The Jehovah's Witness who refuses to get a transfusion after being shot, woke from coma

sidgi wrote:

Why couldn't the Israelites eat it, if it was permissible? For what reason did they have to give or sell it to the people of the nations? Why couldn't His own people eat it? Why the delineation at all, if you know God?

At Deuteronomy 14:21 allowance was made for selling to an alien resident or a foreigner an animal that had died of natural causes. Thus a distinction was made between the blood of such animals and that of animals that a person slaughtered for food.(Compare Lev 17:14-16.) The Israelites, as well as alien residents who took up true worship and came under the Law covenant, were obligated to live up to the lofty requirements of that Law. People of all nations were bound by the requirement at Genesis 9:3, 4, but those under the Law were held by God to a higher standard in adhering to that requirement than were foreigners and alien residents who had not become worshipers of Jehovah.

sidgi wrote:

I think that you should provide the reason. You, in trying to answer my question, have said that it isn't because blood is in any way sacred. You have said that it isn't sacred. Why then why was the seperation made between Gods people and the nations when dealing with animal blood in the scripture you provide? What was the reason given?

Blood was sacred under the Mosaic law because under the Mosaic law the blood of slaughtered animals was used to atone for sins. This wasn't the case with the Noachian decree. As usual you are going out of your way to miss the point. Deut.14:21 has God providing the unbled flesh of unslaughtered animals as food to those that were not under the Mosaic law but were under the Noachian decree. This clearly shows that it was not against the Noachian decree for decendents of Noah to eat the unbled flesh of animals that died of natural causes. If you want to maintain that the Noachian decree does forbid eating the unbled flesh of animals that die of natural causes then you have to believe that at Deut.14:21 God was encouraging those under the Noachian decree to break it! It makes much more sense for me to believe that the Noachian decree didn't forbid eating the unbled flesh of animals that died of natural causes and thus at Deut.14:21 God wasn't encouraging those under the Noachian decree to break it than to believe the Noachian decree does forbid eating the unbled flesh of animals that die of natural causes and thus at Deut.14:21 God was encouraging those under the Noachian decree to break it.

If you have a better explanation for Deut.14:21 let's hear it.

hMMMMM wrote:

<quoted text>
Florida native is a ministerial servant, and carries a concealed weapon.
When I was in the JW cult the "sword" was taken to mean the Bible, now under "noolite" it is used to justify Jehovah's Witnesses carrying guns.
Jehovah's Witnesses are a dangerous fanatical religious cult, very similar in many ways to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
All one has to do is read the Trayvon Martin thread to find some more very revealing hate and some true bloodthirsty violence they are embracing.
By your admission that Jehovah's Witnesses are carrying guns, you are just alerting the public to a very real danger.
Real mature name calling there, providing further proof of the ignorance of Jehovah's Witnesses

As one of Jws, I can assure you that we do NOT carry guns or other weapons in our ministry. We call at people's homes to offer free Bible studies, and are peaceful people. Jws are the victims of crime, as are people of many religions. I do not know a single Jw who carries a weapon for self-defense at ANY time. We follow the principle at Isaiah 2:4, and will not murder our fellowman.

Teleologist wrote:

<quoted text>
At Deuteronomy 14:21 allowance was made for selling to an alien resident or a foreigner an animal that had died of natural causes. Thus a distinction was made between the blood of such animals and that of animals that a person slaughtered for food.(Compare Lev 17:14-16.) The Israelites, as well as alien residents who took up true worship and came under the Law covenant, were obligated to live up to the lofty requirements of that Law. People of all nations were bound by the requirement at Genesis 9:3, 4, but those under the Law were held by God to a higher standard in adhering to that requirement than were foreigners and alien residents who had not become worshipers of Jehovah.

You didn't answer the question. Why the delineation. Why the "higher standard". What made it a higher standard? Why was it part of the Law Covenant? Was it a reiteration of the command given to Noah?

Teleologist wrote:

Blood was sacred under the Mosaic law because under the Mosaic law the blood of slaughtered animals was used to atone for sins. This wasn't the case with the Noachian decree.

if it wasn't the case with the command given to Noah, what, all of a sudden, gave it that quality toward the Israelites in the Law Covenant? God didn't mention any difference in what it represented.

Teleologist wrote:

As usual you are going out of your way to miss the point. Deut.14:21 has God providing the unbled flesh of unslaughtered animals as food to those that were not under the Mosaic law but were under the Noachian decree.

Your presentation of the account shows just how much respect you have for God, in comparison with yourself. God made an allowance, He didn't start the practice of the nations eating un-bled meat. The way you phrased it, someone could get the idea that He was going against His own principles. It was no different than allowing men to have more than one wife, when He intended that they have only one.Just because He makes an allowance for something, doesn't mean He approves.

