Fisherman said :"I do not understand Cofty's point that you are referring to. Explain"
This is from the very first post of this thread. I knew you hadn't read the whole thread..
Food
When an Israelite killed an animal for food he was required to acknowledge that it's life belonged to god. By pouring out it's blood on the ground the life of the animal was symbolically returned to the life-giver.
Sacrifice
The principle behind all of the sacrifices under the Law was vicarious punishment. The penitent was acknowledging that they deserved to die for their sins, but god was willing to accept the life of an animal in his place. The blood that was poured out on the altar represented the life of the sacrificial animal being offered to god.
In both cases blood was only sacred once a life had been taken.
If an Israelite farmer found an animal "already dead" he was free to eat it with impunity. - Lev.11:38,39. Once an animal has been dead for more than a few minutes it is physically impossible to bleed it, so under these circumstances the Law is giving permission to eat unbled meat.
If an Israelite was to bleed an animal without killing it - as the Maasai do - and take the blood to the altar, the blood would have no sacrificial value for the simple reason that no life had been taken.
This is the important detail that the Watchtower have overlooked.
Blood is not intrinsically sacred; it is only sacred insofar as it represents a life that has been taken.
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
Fisherman said: "But the person who does something deliberately, whether he is native-born or a foreign resident, is blaspheming Jehovah and must be cut off from among his people..."
"That goes for an Israelite intentionally eating a dead or torn animal"
You must be asserting that Leviticus 17:15 involved a hunter unintentionally eating a dead or torn animal, then? Otherwise you are not making any sense.
-
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
Here it is again:
"Going back to the point Cofty was making in the first place, can you show me one verse where God required blood to be poured out (on the ground or on an altar), except for a situation where a life had been taken by someone?"
To be clear..
A life was always taken, whether on the altar or elsewhere, before the blood was poured out. It had no value except that it represented the life of the animal being taken.
-
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 Fisherman, you failed the challenge.
The animal was killed on the altar, then the blood was poured on the altar.
The situation was that of a sacrifice, and someone had to kill it before any of it's blood was to be poured out.
Life taken - Blood poured out.
Would you like to try again?
-
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
Fisherman:
"Regarding blood, show me one verse where God allowed Israel to eat blood. Unbled meat sometimes, but never blood."
It was established in the Original Post that we can accept that God did not allow Israel to eat blood, only unbled meat at times. If that is the only thing you can say on this subject though, that's fine...
Going back to the point Cofty was making in the first place, can you show me one verse where God required blood to be poured out (on the ground or on an altar), except for a situation where a life had been taken by someone?
-
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
David Faucetton March 6, 2015 at 12:57 PM said:
" Lev. 7:26 says:
'You must not eat any blood in any places where you dwell.'
It would be highly unlikely that an Israelite would have unbled meat ‘in his dwelling’. [ see my footnote at the end of this post* ]If he was in his dwelling there should be plenty of food, including bled meat, available to eat.
As noted Lev. 17:13 discusses the situation where someone is hunting, perhaps days away from his home.
[ https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+17%3A13-15&version=NIV ]
If he has been unsuccessful in killing an animal he might be in danger of starvation.
In that case if he came across an animal already dead he was allowed to eat it. Jehovah did not require an Israelite to starve to death just because he was unsuccessful as a hunter."This comment was taken from the end of this article:
http://ajwrb.org/bible/questions-from-readers
To reiterate the point I am trying to make here: in a situation where life is in danger, or at least where the person needed to eat something,
even though the animal has obviously not been drained of blood and the hunter would be aware of that fact, it was allowed.The hunter's first choice would undoubtedly be to make their own fresh kill, then drain the blood and pour it out to God. It would be safer, and would be in line with his religious beliefs.
But even God's Law clearly made an allowance for a person who needed to eat, who likely did not want to disobey the command made in the Law, but could do so when it was necessary.
Otherwise a hunter could starve to death.
Once he was back at home, the hunter could then make the decision to reject food that still had blood in it, because there were other options available.
His life was not in danger.
Can anyone see the comparison between this example and that of someone who NEEDS a blood transfusion in a life-or-death situation?
* Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
"in any of your dwellings;
this shows that this law is not to be restrained to creatures slain in sacrifice in the tabernacle, and to the blood of them, but to be understood of all such as were slain in their own houses for food, and the blood of them."This is important to understand the context of the command at Leviticus 7:26.
-
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
Fisherman said:
"The person became unclean as a result of violating the law. (He did not become ceremonially unclean. He became unclean.)"
....
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
"Neither shall ye make yourselves unclean.—But not only is it disgusting to eat these abominable creatures, but their carcases defile and debar him who comes in contact with them from entering into the sanctuary and from partaking of the sacrificial meal."
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible- Leviticus 11:43
"... that ye should be defiled thereby; in a ceremonial sense."
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/leviticus/11-43.htm
The context of Leviticus 11:43 does seem to indicate it would make someone ceremonially unclean, so your statement does not seem to make any sense.
Assuming that you meant that anyone who ate these swarming creatures would be, not just ceremonially unclean, but also (at that time) unclean and loathsome in Gods eyes.. What of it?
The command in Exodus was a general instruction to not eat an animal's dead body, found torn apart by another animal. This could happen in or around Israelite dwelling places.
