... 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.
Here is the principle that makes everything the bible says about blood fit together.
Blood was sacred insofar as it represented a life that had been taken.
Every verse makes sense in the light of that simple principle.
In blood transfusions no life has been sacrificed to donate the blood therefore it is not sacred.
... 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 why does Lev.17 put eating an animal found already dead in a different category from eating an animal you had killed without bleeding it?
The latter would get you executed; the former meant you had the inconvenience of having a bath and changing your clothes. Clearly this is a crucial point that you need to fit into your theology. Lives of children are at stake.
This is the crux of the argument that you refuse to face up to.
Stop playing games and deal with the big picture honestly.
... 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 you asserted that deliberately doing things that causes uncleanness resulted in death. Burying a dead animal caused uncleanness. Why are you contradicting yourself? .
... 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.
Still refusing to give a simple answer to a simple question Fishy
2 peter 1 = deity of christ.
2 pe.
1:1 simon peter, a bondservant and apostle of jesus christ, .
TowerWatchMan
1 - When the armies of Joshua carried out god's instructions to kill hundreds or even thousands of women and infants in cold blood were they doing something that was objectively good?
2 - Is infanticide normally objectively bad but it becomes objectively good if it is ordered by god?
3 - If you had been in Joshua's army and you were commanded by your god to kill hundreds of unarmed women and infants in cold blood, one by one using a sword, do you hope you would have the faith to obey god or the courage to defy him?
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?.
I had a clear memory of an article from the time reporting on the woeful lack of support for the vigil by the local muslim community. In particular it reported on the sympathy for extremism within the Glasgow mosque. If a number of individual muslims did attend then I apologise for making a misleading statement.
The point of the OP in this thread stands. Although those who will actually carry out acts of violence is relatively small those who sympathise is much larger.
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?.
Do you know why the central mosque refused to attend?
There is a serious problem with Islamic extremism in Glasgow.
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?.
I reported on it here with a link to the article when it happened. Not one single person from the Glasgow mosque turned up. It is possible a few individuals not connected to the mosque did attend .
... 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.
Answer the question Fishy
Yes or no?
... 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 - still waiting for an answer to a very simple question. Why are you refusing to answer?
You say that it was forbidden to become unclean and deliberately doing so resulted in death.
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.
