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.
Posts by cofty
-
49Let's talk about Blood again....
by stuckinarut2 ini 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?
-
-
-
49
Let's talk about Blood again....
by stuckinarut2 ini 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
Can you not read?
Anybody who wishes can read the detailed answers to your objections starting on page 27 of this thread...
-
49
Let's talk about Blood again....
by stuckinarut2 ini 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
Yes of course I agree there is no valid theological objection to blood transfusions but not for the reason you stated. -
49
Let's talk about Blood again....
by stuckinarut2 ini 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
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.
-
49
Let's talk about Blood again....
by stuckinarut2 ini 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
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.
-
49
Let's talk about Blood again....
by stuckinarut2 ini 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
Fishy - We have had this conversation at great length and you repeatedly refused to respond to specific questions. I have much better things to do than to go through it again.
Blood was only sacred in so far as it represented a life that had been taken. It represented the life which had to be returned to the life-giver by pouring the blood on the ground - or offered on the altar where the life of the animal took the place of the life of the penitent.
If an animal was found "already dead" this did not apply - bleeding a dead animal is not possible - the life had not been "taken" and the animal could be eaten unbled with impunity. (Leviticus 11:38,39 & Leviticus 17:15,16)
If the owner of the animal buried it he was unclean and had to wash his garments and bathe. If he ate it he was unclean and had to wash his garments and bathe. There was no punishment unless he neglected to follow the procedure for removing uncleanness.
These facts are unassailable.
If you cannot see any connection between these facts and blood transfusions then I cannot help you further. They ought to at least give a JW pause before they sacrifice the life of their child.
-
45
Blood Transfusions are Biblically Supported
by allpoweredup into 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.
-
-
cofty
Fishy you have demonstrated very clearly on multiple occasions that you are incapable of carrying on a debate in good faith. I'm not doing it with you again.
Here are two questions from five months ago that you have still failed to answer...
-
45
Blood Transfusions are Biblically Supported
by allpoweredup into 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.
-
-
cofty
It cannot be poured out if the animal is found "already dead". In that case it could be eaten - Lev.17:15
But we have had this conversation at length. You had nothing to say.
-
49
Let's talk about Blood again....
by stuckinarut2 ini 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
Blood is not intrinsically sacred; it is only sacred insofar as it represents a life that has been taken.
In the case of a transfusion no life has been taken and therefore the blood is not sacred. It can be used to sustain life, just as the Israelite could eat the unbled meat of an animal found "already dead". - Lev.17:15
-
45
Blood Transfusions are Biblically Supported
by allpoweredup into 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.
-
-
cofty
how can Acts 15:28,29 be invalidated when it burdens Christians to keep abstaining from blood?
Acts 15 was a dispute about the application of the Law to Christians, therefore it has to be understood in the context of the Old Testament.
Blood was only sacred insofar as it represented a life that had been taken.
The Watchtower's prohibition on blood is based on a facile understanding of scripture.