We don't take kindly to jackass dubs callin our bud lew a dumb cluck.
There's a reason for that. It's because you're a dumb cluck too, Dumb Cluck.
Do you mean to tell me if the society came out with an article tomarrow and said they were WRONG about the blood policy and a christian could feel free to have one......you would decline if you were dying?
To begin with, I don't agree with the Society's interpretation of scriptures relating to blood. The Bible's injunction against the use of blood has application to when a life is TAKEN, and that alone. When an animal's life was taken for food, its blood was to be disposed of, and that law is still binding upon Christians. In the case of blood transfusions, the donor's life is not even threatened much less taken. The idea of a blood transfusion is to SAVE life, quite obviously. The reason for the law on blood to begin with was to safegauard the sanctity of LIFE. Since the purpose of transfusions is to SAVE life, as opposed to taking a life, then that doesn't conflict with the original purpose of the law on blood. That's the essential point that the WTS has yet to understand, but will in time.
Even in view of that which I have just said, I'm uncertain as to whether I would submit to a "blood transfusion" even if my life were on the line. The thought of having another person's blood circulating in my veins has never appealed to me, and the very idea of it is still quite gross to me. But then I'm no longer a young person with a family of children that still depends upon me being around. That could contribute to my inclination to decline the offer of a blood transfusion were I ever to be faced with such a trial/decision.
Do you honestly really believe what you said or do you just like to piss people off?
Call me a turd if you want to, but I sorta like pissing YOU off. LOL!
Yadirf
.
Edited by - Yadirf on 23 December 2002 14:9:41