The voluntary donation of blood of an unharmed person for the medical benefit of another is not prohibited in any text. Drawing parallels of the blood of slaughtered animals to blood transfusions is not a rational conclusion. The lack of concern about eating the blood in unbled animals illustrates the Levites did not have a pathological hemophobia. Theirs was a religious taboo with a specific context. If any parallel exists of our days with the pre-scientific context of the writings, it may be that, in the eyes of people of both ages, blood saves lives.
peacefulpete
JoinedPosts by peacefulpete
-
203
My Explanation of Why They Got it Wrong About Blood Using Only the NWT
by cofty in10 " any israelite or any alien living among them who eats any bloodi will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people.
12 therefore i say to the israelites, "none of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood.
15 'anyone, whether native-born or alien, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then he will be clean.
-
-
-
14
God Talks to Himself in the Trinity Bible
by BoogerMan inpsalm 110:1 (niv) “the lord says to my lord: “sit at my right hand until i make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”” .
psalm 110:1 (trv) “the lord god almighty says to a third of himself: “sit at my/our right hands until i make our/your enemies a footstool for our/your feet.”” (but don't tell the other third) .
-
-
peacefulpete
Religions need some counterintuitive elements to elevate the system to a spiritual religion. If it completely made sense it becomes mundane. That is one reason the JW church fails to invoke strong feelings of the numinous. Its power to influence is centered only in repetition and group dynamics. That works ok but rarely does it evoke a sense of the 'divine' or deep inspiration.
The Trinity doctrine certainly appears to be an overlay upon the Bible, but at the same time it better explains a great number of passages than Arianism. It is for a reason it is regarded as the Mystery of the Trinity. It isn't supposed to be obvious nor easily grasped. In the world of religion that doesn't mean it isn't 'true'. The earliest Christians believed it was their place to decode the sayings they inherited, to be inspired by them, not to literalize them, to neuter them to becoming merely texts. This why Christianity bloomed into a rich diverse cultural movement. It took centuries for this to become muted through hierchal authoritarian leadership which sought conformity and dogma.
Yes, the doctrine of the Trinity in its final polished form was voted into canon many years after the writings that inspired it, but it is at the same time a product of the writings. Groups like the WT were born in a modern Western context and fail to understand the more ancient mysterious nature of early Christianity.
-
203
My Explanation of Why They Got it Wrong About Blood Using Only the NWT
by cofty in10 " any israelite or any alien living among them who eats any bloodi will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people.
12 therefore i say to the israelites, "none of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood.
15 'anyone, whether native-born or alien, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then he will be clean.
-
-
peacefulpete
I can't help myself from reminding anyone interested in this topic that these "laws" were created around the time of the Babylonian Exile (possibly some tradition dates from the Assyrian exile of Israel) and continued to be revised until the 3rd century BCE. The retrojection of these "Mosaic" laws into the deep past is an artifice of the Levite elite who composed this material. It is true that some elements of Leviticus and Deuteronomy preserve more ancient sentiment, but apart from a few poems little can be said with certainty to be pre-Exilic.
-
169
Are the statistics out yet?
by slimboyfat inisn’t it about time they released the report for the service year?
or have they stopped publishing it?
did they released selected figures at the annual meeting as they usually do, such as the memorial attendance or record number of pioneers?
-
-
peacefulpete
I feel that those who misled me back then, including many org leaders, were sincere. However, the org is today deceptive and cold and self-serving.
Magnum...I see many posters mirror those sentiments. Problem is those sentiments are from people who left decades apart. The change of opinion about the church are the result of a person's perception and their experience, not really to the changes in the church. The church 'worked' for you when you were younger, but it no longer does. That may be because of your widening of your heart or your mind. Simply said, the church never really was the place we imagined when we were new converts or young people raised into it.
-
203
My Explanation of Why They Got it Wrong About Blood Using Only the NWT
by cofty in10 " any israelite or any alien living among them who eats any bloodi will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people.
12 therefore i say to the israelites, "none of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood.
15 'anyone, whether native-born or alien, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then he will be clean.
-
-
peacefulpete
Blood was ceremonially equated with life in living things. Life was sacred, blood was sacred only through connection with life. Blood in a found dead animal no longer had this ceremonial significance. Therefore, the prohibition on eating a carcass wasn't blood related at all. It was the death apart from approved purposes, slaughter for food or sacrifice, that made it ceremonially unclean. Much like the uncleanness of fallen soldiers was not because of the blood in their bodies.
Since the animal found dead was not slaughtered for food or sacrifice, it being not bled was not relevant. It is however relevant to a modern believer trying to determine whether passages prohibiting the eating of blood of slaughtered animals applies to blood transfusions.
-
203
My Explanation of Why They Got it Wrong About Blood Using Only the NWT
by cofty in10 " any israelite or any alien living among them who eats any bloodi will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people.
