i know we have all talked about this topic before, but for some new ones on the forum, or to refresh ourselves, i wanted to start this thread.. the society likes to go on about the sacredness of blood, and how it should not be transfused etc.. they liken it to a symbol of life itself.
something that should be respected and therefore not transfused.. but, what is more important: real life, or a symbol of life?.
an illustration came to mind.. if we give a bunch of flowers to a loved one as a symbol of our love for them, are those flowers more important than the love itself?
Very detailed answers to all your so-called objections can be found at the link I provided.
@ Cofty: You answered nothing in your previous linked post and you did not refute with scripture in that linked post, the scriptures that I quoted falsifying your theory. All you did was to attempt to explain away those scriptures that I quoted with your other theories. --As if your theories are fact because Cofty says so.
i know we have all talked about this topic before, but for some new ones on the forum, or to refresh ourselves, i wanted to start this thread.. the society likes to go on about the sacredness of blood, and how it should not be transfused etc.. they liken it to a symbol of life itself.
something that should be respected and therefore not transfused.. but, what is more important: real life, or a symbol of life?.
an illustration came to mind.. if we give a bunch of flowers to a loved one as a symbol of our love for them, are those flowers more important than the love itself?
Anybody who wishes can read.
@Cofty: You have brought your previous posts into this discussion although they fail to validate your theories stated in those post or refute my statements in this discussion on this thread.
You go on and on with your commentary in your linked article but no scriptures to back up your beliefs. And you circumvent having to reply to my posts on this thread by referring to those previous posts as if they prove/proved your theories or refute my statements here.
Again, Lev 19:26.
i know we have all talked about this topic before, but for some new ones on the forum, or to refresh ourselves, i wanted to start this thread.. the society likes to go on about the sacredness of blood, and how it should not be transfused etc.. they liken it to a symbol of life itself.
something that should be respected and therefore not transfused.. but, what is more important: real life, or a symbol of life?.
an illustration came to mind.. if we give a bunch of flowers to a loved one as a symbol of our love for them, are those flowers more important than the love itself?
Cofty, as I stated before, it is your article and you are the one attempting to persuade the reader.
Stop going on a rant with your readers asking them a million questions as a deflection, instead, support your beloved theories by citing scriptures.
In Lev 19:26, God forbade Israel to eat anything containing blood. Animals found dead or torned also contained blood and Israel was forbidden to eat them based upon this scripture.
i know we have all talked about this topic before, but for some new ones on the forum, or to refresh ourselves, i wanted to start this thread.. the society likes to go on about the sacredness of blood, and how it should not be transfused etc.. they liken it to a symbol of life itself.
something that should be respected and therefore not transfused.. but, what is more important: real life, or a symbol of life?.
an illustration came to mind.. if we give a bunch of flowers to a loved one as a symbol of our love for them, are those flowers more important than the love itself?
Lev 11 distinguishes between clean and unclean. God forbade both priests and Israel to eat animals found dead and Lev shows that also it was an unclean thing to do both for Israel and priests. Healthy animals don't usually die and torn animals are also contaminated from the saliva of the predator and other causes.
i know we have all talked about this topic before, but for some new ones on the forum, or to refresh ourselves, i wanted to start this thread.. the society likes to go on about the sacredness of blood, and how it should not be transfused etc.. they liken it to a symbol of life itself.
something that should be respected and therefore not transfused.. but, what is more important: real life, or a symbol of life?.
an illustration came to mind.. if we give a bunch of flowers to a loved one as a symbol of our love for them, are those flowers more important than the love itself?
Ex 22:31, Deut 14:21 Forbids Israel from eating animals found dead and torned by wild animals.
Blood was only sacred in so far as it represented a life that had been taken.
Scripture and verse please and not your connections.
before they sacrifice the life of their child.
People have also died from BT and only known pathogens can be tested for in blood. I remember when the AIDS epidemic, everyone that ever received a BT was going around like a nervous wreck.
i know we have all talked about this topic before, but for some new ones on the forum, or to refresh ourselves, i wanted to start this thread.. the society likes to go on about the sacredness of blood, and how it should not be transfused etc.. they liken it to a symbol of life itself.
something that should be respected and therefore not transfused.. but, what is more important: real life, or a symbol of life?.
an illustration came to mind.. if we give a bunch of flowers to a loved one as a symbol of our love for them, are those flowers more important than the love itself?
Cofty, Lev 17:15 does not say that Israelites could eat animals found dead -but let's say that someone did eat- the verse only says what would happen to such a person for doing so and what such person was legally required to do ( the remedy) or face consequences. And it is non sequitur to conclude that since eating an animal found dead may not have incurred the death penalty for an Israelite, that God allowed the Israelites to store and use the blood of living animals and of human beings, or that blood taken from living creatures is not sacred to God, or that blood taken from human beings could be consumed under the Mosaic Law. It only applies to the dead animal that was eaten. Everything else you stated is not supported by the Bible.
to jehovah's witnesses elders: blood transfusions are biblically supported: acts 15:20 says abstain from blood but 1 samuel 14:32-5 says saul's army ate unbled meat to not starve and no verses show god not forgiving them.
christ says god also forgave david's eating temple holy bread to survive and that god wants mercy not sacrifice.
(mt 12) the may 22, 1994 awake tells of 26 jehovah's witness kids who died without transfusions, and by common sense in massive bleeding as in car wrecks blood expanders won't save lives http://www.ajwrb.org.
Actually Fishy does make one good point with his Watchtower post stating autologous blood is between Jehovah and the publisher.
Yes, but the medical directive forbids it.
to jehovah's witnesses elders: blood transfusions are biblically supported: acts 15:20 says abstain from blood but 1 samuel 14:32-5 says saul's army ate unbled meat to not starve and no verses show god not forgiving them.
christ says god also forgave david's eating temple holy bread to survive and that god wants mercy not sacrifice.
(mt 12) the may 22, 1994 awake tells of 26 jehovah's witness kids who died without transfusions, and by common sense in massive bleeding as in car wrecks blood expanders won't save lives http://www.ajwrb.org.
The bible is impotent.
Only if the everlasting life it promises is a lie.
to jehovah's witnesses elders: blood transfusions are biblically supported: acts 15:20 says abstain from blood but 1 samuel 14:32-5 says saul's army ate unbled meat to not starve and no verses show god not forgiving them.
christ says god also forgave david's eating temple holy bread to survive and that god wants mercy not sacrifice.
(mt 12) the may 22, 1994 awake tells of 26 jehovah's witness kids who died without transfusions, and by common sense in massive bleeding as in car wrecks blood expanders won't save lives http://www.ajwrb.org.
Respectfully, debating whether or not the Bible allows blood is the wrong argument. Saving lives is the right thing to do whatever your chosen holy book has to say on the matter. Debating scriptures gives them a credence that is undeserved in the age of modern medicine.
That is a different subject matter not relevant to the topic being discussed.
to jehovah's witnesses elders: blood transfusions are biblically supported: acts 15:20 says abstain from blood but 1 samuel 14:32-5 says saul's army ate unbled meat to not starve and no verses show god not forgiving them.
christ says god also forgave david's eating temple holy bread to survive and that god wants mercy not sacrifice.
(mt 12) the may 22, 1994 awake tells of 26 jehovah's witness kids who died without transfusions, and by common sense in massive bleeding as in car wrecks blood expanders won't save lives http://www.ajwrb.org.
came to that conclusion myself, Fisherman, and if it so happens to also be Coftys then so much the better
That does not prove the conclusion either.
it is an absolutely knockdown argument against the erroneous and sick Watchtower policy.
No, it is not.
