I will ask this again: Is there ANY passage in the OT or NT that states directly that blood from a living animal would have no sacrificial value? Or do we just deduct that such is the case?
Eden
... 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.
I will ask this again: Is there ANY passage in the OT or NT that states directly that blood from a living animal would have no sacrificial value? Or do we just deduct that such is the case?
Eden
after years of leaked info, the gb has finally decided to publish their own shepherding textbook in epub format.. dear brothers:.
we are pleased to inform you that the shepherding textbook is now available in epub,.
mobi, and pdf format.
Beware of in-house WT-developed spyware embedded into those files ... because no commercial anti-virus software would be able to trace it.
Eden
... 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.
Being unclean is not a penalty, it is a condition. Imagine someone having a communicable infectious disease, or someone that stunk like filth. For whatever reasons, when a person became unclean under the Mosaic law, there were requirements that had to be met to restore his cleanness.
Anyone can see that a law, in order to be enforced, needs some sort of deterrent value to be effective. Without such deterrent value - punishment for violating the law - the purpsose of the law, which is to prevent crimes or actions that offend the society or offend God, is devoided of meaning. You are still to produce evidence that "unclean" is any different than "cerimonially unclean" when it comes to the practical consequences of violating the precepts of the Law.
Plus, you need to justify the desproportionate penalty for eating blood (death) and the penalty for eating unbled meat from an animal found dead in the fields (uncleaness).
Eden
... 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.
So, if there's such a distinction, what was the penalty for "uncleaness", not in the cerimonial sense?
Eden
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
Azor, it's more than just discussing semantics. There are several layers to this discussion, as I'm sure you can appreciate.
eden
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
Cofty,
I gave you the definition from the Merriam-Webster, which directly contradicts your thesis:
Absence: "A state or condition in which something expected, wanted or looked for is not present or doesn't exist".
Rather than being evidence of existence, "absence" is actually closer to non-existence. But fact is, absence is merely the condition of not being present. Tout court.
Just because A may include B, doesn't mean that A equals B.
Eden
... 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.
There is an obvious contradiction between Leviticus 17:15 and Exodus 22:31, don't you agree? After all, what kind of God would command something in such imperative terms (Exodus) and then later, and without recanting from the previous command, concedes that such command may be violated with just a minor defilement of the flesh (Leviticus). Is Yahweh uncertain about it? Or did Moses got it wrong from God in one of the books? Or could it be that there were in fact different scribes with different agendas writing these books in different times?
Eden
do you want to know why i think people don't believe in god?
well i believe people don't want to believe in god because they are scared.
they know that if they finally do gorge the confidence to believe in him, he might discipline them for their skepticism.
So... Allah is the true Yahweh? How do you construct that from the holy book of Islam? Just curious. Your jewish co-believers must be interested in that and inquisitive minds want to know.
Eden
behold the newest effort of the new world society in china:.
.
Behold the newest effort of the New World Society in China:
i would like this to become a permanent thread, because i think there are grounds - at least in europe - to take this matter up to the european court of human rights.
not sure we'll ever get there, but one must start somewhere.
objective: force, by legal means, the watchtower society and the jehovah's witnesses to stop the practice of shunning ex-jehovah's witnesses, on grounds that it constitutes a violation of human rights.. what is needed: all written material ever published by the watchtower society, especially since 1940's, concerning the practice of shunning.
Very interesting, thank you. Although it relates primarily to American Law, not european.
Eden