Fisherman you debunked nothing. Your assertion that you did amounts to a lie.
Numbers 15:30,31
this has been a controversial issue among doctors and medical ethicists.
i think it basically comes down to the fact that physicians have a responsibility to establish the presence of informed consent.
is it really possible for a person to give informed consent if they are not accurately informed?.
Fisherman you debunked nothing. Your assertion that you did amounts to a lie.
Numbers 15:30,31
this has been a controversial issue among doctors and medical ethicists.
i think it basically comes down to the fact that physicians have a responsibility to establish the presence of informed consent.
is it really possible for a person to give informed consent if they are not accurately informed?.
you admitted that "Sometimes, unbled meat could be eaten"
You take me out of context. And you misrepresent what I stated. Let me elaborate. I also said in the post prior to that one: accidental eating, and I also said provision for restoration in connection with a Jew eating a dead animal. I also referenced the allowed selling of dead animals to non-Jews. I also said to you later on in our discussion that intentional eating of dead animals by an Israelite carried the death penalty. What I meant to say in the specific posts that you are referring to is that there is a difference between eating blood and eating a dead animal that was not slaughtered and bled.That is what I was focusing on in these posts. Sometimes an unbled animal could be eaten. A Jew could sell it to a foreigner and by God allowing the Jew to sell it to the foreigner, God was also allowing the foreigner to eat it. However, at no time can any man eat blood -Jew or foreigner- I referenced Lev 17:10 in the post. That is all that I was trying to say. I also meant to say that a Jew could eat an unbled dead animal sometimes and not incur the death penalty-when it was not intentional- with the provision for restoration that we discussed, the ceremonial washing.
You like to conclude that there is no difference between eating blood and eating an unbled animal and that there is no PENALTY for intentionally violating God's law -only a ceremonial wash.
this has been a controversial issue among doctors and medical ethicists.
i think it basically comes down to the fact that physicians have a responsibility to establish the presence of informed consent.
is it really possible for a person to give informed consent if they are not accurately informed?.
the authority here is internal rather than external.....but not an actual command.
"......and from fornication." 1Cor 5:11, Ephesians 5:5 (command)
"abstain" to keep or prevent yourself from doing....
Blood is not a finite act though and neither are "things strangled" or sacrificed to idols. It is understood that you do not ride a dead chicken same as you do not eat boats.
Simply put, to abstain from alcohol means ( Except when a skin doctor wants to use the word abstain in a peculiar way meaning not to apply it.) that you do not consume it. To what degree? A patient should be abstaining from spirits when he drinks a small diluted amount.
We abstain from acts done in connection with objects and those acts are determined by the context.
In reference to the Bible, you need context to understand what abstain from blood means? What do you think the Bible author means? In connection with the related verse, it's ok to put a gallon of blood into your body?
It would seem that the author of the Bible would want the reader to clearly understand what is required of him when he demands compliance from the reader, but the Bible is written in a peculiar way, and at times a word or a verse or more alludes to something more than the context, and the only way to know what it means is to ask the author to elaborate.
this has been a controversial issue among doctors and medical ethicists.
i think it basically comes down to the fact that physicians have a responsibility to establish the presence of informed consent.
is it really possible for a person to give informed consent if they are not accurately informed?.
It's a question of what is the most reasonable, natural and simplest understanding of all the scriptures within their context.
No, 'Tis knowing what the author means and not about your conclusions or interpretations about what he wrote.
Cofty made his argument and you failed to overturn it.
No he did not. He failed to. And yes I did.
So please don't rewrite history on another thread.
He linked and referred to his thread that I debunked. My post was a response/reminder to him, not to you.
this has been a controversial issue among doctors and medical ethicists.
i think it basically comes down to the fact that physicians have a responsibility to establish the presence of informed consent.
is it really possible for a person to give informed consent if they are not accurately informed?.
You are sure of this
before the dance of death scene "Once Upon a Tine in the West"
Frank:: ".. Cause I know now you'll tell me what you're after."
Harmonica: "Only at the point of dying."
Ans: Only at the point of dying. Isn't courage about risk?
this has been a controversial issue among doctors and medical ethicists.
i think it basically comes down to the fact that physicians have a responsibility to establish the presence of informed consent.
is it really possible for a person to give informed consent if they are not accurately informed?.
Dear besty,
Twas. But it does not matter at all. Like I posted to TD, you can believe it too if you like it!
this has been a controversial issue among doctors and medical ethicists.
i think it basically comes down to the fact that physicians have a responsibility to establish the presence of informed consent.
is it really possible for a person to give informed consent if they are not accurately informed?.
It's all a matter of context...
Death Penalty (Deuteronomy 14:21) “You must not eat any animal that was found dead" Compare Hebrews 10:28.
Your post that you refer to above and your premise was debunked.
this has been a controversial issue among doctors and medical ethicists.
i think it basically comes down to the fact that physicians have a responsibility to establish the presence of informed consent.
is it really possible for a person to give informed consent if they are not accurately informed?.
Is English a second language by any chance?
3rd language . And besides the 3, I speak and write others too.
You've made a pretty basic error here. And misquoted the Bible too....
That is your belief and if you like it, believe it. Now, may I ask you, what error do you believe that I made? And can you show me please, where do you believe that I quoted or "misquoted" the Bible? And by the way, can you also tell me please what did I mean by "it" each time I used it in my statement that you are referring to?
this has been a controversial issue among doctors and medical ethicists.
i think it basically comes down to the fact that physicians have a responsibility to establish the presence of informed consent.
is it really possible for a person to give informed consent if they are not accurately informed?.
these are only considered in serious, life threatening circumstances.
Nahh., I don't believe that. Blood is big business and hospitals have been known to transfuse blood when possible, same as ordering a lot of tests to bill insurance companies for more money, but what patient would dare challenge a doctor who's trying to help him.
Watchtower implanted phobias and notions of uncleanness or contamination
But such fear was well founded as epi-HIV infected blood has proved. I know people that have died because of blood transfusions that would be alive today, and in all fairness, I also must say that I know at least one person that would be dead today if not for a BT. Albeit, there is a basis for the fear and repiulsion. It is not just hype.
control mechanisms to generate revulsion and compliance
JW are courageous people. They are always prepared to die for their beliefs so their stand is not out of fear of risk of infection, besides, risk is better than certain death and jw know it.However, the medical risk do encourage the religious stand.
without scriptural merit,
In all objectivity, not just how the WT interprets it, it says to abstain from blood. To what degree, how does it apply, and should blood ever be used to sustain life, especially when someone is bleeding to death and needs gallons or liters of it? The WT says no BT (at this time.)
let's imagine that a 10 year old gets baptized.
parents split and kid never goes back to the hall again.
15 years later kid celebrates christmas and gets df since some dub saw him celebrating.