by cofty 556 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Cofty said there were consequences for eating an unbled dead animal found while out hunting.
Deuteronomy 14:21) 21 “You must not eat any animal that was found dead. You may give it to the foreign resident who is inside your cities, and he MAY!! eat it."
Apparently, no consequences for the goy! God allowed the eating of found dead unbled animals - and according to cofty -- its blood.
Compare Gen 9:4
Fishy I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt. I thought maybe you didn't take enough time to read my arguments before typing your dogma with bleeding finger tips. Or perhaps you just aren't very bright and find it very hard to follow a simple argument.
I have now come to the uncomfortable conclusion that you are simply dishonest. You will literally say anything rather than admit you have might be wrong.
How many times do I have to rebut your appeal to Deut.14 before you acknowledge it? This is not just a theoretical debate. The lives of children are at stake. Women bleed to death after giving birth because somebody at Brooklyn was too stupid to think through everything the bible says about blood. You are complicit in those deaths.
I am going to repost my question in the next post. I am going to keep doing so until you give me an honest answer. Your dishonesty brings shame on you and the organisation you defend.
I wonder if it's clearly understood that bleeding a carcass is in some respects, a symbolic gesture? That large veins are equipped with valves that prevent back-flow and that small capillaries can't be drained by gravity at all?
Absolutely TD. The importance of this can't be stressed enough. Bleeding an animal at the point of death and covering the spilled blood with earth was simply a symbol of acknowledging the life-giver.
There is a popular misconception among JWs that some sort of magic stuff called "life" literally resides in the fluid.
Deuteronomy 14:21) 21 “You must not eat any animal that was found dead. You may give it to the foreign resident who is inside your cities, and he MAY!! eat it."
Apparently, no consequences for the goy! God allowed the eating of found dead unbled animals - and according to cofty -- its blood.
Compare Gen 9:4
Fisherman there is a big difference between an ability to state what the laws says and an ability to understand why it is saying it. Throughout the discussion you have only ever been able to demonstrate one of these two abilities.
I honestly don't believe you haven't seen the light on this issue. It is just too bright not to see.
"He may eat it" an unbled animal found dead.
Cofty argues that "If God allowed an animal found dead and un-bled to be eaten by anyone whatsoever, it could contradict God's command to Noah which is binding upon all humans, Jews and non-Jews "flesh with its life, its blood you must not eat" -yet in Deut 14:21 God seems to give permission ( "he may eat") to the Gentile. Cofty points out a distinction between the blood of a slaughtered animal for food and the blood of an animal found dead, as the reason why God allowed animals found dead to be eaten by Gentiles apparently without having to bled.
So, on the one hand wt teaches that blood is sacred to God and cannot be eaten but on the other hand Cofty is saying that the scriptures suggest that since God allowed unbled animals to be eaten, ( and God does seem to say that in Deut 14:21)- and thereby the dead animal eater is also eating the flesh with the blood in contrast with Gen 9:4- It is ok to eat blood just as long as "no life was taken" as cofty argues in his OP. Cofty, also argues that if a worshipper of Jehovah in ancient Israel ate an unbled animal found dead, he would not become guilty of a sin incurring the death penalty, because if that was the case, the scriptures would plainly say so, but all the scriptures say is that it was an unclean act, prohibited by law, yes, but still only an unclean act and not a sin incurring the death penalty because nowhere in the Torah does it state directly that the penalty for eating an animal found dead (unbled) resulted in the death penalty but only resulted in the state of uncleanness requiring restoration as provided in the related scripture.
Cofty's argument is that God allowed blood to be eaten and in fact blood was eaten indirectly when God allowed animals found dead to be eaten with no punishment for eating an unbled carcass in seeming violation of Gen 9:4. Thus such blood from dead animals was not being viewed by God as sacred but meaningless to God. Cofty concludes that the only blood sacred to God is the one that comes from an animal that is slaughtered for food.
But can the blood of a dead animal or a live animal or that of a living or dead human being be consumed without violating God's law? ( Adultery, killing , stealing, etc. violate God's laws) Or is eating blood from a creature that has not been killed for food ok or at the most an unclean act?
that bleeding a carcass is in some respects, a symbolic gesture?
Not possible to drain every drop of blood from meat. So everyone that eats meat also eats some blood. But it would be shocking if someone would squeeze out blood from the blood left inside a carcarcass and drinks it or eats it. Would it be a sin to do so?
Fishy - at long last you are starting to demonstrate an interest in engaging in a genuine conversation where you really attempt to grasp the position of the person you disagree with. In your previous post but one you have made a very good attempt to summarise my position accurately. Thank you..
Here is the key piece of data you are missing with regard to Gen.9:4. The whole point of Genesis 9 is that god is giving Noah and his descendents permission to kill animals for food, therefore there is no conflict with Lev.17.
If you bear in mind this simple principle every single word the bible says about blood makes sense: there is no contradiction....
Blood was sacred insofar as it represented a life that had been taken by a human.
ere is the key piece of data you are missing with regard to Gen.9:4. The whole point of Genesis 9 is that god is giving Noah and his descendents permission to kill animals for food, therefore there is no conflict with Lev.17.
You conclude too much.
TD
Yes, gravity helps only somewhat.
An executive at a Canadian meat packing company explained to me how cows slaughtered by Hassidic rabbis solve this problem. They do not kill or even stun the animals while bleeding them. They hoist them by the hind legs and then slit their throats letting the heart pump out as much blood as possible while the animal screams in horror.
