Are you a Christian?

[matt seymour]

Well you may have a point there, you are now starting to think like God, as it certainly doesn't bring praise to his name, does it.

All the terrible things that a being carried out in his name, is questionable is it not?

If people were using your name to commit all these atrocities what would you do?

DCE, you're part of an organised religion for heaven's sake!

Yours is a religion that is happy to deny dying people lifesaving medical treatment. Is that not questionable?

 

[Beachcomber]

DCE, you're part of an organised religion for heaven's sake!

Yours is a religion that is happy to deny dying people lifesaving medical treatment. Is that not questionable?

I'm, afraid you need to understand this.

You are dealing with someone who believes the bible because the bible says it's true, and they need nothing more than that to base their entire lives upon.

Every time you point out a glaring inaccuracy or logical fault in their argument they see it as a 'test' to be overcome. This is how cults work.

The most dissapointing thing is that, after 2000 years, they have still not managed to come up with decent answers to simple questions that blow gaping holes in the whole belief system.

Pretty sad when you think about it.

 

[DCE]

DCE, you're part of an organised religion for heaven's sake!

Yours is a religion that is happy to deny dying people lifesaving medical treatment. Is that not questionable?

Not at all, insight in the whole issue is what you need, but I have discussed it on this forum many times, so I was not surprised you brought it up.

 

[matt seymour]

Not at all, insight in the whole issue is what you need, but I have discussed it on this forum many times, so I was not surprised you brought it up.

I don't need insight.

I know what is immoral and just plain wrong. There is no explanation or excuse for that particular aspect of your religion.

Are you feeling OK DCE? Your post doesn't have a bible quote in it.

 

[Cobby]

DCE, you're part of an organised religion for heaven's sake!

Cult. It's organised alright, but it isn't a religion, it's a cult. It encourages cult behaviour and conditioning of its membership. It is relatively recent and there's lots of documentation about the weirdos who started it, edited the bible to suit their views, and how they maintain discipline within their members through lies, manipulation, violence and one of the most famous child abuses of all: refusing medical treatment for the ill or injured.

Christianity is a religion; it has many thousands of denominations and although they mostly tend to encourage backwards bigotry, they don't demand it of followers. Compare that to the required shunning and ostracising of family members that don't conform to the rule book - the book that must be followed more reverentially than the bible they claim to worship. Religions can certainly encourage hateful behaviour within a family group but it doesn't demand it in the same way as a cult like the JWs.

Even the christians don't consider jehovah's witnesses to be christians. Cult.

 

[matt seymour]

I'm, afraid you need to understand this.

You are dealing with someone who believes the bible because the bible says it's true, and they need nothing more than that to base their entire lives upon.

Every time you point out a glaring inaccuracy or logical fault in their argument they see it as a 'test' to be overcome. This is how cults work.

The most dissapointing thing is that, after 2000 years, they have still not managed to come up with decent answers to simple questions that blow gaping holes in the whole belief system.

Pretty sad when you think about it.

I understand perfectly.

I see DCE as a challenge. I know it's an argument I can't win because he doesn't do logical debate, but it won't stop me having a damn good go at it until I've driven myself to the brink of insanity like everyone else.

If the truth be told, I actually quite like DCE. He comes here night after night, takes all we have to throw at him and drives everyone mad, but he doesn't throw his toys out of his pram or get personal. He takes it all on the chin and keeps churning out his bible quotes. I kind of respect him for it in a way.

 

[matt seymour]

Cult. It's organised alright, but it isn't a religion, it's a cult. It encourages cult behaviour and conditioning of its membership. It is relatively recent and there's lots of documentation about the weirdos who started it, edited the bible to suit their views, and how they maintain discipline within their members through lies, manipulation, violence and one of the most famous child abuses of all: refusing medical treatment for the ill or injured.

Christianity is a religion; it has many thousands of denominations and although they mostly tend to encourage backwards bigotry, they don't demand it of followers. Compare that to the required shunning and ostracising of family members that don't conform to the rule book - the book that must be followed more reverentially than the bible they claim to worship. Religions can certainly encourage hateful behaviour within a family group but it doesn't demand it in the same way as a cult like the JWs.

