... 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.
Absolutely TD. The importance of this can't be stressed enough. Bleeding an animal at the point of death and covering the spilled blood with earth was simply a symbol of acknowledging the life-giver.
There is a popular misconception among JWs that some sort of magic stuff called "life" literally resides in the fluid.
... 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 I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt. I thought maybe you didn't take enough time to read my arguments before typing your dogma with bleeding finger tips. Or perhaps you just aren't very bright and find it very hard to follow a simple argument.
I have now come to the uncomfortable conclusion that you are simply dishonest. You will literally say anything rather than admit you have might be wrong.
How many times do I have to rebut your appeal to Deut.14 before you acknowledge it? This is not just a theoretical debate. The lives of children are at stake. Women bleed to death after giving birth because somebody at Brooklyn was too stupid to think through everything the bible says about blood. You are complicit in those deaths.
I am going to repost my question in the next post. I am going to keep doing so until you give me an honest answer. Your dishonesty brings shame on you and the organisation you defend.
... 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 are you ever going to answer my question about Lev17? I am not going to stop asking it until 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.
Stavro I was just saying similar to my wife today. If the gb wrote this in the Watchtower not one JW would fall to grasp the argument immediately.
... 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 were through a long time ago. Like a punch - drunk boxer you just didn't have the sense to fall down.
Richard O. Please read the OP and deal with the actual argument.
Perhaps you could take on the question that Fishy refuses to answer.
... 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.
Which scriptures?
So far every one you have suggested has failed.
2 peter 1 = deity of christ.
2 pe.
1:1 simon peter, a bondservant and apostle of jesus christ, .
I think you are mistaking contempt for anger.
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.
When we look deeper into the nucleotide sequences then we find an even greater example of evidence for common ancestry. Humans and chimps differ by 4 DNA letters but the very same amino acid sequence. The same pattern is repeated throughout life demonstrating gradual evolution over millions of years.
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 sequences are remarkably similar across species, especially at certain positions.
For example, every one has a phenylalanine at position 10, a histidine at 18, a proline at 30 and a methionine at 80. Clearly, evolution selects against any change at these positions.
In addition, numerous sites display a limited number of changes, in most cases allowing only residues with similar properties.
For example, residue 98 can be only leucine, isoleucine, or valine - all lipophilic residues.
Likewise, His18 (shown in the graphic above), which coordinates to the heme iron, is conserved throughout.
The implication is that the strongly conserved residues contribute significantly to the structure and function of the protein.
Other positions contribute very little and are highly variable; evolutionary drift randomizes these residues.
Note that human and chimpanzee sequences are identical, and macaque and spider monkey are very similar to the human/chimpanzee sequence. This implies a common and relatively recent evolutionary divergence...
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.
BTW that is a nice tree. Again any interpretation is subjective, How can measure anything using the tree?
Nothing subjective about that diagram. It is mathematically accurate the length of each branch is based on the degree of difference in amino acid sequence.
Anybody who understands basic statistics can see the dishonesty in your OP.
Here is the actual sequences for anybody who wants to compare them. It perfectly illustrates common ancestry.
