When a creationist implies that evolution involves a chimp becoming a human it is a sure sign they have never read a single page of a single book by a serious scientist in their life.
Posts by cofty
-
205Mathematically Measuring Evolution.
by towerwatchman inmathematically 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.
-
-
-
205
Mathematically Measuring Evolution.
by towerwatchman inmathematically 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
There is an embarrassment of riches of fossils showing the transition from from ray fins via lobe fins to limbs.
When a creationist claims such fossils don't exist it is proof they are living in a fact-free bubble.
-
205
Mathematically Measuring Evolution.
by towerwatchman inmathematically 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
When somebody's ignorance of a difficult topic is matched only by their self-confidence it is impossible to help them.
It's very clear you have learned everything you think you know about evolution from creationist sources.
-
315
Atheism = self defeating.
by towerwatchman inatheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
-
-
cofty
Total waste of time.
-
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
dont have time to read trash
You have spent your life reading trash.
Question 1
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?
Question 2.
For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you for making atonement for your lives on the altar; for, as life, it is the blood that makes atonement. - Lev.17:11According to this verse an Israelite farmer could have brought gallons of blood drained from live animals to the altar to atone for his sins.
Do you agree or not Fishy?
-
315
Atheism = self defeating.
by towerwatchman inatheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
-
-
cofty
The problem seems to be that the only thing you have every read is pro evolutionary propaganda.
I spent most of my life immersed in creationism before I began to study evolution.
Difference is I was humble enough to admit my mistake. You on the other hand...
I normally debate creationists in the forum but you are too ignorant and arrogant to waste time on.
Evolution is a fact. It does not require the consent of the superstitious and wilfully ignorant.
-
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
how vs why One distinction about the blood from an animal found dead is that it could not be poured out. Another distinction is that if an Israelite ate a dead unbled carcass he became ceremonially unclean by doing so. - Fishy
Yes that is correct. When an animal has died its blood cannot be poured out. Therefore if you eat it you are also going to eat its blood. Amazingly the person who did this did not get cut off. Why not?
He became unclean - so what? Doing stuff that made you unclean was not a sin or a crime. Having sex with your wife made you ceremonially unclean, touching a dead animal made you unclean. Lots of things did.
But all of the law needs to be considered not just the verses that you like with your explanations about them.
I have thoroughly considered every single one of them in this thread as you are well aware.
30 “‘But the person who does something deliberately, whether he is native-born or a foreign resident, is blaspheming Jehovah and must be cut off from among his people.
Eating an unbled animal found dead was not a sin so this verse has no relevance.
21 “You must not eat any animal that was found dead. You may give it to the foreign resident who is inside your cities, and he may eat it, or it may be sold to a foreigner. For you are a holy people to Jehovah your God.
I discussed this verse at length. You ignored my answer and now you pretend I haven't answered it. This is why I call you a coward and a liar.
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. You should throw it to the dogs.
This verse is about an animal torn by wild beasts. It was bled. It has no relevance to our conversation.
You have not shown that blood is not sacred to God. You have only shown in your argument that blood from a creature that is not slaughtered for food should not be -based on your argument.
I have never attempted to show that blood is not sacred to god. I have consistently said the exact opposite.
Now my two questions...
-
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
Again, you conclude in your argument that blood is not sacred to God. - Fishy
I have consistently said the exact opposite throughout this thread. Blood is sacred to god and anybody who broke god's law on blood was to be cut off.
Your argument does not show that. Lev 17 shows that an animal slaughtered for food must be drained of its blood before it can be eaten.
This is gibberish. I have no idea what you are trying to say. Do you? Just to be clear an animal killed for food had to be bled otherwise the culprit was to be cut off.
It also shows that if an unbled animal is eaten by an Israelite, he is required to bathe ceremonially.
Yes I have said this hundreds of times. If an animal was found dead and eaten unbled there was no punishment. The person had to relax in a nice warm bath and put on a clean robe. Lamb cutlets, hot bath, clean clothes = luxury.
Nothing is said about blood not being sacred to God. You conclude that in you argument.
Blood is not even mentioned in Lev.17:15 It is all about ceremonial cleanness not blood
It does not say that you can take any sort of blood and eat it or do anything with it.
Of course it doesn't. I have said that repeatedly. It DOES say that if you ate the unbled carcass of an animal found already dead there was no punishment.
You confuse your conclusions from what you read in Bible from what the text says.
No I have consistently made a clear distinction and stuck rigidly to the word of scripture.
You do that in every thread even as the venetator of theory of evolution that you worship- but that is another topic.
What is a venetator?
Your reconciliaton of scriptures and all the other trash that you post is only your opinion and nothing more.
Every single word is solidly based on a simple reading of the text with respect for the context.
Now - my two questions.
-
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
From my OP....
1. Blood was sacred under The Law.
2. Blood represents life.
3. It was a capital offense to use blood for any purpose other than to offer it as a sacrifice on the altar.
4. All of the restrictions about blood are just as binding on Christians as they were on OT Jews.
I have conceded all of the above for the sake of discussion.
My two questions remain.
-
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
2 hours later - So I was correct. Not even an attempt at answering either of the two questions.
You are a coward and a liar.
Question 1
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?
Question 2.
For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you for making atonement for your lives on the altar; for, as life, it is the blood that makes atonement. - Lev.17:11According to this verse an Israelite farmer could have brought gallons of blood drained from live animals to the altar to atone for his sins.
Do you agree or not Fishy?