And here is one that discusses Acts 15:
http://ajwrb.org/bible/acts-15-and-the-apostolic-decree
Keep up the good work, Cofty.
defender of truth
JoinedPosts by defender of truth
-
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.
-
-
defender of truth
-
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.
-
-
defender of truth
This article talks a little about the context of Genesis 9:
http://ajwrb.org/bible/genesis-9-and-the-eternal-covenant"..there is nothing in this scripture that addresses the misuse of human blood, outside of forbidding murder, and that is not what they are implying. Try as you like, you simply cannot formulate the argument that a blood transfusion is a misuse of blood from these verses."
"Additionally, the entire discussion of blood takes place in the context of killing, either animals or humans. This is an important point because a blood transfusion does not involve killing."
-
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.
-
-
defender of truth
Sorry Cofty, but I'm just re-posting this for the benefit of lurkers.
The following points from articles on Ajwrb.org may help to support your argument (bold is mine for emphasis):
"Leviticus 17:15 illustrates that an Israelite could even eat a unbled animal if necessary, and if he had not taken the life. The result was nothing more than ceremonial uncleanness that required bathing."
http://ajwrb.org/bible/new-light-on-blood
..................
" Clearly blood was sacred. By pouring it out upon the ground and covering it, an Israelite hunter showed his respect for the life he had taken by divine permission...
A logical question at this point would be: “What is the significance of the blood?” Is there something special in it, some mystical property? This question can be answered by considering what the law has to say about animals that died of natural causes or perhaps were killed by a predator.
“As for any soul that eats a body [already] dead or something torn by a wild beast, whether a native or an alien resident, he must in that case wash his garments and bathe in water and be unclean until the evening ; and he must be clean.
16 But if he will not wash them and will not bathe his flesh, he must then answer for his error. Leviticus 17:15-16
" If we reason on all of this it becomes evident that the blood itself was not holy...
Blood running through the veins of a living creature represents life, and if someone took a life, he had to pour out the blood and give it back to God.
In the case of an animal that died of itself, no human had taken a life, and this requirement could be waived."
http://ajwrb.org/bible/blood-and-the-mosaic-law
( I strongly recommend that anyone viewing this thread take a look at these pages, especially if you are still a believing Jehovah's Witness. Your LIFE, or even the lives of your children, may depend on it one day. )
-
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.
-
-
defender of truth
Cofty, I appreciate what you are trying to do here.
The following points from articles on Ajwrb.org may help to support your argument (bold is mine for emphasis):"Leviticus 17:15 illustrates that an Israelite could even eat a unbled animal if necessary, and if he had not taken the life. The result was nothing more than ceremonial uncleanness that required bathing."
http://ajwrb.org/bible/new-light-on-blood
..................
" Clearly blood was sacred. By pouring it out upon the ground and covering it, an Israelite hunter showed his respect for the life he had taken by divine permission...
A logical question at this point would be: “What is the significance of the blood?” Is there something special in it, some mystical property? This question can be answered by considering what the law has to say about animals that died of natural causes or perhaps were killed by a predator.
“As for any soul that eats a body [already] dead or something torn by a wild beast, whether a native or an alien resident, he must in that case wash his garments and bathe in water and be unclean until the evening ; and he must be clean.
16 But if he will not wash them and will not bathe his flesh, he must then answer for his error. Leviticus 17:15-16" If we reason on all of this it becomes evident that the blood itself was not holy...
Blood running through the veins of a living creature represents life, and if someone took a life, he had to pour out the blood and give it back to God.
In the case of an animal that died of itself, no human had taken a life, and this requirement could be waived."
http://ajwrb.org/bible/blood-and-the-mosaic-law
( I strongly recommend that anyone viewing this thread take a look at these pages, especially if you are still a believing Jehovah's Witness. Your LIFE, or even the lives of your children, may depend on it one day. ) -
-
-
defender of truth
For any new members who missed this.
-
-
-
defender of truth
I just found the picture that LisaRose referred to when she said.."A nice turn around for the son of God. The org chart of a few years ago didn't even mention him, the governing body was shown right below the big J, with no mention of Jesus at all. A remarkable change really."
For anyone who wants to know what 'chart' she's referring to:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/255557/know-your-place -
-
-
defender of truth
BTTT for newbies -
41
Vermont Sisters Sue Jehovah's Witnesses For Child Sex Abuse
by Watchtower-Free inhttp://digital.vpr.net/post/vermont-sisters-sue-jehovahs-witnesses-child-sex-abuse.
.
.
-
-
defender of truth
Update here for anyone who is interested:
-
4
Judge partially grants, partially denies Jehovah's Witnesses' motion to dismiss
by defender of truth in"bellows falls >> the attorney representing the bellows falls congregation of jehovah's witnesses and the new york-based headquarters of the jehovah's witness faith in a case of alleged sexual abuse said a judge's partial granting of a motion to dismiss makes him confident the entire case will get dismissed.. pietro lynn, of lynn, lynn & blackman in burlington, told the reformer that u.s. district court judge j. garvan murtha decided it was appropriate to dismiss certain legal theories raised by annessa lewis, who is suing the bellows falls congregation and the watchtower bible and tract society of new york, inc., which she claims ignored reports that she and her sister were sexually abused by a congregation member more than 20 years ago.".
news article.
here is a thread covering this story:.
-
-
defender of truth
Another article on the Vermont sisters case here:
"The Jehovah’s Witness church was handed a partial victory in court. The organization is locked in another in a long string of legal battles that tests the ugly assertion that the group allows pedophiles and child molesters to run loose in its ranks."
-
754
Theists, why does God allow suffering..
by The Quiet One in..specifically, the suffering of animals.
you can talk about free will/sin/people choosing to not listen to god etc to explain human suffering being allowed.. but how can you love a god that allows animals, that haven't sinned or chosen to not have anything to do with god, to have their short lives ended in often long, drawn out, painful ways.
i could list stories i've read that would probably make you feel ill, but i'm not looking to shock anyone or start an emotional debate.
-
-
defender of truth
If you are reading this and you have a belief in a God, do you believe in option 1, 2, or 3 from the above post?
Or maybe you believe that God directly changed the animals from vegetarians to carnivores after mankind sinned? We can call that option 4.
In the case of Options 2 and 4... according to your belief, God has deliberately and voluntarily caused all of the animal suffering and species extinction (all that has occurred because of predation anyway), throughout history. If you have studied ancient predators and the fossil record, that is a hell of a lot of suffering and death over millions of years. Even if you believe in option 4, nobody has yet given a logical and moral answer as to why a personal and caring God would allow such suffering, simply because mankind 'sinned'.
And why do you happen to believe that the option you chose is what really happened?
Is it because you believe in some part, or all of the Bible?
Don't worry, I won't bite. This guy might, though ;)
