1.there are times when a doctor decides that the only life saving medical treatment -short of a miracle- is a blood transfusion.
in such a case, what should be done when a person refuses treatment on religious grounds and why?.
2. should a person be allowed to "mutilate" his body and why?.
If you can prove to me through the bible that the blood ban is scriptural.
I am only asking for sincere personal views and feelings on this thread.
I will return to the witnesses immediately.
How are you so sure that the door is still open for you?
you have to leave this webpage never to return.
Why? What prevents you from posting your views on this forum?
... 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.
Especially when you are clearly wrong? Do you get a kick out of a half-dozen people telling you that you're wrong?
Saying that I am wrong does not make it so. Please show me wrong.
... 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.
under these circumstances the Law is giving PERMISSION to eat unbled meat.
If an Israelite farmer found an animal "already dead" he was free to eat it with IMPUNITY..
3 accusers report to a judge of ancient Israel that cofty is going around eating dead animals and teaching Israel that doing so is not a violation of the Law. What will happen to cofty?
... 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.
The Bible does not state conditions for Lev 17 only the provision for restoration if a native or foreigner ate a dead animal or one torn by a beast.
Why would such a person do that or how could he do that when the law forbade it? The Bible does not say. The Bible does say in Numbers that doing something ( that was forbidden) deliberately was a capital offense.
( I posted something yesterday that did not post through so if that posts in the future it is after this dialogue.)
Something that may be a factor and needs to be considered is the definition of foreigner. Some foreignors where proselytes and some were not. Proselyte foreigners were under the law same as Israel and were forbidden to eat dead animals same as Israel. So when the scripture states to sell dead animals to foreigners it means non proselyte ones. And the ceremonial wash only applies to Israel and proselyte foreigners. The goyim were not under the law.
... 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 did the law state: "You must not eat any animal that was found dead."
That is not clear enough for cofty.
Ask any religious Jew today.
Go back and change the nonsense you posted in your OP.
... 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.
SAethydd, saying that I am wrong does not make it so.
(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, or it may be sold to a foreigner. For you are a holy people to Jehovah your God.. . .
It was forbidden for an Israelite or a Ger (proselyte) to eat a dead animal. Non proselyte "foreigners" could use dead animals.
Why sell it then and not eat it? Because the law forbade Israel and the Ger from eating dead animals! But cofty posted that the Israelite could it with impunity. Imagine that!
Cofty's theory is wrong.
... 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.
... 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 has answered your questions to a level any reasonable person would be satisfied with.
Please show that an Israelite that deliberately ate a dead animal did not violate the law.
... 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.
... 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, you did not answer my questions.
