True cristhianity

[Saga of Gemini]

Originally posted by Archer 007
Communities need leader, and leaders mean politics will take place.

That leader is God not a human leader, if the pourpose of god was for humans to rule humans why o why would he bring his kingdome to earth? Also check this: Jer 10. 23
it dosnt speak very well about humans ruling humans. Sal 146:3,4
Also dosnt speak very good about it. And finally Eclesiates 8:9
the most concrete passage that tells that human should not be governed by humans.

I hope you are happy with those texts.

[God is very active in the world. If not, we would be in total chaos. Why would he take the time to point out that he controls all of the world's gold and silver.

If God were active we wouldnt be like we are, we would live in HIS kingdome wich is an utopia see?.

And the world is in chaos, I only see war, murderer, etc...in the news, now dont tell me thats not chaos.

Modern Catholicism is very different from Catholicism around 1800

Sure there is no inquisition, but other than that....

Show some evidence that shows the Trinity as wrong and I will address it.

Ahem, my long posts, a post made by inter32 and a link provided by FL2, Now I see you have not read one single thing we have been telling you.
Show us a little respect and read what I and others said in here about trinity.

Then show your "proofs" about it. But please having in mind what we wrote, dont go posting textts that were alredy explained.

P.S. I know they are really long post but they have the answer you want so please read them.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Archer 007
Communities need leader, and leaders mean politics will take place.

Not if the leader is Jehovah's designee.

Originally posted by Archer 007
God is very active in the world. If not, we would be in total chaos. Why would he take the time to point out that he controls all of the world's gold and silver.

Uh, look around you. The world IS in chaos!!

Originally posted by Archer 007
Modern Catholicism is very different from Catholicism around 1800.

So...Catholicism has changed? Gee, I guess that means that they never had a clue what the truth was either, did they? (Allow me to quote you in a later post...)

Because it proves they have no idea what they are talking about.

Well, which is it? Can a belief be changed by updated information, or is it forever wrong once wrong? Can't have the cake and eat it too...

Originally posted by Archer 007
Show some evidence that shows the Trinity as wrong and I will address it.

Did you follow the link? There's enough evidence there to choke a Council of Bishops...

 

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by Saga of Gemini
That leader is God not a human leader, if the pourpose of god was for humans to rule humans why o why would he bring his kingdome to earth? Also check this: Jer 10. 23
it dosnt speak very well about humans ruling humans. Sal 146:3,4
Also dosnt speak very good about it. And finally Eclesiates 8:9
the most concrete passage that tells that human should not be governed by humans.

If God were active we wouldnt be like we are, we would live in HIS kingdome wich is an utopia see? And the world is in chaos, I only see war, murderer, etc...in the news, now dont tell me thats not chaos.

Sure there is no inquisition, but other than that....

Ahem, my long posts, a post made by inter32 and a link provided by FL2, Now I see you have not read one single thing we have been telling you.
Show us a little respect and read what I and others said in here about trinity.

Then show your "proofs" about it. But please having in mind what we wrote, dont go posting textts that were alredy explained.

P.S. I know they are really long post but they have the answer you want so please read them.

Genesis 9:11-17 cover the nature of government.

God gave the devil control over the earth, but the ultimate power rests with him.

Much has changed other then the Inquisition.

I'll go back and review your anti-Trinity posts and respond to them later.

 

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2
Not if the leader is Jehovah's designee.

So...Catholicism has changed? Gee, I guess that means that they never had a clue what the truth was either, did they? (Allow me to quote you in a later post...)
Well, which is it? Can a belief be changed by updated information, or is it forever wrong once wrong? Can't have the cake and eat it too...

The public would never know who God's nomitee is, so there would be politics on that.

Catholicism hasn't changed, but its attuide toward the world has.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Genesis 9:11-17 cover the nature of government.

God gave the devil control over the earth, but the ultimate power rests with him.

Much has changed other then the Inquisition.

I'll go back and review your anti-Trinity posts and respond to them later.

Bump. Has four months been long enough?

 

[zjl56]

fine let's get right back in

 

[Perfection]

Aaaannd?

