this picture was taken from the official jw site.
just uploaded this one.
its new and unseen .
Ok two nuts and a cock, I can see that, but they are neither subliminal nor demonic images, just an artist having a laugh.
Look up subliminal. The imagery in question functions as a teaching though under the threshold of consciousness of the average person. But once you see it, it's an 800-lb gorilla.
this picture was taken from the official jw site.
just uploaded this one.
its new and unseen .
I don't buy into most of these subliminal image notions, but there is no doubt in my mind that some Watchtower artist had one hell of a good laugh producing this: Watchtower’s Sexual Subliminal
And, whoever did this art was nut-on correct!
... 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.
When reading the context how can it possibly be, that you eat "inadvertently" an already dead animal or one torn by wild beasts? The elders had to admit, that this is not the case in Lev. 17:15.
But of course they can't agree with a view that goes contrary to what the org is saying.
I showed this reasoning to some close jw friends and also my parents.
The reaction is, that they really start to think and also to question the blood doctrine.
This is why Watchtower so heavily indoctrinates JWs to avoid independent thought and studied opposition.
If you listen you start thinking. When you start thinking you start seeing holes. When you see holes you wonder why you let holed-thinking place you and your children's lives at stake when transfusion of donor blood could help prevent premature death.
What am I saying? I'm saying any fact, factual question or rational concept shared that helps a person think (in this case JWs) helps improve that person's life.
What I like about this presentation by Crofty is that it offers a non-threatening piece of information that is something the average JW has never thought of and it might just cause them to think.
... 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.
Come 'on; Let's be real - people have died because of their JW beliefs. There is no justification for letting people die. This is not an academic debate - this means life and death for more than a few people.
AMEN to THAT!!!
A real frustration is how Watchtower waffles on propositions.
When speaking of baptism as a symbol of dedication Watchtower says, "Being a symbol of something else, it obviously is not as important as what it symbolizes". (See Blood as important as life? )
Yet Watchtower doctrine treats a supposed symbol of life (blood) as an equal to life by insisting JWs should rather die than let this supposed symbol of life be transfused in attempt to prevent their premature death.
Either a symbol of something is as important as what it symbolizes or it is not. It's irrational to assert each.
... 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 think coftys OP does a good job of sidestepping all such rebuttals.
Cofty's suggestion of pointing out the unacceptable aspect of sacrificing blood extracted from a living animal without killing that animal should stir some interesting conversation with a JW.
... 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.
As a witness I would have just said the point remains the sacred nature of life, the blood being respected was just a symbol of that sacredness. It really wasn't about the blood, it was about the life. Blood was being used as a symbol of life.
Watchtower doctrine treats blood as a sacred substance because of its use in Genesis 9 as equivalent with life. A fatal flaw in that proposition is that the equivalence was said of the blood of living animals killed to eat and not of all blood. Specifically I have in mind the massive amounts of blood that would have been freely available all around Noah and his descendants in the form of animal carcasses dead of natural cause. That food was for the most part as edible as flesh of animals killed as food, and that food was loaded with blood, blood the text of Genesis 9 presented no prohibition against eating. This single piece of information obliterates an notion that the biblical God holds the substance of blood as some sacred stuff. He doesn't.
There's another thing often overlooked in the Genesis text about food where God grants permission to eat blood. It's the text of Genesis 6:21. Take a look at it. Think about all the stuff that is eaten as food by creatures and humans. (See: God gave Noah express permission to eat blood and Blood doctrine – thrown under the bus )
... 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 don't see a difference between Gen 9:4, 5 and Lev 17:14. I think I get what you are saying, you can never FULLY drain blood right? Watchtower has addressed that line of reasoning though. I don't remember where, but I remember reading it.
The text of Leviticus 17:14 is a prohibition stated of eating blood of any sort of flesh.
The text of Genesis 9:4 is a prohibition stated of eating blood obtained from one sort of flesh, that of living animals killed to use as food. Another sort of blood the text of Genesis 9 never mentions or addresses is that of animal carcasses dead of natural cause. Nothing in the text of Genesis 9 prohibited Noah from eating all the blood he wanted from that sort of flesh, which was then and always had been readily available and safer to obtain and use as food for the ancients.
There's another critical difference too between Leviticus 17 and the text of Genesis 9. Leviticus 17:13 stipulates that blood obtained from killing animals had to be disposed of by pouring it into the dirt (this speaks of animals killed other than those used for sacrifices). Nothing whatsoever in the text of Genesis 9 required Noah to waste perfectly good blood by throwing it away into the dirt. Noah was free to do whatever he wanted with blood he drained from animals he killed to eat, so long as he did not eat it.
By the way, nothing I've said or presented requires any special measures in relation to bleeding other than general bleeding of animals killed to eat. There will always be residual blood left in flesh.
... 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.
From a medical position JWS feel blood treatment is too risky and more of a risk than non blood even in the face of death.
I strongly disagree with that sentiment.
The moment Watchtower doctrine removes a prohibition against some blood product JWs who need that blood product line up to get it. Take for example the blood product known as cryo-poor plasma (also known as cryosupernatant and cryoprecipitate-reduced plasma). When JWs learn they can accept this product rendered from blood they line up willing to accept it to the tune of 96 percent. (See: Over 96% Accept 99%! )
As for risk, Watchtower makes JWs think they're protected from blood borne pathogens, but it's a horrible lie. (See: Death from TRALI? )
... 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.
@Marvin, it was only the blood and not the flesh that was seen as having the life in it. I have no idea why that is so specific, but Cofty is right. It's in Leviticus 17:14. How they rationalized eating the flesh as not part of it I don't know, that's a good question.
My remarks are not said of requirements presented in Leviticus. My remarks are said of the Noachian decree of Genesis 9. The Noachian decree prohibited eating a living animal without killing it first because it prohibited eating flesh with its life still in it, its blood. How does a person eat flesh from a living animal without eating flesh yet with its life, with its blood without killing the animal first? Blood is flesh.
... 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.
Not at all.
Noah was given permission to kill animals for food with the proviso that he does not also consume the blood. The death of the beast was presumed.
Blood only represents life once the animal is dead. That is why eating an unbled animal found "already dead" was not a crime.
How does a person eat flesh from a living animal without eating flesh yet with its life, with its blood without killing the animal first?
Blood is flesh.
