they are efficacious and beneficial, right? As galveston75 astutely tells us, a wise person leans not on his own understanding on such issues. 🙄🙄🙄🙄

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes because lets face it, thousands of haemophiliacs and tens of thousands of others who were infected with contaminated blood dont really constitute evidence in any real sense of the word, bloodless surgery really isn't a reality, there are not really entire hospitals dedicated to it, neeext.

are you really trying to argue that the use of blood in hospitals overall has been a negative thing? are really saying that its done more harm than good?

Originally posted by LemonJello
As usual, you just don't grasp or understand the basic point here. "Thousands of haemophiliacs and tens of thousands of others who were infected with contaminated blood" doesn't constitute any sort of objective, holistic view of the medical evidence for/against the use of blood transfusions. As I already said, we're all already painfully aware of how yo tely tells us, a wise person leans not on his own understanding on such issues. 🙄🙄🙄🙄

it does for those people who were affected by it. whether you constitute it as evidence of its efficacy or otherwise is your affair, its irrelevant to me and essentially meaningless. You have of course conducted a study under scientific conditions and will now publish your results.

We have no need of justifying our stance to you, you want to take blood products that's your affair, we have religious and philosophical principles whereby we claim the right of self determination and no amount of pretence to science can negate the fact. Who are the real fundamentalists here, you or us? for we are prepared to accept your stance in relation to your wishes but you will not extend the same to us, thanks for demonstrating what we have known all along, you are the real fundamentalist in all of this.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
are you really trying to argue that the use of blood in hospitals overall has been a negative thing? are really saying that its done more harm than good?

3000 persons in a single instance in my city alone were contaminated with infected blood, you will now tell how it benefited them. If you are willing to argue that its benefits outweigh its negative effects then you will state what scientific studies you have done and under what conditions so that an evaluation can be made.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
3000 persons in a single instance in my city alone were contaminated with infected blood, you will now tell how it benefited them. If you are willing to argue that its benefits outweigh its negative effects then you will state what scientific studies you have done and under what conditions so that an evaluation can be made.

i dont need to provide studies....ive got the entire global medical profession all as real life physical evidence for the need for blood.

as the overwhelming universal evidence is in my favor its up to you to provide evidence that the entire medical profession has it wrong. you are making the outlandish claims....back em'up.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
i dont need to provide studies....ive got the entire global medical profession all as real life physical evidence for the need for blood.

as the overwhelming universal evidence is in my favor its up to you to provide evidence that the entire medical profession has it wrong. you are making the outlandish claims....back em'up.

In other words you have no scientific studies to back up your claim, well well. You will explain entire hospitals dedicated to bloodless surgery and the advancement of bloodless surgery for the most intricate of operations. I am not saying they are wrong, they can do what they like, but we have reasons for abstaining, whether you or anyone else thinks they are valid is irrelevant. Perhaps it might help you if you went to youtube and typed bloodless surgery, who knows, you may actually learn something.

sorry I didn't catch how blood transfusions have benefited the tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of persons who have been infected by contaminated blood, you never said.