Doktor S wrote:
Satanism is a philosophy. It can be religion to those that enjoy the trappings of ritual and dogma, but I'm just not that sort of fella.
I am being serious when I say that ritual & dogma do not have to enter in to it.
Satanism is primarily two things:
1. A belief that Satan is a supreme power in the universe.
2. Choosing Satan as your God.
I would be interested to here your philosophy. Most people would state "Satanism is a philosophy" as an excuse to do & act however they chose.
Baph wrote:Doktor S wrote:
Satanism is a philosophy. It can be religion to those that enjoy the trappings of ritual and dogma, but I'm just not that sort of fella.
I am being serious when I say that ritual & dogma do not have to enter in to it.
Satanism is primarily two things:
1. A belief that Satan is a supreme power in the universe.
2. Choosing Satan as your God.
I would be interested to here your philosophy. Most people would state "Satanism is a philosophy" as an excuse to do & act however they chose.
Without going into it for the 3553425345th time, I assure you you are completely offbase, and refer you
HERE
Doktor S.
I mean you no disrespect. I just find it funny is all. You call yourself a satanist but the hompage of the site you directed me to states you don't believe in Satan.
I agree mostly with the philososophy advocated there.
Maybe I wouldn't be TOO put out if people started calling themseves BAPHISTS, but did not believe in me to the point of publicly denying my existence..............
I believe you, Doc. What you have to say makes more sense than most of the religious drivel posted herein.
Okay Neo, let me make this as simple as possible. Concerning Acts 15:29, the JW book "What Does The Bible Really Teach" on page 130 says: "abstaining from blood means not taking it into our bodies at all." Is this correct? No. Both the Noachian law and the Mosaic law required abstaining from blood but this abstention didn't mean not taking blood into one's body at all. As I pointed out previously, abstaining from blood in actual practice meant draining the blood from animals killed for food before eating the meat. When an animal is slain and bled, much blood is still left inside the carcass, sometimes as much as 50%. And yet God permits this blood to be eaten. Therefore, God's law never required not taking blood into one's body at all. Acts 15:29 is simply telling Christians to keep doing what they had been doing all along, namely, draining the blood from animals killed for food before eating the meat. This wasn't some kind of new, more restrictive law on blood. It was merely a restatement of God's law to Noah.
The JW book Aid to Bible Understanding states on page 244, in reference to Acts 15:29:
"The holy spirit here acted in harmony with what had been stated by Almighty God centuries before the Law covenant came into existence, namely, the law to Noah (Gen. 9:4), which is universal, applying to mankind at all times and places since it was given. The Mosaic law was canceled (Col. 2:14), but that did not cancel the law that preceded it, for the Mosaic law had merely incorporated and outlined in detail the universal law that came centuries beforehand."
It is a JW teaching that Acts 15:29 is not based on the Mosaic law but is a restatement of God's law to Noah. It is therefore not a new, more restrictive law on blood. To obey the admonition to "abstain... from blood" we must know at least two things about this matter. We must know what blood God wants us to abstain from and what type of abstention He requires. In simple language the Noachian Decree provides this meaning.
Teleologist wrote:Okay Neo, let me make this as simple as possible. Concerning Acts 15:29, the JW book "What Does The Bible Really Teach" on page 130 says: "abstaining from blood means not taking it into our bodies at all." Is this correct? No. Both the Noachian law and the Mosaic law required abstaining from blood but this abstention didn't mean not taking blood into one's body at all. As I pointed out previously, abstaining from blood in actual practice meant draining the blood from animals killed for food before eating the meat. Acts 15:29 is simply telling Christians to keep doing this. It isn't some kind of new, more restrictive law on blood. It is merely a restatement of God's law to Noah.
Producing a series of statements from authority, especially as regards the highlighted portion above, is only evidence of your opinion, it is not evidence of fact.
......and, I agree with Setanta on this.
Cheers, Boss . . .
I am not claiming to be an authority on the intent of those who wrote scripture--i am saying that i have no good reason to assume that Teleologist has any right to claim such authority.
After all, divergent exegesis is precisely why there are so many various sects.
The Noachian law and the Mosaic law both permitted the eating of meat. When an animal is slain and bled, much blood is still left inside the carcass, sometimes as much as 50%. And yet God permitted this blood to be eaten. It is obvious that God's laws never required total abstention from blood.
Teleologist wrote:The Noachian law and the Mosaic law both permitted the eating of meat. When an animal is slain and bled, much blood is still left inside the carcass, sometimes as much as 50%. And yet God permitted this blood to be eaten. It is obvious that God's laws never required total abstention from blood.
I should point out that neither the Mosaic nor Noachian law permitted pouring blood into stein for a chugalug, or saving some carefully coagulated blood for a tasty sausage. What was required was a proper respect for blood.
That the Mosaic Law was cancelled or supplanted, did not mean that Jehovah suddenly released mankind from the command to respect blood. This is no doubt what Jesus meant when he said ". . . truly I say to YOU that sooner would heaven and earth pass away than for one smallest letter or one particle of a letter to pass away from the Law by any means and not all things take place." (Matthew 5:18) You might remember our dear friend Frank who will tell you that this should be interpreted to mean we should still stone adulterers. A sane understanding would have us realize that God's opinion on these legal matters warrants our continued deliberation.
This is why the admonition regarding blood is even more important in the light of Jesus' sacrifice.
Neo, how about responding to my post on the previous page.
What part of your post did I miss?
Actually, Neo, you missed one part . . . God wants you to get stoned with adulterers . . . no, really, take my word for it . . .
Setanta wrote:Actually, Neo, you missed one part . . . God wants you to get stoned with adulterers . . . no, really, take my word for it . . .
Would you believe I can testify that is really not as much fun as one might think.? LOL
Neologist wrote:
Quote:What part of your post did I miss?
The whole thing. So far you only responded to a couple of sentences I posted on this page that were directed to someone else. You haven't responded to any of the points that I made in my post on the previous page. If you read it you would know that I don't dispute that blood should be respected. I'm challenging the Watchtower's supposition that showing respect for blood means not taking it into our bodies at all. That would mean that meat eating JW's don't respect blood. It would mean that JW's that have the blood they lose during an operation put back into them don't respect blood. It would mean that JW's that take Watchtower approved vaccinations that require 3 liters of stored blood to make, don't respect blood.
I feel as if I have been conscripted into a game of Simon Says.
Baph wrote:Doktor S.
I mean you no disrespect. I just find it funny is all. You call yourself a satanist but the hompage of the site you directed me to states you don't believe in Satan.
I agree mostly with the philososophy advocated there.
Maybe I wouldn't be TOO put out if people started calling themseves BAPHISTS, but did not believe in me to the point of publicly denying my existence..............
If it does not make sense you have either not looked deep enough, or are not a sensible person.
I suspect the former.
