cofty

Joined

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

Posts by cofty

• 
  33

  Irrationality of in important teaching

  by Ireneus in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  jesus used illustration to make things clear.

  hence imagine yourself in a situation which reminds you of an important teaching:.

  you are in a super market, and you are told: “someone has already paid for whatever you have purchased”[as churches teach through their ransom sacrifice].

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  My apologies Perry I should not have written that.

  I meant to write 'You're a sick bastard.'

  Correct grammar is important.
• 
  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

  Anon sounds like he is in a panic with his response. He lists an abundance of references to biblical prohibitions regarding blood without attention to context. This is exactly how the error was made by the Watchtower in the first instance.

  All his points have been answered fully earlier in the thread but I will briefly review them again.

  There are two key passages in Leviticus that refute the Watchtower's position on blood transfusions.

  The first is Leviticus 11 which discusses 'unclean' animals. They are not to be eaten and when they die even a vessel that they fall into is to be destroyed. So if an Israelite finds a dead mouse in his favourite pot, too bad. It has to be smashed.

  Then verse 38 turns to the question of the death of an animal that is 'clean', - 'Now if an animal that you use for food dies...'

  I have lived in the countryside all my adult life and have could hardly count how often I have seen an animal that has simply died for no known reason. I have never once seen an animal that has died of 'an eviscerating accident' and bled out. That suggestion is self-evidently foolish, is not supported by the context and has never been proposed by the Watchtower. I will come to their comments on this verse shortly.

  The Law states that a clean animal that dies can still be used for food but doing so results in temporary uncleanness. The blood of the animal is not considered in Leviticus 11.

  The context of Leviticus 17 is the killing of animals for food or for sacrifice. In every instance the blood must be poured out on the ground or brought to the Tabernacle and offered back to God the lifegiver. Then in verse 15 the Law restates the provision of Leviticus 11:38 by allowing an animal 'found dead' to be eaten, resulting only in temporary uncleanness.

  Reconciling these contrasting Laws about blood is simple if we consider the underlying principle. God gives life to all living things. Blood is a symbol of life. When an animal's life is taken respect for its life must be shown by symbolically returning the life to God. The animal's blood must be poured on the ground or on the altar.

  If an animal is found already dead then nobody is responsible for taking the life and the blood has no sacred symbolism. Eating - or simply touching - the dead body of the animal only results in temporary uncleanness. There was nothing sinful in doing things that caused uncleanness. Having sex, giving birth, menstruation or burying a dead relative all caused uncleanness.

  The only time the Watchtower have addressed this issue they claimed that Lev. 11:38 (they ignored Lev. 17:15) must be about accidentally eating an animal that had not been bled. The fact they have not repeated this in many years is a reflection of how silly this suggestion is. It is also exposed by another aspect of the Law. An additional set of restrictions applied only to the Priesthood who must remain clean to perform their sacred duties. Among other things they were not permitted to avail themselves of the provision to eat an animal found already dead.

  Every single one of the many references to blood listed in WT comments on the subject fits easily into this model. Since donated blood does not depend on the murder of the donor transfusions do not contravene bible principles.

  Fuller discussion of other texts including Acts 15 here...
• 
  33

  Irrationality of in important teaching

  by Ireneus in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  jesus used illustration to make things clear.

  hence imagine yourself in a situation which reminds you of an important teaching:.

  you are in a super market, and you are told: “someone has already paid for whatever you have purchased”[as churches teach through their ransom sacrifice].

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  Your a sick bastard
• 
  33

  Irrationality of in important teaching

  by Ireneus in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  jesus used illustration to make things clear.

  hence imagine yourself in a situation which reminds you of an important teaching:.

  you are in a super market, and you are told: “someone has already paid for whatever you have purchased”[as churches teach through their ransom sacrifice].

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  God wants your love and commitment more than anything else - Perry

  He loves you so much he will burn you day and night in Hell if you fail to return his affection.

  He is like an abusive husband - Love me or else!
  
  
• 
  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

  Thanks Sanchy. Just to acknowledge that I have seen your post. I look forward to posting a detailed response when I get time later.

  Just to say for now that whenever you see phrases like, 'it is abundantly clear that...' alarm bells are ringing.
• 
  33

  Irrationality of in important teaching

  by Ireneus in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  jesus used illustration to make things clear.

  hence imagine yourself in a situation which reminds you of an important teaching:.

  you are in a super market, and you are told: “someone has already paid for whatever you have purchased”[as churches teach through their ransom sacrifice].

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  Spirits are real waton. The occult is a global practice

  Millions of people spend billions of dollars on homeopathic 'medicine'.

  Popularity is not a measure of reality.
  
  
• 
  20

  Ten Commandments - Why nothing about how to treat others?

  by jws in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  there are many words in the bible, but very few of them claim to be written by god himself.. some of them claim to be spoken by god.

  people say the books are inspired by god.

  but what does inspired really mean?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  There are two contradictory lists of 'ten' commandments. One of them usefully forbids boiling a kid in its mother's milk.

  Not one word about why a human should not ever own another human as a possession. Not one fucking word!

  Any intelligent adult could write a more useful set of edicts in ten minutes.

  Does anybody seriously believe that humans were morally illiterate for over 100,000 years until Moses came down the mountain and revealed the startling news that murder and theft was prohibited?

  Hammurabi worked it out centuries before Moses.
• 
  32

  This Article Won't Change Your Mind - Great Read

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this article won’t change your mind - the facts on why facts alone can’t fight false beliefs.

  brilliant article in the atlantic by julie beck discussing the phenomena of cognitive dissonance and how it affects religious and political beliefs.

  it includes some interesting thoughts on how social media has magnified the problem.. spoiler - she is not optimistic about the possibility of successfully reasoning with members of religious cults.. the article also has a link to the 45 minute audio version.. link....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  Is that right?

  If you read my posts on this thread you will already know that you are misrepresenting my words - as usual.

  Later. I'm decorating.
• 
  23

  NWT support of John 1:1. Punching holes in it

  by LevelThePlayingField in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  this is what they have in the new world translation index 6a to support their version of john 1:1. they are not honest even to their own people.

  they list the year of the bible, rendering, and source.

  but there's only two sources that actually lend any type of support to their argument.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  'Mystery' is god-talk for blatant contradiction.

  It is impossible to describe the trinity succinctly in your own words without self-contradiction or heresy.

  It is not a mystery, it's gibberish.
• 
  51

  Without god what is the basis of morality?

  by OneEyedJoe in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i'm sure most here who've questioned or left behind their belief in god have encountered this question - without god, what basis can there be for morality?

  my exwife, when i admitted that i was an atheist, once asked me "if you don't believe in god, what's to stop you from going out and raping and murdering?

  " previously, whenever i got this objection, i would tend to turn it around on the other person with a response along the lines of "if fear of god is the only thing that stops you from murdering, that makes me rather nervous to be around you.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  So Perry I take it your answer is that you have no interest in a sincere conversation on this topic.