Cause there are times I have trouble just figuring out what point he's trying to make... Vid
There is a difference between what the Bible says and what cofty says the Bible says.
... 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.
Cause there are times I have trouble just figuring out what point he's trying to make... Vid
There is a difference between what the Bible says and what cofty says the Bible says.
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?.
2. Should a person be allowed to "mutilate" his body and why?
It is legal for people to tatoo their faces and bodies from head to toe, cut off parts of their tongue, "sex changes", pierce their entire bodies bodies in a gruesome manet and more less do whatever they like to their bodies left to the imagination.
... 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.
dub, I told you. If you want to make a statement or ask a question about the topic, I may decide to respond to you -if I wish. But I am not required to. If you dont like that, too bad for you. Do you have a view you wish to express about the Topic?
... 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.
You demand answers of everyone else but never put your own views out there. Are you hiding something?
dub, I can ask. No one is required to answer. This is not a court room.
Lets say you are walking down the street and stopped by a cop and he tells you, lets go down to the precinct, we want to ask you some questions. What should you do?
... 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. You are defending a stance on blood that is directly reflective of the WT view.
I have not been convinced otherwise. My most enjoyable dialogues have been with TD and with Marvin Shilmer and with others too.
... 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.
dub, why do ypu agree with all the views here?
... 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.
So again I ask you, is the JW commentary the one that you choose to rest upon?
That has no relevance to the topic. But if you want to know. I can PM you
... 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.
dub, you can post your views on the subject. I am not going to make fun of what you say.
... 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.
How can you say this? Are you an authority
Can you show that cofty is more than an advocate?
So then, is that the commentary that you choose to rest upon?
... 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.
Eating an unbled animal found dead was not a sin so this verse has no relevance.
Yes it does. Deu14:21
discussed this verse at length. You ignored my answer and now you pretend I haven't answered it. This is why I call you a coward and a liar.
I did not and posting your trash is no licence to offend me and other posters that disagree with you.
This verse is about an animal torn by wild beasts. It was bled. It has no relevance to our conversation.
It does. It commands Israel to be Holy. Eating dead animals and torn ones are put in the same category and both forbidden to eat.
I have never attempted to show that blood is not sacred to god. I have consistently said the exact opposite.
"...insofar...." You play both sides