That is good hygiene, as SAHS pointed out.
The instruction to bathe in Leviticus 17:15 was after an animal had been found dead by someone specifically whilst they were hunting for food, according to the context.
And how does Leviticus 17:15 even relate to Leviticus 7:26?
Chapter 7 is clearly talking about animal sacrifices, animals killed and offered as sacrifices in Israelite dwelling places. (Anyone can read the chapter themselves and see that).
Without a clear explanation of your specific point relating to this topic, you are wasting space.
Please explain, and state your point clearly. -
68
Help needed: Written material regarding shunning of DF'd and DA'd individuals
by EdenOne ini 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.
-
-
defender of truth
Edenone, you might find this interesting, at least some of the wording. I recommend that you sign it anyway.
-
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
Fisherman said:
"Seems that everyone agrees that based on the Bible it was not ok for Noah or Israel to eat blood from living or dead animals?"
No, not everyone agrees. Have you read the whole thread?
Ok, I'll repost this post of mine from page 8..
"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
...........................
"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
-
2
Please give your support to this brave JW, he's publically 'come out' on Facebook with a moving letter.
by defender of truth in"i do not really know how to start this letter, but this is something i have to do for myself.
if this offends you, hopefully someday you will be able to accept me.
growing up as a jehovah's witness, i have been told many times whom i can and cannot be.
-
-
defender of truth
"I do not really know how to start this letter, but this is something I have to do for myself. If this offends you, hopefully someday you will be able to accept me.
Growing up as a Jehovah's Witness, I have been told many times whom I can and cannot be. There are so many standards set by both society and the religious community in regards to what is "right or "normal." We are told from a very young age how to do right in our lives and sometimes that means changing parts of who we truly are in order to fit in. It has taken me awhile to realize that this is truly a devastating way to live. This past year it's been slowly hitting me that I cannot fight who I really am anymore. It's a battle that I'll never win. This being said, I have made the choice to stop battling who I really am in order to make others happy.
I would like to let everyone know that I, David James Gilbert, am bisexual.
I've read many stories about people coming out of the closet, so I'm prepared for the worst reaction possible. I'm 100% okay if I lose support from my family, my friends, and my team. It is my choice to be myself and it is your choice if you support me or not. I understand that it might be difficult for you to accept.
I know people will have a lot of questions, so please read this whole letter so that you understand everything. Also, feel free to contact me once you have read it over if you have remaining questions.
I have always known that I was different. But I always thought it was just a phase, something that I would grow out of. Now that I'm older, however, I understand that will never happen. Over the last few months, I have made a few new friends and have received support from an old friend who has encouraged me to take this final step in making this public statement. I now see why it's very important for me to do this and to stop fighting the truth.
My whole life I've been taught that "being gay is wrong" and that it is a choice; an urge that will go away if you ignore it. Well, I would like you to think about things we actually choose in life. We choose what we eat, who we are friends with, what we want to do with our lives, and so on. Things we cannot choose are what color our eyes are, if we have crooked teeth, who our parents are, or even what gender we are sexually attracted to. That's right—the gender you're attracted to is not a choice. You didn't choose to be straight just like gay people don't choose to be gay.
I wish I could help you to better understand how emotionally difficult this process is. The fear of judgment tears me apart every day of my life. We live in a world that convinces you that being homosexual or bisexual is wrong. But why should I have to hide who I truly am when most people do not? What I have come to realize is that what is socially acceptable is not always right.
As I make this announcement, the one thing I hope you understand is that I'm still the same person today that I have always been. I am still the guy you played basketball with, the college runner, the ASB nerd, the friend who invited you to the lake every weekend, the person who strives to be better than everyone in everything (even though he knows the chances are low), the guy you went to dances with or dated, your teammate, volleyball friend, and so on. I am still that person. The only difference is that I have finally accepted myself. For once in my life, I can finally tell myself that I'm happy with who I am today. If you choose to see me as a different person, you have that right. However, just try and put yourself in my situation for a moment and remember that this has never been a choice.
One goal I have is that this letter might reach other people who might have this same struggle that I have had my whole life.
If you are gay or bisexual, I will share a message that helped give me the final push on making this decision to go public with who I really am: "Please don't give up hope on life or yourself. You're very special to me, and I am working very hard to make this life a better and safer place for you to live in. Promise me you'll keep trying. My son gave up. I hope you won't." These words were said by Mary Griffith, whose son killed himself because she and the rest of his family didn't support his homosexuality. His family and friends thought this was a choice he made and judged him for it. They did not understand that he was born this way and could not change himself. Some guys or girls who try and fight this truth have such little support and get pushed around so much that they give up.
I'm begging you to not be the next statistic. This is not something you should have to fight your whole life. If this is who you really are, you should release the burden of your big secret. You have every right to pursue who you want go after whom you want to go after, love whomever you want, be your genuine self, and not go to bed every night hating yourself.
If you ever need to talk, please feel free to contact me, and I will do everything I can to help you and be by your side in this journey."
You can find David Gilbert on Twitter @Davidjgilberttt or on Facebook. You can also email him at [email protected]
http://www.outsports.com/2015/4/5/8344915/david-gilbert-lewis-clark-college-runne