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.
The diagram below shows sequence similarity for cytochrome C.
The lengths of the branches in this tree are drawn proportional to the number of differences in the primary sequence.
The tree clearly reveals the three main kingdoms of eukaryotes: fungi, animals, and plants.
Such trees tend to agree closely with those constructed by evolutionary biologists using morphological data, and provide independent evidence of common descent.
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?.
Ouch!
Appalling choice of phrase.
I don't distrust Sadiq Khan. Maajid Nawaz has respect for him which is not a bad recommendation.
... 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.
God to Israel - "If you hunt an animal and eat it unbled I will have you stoned to death. If you eat an unbled animal that died of itself I will insist you take nice warm bath and put on a clean robe."
Explain the reason for the difference Fishy.
... 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 shows a distinction between the blood of a slaughtered animal ( for food)and one found dead. - Fishy
Yes exactly.
Why?
It was not permission for Israel to go around eating dead animals with impunity
I would not call being asked to take a nice bath and put on clean clothes any sort of penalty.
Absolutely no punishment at all for eating an unbled animal found already dead. That is the definition of impunity.
But you still have refused to answer my question....
Why is there a difference if as you assert, the blood of an animal that dies of itself is just as sacred as one that has been killed?
I will keep asking you that underlined question until you answer it.
... 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.
Crazyguy I dealt with that question here...
There is no contradiction.
... 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.
Verse 15 says that anybody who eats an animal that dies of itself will be unclean until the evening. - Cofty
It does not say anybody. - Fishy
All persons, citizens or aliens, who eat what dies of itself or what has been torn by wild animals, shall wash their clothes, and bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the evening; then they shall be clean. - Leviticus 17:15
Has it now got to the stage that you need to resort to bare-faced lies? By definition the phrase citizens or aliens covers absolutely everybody and anybody.
... 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 speaks about restoration not about permission - Fishy
Verses 13 & 14 state very clearly that anybody who hunts an animal for food and does not bleed it will be cut off. I presume you understand that to mean capital punishment. There is no provision for "restoration".
Verse 15 says that anybody who eats an animal that dies of itself will be unclean until the evening. Nobody gets stoned to death. The only requirement is to have bath and change clothes.
Why is there a difference if as you assert, the blood of an animal that dies of itself is just as sacred as one that has been killed?
I will keep asking you that underlined question until you answer it.
... 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.
Leviticus said you could eat and only be unclean till evening , Deuteronomy was a peice of propaganda written much later and it clearly contradicts what was written in the earlier book. - Crazyguy
I strongly disagree. There is no conflict between Lev.11 & 17 and Deut.14 regarding blood.
... 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.
Ex 22:31 You should prove yourselves holy people to me, and you must not eat the flesh of anything in the field that has been torn by a wild animal....
I have explained Ex.22 many times. It is about an animal torn by a wild animal.
It is very dishonest of you to continue to use this verse to support your case.
... 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 did God allow those not under the law of Moses to eat an unbled carcass when God forbade mankind to eat animals that were not bled? Gen 9:4 Only flesh with its life—its blood—you must not eat.
I would love you to answer that question.