Read up on Blood

I particularly like Dr. Knud Lund-Olesen's comment...

Don't peddle that garbage here, all that information he cites about 15 years old!

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Fine, show us some new figures on blood safety.

 

[Perfection]

Fine, show us some new figures on blood safety.

Last time we had this arguement I did, and then you scoffed and alleged that they were wrong because it didn't talk about the nonexistant massive problem of poorly trained workers contaminating it for which you have no evidence for. Before I try doing a bunch if google searches (specefic statistics are hard to come by) I want you to either retract that claim or back it up with some actual evidence.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Red Cross violates Safety regs 200 times: http://www.yourlawyer.com/practice/news.htm?story_id=3907&topic=Medical Malpractice

AIDS Transfusion lawsuits Piling Up: http://www.aegis.com/news/sc/1989/SC890404.html

Quarantined Blood 'Not Known' to have been used or not: http://www.yourlawyer.com/practice/news.htm?story_id=4556&topic=Medical Malpractice

Don't get a transfusion in the Phillipines:
http://www.theguidon.com/default.php?get=1999080401

4% chance of infection with something in 2001:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11571894&dopt=Abstract

Watch out AllHailIndia!!:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/Organizations/healthnet/SAsia/repro2/hiv & confidentiality in india.htm

No tests for Babesia, Parvovirus, Cytomegalovirus (CMV), malaria, chagas disease, lyme disease, and others:
http://www.navigantbiotech.com/blood_safety/

 

[Shadylookin]

Red Cross violates Safety regs 200 times: http://www.yourlawyer.com/practice/news.htm?story_id=3907&topic=Medical Malpractice

AIDS Transfusion lawsuits Piling Up: http://www.aegis.com/news/sc/1989/SC890404.html

Quarantined Blood 'Not Known' to have been used or not: http://www.yourlawyer.com/practice/news.htm?story_id=4556&topic=Medical Malpractice

Don't get a transfusion in the Phillipines:
http://www.theguidon.com/default.php?get=1999080401

4% chance of infection with something in 2001:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11571894&dopt=Abstract

Watch out AllHailIndia!!:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/Organizations/healthnet/SAsia/repro2/hiv & confidentiality in india.htm

No tests for Babesia, Parvovirus, Cytomegalovirus (CMV), malaria, chagas disease, lyme disease, and others:
http://www.navigantbiotech.com/blood_safety/

When your faced with either a blood transfusion or certain death I'd take transfusion any day of the week. You can go peddle your jehovah's witness scare tactics somewhere else.

 

[Perfection]

Red Cross violates Safety regs 200 times: http://www.yourlawyer.com/practice/news.htm?story_id=3907&topic=Medical Malpractice

200 out of the millions the Red Cross does is not rampant, it's an issue as it could be lower,but it is not a sign of the rampant problems you allege.

Also it shows no injuries as a result

AIDS Transfusion lawsuits Piling Up: http://www.aegis.com/news/sc/1989/SC890404.html

Umm, that's 15 years old

Quarantined Blood 'Not Known' to have been used or not: http://www.yourlawyer.com/practice/news.htm?story_id=4556&topic=Medical Malpractice

Quarentined for mysterious white flecks not disease

Also it shows no injuries as a result

Don't get a transfusion in the Phillipines:
http://www.theguidon.com/default.php?get=1999080401

Umm, I think you knew we we're talking about it in America, us both being Americans.

4% chance of infection with something in 2001:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11571894&dopt=Abstract

" Four percent of patients who receive the average amount of blood during a transfusion are at risk of being infected with a contaminated unit"

It says 4% are at risk of being infected, not actually are being infected and it doesn't say what that risk level the 4% are experiencing, it could be 50% or it could be one in a million. So that's not valid.

Watch out AllHailIndia!!:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/Organizations/healthnet/SAsia/repro2/hiv & confidentiality in india.htm

Not U.S. again

No tests for Babesia, Parvovirus, Cytomegalovirus (CMV), malaria, chagas disease, lyme disease, and others:
http://www.navigantbiotech.com/blood_safety/

That's technological and not out of incompotence as you allege. Plus it doesn't give the risks so you can't say that the problem is large

 

[FearlessLeader2]

I'm sorry, which one of those was from www.watchtower.org? I missed it.

