... 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.
there should not be any symbolic value to God in blood taken from a creature not slaughtered cofty
No you havent. But to be fair. You have made your point in your argument that there should not be any symbolic value to God in blood taken from a creature not slaughtered -as you argue. fisherman
Therefore blood transfusions are not against god's law. Therefore thousands have died for a theological blunder. Therefore the Watchtower are not led by the holy spirit. cofty
You conclude too much.
... 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.
I have reconciled every verse regarding blood. cofty
No you havent. But to be fair. You have made your point in your argument that there should not be any symbolic value to God in blood taken from a creature not slaughtered -as you argue.
... 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.
Is English not your first language?
I speak many languages yet your conclusions about Lev 17 are not proven in your argument on this thread. Your assertions are not substatiated.
how vs why
One distinction about the blood from an animal found dead is that it could not be poured out. Another distinction is that if an Israelite ate a dead unbled carcass he became ceremonially unclean by doing so.
But all of the law needs to be considered not just the verses that you like with your explanations about them.
... 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.
My question for you is - why?
That is a conclusion.
... 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.
cofty, Lev 17 shows a distinction between the blood of an animal slaughtered for food and the blood of an animal found dead.
... 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.
can tell people what and where to post. dubstepped
Do you want to have a spelling bee or a name calling contest on this thread and forget about the topic being discussed?
Stavro, do you want to have a spelling bee or a name calling contest on this thread?
Don't bother me with the topic cofty, I am busy responding to nonsense coming from dub and stavro.
... 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.
stavro, If you want to have a discussion about what think about me and about what you think about what I say and about what I think about what you think about md a ne about what I say and abou what I think about you and shat I think about what you say and about what you think about what I ghink about you and what you say... , yu can start a new topic about that.
... 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.
Why is there a difference if the blood is sacred in the way JWs believe it to be?
Lev 17 shows a distinction. Difference in sacredness is cofty's conclusion as argued by cofty.
so it is now two days after another islamic terrorist attack.
how many muslims are in the streets protesting and condemning this evil?
how many are marching in all the big cities condemning this in mass protests?.
Should another terrorist attack happen - heaven forbid- what are the odds of the attackers being Islamic? What could be done in advance to save lives of terrorist victims before terrorism happens, given the odds?
... 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.
TD, I understand that donated blood becomes part of the receiver's circulatory system for a while but the donated blood also contains nutrients absorbed by the body and in time the donor's blood is metabolized by the body.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160718132646.htm
