... 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.
Fisherman according to the Jewish scholar in the video, he states that the life blood is represented by the blood which rushes forth as the animal is being slaughtered. It is the blood with which the animal dies. Check it out. The explanation starts at 3 minutes 40 seconds until 4 minutes 40 seconds. It is 60 seconds of viewing which could save your life.
http://www.chabad.org/multimedia/media_cdo/aid/3317454/jewish/The-Baffling-Bloody-Ban.htm
... 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.
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.
Blood is sacred to God, but only after a life has been taken. The blood flowing through the body of Jesus had absolutely no benefit to humankind while he was still alive. It wouldn't have mattered how many gallons of his blood he potentially could have offered up. It was only through his death that his blood took on any sort of real significance in the eyes of God, Ephesians 1:7.
Fisherman there is a big difference between you believing that all blood is sacred and God viewing it as so.
God's viewpoint on the sacredness of blood is clearly outlined in scripture. His viewpoint is both logical and loving. Your viewpoint is clearly outlined in the watchtower. Who should I trust? Have the watchtower provided me with a proven track record of having always presented information in an accurate and honest way?
... 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.
Do you want to have a spelling bee or a name calling contest on this thread and forget about the topic being discussed?
Stavro, do you want to have a spelling bee or a name calling contest on this thread?
Don't bother me with the topic cofty, I am busy responding to nonsense coming from dub and stavro.
Fisherman I do sympathize with the fact that you are a victim of the environment you grew up in. Your mind has been formatted to think in a vary particular way. But now you can choose to either remain to be a victim or you can attempt to break out of the mould which created you.
I do apologize if you feel I am calling you names, but at the same time, if by me pointing out how you are publicly revealing your inability to grasp the subject, a single life can be saved, then it is my duty to do so.
... 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.
You conclude too much.
Fisherman at the end of the day you have to reach a conclusion. The difference is that Cofty's conclusion harmonizes beautifully with scripture and with loving principles you would expect a God of love to apply. The conclusion that you choose to blindly follow leaves God looking like a fool who hasn't got a clue as to what he is doing or why he is doing it.
Your conclusion also tragically results in a mountain of dead corpses. Jehovah claims to be a God of the living, not of the dead.
... 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.
If you want to have a discussion about what think about me and about what you think about what I say and about what I think about what you think about md a ne about what I say and abou what I think about you and shat I think about what you say and about what you think about what I ghink about you and what you say... , yu can start a new topic about that.
Thank you Fisherman, this is exactly my point. Your mind is no longer able to think clearly! It is because of this people die.
... 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.
Fisherman this is just too important a topic to have your shallow and unloving thoughts dribbled all over the discussion. However, after saying that, what you have accomplished and contributed so far, is to publicly demonstrate the effects years of indoctrination has on the mind's ability to think clearly!
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,.
No - by quoting an outside source it gives the pretence of suggesting that the article is an open and transparent document, supported by secular sources. It provides a faux aura of being serious journalism.
They rely on the lack of research done by the vast majority to allow the potentially embarrassing editing of the original quote and it's context to slip by unnoticed.
It is just that the full quote and the sentence which followed it are so damning, they must have thought about the potential consequences of using it. They surely could have found a similar thought, expressed by someone else in satan's world, which wouldn't have been as damning towards them.
From their past experiences of having been caught out badly, they know people are checking up on them.
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,.
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?
... 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.
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!
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,.
It was Jerome who did the leg work not me, but thanks anyway.
