Religion: pros & cons pt1 (Religion)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, October 20, 2014, 21:28 (3685 days ago) @ dhw

I split these up because the post was getting to long. ->DHW: This sums up the great gap in our thinking. In all your posts you have emphasized the need to obey God's laws, but you never acknowledge the possibility that your interpretation of the texts purporting to lay down these laws might be faulty. You do acknowledge that mistakes have been made in the past, and in a different context such as evolution, you would seize on such confessions as reasons for doubting the present consensus. But in this case, you are prepared to dismiss the combined scholarship of Jews and virtually every other branch of Christianity as “ignorance”.
> -As for the Jews, they willfully acknowledge that they refuse to accept the NT. To me, this is like refusing to accept the existence of atoms. The predictions were there. The evidence was presented that agreed with the predictions, but they ignored the results because they were inconvenient. Yes, I do see that as ignorance, of a sort. Virtually every other branch of Christianity fully acknowledges the prohibition against blood, they just choose to say that one form of ingesting is forbidden while the other is not. Yes, I view that as a form of ignorance as well. Note, however, the difference between my view and the way that you present it (in the worst light possible).-To use your evolution example (in analog with the Jews), if the predictions were made, and the evidence were presented, I would accept it. But the predictions were made and continuously have failed to produce the expected result, therefore I reject it. (In Analog with other Christian scholars) If I chose to ignore what evidence evolution DOES actually offer, namely that things do change, at least on a small scale, then I would be ignorant, and willfully so. Self-deluding might be a more appropriate term.-
As for mistakes being made, I have never denied that, nor would I. (1 John 1:8) Yes, mistakes were made. I will go one step further and tell you point blank that the truth was concealed directly by Jehovah. Don't believe that? (Isa 6:9, 10; Mark 4:11; 1 Cor. 2:1, 7.)) This brings up a third kind of ignorance which is not the fault of anyone. The truth was actively concealed. -
 Further, you have completely sidestepped all of the medical data that fully supports the biblical view that abstaining from blood is healthier for the patient, poses fewer complications, and leads to faster recovery times. (Isa 48:18) "If only you had paid attention to my commands, your peace would have been like a river, your well-being like the waves of the sea."
So for me, the fact that these patients who abstain from blood have greater well-being than those that do not is simply verification of the truth that Jehovah knows better than we do what is good for us. Had they heeded that prohibition instead of relying on their own understanding, bloodless treatments would be far more advanced than they currently are, and we would not even be having this conversation.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.