All of which, of course, does nothing to address the ridiculousness of the notion that nothing pleases the omnipotent and eternal creator of the limitless cosmos quite as much as the smell of burning terrestrial mammal flesh.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
My thought is that the JWs subscribe to the original intent of the Noahide laws, that consumption of blood was prohibited because of the belief that the life of the animal resided in the blood, and therefore consuming blood in the meat was tantamount to consuming flesh hacked from a live animal.
My (admittedly somewhat cynical) view of the Mosaic recapitulation of these laws is that they forced the people to rely on the priestly class to do all of their slaughtering. The blood, containing life, belonged to God, and it had a very specific function in the Hebrew ritual of blood sacrifice. Leviticus 17 makes it very plain that blood is to be used only for atonement for sin, and the penalty for consuming it was to be cut off from the Hebrew people, and by extension, from the Hebrew God. In practice, this gave the priests an endless supply of good free meat (Deuteronomy 18), which along with the exemption from taxation and military service, but still entitled to the spoils of war, made the priestly racket a pretty sweet gig.[/quote]
Well yes, all human offices are susceptible to exploitation by sinful man. Hence checks and balances in government; hence revolutions; hence why I don’t subscribe to any dogmatic or institutionalised religious orthodoxy. And I like saying hence.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
If blood loss is the cause of death, how can it be said that blood is removed post-mortem? Peri-mortem, maybe.
In any case, I was only contesting your assertion that in non-kosher and non-halal slaughtering, the blood is not removed. This was false.[/quote]
My point was really that modern slaughterhouse techniques do not meet biblical requirements - at least, for those who believe that some law/s are still standing and have not been abrogated. This is what JWs believe only it’s my opinion that they have misunderstood the dietary laws on blood consumption.[/quote]
No SexMachine. I’ve said a number of times that the only requirement in the Bible was to drain the blood which was by cutting a major artery and hanging the animal so the blood can drain out of the major artery that was cut. Since God did not give them very specific and detailed instructions on how this was to be done the Israelites drained the blood the way I just described and described in a number of my post.
Again, strangled in the Bible was not making any cut to a major artery and cooking the animal with all of the blood still in it. The animal’s neck was either broken or it was choked to death. This is the type of animal we would not eat.
[quote]mse2us wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
If blood loss is the cause of death, how can it be said that blood is removed post-mortem? Peri-mortem, maybe.
In any case, I was only contesting your assertion that in non-kosher and non-halal slaughtering, the blood is not removed. This was false.[/quote]
My point was really that modern slaughterhouse techniques do not meet biblical requirements - at least, for those who believe that some law/s are still standing and have not been abrogated. This is what JWs believe only it’s my opinion that they have misunderstood the dietary laws on blood consumption.[/quote]
No SexMachine. I’ve said a number of times that the only requirement in the Bible was to drain the blood which was by cutting a major artery and hanging the animal so the blood can drain out of the major artery that was cut. Since God did not give them very specific and detailed instructions on how this was to be done the Israelites drained the blood the way I just described and described in a number of my post.
Again, strangled in the Bible was not making any cut to a major artery and cooking the animal with all of the blood still in it. The animal’s neck was either broken or it was choked to death. This is the type of animal we would not eat.[/quote]
If your position is that the only commandment in Noah’s time was to simply not consume blood ala no ritual sacrifice then that’s certainly an out because we don’t know one way or another do we? But in 50AD we know very well no one; Greek or Jew, except barbarians would eat an animal that hadn’t been ritually slaughtered. You could say that Jesus abrogated such ritual slaughter traditions when he argued with the Pharisees about hand washing and so on; “human tradition”. That would be another out there. But to say that kosher-like ritual slaughter wasn’t the norm in the Temple eras and after is simply wrong. That’s the slaughtering tradition and rituals that Jews have preserved since ancient times albeit with changes at times such as after the destruction of the Second Temple.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]mse2us wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
If blood loss is the cause of death, how can it be said that blood is removed post-mortem? Peri-mortem, maybe.
In any case, I was only contesting your assertion that in non-kosher and non-halal slaughtering, the blood is not removed. This was false.[/quote]
My point was really that modern slaughterhouse techniques do not meet biblical requirements - at least, for those who believe that some law/s are still standing and have not been abrogated. This is what JWs believe only it’s my opinion that they have misunderstood the dietary laws on blood consumption.[/quote]
No SexMachine. I’ve said a number of times that the only requirement in the Bible was to drain the blood which was by cutting a major artery and hanging the animal so the blood can drain out of the major artery that was cut. Since God did not give them very specific and detailed instructions on how this was to be done the Israelites drained the blood the way I just described and described in a number of my post.
