The following article, is one of the best efforts to defend one of the most absurd doctrines of the Watchtower Society:
http://www.truetheology.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=172
May be the writer was inspired in Freddy's thoughts.
The art of defending Watchtower's lies
by opusdei1972 18 Replies latest watchtower medical
-
opusdei1972
-
opusdei1972
I have these two interesting phrases, so I joined them:
Due to the mercy of God, as displayed in all of the legal provisions of his property and the property of the Israelites in general, what David did was not “wrong” in God’s eyes, even though “technically” unlawful............Does that mean that we therefore have the right to indiscriminately use blood if a need is established? No.
Did you see the ethical contradictions in the above sentences?
-
Phizzy
There is so much wrong with hat article that I have seen, and I have only read a bit of it. It is flawed at every turn, but worse, in places it is downright dishonest.
Just one example, the claim that the Jews saw their laws on Blood as binding upon all men. The Apostle Paul, a practicing Jew of the first Century, says not so.
-
opusdei1972
The Apostle Paul was an apostate from the Jewish viewpoint. -
cofty
His conclusion...
...it should be apparent beyond doubt that blood is considered God’s special property and he demands an accounting for it because of its sacred life equivalent status. Due to that, Christians must not violate that sacred property of God
My article on blood exposes the error of his position....
An object may be precious for one or both of two reasons. It may have intrinsic value, or it may have value conferred on it by its owner. A gold wedding ring has both kinds of value. It has intrinsic value because of what it is made of but it also has an even greater value to its owner because of what it represents.JW’s treat blood as if it is intrinsically valuable; it is this assumption that is their fundamental mistake.
1] When an animal was killed for food its blood was sacred and must be poured out on the ground. The rationale for this is the symbolic value of the blood in representing the life that has been taken
2] If an animal was found “already dead” its unbled flesh could be eaten with impunity; this resulted only in temporary uncleanness.Edited to add - When blood is donated for a transfusion no life has been taken and therefore the blood has no sacred value.
-
Phizzy
Do you think that the Jews thought that their Law on blood applied to all mankind Opus ? -
-
opusdei1972
We may infer that Jews were not worry if gentiles ate blood, because they let them to eat unbled animals. -
opusdei1972
Currently I don't think that eat blood is a sin, because I don't believe that YHWH is God, but a false god. -
cofty
Phizzy - I do.
Remember that when foreigners or "alien residents" were in Israel there were certain basic laws that they were required to observe. These could be summed up as fornication, idolatry and blood.
When the early church tried to resolve the dilemma of how Jewish and Gentile christians could live in unity, it was this principle that was the basis of the decision at Acts 15.
On the other hand, eating the flesh of an unbled animal found "already dead" carried no punishment. It simply resulted in uncleanness and barred the Israelite from worship until the next day. For this reason Moses suggested they sell an animal found "already dead" to a foreigner.
Members of the priesthood whose job it was to carry out sacred duties were not permitted to eat an unbled animal found "already dead".