I notice you stayed away from the question important to this particular thread. I'll CnP it for you so you don't have to go back and read it.

Now, how about addressing the real issue here?

(Genesis 9:3-5).... 4 Only flesh with its soul—its blood—YOU must not eat. 5 And, besides that, YOUR blood of YOUR souls shall I ask back. From the hand of every living creature shall I ask it back; and from the hand of man, from the hand of each one who is his brother, shall I ask back the soul of man.

God didn't say he wanted the animal blood back. He just said that men weren't to eat it. The first statement He made regarding mans blood, was that he wanted it back. What does that mean? If a man gives something to another man, and says that they want it back at some point, that puts a restriction on what could be done with it. Why doesn't it mean the same thing when God gives something and says he wants it back?

sidgi

hello JWRR02 yes there is a poster from Florida who has said he does carry a concealed weapon. and if i am not mistaken.. check out the Trayvon thread. he mentioned his wife does also.

are you saying jws do not carry weapons?? at any time? go read what he says he will do to protect himself. thank you.

There IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING UNBIBLICAL ABOUT CARRYING A WEAPON FOR SELF DEFENSE.

sidgi wrote:

The first statement He made regarding mans blood, was that he wanted it back. What does that mean?

Good question. How is God suppose to get this blood back?

Teleologist wrote:

<quoted text>
Good question. How is God suppose to get this blood back?

If you leave something in trust with someone, when does the time limit run out, with the trust-or, or the trustee?

You've avoided the good questions till now. Does that indicate you have an honest heart, or a dishonest heart?

judge rules for 4yr old

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nationa...

unlisted wrote:

hello JWRR02 yes there is a poster from Florida who has said he does carry a concealed weapon. and if i am not mistaken.. check out the Trayvon thread. he mentioned his wife does also.
are you saying jws do not carry weapons?? at any time? go read what he says he will do to protect himself. thank you.

I do not know of any Jws who carry weapons for self defense. At any time. There may be a few who ignore the principles at Isaiah 2:4 and Matthew 26:52 (and other scriptures). Such ones would not be considered good examples and would need spiritual help.
Some witnesses hunt animals for food and do carry weapons when hunting.
There also may be some persons who attend meetings of Jws, and even identify themselves as Jws, but who are not baptized witnesses.
Here is a quote from the Awake magazine stating the position of Jw's in this matter:

*** g95 9/22 pp. 13-14 Should I Learn Self-Defense?***
The threat of violence was real back in Jesus’ day. One of his most famous parables, commonly called the parable of the Good Samaritan, related an incident involving violent robbery.(Luke 10:30-35) When Jesus asked his disciples to equip themselves with swords, it was not for protection. In fact, it led to his stating the principle:“All those who take the sword will perish by the sword.”—Matthew 26:51, 52; Luke 22:36-38.
True Christians, therefore, do not arm themselves so as to harm their fellowman.(Compare Isaiah 2:4.) They follow the Bible’s advice at Romans 12:18:“If possible, as far as it depends upon you, be peaceable with all men.”

JWRR02 wrote:

<quoted text>
As one of Jws, I can assure you that we do NOT carry guns or other weapons in our ministry. We call at people's homes to offer free Bible studies, and are peaceful people. Jws are the victims of crime, as are people of many religions. I do not know a single Jw who carries a weapon for self-defense at ANY time. We follow the principle at Isaiah 2:4, and will not murder our fellowman.

Well go to the Trayvon Martin thread.
Many Jehovah'sWitnesses on that thread brag about how they will blow away a trespassers, while they themselves trespass.

One of them, who posts that the carries a concealed weapon, who goes by Florida Native, and will use it to murder anyone he perceives as a threat, even a child carrying Skittles, is a ministerial servant.

Your propaganda is falling flat by the posts of Jehovah's Witnesses themselves.
Any person who reads that thread can plainly see that non-Jehovah's witnesses are much less violent than Jehovah's Witnesses.
Jehovah's Witnesses are making the headlines every day with their violent criminal acts, never acts of true charity or kindness.

Everyone who reads this forum "knows" that Jehovah's Witnesses and those with positions of power, proudly carry concealed weapons, and there is no doubt those are carried in field service too.

You never know when a male child of color, wearing a hoodie, and carrying Skittles, may deserve to be blown away.

JW's do not agree with killing anyone...not even in a war.

Nomi wrote:

JW's do not agree with killing anyone...not even in a war.

You are a true air-head.
Go to the Trayvon Martin thread.
Florida Native, who brags he is a Jehovah's Witness ministerial servant AND post his pictures, packs a concealed weapon AND brags he will murder any child he feels is "trespassing" while he himself trespasses and forces his children to do so.