... 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
... 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, does the transfused blood nourish the body in any manner at all within any definition of the word nourishment ?
If I remmember one of your arguments, you also pointed out that "keep abstaining" -absent the verb - should only refer to how and the same as they were abstaining before the decree. Albeit I am still not convinced that a person pumping a gallon and a half of blood into his body is abstaining within any definition of the word "keep abstaining" from blood.
The transfused blood is inside a person's body and the body has no choice but to metabolize it, extract and benefit from its nutrients such as iron and other nutrients in the transfused blood.
It seems that eating something or injecting the same food substance into the body, like blood for example, is very similar. Eating a human kidney vs transplanting one is not the same; The blood is eaten by the body but a transplanted organ is not.
Just expressing what seems logical. What do you think?
... 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.
Funny thing
That depends on whether or not wt is correct on abstinence from ingesting blood via blood transfusion is actually required by God.
... 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.
Not according to me - according to Lev.17
Lev 17 shows a distinction. Difference in sacredness is cofty conclusion as argued by 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.
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.
... 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.
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.
