I think that if millions of letters start pouring in, that would be very persuasive and the sensible thing for the Russian government to do under such pressure would be to impose restrictions without banning. It would be a very foolish thing to do politically for Russia -it ain't just about JW. I was wrong about trump winning the election but I think that inspite of the letters, Russia will attempt to shut down JW one way or another sooner or later.
Fisherman
JoinedPosts by Fisherman
-
6
Banned or Not It Will Be Spun By WT
by mr_doubtful inbanned: proof we are true christian's because we are being persecuted!
(despite the other extreme religions in the same boat).
not banned: no man can forge a weapon against jehovah!
-
-
-
556
The Watchtower are Right About Blood...
by cofty in... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
-
-
Fisherman
Cofty points out that since God gave permission to the Gentiles to eat animals found dead (unbled!) Det 14:21, God also established by doing so that the blood of such dead animals is not sacred because had it been sacred it could not be eaten along with the flesh by anyone including Gentiles without violating God’s law to mankind (Gen 9:4)
In Nu 15:31, the penalty for deliberately violating any command stated in the law was death, but even if someone could be executed for eating animals found dead (unbled) for deliberately doing so, the person would be executed for despising God’s command; that would be the charge against such person and that would be the reason for his guilt and execution –despising God’s command; eating an animal found dead (unbled) would not be the reason for such person’s execution because there is no penalty stated in the law for doing so except the resulting state of ceremonial uncleanness –but not death or any other penalty. Albeit the act of a Jew eating an animal found dead did not incur the death penalty and that is the point –according to cofty.
(Genesis 9:4) 4 "Only flesh with its life—its blood—you must not eat. . .” is God’s command to mankind, so by God giving Gentiles permission to eat an animal found dead (unbled) as he seemingly does does in Deut 14:21, a distinction is made between the blood of a slaughtered animal that is going to be eaten (and it is forbidden for such animal to be eaten by anyone whatsoever without being bled) and the blood of an animal found dead which is allowed to be eaten by Gentiles. There is a distinction between both sorts of blood.
Cofty appears to say that when a person eats a found dead unbled animal, according to Gen 9:4 such person is also eating the blood of such animal, but unlike Gen9:4 the life of such dead unbled animal is not in the blood with the carcass (that is to say God does not require such blood to be poured out) and that is why God allows such blood to be eaten with the carcass. And now cofty says that technically it would be as if the blood of the dead animal is eaten by itself, and by derivative: ” Blood was sacred insofar as it represented a life that had been taken by a human.” –as cofty argues in his OP.
But is that the way Jehovah sees it? Can a worshiper of Jehovah consume blood taken from live humans or from live animals? -to drink a couple of glasses of blood or more from a live cow or from a live human; it sounds shocking but is it a sin considering cofty's theory? That is the question that needs to be answered.
-
556
The Watchtower are Right About Blood...
by cofty in... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
-
-
Fisherman
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.
You should see how Islamics slaughter a camel for food. I cannot.
Interesting how the Bible uses the word hunting (for Israel). Actually it was trapping. The animal was caught live uninjured and then slaughtered and blood poured out.
-
556
The Watchtower are Right About Blood...
by cofty in... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
-
-
Fisherman
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.
-
556
The Watchtower are Right About Blood...
by cofty in... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
-
-
Fisherman
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?
-
556
The Watchtower are Right About Blood...
by cofty in... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
-
-
Fisherman
"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?
-
556
The Watchtower are Right About Blood...
by cofty in... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
-
-
Fisherman
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
-
556
The Watchtower are Right About Blood...
by cofty in... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
-
-
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.
-
556
The Watchtower are Right About Blood...
by cofty in... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
-
-
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.
-
556
The Watchtower are Right About Blood...
by cofty in... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
-
-
Fisherman
Says you. Im through.