Posts by stavro

39

July's watchtower leaves out some important info from a quote!

by stavro in

jerome over on discuss the truth has picked up on something interesting.. in the july watchtower on page 28 of the article entitled “winning the battle for your mind” the following statement is made “keep in mind that satan does not want you to think clearly or reason things out well.

because propaganda is likely to be most effective, says one source, if people… are discouraged from thinking critically.”.

the quote comes from a book entitled: “media and society in the twentieth century: a historical introduction by lyn gorman, david mclean" the watchtower however, chose to leave out a portion of the quote.. the full quote is "therefore, it is likely to be most effective if people do not have access to multiple sources of information and if they are discouraged from thinking critically.. the following sentence which the watchtower also decided was best not to include states,.

stavro

This scientist must be a big wheel. It amuses me that the media sorry...writing department thinks it is necessary to support an actually banal thought namely that someones critical thinking could be hindered in our century by media manipulation, half troughts and fake news by partial citing of a worldly book and not the watchtowers' grey bible itself.
This excessive addiction to cite someone for anything of the Watchtower leads to bad results. There would be more important subjects where citation would be necessary.

I was thinking this myself. There was absolutely no need to back up such a straightforward and obvious statement by using an outside source. It makes me wonder if someone on the inside was looking for an excuse to use an incomplete quote, knowing full well that the complete quote would be discovered and exposed.

The full quote and particularly the sentence which followed it (“Michael Balfour has suggested that the "best touchstone for distinguishing propaganda from science is whether a plurality of sources of information and of interpretations is being discouraged or fostered.") expose just too perfectly how the watchtower themselves are guilty of dispensing and propagating propaganda.

Is someone on the inside trying to get a message out? Or are they really that naive?

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.

stavro

That depends on whether or not wt is correct on abstinence from ingesting blood via blood transfusion is actually required by God.

Watchtower’s self-recorded history is one long testament to their inability to accurately interpret scripture, culminating in their now comical attempt to understand two little words “this generation”.

The lack of certainty as to whether they have correctly understood God’s command concerning blood, has been established way beyond the point of reasonable doubt!

It is only their arrogance combined with extreme cowardice which prevents them from admitting this. The problem is that, unlike their self-confessed inaccurate interpretation of other scriptures, where sometimes no one gets hurt, this one actually costs lives, thousands of lives!

Fisherman, just because they have blood on their hands, doesn’t mean you have to as well. Don’t be an accomplice to their crime!

39

July's watchtower leaves out some important info from a quote!

by stavro in

jerome over on discuss the truth has picked up on something interesting.. in the july watchtower on page 28 of the article entitled “winning the battle for your mind” the following statement is made “keep in mind that satan does not want you to think clearly or reason things out well.

because propaganda is likely to be most effective, says one source, if people… are discouraged from thinking critically.”.

the quote comes from a book entitled: “media and society in the twentieth century: a historical introduction by lyn gorman, david mclean" the watchtower however, chose to leave out a portion of the quote.. the full quote is "therefore, it is likely to be most effective if people do not have access to multiple sources of information and if they are discouraged from thinking critically.. the following sentence which the watchtower also decided was best not to include states,.

stavro

It was Jerome who did the leg work not me, but thanks anyway.

39

July's watchtower leaves out some important info from a quote!

by stavro in

jerome over on discuss the truth has picked up on something interesting.. in the july watchtower on page 28 of the article entitled “winning the battle for your mind” the following statement is made “keep in mind that satan does not want you to think clearly or reason things out well.

because propaganda is likely to be most effective, says one source, if people… are discouraged from thinking critically.”.

the quote comes from a book entitled: “media and society in the twentieth century: a historical introduction by lyn gorman, david mclean" the watchtower however, chose to leave out a portion of the quote.. the full quote is "therefore, it is likely to be most effective if people do not have access to multiple sources of information and if they are discouraged from thinking critically.. the following sentence which the watchtower also decided was best not to include states,.

stavro

Jerome over on discuss the truth has picked up on something interesting.

In the July watchtower on page 28 of the article entitled “winning the battle for your mind” the following statement is made “Keep in mind that Satan does not want you to think clearly or reason things out well. Why? Because propaganda is likely to be most effective, says one source, if people… are discouraged from thinking critically.”

The quote comes from a book entitled: “Media and Society In the Twentieth Century: A Historical Introduction By Lyn Gorman, David McLean" The watchtower however, chose to leave out a portion of the quote.

The full quote is "Therefore, it is likely to be most effective if people do not have access to multiple sources of information and if they are discouraged from thinking critically.

The following sentence which the watchtower also decided was best not to include states,

“Michael Balfour has suggested that the "best touchstone for distinguishing propaganda from science is whether a plurality of sources of information and of interpretations is being discouraged or fostered."

