Religion: pros & cons pt1 (Religion)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, October 21, 2014, 22:00 (3684 days ago) @ dhw

DHW: You choose to say that transfusions - unknown in those times - were included in the ban, whereas presumably the rest of the Christian Church points to the word “eat”, and takes that as an indication that the ban was on blood ingested as food. They could just as easily describe your views as a form of ignorance. The bible is open to different interpretations.
> -Actually, no. I choose to say that a prohibition against ingesting blood means not to ingest blood. You are choosing to say that ingesting blood intravenously is different than ingesting it through your mouth. I gave a specific example where the word 'eat' was not even used, and in fact it was said, "abstain from blood" AND not to eat meat with the blood. Abstain from blood is pretty cut and dry. I am not the one making arbitrary distinctions.-
>DHW: I have no problem with efficient substitutes being used, but the dilemma arises/arose when no efficient substitute is/was available. I shudder to think of the JWs that may have died in the last 50 years or so, since the process became as safe as any medical procedures, drugs and operations can be. The issue between us is not whether there are better alternatives, but whether the text has to be interpreted your way.
> -The process has never been 'safe', and never will be. Even David has admitted as much. There is no interpretation. "Abstain from blood". Does, "Though shall not kill" get reinterpretted as "Thou shall not kill except to save your life" or "Thou shall not kill unless it is convenient"?- ->DHW: I do indeed read them, but I sometimes wonder if you read my replies. The dispute is not over whether one should break the law, but over whether your interpretation of the law - in stark contrast to the rest of the Christian world - is correct, which leads to the obvious conclusion that the bible is open to different interpretations, and hence is not a reliable guide. You actually answered my last question first (ah, the last shall be first!) but didn't answer my first question, which was: “Would you allow a child to die because a tiny minority of biblical scholars believe eating and ingesting are synonymous with transfusing?”
> -I would do my damndest to save my children, but I would not break God's Law to do it. Further, my children wouldn't do it to save me. You will see that, no doubt, as cruel or vicious, but between us it is a matter of loving respect and strong faith.-
>DHW: You know that these were not the laws I was referring to as vicious. When you told us that the new covenant invalidated the old laws, I even pointed out that it wouldn't have excluded the Ten Commandments. My reference was to laws in Deuteronomy such as those that forbid inter-faith marriages, and demand the stoning to death of anyone in the captured cities who worships other gods, or of any rebellious son who drinks and eats too much. 
> -Yes, I know what you meant. As David said, you read the words, but not the deeper underlying meanings and messages. Do you honestly think that the law meant that the first time someone smarted off to their folks they were killed? Or that it was a simple case of 'he eats too much, kill him!!' I suppose the part of "and they have tried to correct him but he refuses to listen to them". went unnoticed as well. Yes, the penalties were hard. Under biblical law, there is only one penalty for sin, only one. The only difference between the laws is when that penalty is paid. -
And on the topic of marriage, check out Deut 21:10-14. That seems to be another scripture that is often ignored. - 
> Dhw: The “I am right and they are wrong” approach certainly does not mean that the text itself is clear.
> TONY: Not at all. The bible is right, God is right. Everyone, including myself, could certainly be very wrong in deed. Fortunately, there is a provision for our ignorance. Prov 16:2 Tells us that God judges the motives of a man, not just the actions. Indeed, all of our ways 'seem pure to us', that is, we'd like to think we are doing the right thing, even when that thing causes unknown harm. [...] As for me and mine, we will be obedient to the best of our abilities.
> 
> The sceptic in me can't help thinking of all those throughout history, right up to the present, who have slaughtered the “infidels”, believing they are “doing the right thing”. However, your acknowledgement that you could be wrong is a gracious and for me a very important one, and I have nothing but admiration for the steadfastness of your faith, which I have no doubt would lead you only to doing unto others what you would have them do unto you. I'm also grateful to you for debating this subject with me, as I'm aware that at times it must be very frustrating!

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