Posts by Fisherman

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, 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

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

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

... 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

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

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!

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

... 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