Fisherman

Joined

• started 155 topics
• posted 5,295 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Fisherman

• 
  556

  The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  ... 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  Not according to me - according to Lev.17

  Lev 17 shows a distinction. Difference in sacredness is cofty conclusion as argued by cofty.
• 
  556

  The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  ... 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  Why is there a difference if the blood is sacred in the way JWs believe it to be?

  Re: Blood transfusion; Acts:" ...Keep abstaining.."

  Cofty argues that such blood was not taken from a slaughtered creature thus contains no symbolic to God life of the person ( as explained in cofty argument on this thread which points out a distinction between 2 sorts of blood. One being sacred and the other not so sacred if it can be eaten with the flesh- according to cofty) TD argues that Acts at the very least is dubious therefore saving a life should not come down to interpretation of a scripture; and if it does as in Acts for example, the interpretation should be towards saving the life. He also argues that obeying God's law should not result in death -but in life! "..so as to live by them.." vs to die by them. And both arguments are for the saving lives using blood transfusions--versus death.
• 
  556

  The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  ... 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  Lev.17:15 and Deut.14:21 appear to be a contradiction. I have explained how they can reconciled.

  Your explanation is trash

  Stop reposting your trash. Scripture and verse please. " you must not eat" -command.
  
  
• 
  556

  The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  ... 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  All that has been dismissed as irrelevant. TD

  Absolutely not! Your commentary is persuasive, and respected -at least by me.

  Only in the subject matter being discussed as to cofty theory explained in his OP, relevance was questioned on this thread.
  
  
• 
  556

  The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  ... 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  dub if you want to have a name calling match with me start another topic saying that is what you want.
• 
  556

  The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  ... 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  Cofty, Scripture and Verse.

  Your commentary has zero value towards the topic being discussed on this thread.
• 
  8

  Ayaan Hirsi Ali On London Attacks

  by Bangalore in

  1. social
  2. current

  ayaan hirsi ali on london attacks.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pll75ohh6jc&feature=youtu.be.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  What are the odds that if another terrorist attack happens, it will be from Islamics? And correspondingly, how to bring the offs down to zero.
• 
  556

  The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  ... 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  This verse appears to be a change to the law given earlier at Lev.17:13-15. There we find a sharp contrast between the consequences of killing an animal and eating it unbled and of eating an unbled animal found already dead. The former results in "cutting off" but the latter only requires that the "culprit" take a bath and change their clothes. Rather than pitting Deut.14 against Lev.17 - choosing one as authoritative and rejecting the other - the challenge is to reconcile both texts. During their wanderings in the wilderness the Israelites only had the law recorded in Leviticus. Moses did not deliver the words recorded in Deuteronomy for another forty years. Many thousands of sheep and cattle must have died of natural causes during those four decades and - based on the law of Leviticus - eaten by their owners. Baths were taken, clothes changed and nobody was punished. Only Aaron and his sons who served at the Tabernacle were prohibited from eating an animal found already dead during this period in Israel's history.Unlike an animal that had been killed, the sacredness of blood is never mentioned in connection with eating an animal found already dead. The issue is not blood but ceremonial uncleanness.A sheep or cow was a valuable asset, finding it dead would have been a significant loss to its owner. Obviously they would want to salvage something if possible. In Leviticus God said that whatever they decided to do it had to be included in the long list of things that resulted in uncleanness. Giving birth, menstruation, sex between husband and wife, touching any dead body, skin disease and many more normal things resulted in the Israelite having to bathe and change to become clean again. Eating the remains of an animal found dead had exactly the same consequences; but so did burying it. No doubt this personal decision would largely be based on the condition of the carcass and how long it had been dead.Forty years later the circumstances of the nation were changing. Now they were going to be settling down in towns and villages and living among foreigners. Keen to encourage ceremonial cleanness Moses now encourages them to choose a better option of selling the carcass to a foreigner. That way - assuming the buyer collects - they don't have to touch or eat the carcass and avoid becoming unclean. None of the circumstances that resulted in uncleanness were a crime or a sin but some were more avoidable than others. Moses identifies eating an animal found already dead as something that can reasonably be avoided in the interests of holiness.Notice Moses' new instruction - "sell it to a foreigner". If the blood of an animal found already dead was sacred then this would be a very strange instruction. If the blood represented the life of the dead beast then it must be buried with the animal returning it to god. God's original prohibition regarding blood was given through Noah so it would be impossible that Moses would instruct Israelites to entice foreigners to do something that god abhorred.Moses' instruction here is consistent with Lev.17. The blood of an animal found already dead has no sacred significance since nobody took the life and therefore nobody can return it to god. The only issue is that eating the animal makes the person temporarily unclean. Leviticus gives permission to eat the animal with the proviso that the Israelite must bathe and change their garments. Forty years later Moses goes further and admonishes them to avoid unnecessary uncleanness and sell the carcass to a foreigner who was not under the law.

  Trash. Your commentary is trash. Stop posting your trash for me to respond to. Outlaw I need your help!!!!!!!!!

  All of the law was binding regardless of your cofty trashy commentary. You must support your views on this topic with scripture not trash.
• 
  6

  Banned or Not It Will Be Spun By WT

  by mr_doubtful in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  banned: 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!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  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.
• 
  556

  The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  ... 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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.