Even the christians don't consider jehovah's witnesses to be christians. Cult.

Where religion is concerned, they're all as bad as each other if you ask me and you could probably describe them all as cults to be honest.

 

[DCE]

I don't need insight.

I know what is immoral and just plain wrong. There is no explanation or excuse for that particular aspect of your religion.

Are you feeling OK DCE? Your post doesn't have a bible quote in it.

I was wondering when you would get round to this.

Either/Or Reasoning

Matt, a person may be told: ‘Either you accept a blood transfusion or you will die.’

Jehovah’s Witnesses often run into such reasoning because of their Bible-based decision to ‘abstain from blood’ in any form. (Acts 15:29)

The weakness of this line of reasoning?

It excludes other valid possibilities.

The facts show that there are alternative treatments, and most operations can be performed successfully without blood.

Skilled doctors often operate with a minimal loss of blood.

Another possibility is the use of nonblood fluids, plasma volume expanders.

Furthermore, many have taken blood transfusions and died.

By the same token, many have refused blood and lived.

The hole in the either/or reasoning is thus a gaping one you must agree?

 

[kulture]

Nope. There will be times when a Dr will stand up and say, "Either you have a blood transfusion or you will die. There are no other possibilities and the alternatives will not work in this case."

 

[DCE]

Nope. There will be times when a Dr will stand up and say, "Either you have a blood transfusion or you will die. There are no other possibilities and the alternatives will not work in this case."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodless_surgery

Especially risks involved.

Blood is very dangerous, so we request alternative treatments which are much safer.

This is interesting reading also

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2011/s3208571.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2012/s3538639.htm

 

[Cobby]

I have you on ignore DCE because nothing you post has any basis in reality, but I checked this one after my post above.

Furthermore, many have taken blood transfusions and died.
By the same token, many have refused blood and lived.

Do you have any idea of how disparate the figures are of people who have had life-saving blood transfusions, against those that refuse it and survive?
In the USA, ~16 million transfusions per year, ~75 deaths related or directly attributed to transfusions. That's like 0.000005%.

There is no reasonable argument against it. Choosing not to accept it based on the words of some idiot story book written when medicine consisted of going to a guy that believed the human body was made up of Fire, Wind, Earth and Evil - well that's about as backwards as a person can be. If that's your choice, so be it, but making that choice for a child and letting them die when they can be treated? It's child abuse and tantamount murder. Your cult is abhorrent.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

I have removed more posts from this thread. AGAIN may I remind you that the same rules apply here in time out as in the main forum. Flaming and trolling is not allowed.

The expanded moderating team means more time is now spent in the time out area, so please be aware that the rules are being enforced in here.

Thanks

 

[Beachcomber]

If the truth be told, I actually quite like DCE. He comes here night after night, takes all we have to throw at him and drives everyone mad, but he doesn't throw his toys out of his pram or get personal.

Really!!!

You have been reading his posts haven't you?

Furthermore, many have taken blood transfusions and died.

By the same token, many have refused blood and lived.

Over the years, several people have survived a fall of thousands of feet following a failed parachute.

Using your reasoning, it is just as safe to jump out of a plane without a parachute as it is with one, as some people have died when the parachute deploys safely, and some have survived when it's failed completely.



Back in your bed, matron will be round soon with your meds.

 

[DCE]

Keep me on your ignore list Cobby

“It is the most dangerous substance we use in medicine,” Dr. Charles Huggins says of blood.

He should know; he is the director of the blood transfusion service at a Massachusetts hospital.

Many think that a blood transfusion is as simple as finding someone with a matching blood type. But besides the ABO types and the Rh factor for which blood is routinely cross-matched, there may be 400 or so other differences for which it is not.

As cardiovascular surgeon Denton Cooley notes: “A blood transfusion is an organ transplant, I think that there are certain incompatibilities in almost all blood transfusions.”

