According to you Fishy if an Israelite farmer found one of his sheep dead he would be executed for burying it.
Really?
... 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.
According to you Fishy if an Israelite farmer found one of his sheep dead he would be executed for burying it.
Really?
... 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.
Bury it or eat it. No difference under the law..
Lev.11:38,39...
If an animal that you are allowed to eat dies...
1 - Anyone who touches its carcass will be unclean till evening.
2 - Anyone who eats some of its carcass must wash their clothes, and they will be unclean till evening.
3 - Anyone who picks up the carcass must wash their clothes, and they will be unclean till evening.
... 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.
Fishy - Once again you are plucking verse right out of context. Stop it it makes you look desperate.
Go back and check the context of Leviticus 22. It is the list of additional restrictions that applied only to priesthood and not to Israelites in general.
“Tell Aaron and his sons..." - Lev.22:1
A priest could not touch a dead body or have sex with his wife of do lots of other things that ordinary Israelites could do without having to go through a purification ritual.
The very fact that a priest could not eat an animal found already dead underlines the fact that other Israelites could.
It was forbidden to become unclean.
Nonsense. How could you forbid somebody from having sex for example? If your animal died you had to either eat it or bury it. Both resulted in you being made unclean. Uncleanness was not a crime. All you had to do was bath and change your clothes. No penalty for uncleanness. The only punishment was if you didn't observe the procedure to be clean - bathe and change.
You still have to explain Lev.11 and Lev.17
Stop avoiding the difficult questions Fishy,.
I explained all of that in detail in my article.
atheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
Care to point one out
You avoid every difficult question. You have listened to hours of Wm L Craig videos and formed your arguments in a bubble. Every word you write is either WLC or S. Meyer. You bounce all over the place using copy-paste as if you have written it yourself and never provide links. You ignore every argument of substance.
You never converse or attempt to understand anything others are saying.
atheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
Bollocks.
Christians worship an omnipotent god who is the epitome of love.
Natural disasters prove they are deluded.
Claiming that it is a mystery is nothing but dishonesty.
atheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
So the idea of an all powerful God who allows bad things is not alien to the Bible.
The bible is the motherload of dumbass sayings and contradictions.
Natural disasters proves that an omnipotent and loving god does not exist.
atheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
The bible provides on answers only dogma.
1. He is all powerful.
2. He is perfect in love.
3. We can't always understand why God acts as he does.
This is not an answer. It is an appeal to admit a blatant contradiction. No chance.
Designing a world that inevitably blows up and randomly kills millions of its inhabitants is not something an all-powerful and loving god would do.
Either he is a bad designer or a sadist.
Either way he is not the god of christian theism.
atheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
To construct even one short protein molecule of 150 amino acids by chance within the prebiotic soup
You are decades out of date. Nobody thinks life began in a prebiotic soup.
You have never read a book on evolution in your life have you?
DNA provides incontrovertible proof that all of life evolved from a common ancestor over millions of years.
PS - If you must copy-paste have the honesty to provide a link to the source.
atheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
"But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God?"
Paul said a lot of stupid things. Maybe he trembled in god's presence. Doesn't mean we have to be so gullible.
Their conception of God often included the idea that his qualities are difficult to reconcile
Yes they talked a lot of self-contradictory bollocks. Surely you noticed that when you read the bible? We are all a lot wiser than anybody who contributed to the bible.
... 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 my conclusions Fishy the plain testimony of scripture.
The bible says eating the unbled flesh of an animal found already dead resulted only in being unclean until the evening.
You have all your work ahead of you.