... 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 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
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.
By the way cytochrome C is one of the best examples of evidence for common ancestry.
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.
Source?
... 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.
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!
... 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, 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.
... 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?