It is not surprising that transfusing such a complex substance might, as one surgeon put it, “confuse” the body’s immune system. In fact, a blood transfusion can suppress immunity for as long as a year. To some, this is the most threatening aspect of transfusions.

Then there are infectious diseases as well. They have exotic names, such as Chagas’ disease and cytomegalovirus. Effects range from fever and chills to death.

Dr.Joseph Feldschuh of the Cornell University of Medicine says that there is 1 chance in 10 of getting some sort of infection from a transfusion. It is like playing Russian roulette with a ten-chamber revolver.

Recent studies have also shown that blood transfusions during cancer surgery may actually increase the risk of recurrence of the cancer.

No wonder a television news program claimed that a blood transfusion could be the biggest obstacle to recovery from surgery.

Hepatitis infects hundreds of thousands and kills many more transfusion recipients than AIDS does, but it gets little of the publicity.

No one knows the extent of the deaths, but economist Ross Eckert says that it may be the equivalent of a DC-10 airliner full of people crashing every month.

The One who created blood in the first place, warns us against it, even making it a command not to partake of it, so I will continue to take his advice as Jesus said this.

(John 11:25) 25 Jesus said to her: “I am the resurrection and the life. He that exercises faith in me, even though he dies, will come to life;

Keeping your integrity to God means you gain everlasting life on earth in the near future, as we are guaranteed a resurrection if we do die, which is a very valuable gift from God, you must agree.

 

[Root 66 Woodshop]

Dangers of Blood Transfusion

The New England Journal of Medicine, issue of December 14, 1989, reported that a single unit of blood may carry enough AIDS virus to cause up to 1.75 million infections!

In 1987, after it became known that AIDS was being transmitted by the volunteer blood supply, the book Autologous and Directed Blood Programs lamented: This was the most bitter of all medical ironies; that the precious life-giving gift of blood could turn out to be an instrument of death.

Dr. Charles Huggins, director of blood transfusion services at a Massachusetts, U.S.A., hospital, said: It is the most dangerous substance we use in medicine.

The Surgery Annual concluded: Clearly, the safest transfusion is the one not given.

Because there is a much higher recurrence of cancer after surgery where blood transfusions have been used, Dr. John S. Spratt said in The American Journal of Surgery, issue of September 1986: The cancer surgeon may need to become a bloodless surgeon.

The journal Emergency Medicine said: Our experience with Jehovahs Witnesses might be interpreted to mean that we do not need to rely on blood transfusions, with all their potential complications, as much as we once thought.

The journal Pathologist referred to the refusal of Jehovahs Witnesses to take blood and said: There is considerable evidence to support their contention, despite protestations from blood bankers to the contrary.

Dr. Charles H. Baron, professor of law at Boston College Law School, said concerning Jehovahs Witnesses refusal to take blood: All of American society has benefited. Not only Jehovahs Witnesses, but patients in general, are today less likely to be given unnecessary blood transfusions because of the work of the Witnesses Hospital Liaison Committees.

Seriously, by removing dates doesn't deter the fact that what you are plagiarising is outdated information.

 

[DCE]

Seriously, by removing dates doesn't deter the fact that what you are plagiarising is outdated information.

It's all in my files and is still up to date as if it was yesterday nothing has changed, believe me.

Also you are on my ignore list so I was just setting the record straight.

 

[Root 66 Woodshop]

Evidence from 1986 onwards can not be subjected to today's standards of medicine, try copying and pasting something of recent value instead of something that went out with John Cougar Mellencamp

By putting me on ignore still doesn't deter the fact that you're sources are outdated.

 

[DCE]

Evidence from 1986 onwards can not be subjected to today's standards of medicine, try copying and pasting something of recent value instead of something that went out with John Cougar Mellencamp

By putting me on ignore still doesn't deter the fact that you're sources are outdated.

http://www.coastaltimes.com.au/news...eons-urged-to-avoid-transfusions/2661768.aspx

Couldn't get more up to date than this, it's today's news

A quote from the article

Hospital patients who are Jehovah's Witnesses - who refuse blood transfusions on religious grounds - actually do better than other patients.