Again, strangled in the Bible was not making any cut to a major artery and cooking the animal with all of the blood still in it. The animal’s neck was either broken or it was choked to death. This is the type of animal we would not eat.[/quote]
If your position is that the only commandment in Noah’s time was to simply not consume blood ala no ritual sacrifice then that’s certainly an out because we don’t know one way or another do we? But in 50AD we know very well no one; Greek or Jew, except barbarians would eat an animal that hadn’t been ritually slaughtered. You could say that Jesus abrogated such ritual slaughter traditions when he argued with the Pharisees about hand washing and so on; “human tradition”. That would be another out there. But to say that kosher-like ritual slaughter wasn’t the norm in the Temple eras and after is simply wrong. That’s the slaughtering tradition and rituals that Jews have preserved since ancient times albeit with changes at times such as after the destruction of the Second Temple.[/quote]
I’m not sure when the extra steps for trying to remove every particle of blood started but like I said, there are no Biblical requirements to do the Kosher process of removing blood. I mentioned this in one of my previous post and you mentioned this above, the Jews started to add extra requirements to the Mosaic Law that wasn’t part of God’s original requirements. This is what JW’s do - we look at the Bible, see what the Bible says and we follow it, adding nothing and diluting nothing. If humans add non-biblical requirements (lent and the eating of fish only during lent for example) to their worship of God, according to the Bible at Matthew 15:3-5, God doesn’t recognize or accept their worship. This was a problem with the Jews in the Bible and this has been a problem for centuries with all Christian religions. This is one of the things we try to show sincere, spiritual people who care about their worship to God. Adding non-biblical requirements or not following biblical requirements is a problem. Regarding the removal of blood from animals, we can see that the Kosher process is a non-biblical requirement so based on what the Bible says about adding non-biblical requirements we know that we don’t have to go to that length to remove blood from animals. Just because the ancient Jews added the non-biblical Kosher steps of blood removal doesn’t mean that we should today. As long was we follow the original requirements of draining blood that’s all that matter to us.
Okay thanks, I understand what you’re saying. Although as I said, I think your position on refusing blood transfusions and surgery is extreme.
Edited
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
All of which, of course, does nothing to address the ridiculousness of the notion that nothing pleases the omnipotent and eternal creator of the limitless cosmos quite as much as the smell of burning terrestrial mammal flesh.[/quote]
Ahhh…is it the smell? Or could it be the faith it represents?[/quote]
It’s the smell.
The Hebrew is re’ach hannichoach, and it occurs all throughout the bible, from Leviticus and Deuteronomy to Ezekiel to Phillipians to Ephesians. In the Torah it is specifically talking about burnt offerings, though. I suppose one could extrapolate that what is really pleasing to the omnipotent nostrils of Hashem Eloheihem is the “faith” prompting the sacrifice, but I think he really was just talking about the smell. Of course I don’t blame him. Who doesn’t like the smell of great slabs of marbled beef on the grill?
It could also be the reason for the ban of swine: Yahweh evidently doesn’t like the smell of burnt human sacrifice, and as any fireman will tell you, that’s just what roast pork smells like.
In Ezekiel, the “pleasing aroma” is in reference to the Jews returning to the Land of Israel, where they will rebuild the Temple and fire up the altar once more, getting that pleasing aroma going again after that long sojourn in Babylon. And then of course in Philippians and Ephesians, Paul refers to the sacrifice of Jesus as “fragrant”, i.e. pleasing to the Lord, which sounds pretty ghastly if you think about it. Would it please you if your son were whipped bloody and nailed to a plank to die in agony to the sound of laughter and mocking? It wouldn’t please me if it were my son. I’d be pissed the fuck off. And even if we are to take the verses literally, I imagine that after hanging up there for a while, he likely smelled anything but “fragrant”.
Faith (niqud is a funny word. The Hebrews didn’t have much use for it: it occurs only once in the Torah, in Deuteronomy, and again buried in the Prophets,in Habakkuk. After that it’s a virtual faithapalooza: one hundred and ninety-one times in the Christian part of the Bible: in all of the synoptic gospels (but not John: I suppose a Gnostic doesn’t have “faith”, he just knows), and in all the Pauline letters and Revelation.
Which stands to reason, I guess. A Bronze Age Hebrew likely took everything pretty much on face value. But a sophisticated Greek, Roman or Hellenized Jew, well, it would take a decent amount of faith for anyone to buy what Paul was selling.