12 therefore i say to the israelites, "none of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood.
15 'anyone, whether native-born or alien, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then he will be clean.
-
-
peacefulpete
Perhaps of interest is how the Koran addresses this: Surah16,115
He has forbidden to you only carrion, and blood, and the flesh of swine, and that over which any name other than God's has been invoked; but if one is driven [to it] by necessity - neither coveting it nor exceeding his immediate need - verily, God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace.
Many conservative Muslims do interpret the prohibition of eating blood as relevant to transfusions. However, they also understand necessity for the preservation of life to be of greater importance. Shamefully, blood donations Muslims provide are to be given for other Muslims only and not sold to a commercial company.
-
203
My Explanation of Why They Got it Wrong About Blood Using Only the NWT
by cofty in10 " any israelite or any alien living among them who eats any bloodi will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people.
12 therefore i say to the israelites, "none of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood.
15 'anyone, whether native-born or alien, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then he will be clean.
-
-
peacefulpete
Vander....The Deuteronomists were repeating/revising the Levitical code. Thats why it's called Deuteronomy "2nd law'. They made many alterations. The point Coffy was making is the Leviticus passage makes no distinction between merely touching and eating a carcass, the ritual uncleanness was due the contact with death. The Deuteronomists prohibited Jews alone from eating it, without mentioning a ritual remedy. Perhaps ironically the Leviticus code does not differentiate the foreigner from the Jew in regards eating found dead animals but the Deuteronomists did by allowing the sale of found dead animals for food to nonIsraelites living among them.
Leviticus 11:40
Whoever eats from the carcass must wash his clothes and will be unclean until evening, and anyone who picks up the carcass must wash his clothes and will be unclean until evening.
Leviticus 17:15
And any person, whether native or foreigner, who eats anything found dead or mauled by wild beasts must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean until evening; then he will be clean.**Contrast the Deuteronomist who was much more concerned about Jews only:
Deuteronomy 14:21
You are not to eat any carcass; you may give it to the foreigner residing within your gates, and he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner. For you are a holy people belonging to the LORD your God.The fat of an animal found dead or mauled by wild beasts may be used for any other purpose, but you must not eat it.
(No mention of avoiding the carcass because of uncleaness)
-
24
The Kingdom of God - when in Heaven ? -- according to Jesus
by wantingtruth injohn said "...the truth came through jesus christ" ?
--------the kingdom of god---------- .
"the kingdom of god is near.
-
-
peacefulpete
The writers of most of the NT imagined Jesus was coming to liberate Israel and kill their enemies and so had him say things like, "soon" and "you will see" "this generation" etcetera. To believe the Kingdom was going to be any moment is the very theme of the Gospels, Revelation and most of the epistles.
It was their disappointment that necessitated a revision. The Kingdom was spiritual, the Kingdom was only in heaven, the kingdom was the church. Or in the case of Adventists, the kingdom is very slow. Pick one.
-
14
God Talks to Himself in the Trinity Bible
by BoogerMan inpsalm 110:1 (niv) “the lord says to my lord: “sit at my right hand until i make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”” .
psalm 110:1 (trv) “the lord god almighty says to a third of himself: “sit at my/our right hands until i make our/your enemies a footstool for our/your feet.”” (but don't tell the other third) .
-
-
peacefulpete
Ps 110:1-4.
Many years ago, a thread I started.
-
58
Did the ransom sacrifice even work?
by Sharpie inshower thought entered my mind the other day... jesus christ.
as per doctrine.
is still alive in heaven right now correct?
-
-
peacefulpete
It's complicated but from earliest days of the Jewish people they granted their God power to forgive much like people can forgive others. It is repeatedly stated so. Forgiveness was granted when repentance and change took place. It gets complicated as the cult services at the temple involved gifts of thanks,purification rites and covenant investment (eg. each person had to give half shekel to the priests as a cover price each census). In some instances, these rites are described in a way that many perhaps thought of the animal sacrifices as being a free pass, a mechanism resulting in forgiveness. Reformers like Jeremiah saw the system of animal sacrifices as being in a large way to blame for the 'lack of repentance' as he saw it. He goes so far as insist the whole idea of animal sacrifices was a scheme of lying priests/scribes
Go ahead, add your burnt offerings to your other sacrifices and eat the meat yourselves! 22 For when I brought your ancestors out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices, 23 but I gave them this command: Obey me, and I will be your God and you will be my people....actually the lying pen of the scribes.
Anyhow, his efforts were not successful for as soon as they could they returned to animal sacrifices.
It was a Christain innovation to connect a distorted view of animal sacrifices with the idea of a suffering/dying Messiah. It is true that the idea of a suffering messiah was established in Hellenized Jewish circles distanced from the Temple, before the assumed time of Christian origins. But the full development of the doctrine of God deliberately having his son killed for sins was a new idea best received by those Hellenized circles who laid much of the groundwork.