Professor Isbister said Jehovah's Witnesses were given better treatment by doctors trying to preserve their blood. As a result they had better survival rates, and shorter hospital and intensive care stays than people who received blood transfusions during surgery.

Blood transfusions put stress on the lungs and can cause lung injury and organ failure, as well as potentially having long-term consequences, although the reason is unknown.

Jehovah knew that's why he warned us.

So nothing has changed!!!

Listen to God's advice it will definably able you to live longer, even have everlasting life, and if you do die, a resurrection, marvellous yes, Good News, it's your choice though, God is not going to force you, obedience is the key.

 

[Root 66 Woodshop]

Quite clearly it has... considering Professor James Isbister is well known in Australia for his work with bloods.

https://www.mail.med.usyd.edu.au/accounttool/web/cv/jisbiste.pdf

Despite him saying what he has said, he is still favouring blood transfusion as his life's work.

Professor Isbister did his undergraduate medical training commencing in the foundation year of the
faculty of Medicine at the University of NSW in 1961. After completing a BSc(Med) honours in 1964
in Physiology when he graduated with the first undergraduates to qualify from the new medical school
and graduated MB BS with honours in 1968. His postgraduate training in internal medicine was at St
Vincent's Hospital, Sydney, completing membership of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians
in 1971 and being appointed to Fellowship in 1975. After initial training in Haematology at St
Vincent's Hospital with Professor Jim Biggs he worked in Papua New Guinea and subsequently at the
Royal Postgraduate Medical School in London with many of the doyens of haematology, including
Professor Sir John Dacie, Professors David Galton, Victor Hoffbrand, Danny Catovsky, John
Goldman and others.
Returning to Australia in 1975 he held a NSW Cancer Council research fellowship and became a
Fellow of the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia in 1977. After three years as a staff
haematologist at St Vincent's Hospital he was appointed Senior Staff Specialist at Royal North Shore
Hospital, Sydney in 1980, and Head of Department in 1983 a position he held until 1997 and
subsequently being appointed Consultant Emeritus in 2004.
Prof Isbister has a broad range of interests in haematology and transfusion medicine, making research
contributions in the areas of in vivo blood cell separation and transfusion medicine. Working with
Professor Jim Biggs in the haematology unit at St Vincent's Hospital he assisted in establishing the
first apheresis unit in a general teaching hospital during which time he was also a member of the team
that carried out the first successful allogeneic bone marrow transplants in Australia in 1976. He was
the Australian representative on the World Apheresis Association board for 10 years during the
1980's and again during the latter 1990's. In 2000 he served as the President of the 8th International
Congress of the World Apheresis Association in Perth. He was on the Board of the Society for the
Advancement of Blood Management (United States) from 2003-2009 and is currently on the board of
the Medical Society for Blood Management (Europe). He has served on the editorial board of several
journals. Current research interests are in Patient Blood Management as part of an international
consensus collaborative on blood transfusion outcomes and blood transfusion collaboratives with the
Monash University Department of Epidemiology and Preventative Medicine. He was chair of the
Australian recombinant activated factor 7 Haemostasis Registry steering committee and more recently
chair of the massive blood transfusion registry steering committee. Prof Isbister has been on several
Government advisory committees and is currently on the a member of the National Blood Authority
Patient Blood Management Steering Committee.
He has been the Bob Pitney travelling fellow for the Haematology Society of Australia and New
Zealand and delivered the Carl de Gruchy memorial oration of the Society in 2000 and was made a
life member of the society in 2007. In 2000 he was honoured with the Peter Schiff Award by the
Australian and New Zealand Society of Blood Transfusion for contributions to transfusion medicine
in Australia as well as being made a life member of the Society. Prof Isbister was the 2004 Australian
and New Zealand Society of Blood Transfusion Ruth Sanger Orator. In 2006-7 he was the overseas
travelling lecturer of the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia. He was the 2010 Royal
Newcastle Hospital Heritage Fellow, delivering the Royal Newcastle Hospital Heritage and John
Irvine Hunter Memorial Orations.
In recognition of his international contributions to patient blood management and quality & safety in
transfusion medicine he received the 2008 President's Award of the Society for the Advancement of
Blood Management presented at the 2008 annual meeting in Baltimore in the United States. Prof Isbister was Chair of the Advisory Committee and board member of the Australian Red Cross
Blood Service (2004-2010). In 2011 he received a distinguished service award from the Australian
Red Cross Society for contributions to the Blood Service and the James Isbister Colloquium was
established as a named annual event at the Australian Red Cross Blood Service annual update
symposium.
Prof Isbister has over 100 scientific publication and has a longstanding interest in teaching and is the
author of three books on haematology and transfusion medicine and has contributed chapters to
several major textbooks. He was served on several committees of the Royal Australasian College of
Physicians and the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia, including 6 years as Chief Examiner
in Haematology and Transfusion Medicine.**

