both know you are lying. Every single person reading this thread knows you are lying.
cofty's assertions
... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
both know you are lying. Every single person reading this thread knows you are lying.
cofty's assertions
... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
Fishy - You have made absolutely no effort to answer those two questions. Not one single word.
I did.
... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
stavro crosses paths with cofty: cofty already argued his position; And I replied. If you want to repost cofty's same argument; My reply is the same.
... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
He did. Clearly and succinctly.
Please, explain.
... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
dub, I mean no disrespect. If you want me to reply to you, please address the topic being discussed.
... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
Nonsense TD
TD, explain.
... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
dub, you are free to attempt to confute what I say. You have never tried to to do that on any thread. You can post whatever you like but if you direct a post at me, you are wasting my time and distracting others from the discussion unless what you say adresses the subject matter. Can't you realize that. Yelling at your opponent at chess does not invalidate his position, dont you realize that. And a debate is not a highschool football game with chererleaders. I have tried not to disrespect you. I feel hurt because you were a fellow. If you have something to say about the topic that you want me to respond to, I will do my best to give you a reply. But you need to learn that by sticking your head in the sand does not invalidate my position. It is about the topic, not about the advocate. Think about it.
... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
is really staggering to think that if a group of humble men had taken a few days to properly research this issue an awful lot of unnecessary death would have been avoided. coftyYou have not shown that blood is not sacred to God. You have only shown in your argument that blood from a creature that is not slaughtered for food should not be -based on your argument.
As TD and I discussed, pumping three quarters of a gallon -more or less- of blood into your body is not abstaining from blood within any definition of the word abstain used in the book of Acts penned by the "beloved physician," Luke. And as Richard Oliver pointed out, even the conversation of drinking the blood of Jesus was shocking to the Apostles prior to the Actian decree. The Bible does not say that God allows the using of blood from living creatures ( or found dead ones ) to pump into the body of a worshipper of Jehovah. That is your conclusion.
... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
there should not be any symbolic value to God in blood taken from a creature not slaughtered cofty
No you havent. But to be fair. You have made your point in your argument that there should not be any symbolic value to God in blood taken from a creature not slaughtered -as you argue. fisherman
Therefore blood transfusions are not against god's law. Therefore thousands have died for a theological blunder. Therefore the Watchtower are not led by the holy spirit. cofty
You conclude too much.
... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
I have reconciled every verse regarding blood. cofty
No you havent. But to be fair. You have made your point in your argument that there should not be any symbolic value to God in blood taken from a creature not slaughtered -as you argue.