Let’s see if Push finds my Easter egg, and crows triumphantly. 
Sons of the Father?
Because that is, after all, what bar abba means.
And you do know what Barabbas’ first name was, right?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
My thought is that the JWs subscribe to the original intent of the Noahide laws, that consumption of blood was prohibited because of the belief that the life of the animal resided in the blood, and therefore consuming blood in the meat was tantamount to consuming flesh hacked from a live animal.
My (admittedly somewhat cynical) view of the Mosaic recapitulation of these laws is that they forced the people to rely on the priestly class to do all of their slaughtering. The blood, containing life, belonged to God, and it had a very specific function in the Hebrew ritual of blood sacrifice. Leviticus 17 makes it very plain that blood is to be used only for atonement for sin, and the penalty for consuming it was to be cut off from the Hebrew people, and by extension, from the Hebrew God. In practice, this gave the priests an endless supply of good free meat (Deuteronomy 18), which along with the exemption from taxation and military service, but still entitled to the spoils of war, made the priestly racket a pretty sweet gig.[/quote]
The Levites were exempt from military service? I’ve never heard that. Source?
And although they got meat from sacrificed animals to live on they were forbidden from inheriting land. It wasn’t some grift like you’re suggesting. And exempt from military service? Source?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
My thought is that the JWs subscribe to the original intent of the Noahide laws, that consumption of blood was prohibited because of the belief that the life of the animal resided in the blood, and therefore consuming blood in the meat was tantamount to consuming flesh hacked from a live animal.
My (admittedly somewhat cynical) view of the Mosaic recapitulation of these laws is that they forced the people to rely on the priestly class to do all of their slaughtering. The blood, containing life, belonged to God, and it had a very specific function in the Hebrew ritual of blood sacrifice. Leviticus 17 makes it very plain that blood is to be used only for atonement for sin, and the penalty for consuming it was to be cut off from the Hebrew people, and by extension, from the Hebrew God. In practice, this gave the priests an endless supply of good free meat (Deuteronomy 18), which along with the exemption from taxation and military service, but still entitled to the spoils of war, made the priestly racket a pretty sweet gig.[/quote]
The Levites were exempt from military service? I’ve never heard that. Source?
And although they got meat from sacrificed animals to live on they were forbidden from inheriting land. It wasn’t some grift like you’re suggesting. And exempt from military service? Source?[/quote]
Numbers 1:47-54.
The other tribes camped with their armies, but the tribe of Levi camped by the Tabernacle: it was their job to tend it, and they had the authority to kill any non-Levite who came near.
And upon a closer look, it appears I was wrong about them benefiting from the spoils of war. Which is only fair.
The Tabernacle was lost to the Philistines at an early stage then shortly after it was returned it was either stolen by the Babylonians or more likely hidden by King Josiah. So the Levites’ duties to guard it didn’t last for very long. Did they continue to get exemption from military service when they no longer had to guard the tabernacle?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Sons of the Father?
Because that is, after all, what bar abba means.
[/quote]
Yes, I know that.
But the riddle, if that’s what it is, has nothing to do with the name.
[/quote]
Hmmm. Lemme guess. We are all, like Barabbas, horrible criminals who deserve to die, but were spared at the last minute by the vicarious sacrifice of Jesus? Am I close?
No.
Fred?
[/quote]
Nope. Yeshua bar Abba.
That’s right. His name was Jesus, too.
And he actually was an agitator against Roman rule, probably mixed up with the nascent Zealot movement. The “Bar Abba” moniker is interesting. Did he, like the other Jesus, also claim to be a “son of God”?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
The Tabernacle was lost to the Philistines at an early stage then shortly after it was returned it was either stolen by the Babylonians or more likely hidden by King Josiah. So the Levites’ duties to guard it didn’t last for very long. Did they continue to get exemption from military service when they no longer had to guard the tabernacle?[/quote]
Yes.
I will, as my good friend Doc was often wont to do, let Maimonides answer for me.
“The kohanim and Levi’im are excluded from the distribution of Eretz Yisrael and spoils of war because of their responsibilities as God’s attendants in the Mishkan and instructors of His law. This function exempts them from other burdens of responsibility, such as livelihood and military service, which would encumber them and hamper their efforts in the sacred realm. God assures that He will adequately provide their sustenance – “I am Your share and Your portion” – which He does through the system of priestly gifts offered by the rest of the nation.”
Well, I didn’t know that. Although it rings a bell now I read it.