LiaRose, I agree with you that the descriptions of God in so-called "holy books" reveal much more about mankind than they reveal about the deity they were supposed to be about.
Eden
EdenOne
JoinedPosts by EdenOne
-
284
I'm an ABSENTHEIST. Are you also?
by EdenOne init 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.
-
-
-
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.
-
-
EdenOne
Surely there is a difference between eating unbled meat from an animal found already dead and that of an animal killed by the man. The difference lies not in the blood itself but in the act of taking a life. The animal whose life was intentionally taken by a human should be bled before being eaten, because that blood was symbolic of taking a life, an act that only God can rightfully do. That's why to intentionally eat the blood off unbled meat from a slaughtered animal was punished with death, while eating from the unbled carcass of an animal found already dead resulted in uncleaness. The difference isn't in the blood itself, but in the fact that it represents life - not life in general, but a life TAKEN in a forcefully way by a human.
The case of Jonathan and his men is interesting because it demonstrated a gray area - just how much time should one wait after slaughtering an animal before one could assume it had bled enough to be considered kosher? Some, like Saul, thought not enough time had passed. Others had a more liberal approach, interpreting the Law in a way that letting some blood to be poured into the ground was enough to respect the spirit of the Law. Eventually this interpretation prevailed, and Jonathan and his men not only weren't executed, no mention is made that they became "unclean".
Eden
-
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.
-
-
EdenOne
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
-
39
Re: Shepherding Textbook in Digital Format
by suavojr inafter 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.
-
-
EdenOne
Beware of in-house WT-developed spyware embedded into those files ... because no commercial anti-virus software would be able to trace it.
Eden
-
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.
-
-
EdenOne
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
-
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.
-
-
EdenOne
So, if there's such a distinction, what was the penalty for "uncleaness", not in the cerimonial sense?
Eden
-
284
I'm an ABSENTHEIST. Are you also?
by EdenOne init 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.
-
-
EdenOne
Azor, it's more than just discussing semantics. There are several layers to this discussion, as I'm sure you can appreciate.
eden
-
284
I'm an ABSENTHEIST. Are you also?
by EdenOne init 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.
-
-
EdenOne
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
-
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.
-
-
EdenOne
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
-
87
Why people don't believe in God
by pressman indo 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.
-
-
EdenOne
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