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

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.

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

Crazyguy I dealt with that question here...

There is no contradiction.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

The Bible is clear that God forbade Israel to eat dead animals

How can you eat an animal unless it's dead?

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

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? - Fishy

Not only that, the law permitted Israelites who were under the Law to eat an unbled animal found already dead. The question of why is precisely what I have been answering in detail for the past two years.

You have yet to offer any possible answer.

For forty years after permission was given in Lev.17 the verse you keep quoting in Deut,14 did not even exist. Leviticus 17 was not qualifying Deut.14 it was the other way round! This is crucial and you need to deal with it.

As usual you have completely ignored facts and just keep on repeating the same dogma.

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

The amino acid sequence and the nucleotide sequence of cytochrome c beautifully confirms and refines the tree of life.

What a strange topic for a creationist to raise. I can only assume it is an attempt to poison the well with one of the best examples of evidence for common ancestry.