 

[DCE]

Quite clearly it has... considering Professor James Isbister is well known in Australia for his work with bloods.

https://www.mail.med.usyd.edu.au/accounttool/web/cv/jisbiste.pdf

Despite him saying what he has said, he is still favouring blood transfusion as his life's work.

That's his choice what he does in his life, but I can guarantee, with what he knows now, he would not have one.

I have had a lot of experiences, talking to Doctors, they wouldn't either, they would use alternatives, instead, it's safer.

 

[Subbynet]

You need blood - to replace lost blood in accidents and emergencies.
You need Red and White Blood cells for various illnesses - including many Cancer treatments.
You need platelets from blood, if your own blood doesn't clot as you'll bleed to death, or you need to remove platelets if you're blood clots too much - as that can lead to death too.

Someone being treated for Cancer might have their entire blood changed, sometimes multiple times during the months of treatment.

Now tell me, what treatment are you expecting as a JW for an aggressive cancer like Leukemia?

You're dead if you don't accept treatment, and there is no alternatives.

 

[DCE]

You need blood - to replace lost blood in accidents and emergencies.
You need Red and White Blood cells for various illnesses - including many Cancer treatments.
You need platelets from blood, if your own blood doesn't clot as you'll bleed to death, or you need to remove platelets if you're blood clots too much - as that can lead to death too.

Someone being treated for Cancer might have their entire blood changed, sometimes multiple times during the months of treatment.

Now tell me, what treatment are you expecting as a JW for an aggressive cancer like Leukemia?

You're dead if you don't accept treatment, and there is no alternatives.

Subbynet I wouldn't worry about it, we as Jehovah's witnesses don't, as our main concern is to keep out integrity to our God and put our trust in him.

We receive the best treatment possible throughout the world.

(2 Corinthians 1:9, 10) This was that we might have our trust, not in ourselves, but in the God who raises up the dead. 10 From such a great thing as death he did rescue us and will rescue us; and our hope is in him that he will also rescue us further.

(John 5:28, 29) 28 Do not marvel at this, because the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice 29 and come out, those who did good things to a resurrection of life,.

That's to everlasting life, guaranteed if we die.

(Revelation 21:4) 4 And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away."

 

[kulture]

I see that it pointless arguing with DCE. He either ignores the facts, picks his own facts, or when he looses he quotes from his scriptures. Since I only enjoy rational arguments, with people who can actually argue sensibly, I will stop bothering.

To be perfectly honest, I do not see why anyone else is bothering.

 

[Root 66 Woodshop]

That's his choice what he does in his life, but I can guarantee, with what he knows now, he would not have one.

I have had a lot of experiences, talking to Doctors, they wouldn't either, they would use alternatives, instead, it's safer.

Interesting that you can gaurantee something that you obviously can not answer yourself... unless of course he is a JW by which case would once again be a bias opinion.

I shall send the chap an email and see what he says.

 

[matt seymour]

I was wondering when you would get round to this.

Either/Or Reasoning

Matt, a person may be told: 'Either you accept a blood transfusion or you will die.'

