Yes, we know that, for which I am most thankful to God.The Bible forbids eating blood
Let me ask, would you excommunicate and shun anybody? If not, then why not?
Upvote
0
Yes, we know that, for which I am most thankful to God.The Bible forbids eating blood
Because it's true.I really do not know why you wrote that.
You really lost me there. I was talking about moral teachings. You are talking about something WAY different. So different I've never heard of it. Nonsensically different. And I was talking about your ancestors in the faith anyway. Is that something they taught as Christian moral teaching?No idea.
I reject the one about paying indulgences to have a vial of Christ's blood, or whatever it was.
Ask Paul about that.No, the Bible doesn't teach, or advise, on whether to get married,
Be fruitful and multiply. Who said that?how many children to have, if any at all,
Train them up in the way of the Lord.where to send them to school, whether to get the vaccinated or anything else. That's not its purpose.
It [Galatians 5:10-20] is about potions, which are drugs. A major portion of these drugs were for the purposes of contraception and abortion. That's just the life and times of ancient Greek culture. You can apply your superior understanding all you want, but there is the Bible. It just isn't saying what you want it to say.This isn't about drugs, or contraception.
If a couple decide, before God, that they don't want children; if they don't want to add to the earth's over population or have another reason for not wanting children, the means to prevent pregnancy are in place.
Far better that than to have a child/children you don't want/can't afford, or become pregnant and then go for an abortion.
Again, for you it appears that if it's legal it's moral. If that's the way you calibrate your moral compass, oh well. And if your ancestors in the faith are irrelevant to you, oh well too. I expect Christian moral teaching to be consistent from one century to another, but that's just me.So?
We have it now, it's allowed and legal and not unscriptural.
It may be against the Pope's teachings, but that's not the same thing.
Not following that. My point is that to be most pastoral one should be most doctrinal. They belong together. Separating them does violence to both.Of course not, of course they are not opposed, yet they each have their own jurisdiction, so to speak.
To use an analogy; Love is like the pope, the universal sovereign, while the dogmas are like the other bishops, each sovereign in his own diocese yet each bishop rules under the ultimate sovereignty of the pope.
Of course I am not, I said so in the Original Post.So just to be clear, are you opposed to blood transfusions or not?
Do you think there is a case, however weak it may be, for forbidding blood transfusions?
Of course I am not, I said so in the Original Post.
I get along just fine with prodromos, I dislike some of his posts, but he's an excellent fellow.Well good; hopefully though when we dine together in my upcoming trip to Australia, perhaps with prodromos if you can find a way to get along with him in the near future and the two of you happen to be in the same region, we will not suddenly find ourselves in need of them, but if our blood type is compatible, you can take some of mine, since in addition to having good lungs (and little else) I am also devoid of blood-borne illnesses, hence my ability to donate blood.
I get along just fine with prodromos, I dislike some of his posts, but he's an excellent fellow.