Excellent post cofty. I thought of the same thing a while back. That thought led me to some weird conclusions like justifying, from the Bible's point of view, the Maasai cattle herders who occasionally drink the blood of their cattle without killing them.
The Watchtower are Right About Blood...
by cofty 556 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
FayeDunaway
Marvin I meant to click 'like' and accidentally clicked unlike but apparently it's stuck that way.
Anyway, excellent post cofty and indeed you are NOT a one trick pony!
-
pressman
ok I have read it and I do not agree. You are basically saying that you agree with them about blood. Blood does not represent life by itself. It just doesn't. Also it's stupid to think you can reason with gone minds about something where they don't think at all so the bit about finding common ground is just dumb. The only thing they want is for you to become one of them. Heck it doesn't event matter if you agree or disagree as long as you agree to be baptized.
-
Marvin Shilmer
That thought led me to some weird conclusions like justifying, from the Bible's point of view, the Maasai cattle herders who occasionally drink the blood of their cattle without killing them.
I don't think that works from a purely biblical perspective.
The Noachian decree prohibited eating a living animal without killing it first. Eating blood extracted by assaulting an animal is eating a living animal without killing it first.
-
Finkelstein
Correct me if I'm wrong on this but within the Hebraic laws concern animals and blood not to be consumed by the JEWS, wasn't it stated that if an animal was killed to be sold to gentiles, that it wasn't necessary to bleed the animal prior to it being sold to non Jews ?
-
cofty
You are basically saying that you agree with them about blood. - pressman
No I am not.
I am saying that in order to reason with a JW you have to think from their perspective. We need to find common ground. We can concede all four of the points in the first half of the OP.
Blood does not represent life by itself. It just doesn't.
According to the bible it does represent a life that has been taken. Unless you acknowledge that you have nowhere to start.
it's stupid to think you can reason with gone minds about something where they don't think at all so the bit about finding common ground is just dumb.
Don't judge all JWs the same. I was a regular pioneer and elder when I made this discovery about blood through my own research using only the bible.There are thousands of ex-JWs who were helped to think by well-researched arguments. If you think you can refute the arguments in the OP I would be interested to hear your thoughts. However "It just doesn't" isn't an argument.
-
cofty
The Noachian decree prohibited eating a living animal without killing it first.
How so?
-
cofty
wasn't it stated that if an animal was killed to be sold to gentiles, that it wasn't necessary to bleed the animal prior to it being sold to non Jews ? - Fink
No that isn't the case.
Eating an animal "already dead" wasn't a sin but it resulted in uncleanness. In Deuteronomy Moses advises the Israelites that it would therefore be better to sell an animal "found already dead" to a foreigner who was not under laws regarding purification.
-
pressman
nope. they just have to be ready to be intelligent. and Again blood does not represent life, man. The bible was not written by god but by men. I'm sure men would like to think that. I'm only judging the gone minds. You cannot help to reason with some on this topic and have a decent intelligent discussion. For some, you just cannot find any common ground. That's why I say it was stupid. -
cofty
Again blood does not represent life, man.
You can repeat that as often as you like but according to the bible it does. Have you not read it?
You cannot help to reason with some on this topic and have a decent intelligent discussion.
Indeed.