Jehovah's Witnesses often run into such reasoning because of their Bible-based decision to 'abstain from blood' in any form. (Acts 15:29)

The weakness of this line of reasoning?

It excludes other valid possibilities.

The facts show that there are alternative treatments, and most operations can be performed successfully without blood.

Skilled doctors often operate with a minimal loss of blood.

Another possibility is the use of nonblood fluids, plasma volume expanders.

Furthermore, many have taken blood transfusions and died.

By the same token, many have refused blood and lived.

The hole in the either/or reasoning is thus a gaping one you must agree?

DCE, with respect, that's utter rubbish.

Like all decisions based on the bible, it's illogical and downright dangerous. By all means risk your own life based on this nonsense, but when people start risking the lives of their own children it becomes another matter entirely.

Quite honestly, any JW who attempts to prevent their child from receiving blood as part of lifesaving medical treatment should be arrested.

 

[DCE]

I see that it pointless arguing with DCE. He either ignores the facts, picks his own facts, or when he looses he quotes from his scriptures. Since I only enjoy rational arguments, with people who can actually argue sensibly, I will stop bothering.

To be perfectly honest, I do not see why anyone else is bothering.

What do you think is a rational argument or debate?

Using worldly wisdom or Godly wisdom?

Bearing in mind this scripture.

(1 Corinthians 1:18-21) 18*For the speech about the torture stake is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is God’s power. 19*For it is written: “I will make the wisdom of the wise [men] perish, and the intelligence of the intellectual [men] I will shove aside.” 20*Where is the wise man? Where the scribe? Where the debater of this system of things? Did not God make the wisdom of the world foolish? 21*For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not get to know God, God saw good through the foolishness of what is preached to save those believing.

Have you not taken on board the serious situations that is happening in this world today, do you think it can continue without the intervention of a greater power.

That's the real wisdom that is considered foolish by most, but how go you view it?

 

[matt seymour]

What do you think is a rational argument or debate?

Using worldly wisdom or Godly wisdom?

Bearing in mind this scripture.

(1 Corinthians 1:18-21) 18*For the speech about the torture stake is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is God’s power. 19*For it is written: “I will make the wisdom of the wise [men] perish, and the intelligence of the intellectual [men] I will shove aside.” 20*Where is the wise man? Where the scribe? Where the debater of this system of things? Did not God make the wisdom of the world foolish? 21*For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not get to know God, God saw good through the foolishness of what is preached to save those believing.

Have you not taken on board the serious situations that is happening in this world today, do you think it can continue without the intervention of a greater power.

That's the real wisdom that is considered foolish by most, but how go you view it?

DCE, there is nothing wise or logical about the bible.

And where is the intervention of this greater power? Can we expect it any time soon?

 

[Cobby]

What do you think is a rational argument or debate?

Using worldly wisdom or Godly wisdom?

Both are created by man; the former to help man, the latter to control man. The former still helps man, the latter hinders man and has no place in modern life.

 

[Beachcomber]

(1 Corinthians 1:18-21) 18*For the speech about the torture stake is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is God’s power. 19*For it is written: “I will make the wisdom of the wise [men] perish, and the intelligence of the intellectual [men] I will shove aside.” 20*Where is the wise man? Where the scribe? Where the debater of this system of things? Did not God make the wisdom of the world foolish? 21*For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not get to know God, God saw good through the foolishness of what is preached to save those believing.

DCE - it is so simple it is childish.

The creators of the bible (men, not god) knew full well that there would be people who didn't buy it, who saw the holes in it and pointed them out.

So, plenty of objections were pre-empted and covered in verses such as these so the believers would have something to use to defend their faith.

It's nothing more than a salesman's objection covering lesson.

If it were truly the work of god then why are there not any passages warning of the corrupting influence of the internet?

Or didn't he see that coming?

Have you not taken on board the serious situations that is happening in this world today, do you think it can continue without the intervention of a greater power.

Oh this one again - look DCE, bad things happen. Bad things have always happened and always will happen. Thats the way of things.

