I have reconciled every scripture regarding blood.
The question is the foundation of my article.
Unless and until you provide a succinct answer there will be no further conversation.
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?
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?
Unless and until you provide a succinct answer to the question there will be no further conversation.
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?
Fishy - It takes two to have a conversation. Unless and until you provide a succinct answer to the question there will be no conversation. I previously spent 30 pages trying to explain it to you. I see you have learned nothing in the past 5 months.
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?
Fishy - In almost 30 pages of debate you consistently refused to answer the simple question of why the bible draws a clear distinction between the blood of an animal found already dead and an animal that has been slaughtered.
Until you provide a clear and concise answer to that question there is nothing more to be said.
and remember your boosters as adults!.
currently there is a measles outbreak in the u.s. the outbreak is clustered into communities where parents choose not to get their children vaccinated.
vaccination works primarily on herd immunity.
Old Navy. You are dangerously gullible.
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.
I did not commit many hours to that conversation just to have to do it again.
Unless you have anything new to add I have no more to say.
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?
Can you not read?
Anybody who wishes can read the detailed answers to your objections starting on page 27 of this thread...
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?
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?
That blood would be given an element of acquired sacredness for it came from a person who already died
No it wouldn't.
Blood has no sacredness unless it represents the life of a creature that has been taken. In that case it could be presented on the altar or poured out on the ground. In both cases it symbolised returning the life to the life-giver.
If a creature died of natural causes its blood had no power or significance.
If a creature is still alive its blood has no power or significance.
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?
Fishy - You have resorted to the dishonest tactic of waiting until enough time has passed so that you can pretend you have something to say when in fact all of your arguments were thoroughly debunked months ago.
Our previous conversation was the very epitome of the futility of trying to debate somebody who is both dishonest and vacuous.
Anybody who wishes can read the detailed answers to your objections starting on page 27 of this thread...
Sadly Nathan Natas decided to attempt the trash the thread in the last couple of pages but that has long been his style.