Or, are you just lying to discredit me?

Also, there are a LOT of alternatives to blood transfusions that are FAR SAFER than transfusions, thanks in large part to JWs making doctors do all kinds of pesky research into safer treatments that don't use deadly infectious blood.

 

[Perfection]

Also, there are a LOT of alternatives to blood transfusions that are FAR SAFER than transfusions, thanks in large part to JWs making doctors do all kinds of pesky research into safer treatments that don't use deadly infectious blood.

You want to back that up with some (recent) evidence other than directly from JW sites.

 

[Shadylookin]

I'm sorry, which one of those was from www.watchtower.org? I missed it.

Or, are you just lying to discredit me?

I think perfection discredited your links. I can find links on the internet that say lots of things and since you have some sort of biased that getting a blood transfusion will make you burn in hell your stretching to prove yourself right so you can feel secure in yourself.

Also, there are a LOT of alternatives to blood transfusions that are FAR SAFER than transfusions, thanks in large part to JWs making doctors do all kinds of pesky research into safer treatments that don't use deadly infectious blood.

name them and remember voodoo magic doesn't count

Yes I"m quite thankful for you making doctors do unnecessary research about a problem that's not that great when we have things like AIDS, heart disease, and cancer around. Thank you so very much.

 

[Stapel]

FL2,

Of course there are risks when using (other's) blood.

But are you claiming that these risks are bigger than not using donated blood at all, in any case?

Sorry for not digging through the complete thread, but I am a bit puzzled by tyour statement.

 

[yoshi74]

Also, there are a LOT of alternatives to blood transfusions that are FAR SAFER than transfusions, thanks in large part to JWs making doctors do all kinds of pesky research into safer treatments that don't use deadly infectious blood.

Is dying due to loss of blood one of these options. Better dying little bit earlier but pleasing the old man in the sky than living some more days and sits on satans barbecue for the next two eternaties, right?

No god has made so rediculous laws. Its all made up by people, and many people follow this stuff like sheeps. Through in this case its seems more suitible to compare them to lemmings. No thinking. No change of directon. Just follow the one far ahead (and presumly now long dead already).

 

[FearlessLeader2]

You want to back that up with some (recent) evidence other than directly from JW sites.

Are you saying that the various bloodless treatments that existed ten to fifteen years ago have been forgotten, and are no longer available? Are you suggesting no new ones have been developed? Do you want to retract that now, or shall I bury you?

 

[Perfection]

Are you saying that the various bloodless treatments that existed ten to fifteen years ago have been forgotten, and are no longer available?

Nope, where'd you get that from?

Are you suggesting no new ones have been developed?

Nope, where'd you get that from?

Do you want to retract that now, or shall I bury you?

Here's a shovel, bring it on!

 

[FearlessLeader2]

I think perfection discredited your links. I can find links on the internet that say lots of things and since you have some sort of biased that getting a blood transfusion will make you burn in hell your stretching to prove yourself right so you can feel secure in yourself.

Perf did ok on one or two of them, but the risks, however small they are, are still greater than zero, which is the risk of infection from infected blood in a bloodless operation.

name them and remember voodoo magic doesn't count

Laser surgery, blood reclamation-recirculating machines, targeted donor (patient donates his own blood a couple months ahead of time), and just plain less hack-and-slash approaches to organs that result in lower bleeding.

Yes I"m quite thankful for you making doctors do unnecessary research about a problem that's not that great when we have things like AIDS, heart disease, and cancer around. Thank you so very much.

AIDS is spread in part by blood transfusions. Bloodless medecine research therefore helps reduce AIDS transmission. It also reduces Type A, B, and C Hepatitus infections, and all other infections from blood transfusions, by reducing the number of transfusions that take place.

In short, all three of your so-called points are baseless and facile. You use ridicule and rhetoric in place of an argument, for no other reason than because I hold an opinion about the universe in general that you do not share. Allow me to inform you that the minority opinion is not always wrong, and just because there are more people like you than like me, does not mean you are inherently superior to me.

It just means you don't question anything you're told.