And for all time we have had soothsayers, self-appointed mystics and religious believers claiming it is a) worse than it has ever been and that b) soon god will come back and sort it all out for us.

What a lovely was to avoid having to take responsibility for ourselves eh?

 

[ukitconsultant]

I'm a Christian, and I've run 3 businesses now. In each, I've always found that in some way my faith does occasionally provide guidance, it is not a major part of what I do or how I deal with my clients.

As an independent consultant, I work with people from all backgrounds, and everyone has their own beliefs, ways of working, and ways of interacting with those around them. I've found that my personal beliefs or the beliefs of others do not effect the relationship I have with my customers.

Any Christian knows that in a modern society it is very difficult to work solely within the purest meaning of the bible, and alongside the many different times that it contradicts itself, it becomes a lot better to work in a way which is open, understanding and accepting. Something a lot of us would do a lot better to be!

 

[Cobby]

...better to work in a way which is open, understanding and accepting.

Unless you're working with a gay couple that want to get married.

 

[DCE]

I'm a Christian, and I've run 3 businesses now. In each, I've always found that in some way my faith does occasionally provide guidance, it is not a major part of what I do or how I deal with my clients.

As an independent consultant, I work with people from all backgrounds, and everyone has their own beliefs, ways of working, and ways of interacting with those around them. I've found that my personal beliefs or the beliefs of others do not effect the relationship I have with my customers.

Any Christian knows that in a modern society it is very difficult to work solely within the purest meaning of the bible, and alongside the many different times that it contradicts itself, it becomes a lot better to work in a way which is open, understanding and accepting. Something a lot of us would do a lot better to be!

You say it is very difficult to work solely within the purest meaning of the bible, and alongside the many different times that it contradicts itself, is and interesting statement, what contradictions are you referring too.

 

[ukitconsultant]

Unless you're working with a gay couple that want to get married.

Cobby you weren't around when I started a topic on something very similar...but just to throw it out there...I am gay! So it's something that I support on one hand, and fight with it religiously on the other.

 

[Consistency]

I am straight. Can I have some thanks please?

 

[Cobby]

I am straight. Can I have some thanks please?

Make a tongue-in-cheek remark about how backward religion is and I'll thank it into next week.

 

[garyk]

Have you not taken on board the serious situations that is happening in this world today, do you think it can continue without the intervention of a greater power.

Yes and they are typically caused by opposing views of religious faiths!

 

[DCE]

Yes and they are typically caused by opposing views of religious faiths!

So do you think God approves of what is being done in his name?

God’s holy name has been impugned, besmirched with lies and slander.

Religions have painted God as arbitrary, remote, or cruel.

They have claimed to have his backing in their bloodthirsty wars.

Yes, God’s name has been viciously maligned has it not?

God will act very soon, and sanctify his name, that is guaranteed.

 

God will act very soon, and sanctify his name, that is guaranteed.

Blimey the libel lawyers will be rubbing their hands.:|

 

[Subbynet]

So do you think God approves of what is being done in his name?

God’s holy name has been impugned, besmirched with lies and slander.

Religions have painted God as arbitrary, remote, or cruel.

They have claimed to have his backing in their bloodthirsty wars.

Yes, God’s name has been viciously maligned has it not?

God will act very soon, and sanctify his name, that is guaranteed.

The trouble is DCE, those people believe they're right, just like you believe you're right. You won't change your mind, because you're 100% sure of your beliefs, just like they completely believe they're right.

You're both cut from the same cloth, no longer searching for the truth you now claim to speak nothing but the truth, and those truths you say come from God. Your positions are immoveable.

So why should others change, when you won't? Maybe the trick is never claiming to speak for or on behalf of God?

Because from what I can see, speaking about God just causes animosity.

 

[DCE]

Blimey the libel lawyers will be rubbing their hands.:|

It's no joking matter.

(Matthew 24:36-39) 36 "Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father. 37 For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. 38 For as they were in those days before the flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark; 39 and they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be.