Blood Transfusions are Biblically Supported

by allpoweredup 45 Replies latest watchtower medical

  • Vanderhoven7
    Vanderhoven7

    By the way there is nothing wrong with eating blood sausage for the Christian just as there is nothing wrong with eating meat that was offered to idols. In the home of a pagan who likes to eat things strangled no questions of conscience need be asked

    Why...because nothing that goes into the mouth can defile a Christian and nothing therefore needs to be refused.

  • Vidiot
    Vidiot
    Vanderhoven7 - "... there is nothing wrong with eating meat that was offered to idols..."

    Adds that extra little zip, in fact.

  • Vanderhoven7
    Vanderhoven7

    The blood of goats is no longer needed as a symbol of life and redemption since we now have the real-deal/antitype

  • nicolaou
    nicolaou

    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.

    The bible is impotent.

    Put life first!

  • Vanderhoven7
    Vanderhoven7

    Yes but Jehovah Witnesses will not stop refusing blood to their children without sound biblical exegesis on the subject. So it remains a worthwhile endevor.

  • nicolaou
    nicolaou

    I disagree.

    What if the bible did in fact contain a clear and undeniable prohibition against blood transfusions, would you Vanderhoven then agree with the Watchtower position? Ridiculous, and yet to many JW's that is precisely the case.

    The truly worthwhile endeavour is to educate the people we love away from supernatural nonsense and into the real world.

  • Fisherman
    Fisherman
    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.


  • Fisherman
    Fisherman
    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.

  • Fisherman
    Fisherman
    The bible is impotent.

    Only if the everlasting life it promises is a lie.

  • nicolaou
    nicolaou
    Only if the everlasting life it promises is a lie.

    It is, that shouldn't even need saying.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit