The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

by cofty 556 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  stavro

  Fisherman you can't interpret God's laws concerning blood without first understanding why he had a law concerning blood in the first place. If you view all blood as being sacred, no matter where it comes from, then it is normal you end up having to try and justify why the scriptures appear to be contradictory.

  Starting with the view that blood only has value if a life has been taken, prevents the scriptures relating to blood from appearing to be contradictory in the first place. It is only God's view of blood and not the watchtower's, that's important.

  I am struggling to understand what it is which prevents you from seeing this. Watchtower's reasoning on the subject makes God seem foolish, a God who makes laws just for the sake of it, without rhyme or reason. Cofty's explanation provides you with the means to be an intellectually satisfied christian.

  Don't fool yourself, if the watchtower could go back in time and change their reasoning they would! Just because as an organisation they have dug themselves a hole too deep to crawl out of, doesn't mean that you personally have to crawl in after them.

  If it was David Splane and not Cofty who presented this reasoning you would gladly accept it as superior new light and you would be out of that hole like a bolt of lightning.

  Fisherman your loyalty to man over God is badly misplaced and may even end up in your needless loss of life or even the life of someone foolish enough to follow you.
• 

  dubstepped

  Coincidence that Fishy throws in the towel and his other half RO shows up? I think not.
• 

  Fisherman

  Richard, cofty teaches that Jehovah gives his worshippers implied permission to eat blood from dead animals and from living animals and the blood from people too insofar as nobody is slaughtered. In that case the blood contains the life of the creature and should not be consumed (according to the Bible) Cofty's proof is that God gave Israel implied permission to eat dead animals ( found dead or torn by a wild beast.)

  TD argument is that a blood transfusion is not the same as eating blood and human lives are lost based on interpretation of Acts which does not actually forbid blood for medical use according to TD. TD also says that the purpose of God's law is so people can live by it -not die by it as refusing a blood transfusion does.

  TD also says that the Mosaic Law on blood is integrated with the entire law code and cannot be factored and used as law independent from the entire system of laws.
• 

  cofty

  Fishy - you were through a long time ago. Like a punch - drunk boxer you just didn't have the sense to fall down.

  Richard O. Please read the OP and deal with the actual argument.

  Perhaps you could take on the question that Fishy refuses to answer.
• 

  cofty

  Stavro I was just saying similar to my wife today. If the gb wrote this in the Watchtower not one JW would fall to grasp the argument immediately.
• 

  Fisherman

  Can any sort of blood be consumed by worshippers of God?

  All that cofty is saying is that it is ok to eat blood just as long as the blood does not come from an animal slaughtered for food.
• 

  TD

  Bone marrow? Residual blood in flesh? Liver? Kidneys? (I find that stuff repulsive myself, but some people like it..)

  Rolf Furuli, a JW professor, elder and HLC member writing in the Rapid Response section of The British Medical Journal distinguished between action and matter when it comes to blood, so some JW's do apparently take the position that the prohibition is not about the substance in and of itself.
  
• 

  cofty

  Fishy are you ever going to answer my question about Lev17? I am not going to stop asking it until you do.
• 

  stavro

  Cofty not only would they grasp it immediately, they would hail it as one of the most glorious flashes of divine light ever to be bestowed upon the organisation.

  The funny thing is, It actually makes God seem like he knew what he was doing all along. God comes out of this looking good. There is nothing negative about it. Well the only negative thing is that it is you and not them that is saying it.

  Fisherman has done everyone a favor by trying desperately to find holes in it. He has proven just how logical and watertight the argument is.

  His refusal to answer your question demonstrates his need to avoid understanding why God even talked about blood in the first place. This is irresponsible! makes a mockery out of God and ultimately results in the needless loss of life.
• 

  stavro

  All that cofty is saying is that it is ok to eat blood just as long as the blood does not come from an animal slaughtered for food.
  

  Fisherman you are not fooling anyone other than yourself. Cofty said there were consequences for eating an unbled dead animal found while out hunting. You had to go home and have a bath and change your clothes.

  The watchtower claims the same thing except they believe you only ate because you accidentally tripped over and fell face first with your mouth open onto the carcass. You are welcome to believe that if you want, but don't waste everyone else's time.