cofty

Joined

• started 464 topics
• posted 24,957 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by cofty

• 
  556

  The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  ... 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  Fisherman are you actually an apostate fighting a 13 year black-flag campaign?

  If so you are doing a heroic job of making the Watchtower look foolish.
• 
  8

  Ayaan Hirsi Ali On London Attacks

  by Bangalore in

  1. social
  2. current

  ayaan hirsi ali on london attacks.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pll75ohh6jc&feature=youtu.be.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  A genuine heroine.
• 
  556

  The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  ... 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  Your commentary has zero value towards the topic being discussed on this thread. - Fishy

  I doubt if I have ever attempted to hold a conversation with somebody less capable of following an argument.

  Lev.17:15 and Deut.14:21 appear to be a contradiction. I have explained how they can reconciled. You now have the same burden.

  ---

  Here is the question you have ignored many times. Until you answer it you have nothing interesting to say.
  

  Lev.17: 13 & 14 state very clearly that he who hunts an animal for food and does not bleed it will be "cut off".

  Verse 15 says that he who eats an animal that dies of itself will be unclean until the evening. The only requirement is to have bath and change clothes.

  Why is there a difference if the blood is sacred in the way JWs believe it to be?
  
• 
  556

  The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  ... 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  I think our JW apologist has finally hit bedrock.

  Why would anyone sacrifice the life of their loved ones on the basis of this sort of muddled dogma?
• 
  556

  The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  ... 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  When I discussed this with a JW at a cart in Edinburgh last weekend it was difficult to get him to focus on the old testament background. As soon as he saw the looming problem with Lev.17 he only wanted to talk about Acts 15

  Eventually he agreed to give me exactly two minutes to explain the background to acts15 which I duly did.

  I'm wrestling with the best way to get into this subject with a JW.

  I think I will post my thoughts on Acts 15 here later today.

  Any thoughts on the best way to approach this with a cart JW the would be welcome.
• 
  556

  The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  ... 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  And now the question you keep avoiding Fishy...

  God to Israel - "If you kill 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." Please explain the reason for the difference.
  
• 
  556

  The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  ... 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  My response to Deut.14:21

  My response to this verse is spread across a number of posts so I want to bring it together here and add some more comments.

  ---

  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

  This verse appears to be a change to the law given earlier at Lev.17:13-15. There we find a sharp contrast between the consequences of killing an animal and eating it unbled and of eating an unbled animal found already dead. The former results in "cutting off" but the latter only requires that the "culprit" take a bath and change their clothes.

  Rather than pitting Deut.14 against Lev.17 - choosing one as authoritative and rejecting the other - the challenge is to reconcile both texts.

  During their wanderings in the wilderness the Israelites only had the law recorded in Leviticus. Moses did not deliver the words recorded in Deuteronomy for another forty years. Many thousands of sheep and cattle must have died of natural causes during those four decades and - based on the law of Leviticus - eaten by their owners. Baths were taken, clothes changed and nobody was punished. Only Aaron and his sons who served at the Tabernacle were prohibited from eating an animal found already dead during this period in Israel's history.

  Unlike an animal that had been killed, the sacredness of blood is never mentioned in connection with eating an animal found already dead. The issue is not blood but ceremonial uncleanness.
  

  A sheep or cow was a valuable asset, finding it dead would have been a significant loss to its owner. Obviously they would want to salvage something if possible. In Leviticus God said that whatever they decided to do it had to be included in the long list of things that resulted in uncleanness. Giving birth, menstruation, sex between husband and wife, touching any dead body, skin disease and many more normal things resulted in the Israelite having to bathe and change to become clean again. Eating the remains of an animal found dead had exactly the same consequences; but so did burying it. No doubt this personal decision would largely be based on the condition of the carcass and how long it had been dead.

  Forty years later the circumstances of the nation were changing. Now they were going to be settling down in towns and villages and living among foreigners. Keen to encourage ceremonial cleanness Moses now encourages them to choose a better option of selling the carcass to a foreigner. That way - assuming the buyer collects - they don't have to touch or eat the carcass and avoid becoming unclean. None of the circumstances that resulted in uncleanness 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. God's original prohibition regarding blood was given through Noah so it would be impossible that Moses would instruct Israelites to entice foreigners to do something that god abhorred.

  Moses' instruction here is consistent with 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 avoid unnecessary uncleanness and sell the carcass to a foreigner who was not under the law.
• 
  556

  The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  ... 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  Fishy - at long last you are starting to demonstrate an interest in engaging in a genuine conversation where you really attempt to grasp the position of the person you disagree with. In your previous post but one you have made a very good attempt to summarise my position accurately. Thank you..

  Here is the key piece of data you are missing with regard to Gen.9:4. The whole point of Genesis 9 is that god is giving Noah and his descendents permission to kill animals for food, therefore there is no conflict with Lev.17.

  If you bear in mind this simple principle every single word the bible says about blood makes sense: there is no contradiction....

  Blood was sacred insofar as it represented a life that had been taken by a human.
• 
  556

  The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  ... 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  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.
• 
  556

  The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  ... 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  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.