OUTLAW,
I wholly agree with your sentiments on eggnogg’s depiction of his acquisition of expertise. It told me to abstain from wasting time asking any more questions if him/her.
Marvin Shilmer
Inviting djeggnog to discuss the blood doctrine
by jgnat 317 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
moshe
It told me to abstain from wasting time asking any more questions if him/her.-Marvin Shilmer
A one trick pony, does not make a debate--
-
-
just n from bethel
TD said:
I have some questions about the balance of what you've said, but I'd like to preface them by saying that when a JW tells me that blood is sacred, they're preaching to the choir. I think blood is sacred too.
To me though, it doesn't necessarily follow that the sacredness of blood is profaned or desecrated when it is performing the function that God designed it to do in the first place. (Circulating in the arteries and veins)
I think that is the best line of reasoning I've ever heard. Anyone who tried to argue against this point would have to be either retarded or blinded by a cult.
-
OUTLAW
OUTLAW,
I wholly agree with your sentiments on eggnogg’s depiction of his acquisition of expertise.
It told me to abstain from wasting time asking any more questions if him/her.....Marvin Shilmer
Hey Marvin..
Anyone with no Recognised Credentials..Who claims to be an Expert..
Because..They say they are..
Is a Fool..
...................................................
Some days I think my Head will Explode,I`m so Smart!..
I Coloured all the Pictures in the Watchtower today!..
DjEggNogg
..........................
...OUTLAW -
cantleave
Outlaw, here's an artists impression of the above
-
miseryloveselders
I have some questions about the balance of what you've said, but I'd like to preface them by saying that when a JW tells me that blood is sacred, they're preaching to the choir. I think blood is sacred too.
To me though, it doesn't necessarily follow that the sacredness of blood is profaned or desecrated when it is performing the function that God designed it to do in the first place. (Circulating in the arteries and veins)
I have to agree with JustInFromBethel, that was a heluva post TD. Ether.... By the way something I've been thinking about since following this thread is, the Law's stipulations regarding blood were dealing with the blood of animals, not humans. Its got me wondering if this debate is a lot more simple than we're actually treating it. We're arguing over the use of blood being transfused from one human to another human. The Law's intent was regarding the blood of an animal being consumed by a human as food/drink. That being said, for a Christian to not be obligated to follow the Law, and not consuming the blood of an animal, what is there to debate about at that point?
-
garyneal
I find it sad that we even have to have this discussion to begin with.
If the Watchtower's stance on no use of blood is purely on religious grounds then it would follow that no use of blood is permissible. The fact that the Society allows blood fractions, to me, negates the whole premise of their stance.
If the Society wishes to argue that abstaining from blood is 'better medicine' because it helps people avoid blood born pathogens, then it would follow that those pathogens could also be contracted from blood fractions.
The truth is, the Society has painted itself into a corner with no way out. Too many lives have been lost defending this doctrine to just all of a sudden rescind it. Sadly, far too many witnesses are too captive of the concept that the GB speaks for God to even dare question it.
When my daughters ask their daddy why did he choose not to become a Jehovah's Witness, all I can say is that even if the witnesses are a sincere group of people who are trying to serve God and Jesus the best way they know how I cannot in good conscious support this doctrine of theirs.
Perhaps my wife can show me supporting evidence for the selection in 1919.
-
Murray Smith
I have some questions about the balance of what you've said, but I'd like to preface them by saying that when a JW tells me that blood is sacred, they're preaching to the choir. I think blood is sacred too.
To me though, it doesn't necessarily follow that the sacredness of blood is profaned or desecrated when it is performing the function that God designed it to do in the first place. (Circulating in the arteries and veins)
I have to agree with JustInFromBethel, that was a heluva post TD . . . may I add my firm affirmation . . . the most compelling reasoning is also usually the simplest . . . alas, this is oftentimes lost on the self-appointed "genius"(still chuckling)
@dgp . . . I in no way meant to belittle your unanswered questions . . . looking back over the thread, your contributions were invaluable in furthering the discussion . . . I share your dissappointment . . . and apologise if I appeared offhand.
@JGnat . . . I hope the discussion produced what you were seeking . . . it was an eye-opener for me when "egg" finally contributed . . . loved your posts . . . love your mind.
Luvonyall
-
Retrovirus
I personally think that @Djeggnog's intent in posting is to bolster the faith of any lurkers who are still (mostly) in the "truth". I hope any such can see the evasions, name-calling, and stubborn, unfounded insistence on calling blood fractions "nutrients".
At least his final post is an obvious retreat from an untenable position.
-
nugget
for some people who claim to be experts:
an Ex is a hasbeen and a spurt is a drip under pressure.
Show your credentials before claiming superior knowledge.
