Posts by cofty

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.

cofty

I find Fishy's ostentatious displays of wilful ignorance to be very helpful.

Why would anybody risk their life or the life of their child based on this level of befuddled dogma?

99

2 Peter 1 = Deity of Christ.

by towerwatchman in

2 peter 1 = deity of christ.

2 pe.

1:1 simon peter, a bondservant and apostle of jesus christ, .

cofty

Now since I was in Joshua's army, and having experienced all the miracles from Egypt to then, and having seen how powerful God is, I would not hesitate to obey. - Towerwatchman

Perhaps you can understand why I am repulsed by your admission.

It is impossible that I would ever obey an order to kill women and infants in cold blood. For somebody like you who is committed to unquestioning obedience to an invisible deity, infanticide is not even controversial.

This is why I believe that objective morality is impossible if you root it in the will of a deity. If god orders you to murder babies then murdering babies becomes a moral good.

A better system of morality is rooted in the consequences of our actions for the well-being of conscious creatures. Actually this is what we mean when we talk about morals or ethics.

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.

cofty

I had a conversation with a JW in Princes street Edinburgh today on this very topic. It didn't go well. His tactics were identical to Fishy's. It didn't matter what Lev.11 & 17 says he refused to consider it and just kept parroting the same hackneyed mantra.

There is no way to convince people who have a closed mind but I am not so cynical as to imagine all JWs are the same. I wasn't. I still think this lime of reasoning has potential to help intellectually honest JWs reason on this topic.

If you attempt to use this material I would suggest that the conversation begins in Lev.17 rather than Lev.11.

I might write up a potential approach 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.

cofty

I would just ask anybody reading this to consider my post above where I take the time to deal honestly and thoroughly with all of Fishy's objections.

Then please contrast and compare his response in the post just above this one.

I rest my case.

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.

cofty

It is my position that every mention of blood in the bible can be reconciled with reference to the following principle.

"Blood was sacred insofar as it represented a life that had been taken by a human"

Fisherman has used five isolated texts in an attempt to refute this position. These texts are considered below along with their context and relevance to the topic.

“You are to be my holy people. So do not eat the meat of an animal torn by wild beasts; throw it to the dogs."
Exodus 22:31

Firstly this prohibition is about cleanness not blood - "you are to be my holy people". Actions that caused uncleanness were not all in the same category as crimes that resulted in death. I will return to this below when we look at Deuteronomy.

Secondly and more importantly an animal that had been torn by wild beasts has clearly been bled.

Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the foreigners residing among you must not do any of these detestable things, for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you. - Leviticus 18:24-28

It is really difficult to understand why you thought this had anything to do with the topic.

Leviticus 18 is a list of prohibited sexual relationships. Gdo says that the land had become defiled by the sexual practices of the Canaanites and the Israelites must be careful not to imitate their ways. Citing this chapter in the context of our conversation about blood is very strange.

He must not eat anything found dead or torn by wild animals, and so become unclean through it. I am the Lord. - Leviticus 22:8

Leviticus 22 is addressed only to Aaron and his sons. It is a list of additional restrictions that apply to the priesthood in view of their sacred duties at the Tabernacle. They are not allowed to do their work if they have touched a dead body or somebody with a skin disease or a crawling insect or lots of other normal things. None of these things are a crime. The only crime was if they didn't observe the purification ritual before serving as a priest. The fact that the priests were specifically not allowed to eat an animal found already dead is further evidence that other non-priests were permitted.

But anyone who sins defiantly, whether native-born or foreigner, blasphemes the Lord and must be cut off from the people of Israel. Because they have despised the Lord’s word and broken his commands, they must surely be cut off; their guilt remains on them. - Numbers 15:30,31

Again it is very difficult what you thought this had to do with the discussion about blood. The previous verses are about how to deal with unintentional sins. Then these two verses contrast the situation with somebody who sins intentionally. They are to be "cut off". These verses don't add anything to the conversation about blood. It goes without saying that deliberately breaking god's law about blood was a serious crime. But first we have to understand god's law on blood.

Do not eat anything you find already dead. You may give it to the foreigner residing in any of your towns, and they may eat it, or you may sell it to any other foreigner. But you are a people holy to the Lord your God. - Deut. 14:21

Of the five verses you referred to this is the only one that is interesting. The context is Moses' restating of the law following the wilderness years. This was 40 years after Leviticus. Most of Deuteronomy is copy-paste of Leviticus but there are some interesting differences and comments. Nothing that Moses says contradicts Leviticus but he does admonish the nation to be holy.

There were many ordinary things that resulted in uncleanness. Menstruation, skin disease, having sex with your wife, giving birth, burying a dead animal, eating an animal found already dead and more. None of these things 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.

Moses' instruction here is perfectly consistent with Lev.11 and 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 void unnecessary uncleanness and sell the carcass to a foreigner who was not under the law.

Fishy - I have now dealt thoroughly with all five of the verses you used to try to refute my argument.

It is now your task to explain why Lev.17 classes killing an animal and eating it unbled as a serious crime but eating the unbled flesh of an animal found already dead as nothing but a temporary inconvenience.

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.

cofty

Fishy - I want to bring all my replies to your objections together into one post so that anybody reading this thread can see that I have dealt with them all honestly and thoroughly- even though you have refused to deal with my questions.

The verses you have used to attempt to counter my explanation are listed below. Before I repeat and expand on my responses please let me know if I have missed any. Thanks.

Ex. 22:31
Lev. 18:20-25
Lev. 22:8
Num. 15:30-31
Deut. 14:21

205

Mathematically Measuring Evolution.

by towerwatchman in

mathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.

morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.

using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.

cofty

By the way cytochrome C is one of the best examples of evidence for common ancestry.

205

Mathematically Measuring Evolution.

by towerwatchman in

mathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.

morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.

using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.

cofty

Source?

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.

cofty

Penalty = Death

1 - Any Israelite or any foreigner residing among you who hunts any animal or bird that may be eaten must drain out the blood and cover it with earth, because the life of every creature is its blood. That is why I have said to the Israelites, “You must not eat the blood of any creature, because the life of every creature is its blood; anyone who eats it must be cut off.” - Lev.17:13,14

No penalty

2 - Anyone, whether native-born or foreigner, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then they will be clean. - Lev.17:15

EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE!

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.

cofty

So, cofty, do you agree that an Israelite who deliberately ate a dead animal violated the Mosaic law in doing so?

Absolutely not.

Reconcile the two parts in Lev.17 and you will have said something interesting.