Here is a link to Jerome’s post http://www.discussthetruth.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2226

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.

stavro

Cofty points out that since God gave permission to the Gentiles to eat animals found dead (unbled!) Det 14:21, God also established by doing so that the blood of such dead animals is not sacred because had it been sacred it could not be eaten along with the flesh by anyone including Gentiles without violating God’s law to mankind (Gen 9:4)
In Nu 15:31, the penalty for deliberately violating any command stated in the law was death, but even if someone could be executed for eating animals found dead (unbled) for deliberately doing so, the person would be executed for despising God’s command; that would be the charge against such person and that would be the reason for his guilt and execution –despising God’s command; eating an animal found dead (unbled) would not be the reason for such person’s execution because there is no penalty stated in the law for doing so except the resulting state of ceremonial uncleanness –but not death or any other penalty. Albeit the act of a Jew eating an animal found dead did not incur the death penalty and that is the point –according to cofty.

This is the point, God only viewed someone as being ceremonial unclean as a consequence of eating the carcass of an animal found dead. God didn’t view them as worthy of the death penalty. If they had actually broken God’s law, then he wouldn’t be telling them to go and wash, he would be commanding that the person be taken outside and stoned to death. God telling the person to just go and wash actually makes him seem more reasonable and loving. It is also an indication that the reason the person was only unclean was because God didn’t view the eating of the blood as very important. Why? because the blood from an animal found dead was not sacred.

If God viewed all blood as sacred, then the perfect life of Jesus was contained in his blood. There was no reason for Jesus to die. All that God’s law would have required was for Jesus to pass satan’s trials and then hand over a cup of his sacred, perfect and tested blood. The scriptural fact is that the blood of Jesus only had sacred sacrificial value once his life was taken Ephesians 1:7; 1 Peter 1:18,19.

Cofty's explanation solves the problem of God apparently speaking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time, without having to rely upon the claim that people sometimes accidentally eat the carcasses of animals found dead. The choice is yours, Cofty and life or Fisherman and death.

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.

stavro

Deuteronomy 14:21) 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."
Apparently, no consequences for the goy! God allowed the eating of found dead unbled animals - and according to cofty -- its blood.
Compare Gen 9:4

Fisherman there is a big difference between an ability to state what the laws says and an ability to understand why it is saying it. Throughout the discussion you have only ever been able to demonstrate one of these two abilities.

I honestly don't believe you haven't seen the light on this issue. It is just too bright not to see.

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.

stavro

All that cofty is saying is that it is ok to eat blood just as long as the blood does not come from an animal slaughtered for food.

Fisherman you are not fooling anyone other than yourself. Cofty said there were consequences for eating an unbled dead animal found while out hunting. You had to go home and have a bath and change your clothes.

The watchtower claims the same thing except they believe you only ate because you accidentally tripped over and fell face first with your mouth open onto the carcass. You are welcome to believe that if you want, but don't waste everyone else's 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.

stavro

Cofty not only would they grasp it immediately, they would hail it as one of the most glorious flashes of divine light ever to be bestowed upon the organisation.

The funny thing is, It actually makes God seem like he knew what he was doing all along. God comes out of this looking good. There is nothing negative about it. Well the only negative thing is that it is you and not them that is saying it.

Fisherman has done everyone a favor by trying desperately to find holes in it. He has proven just how logical and watertight the argument is.

His refusal to answer your question demonstrates his need to avoid understanding why God even talked about blood in the first place. This is irresponsible! makes a mockery out of God and ultimately results in the needless loss of life.

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.

stavro

Fisherman you can't interpret God's laws concerning blood without first understanding why he had a law concerning blood in the first place. If you view all blood as being sacred, no matter where it comes from, then it is normal you end up having to try and justify why the scriptures appear to be contradictory.

Starting with the view that blood only has value if a life has been taken, prevents the scriptures relating to blood from appearing to be contradictory in the first place. It is only God's view of blood and not the watchtower's, that's important.

I am struggling to understand what it is which prevents you from seeing this. Watchtower's reasoning on the subject makes God seem foolish, a God who makes laws just for the sake of it, without rhyme or reason. Cofty's explanation provides you with the means to be an intellectually satisfied christian.

Don't fool yourself, if the watchtower could go back in time and change their reasoning they would! Just because as an organisation they have dug themselves a hole too deep to crawl out of, doesn't mean that you personally have to crawl in after them.

If it was David Splane and not Cofty who presented this reasoning you would gladly accept it as superior new light and you would be out of that hole like a bolt of lightning.

Fisherman your loyalty to man over God is badly misplaced and may even end up in your needless loss of life or even the life of someone foolish enough to follow you.

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.

stavro

Fisherman the strength in Cofty's argument lies in how God views blood. If he viewed the blood of an animal found dead in the same way as he viewed the carcass, then it explains why both eating the blood or touching the carcass only lead to uncleanness.

In the context of someone who is out hunting, (Lev. 17:13-17) the watchtower's statement that uncleanness was only a provision for someone who accidentally ate the dead animal is both desperate and laughable.

God only viewed blood as having value once a life was taken. It is only form this perspective that the scriptures relating to blood can be understood.

This is why Cofty's 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?" gets right to the heart of the issue.