Malawi and MCP Cards?

[TrueTomHarley]

On 12/7/2023 at 1:01 AM, Pudgy said:

… I was just getting ready to reply something I thought was profound, wise, insightful and wrong.

…. but then the idea occorred to methat we have never seen MM and the Big L in the same post….

Coincidence?

Oh, it is hardly proof positive, but both have been around for a long, long time. Both respond to me in more or less the same way. Both are avante garde about respecting the GB’s wishes—MM has made it clear, and the Librarian just for hosting such a site. Both have a fixation on order—concerned when a thread wanders. Both respond to challenges with snippets about food—‘I like tacos’ for the Librarian, ‘pass the popcorn’ for MM

I mean, I wouldn’t stake significant sums on it, but no way is it an absurd speculation.

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, Pudgy said:

Well … for me … I’m gonna go with the comprehensive integrated context I have … not guess that God changed his very character.

That's the way I had always took it for myself. I think I've explained before that when I first heard about the compromises on fractions I kept it to myself but decided that I would refuse fractional blood, too. After all even the 4 components of blood that the Watchtower still condemns are also fractions. As MM pointed out there is no "natural" separation into these 4 fractions that makes them somehow equivalent to whole blood. And though other fractions are considered conscientiously acceptable, one or more of the acceptable fractions are much closer to whole blood than the condemned fractions.

But then I thought about the possibility that many lives are lost that could otherwise be saved by some of these uncondemned fractions. And although we hate to admit it, there are times when the administration of condemned fractions also saves lives. [Even though we'd love for that number to "relatively tiny."] So when Jesus said that the sick need a physician, and that the law could (and should) be broken to save a life, was he saying that, even under the Mosaic Law, Jews should treat saving lives as more important than the letter of the Law? I still kept my own feeling against any and all fractions, but decided that it was not up to me to impose my conscience on my children or others. More recently, I also changed my own view on fractions.

But you asked about whether God changed his very character. Just like the Greek gods as represented in Homer, Jehovah liked the smell of smoking meat. He liked the smell of the fatty pieces smoking on the altar. Did Jehovah change his character when allowing people to finally eat fat? Or does Jehovah still not allow people to eat fat?

(Genesis 8:21) And Jehovah began to smell a pleasing aroma. So Jehovah said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground on man’s account. . .

(Exodus 29:18) You must burn the entire ram, making it smoke on the altar. It is a burnt offering to Jehovah, a pleasing aroma. It is an offering made by fire to Jehovah. ["pleasing aroma to Jehovah" is a phrase also repeated 16 times in Leviticus]

 (Leviticus 3:17) “‘It is a lasting statute for your generations, in all your dwelling places: You must not eat any fat or any blood at all.’”
 

And that term "lasting statute" is elsewhere translated with the idea of permanence or "forever."

(Leviticus 3:17, ESV) It shall be a statute forever throughout your generations, in all your dwelling places, that you eat neither fat nor blood.”

 

[JW Insider]

32 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

And neither of us are youngsters, especially Thinking.

First she gets perceived condescension from MM, and now you are going to give her a superiority complex.

[Pudgy]

Practical experience gives me insight into what the “ … eat no fat at all …” command is all about.

My wife and I usually eat at Golden Corral several times a week and if we get there early we hang around so it’s supper time we get free steaks but believe me, they’re not the best steaks in the world …. and when you asked for a medium steak what you get is about a half a steak and a half a slab of fat.

I get two steaks and cut the fat off. Sometimes this involves asking for the second steak in a very loud voice.

I can understand the scripture that says eat no fat at all…. if thats the only thing on the plate. 

1. "Will" is often used to express a future action or a party's intention to do something. It implies a commitment but is generally not as strong as "shall."

2. "Shall" is considered more imperative and typically imposes a duty or obligation. It's used to indicate a mandatory requirement.

3. "Should" is more discretionary and suggests a recommended course of action, but not a strict obligation. It implies a degree of flexibility.

[TrueTomHarley]

9 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Mom is JW, father is not JW. Is the teenager JW?

Nominally, he was. I didn’t get the impression his heart was in it. The mom certainly was and I was there as much to support her as her son. Sometimes people just like an ally, regardless of how things go down.

[JW Insider]

34 minutes ago, George88 said:

Why would the Gentiles be introduced to the mosaic law if it had been abolished? It seems completely nonsensical. How does Matthew 5:17 align with this viewpoint? It would render this argument irrelevant to a spiritual Jew. Is there any scriptural evidence to support such an idea?

It's a matter of the entire Law (every jot and tittle) being fulfilled in the Law of Christ. 

It's not too complicated. Speaking primarily of those who promoted keeping the Mosaic Law with respect to circumcision Paul explained it to the Galatians as shown below. But keep in mind that Paul also said the same thing with respect to the Mosaic Law regarding foods, festivals, sacrifices, and he even said that it should now be OK, according to your conscience, to eat foods sacrificed to idols making no inquiry about where it came from, or how it was prepared or what false god it was offered to.

(Galatians 5:1-6:2) . . .For such freedom Christ set us free. Therefore, stand firm, and do not let yourselves be confined again in a yoke of slavery. ² See! I, Paul, am telling you that if you become circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you. ³ Again I bear witness to every man who gets circumcised that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. ⁴ You are separated from Christ, you who are trying to be declared righteous by means of law; you have fallen away from his undeserved kindness. ⁵ For our part, we are by spirit eagerly waiting for the hoped-for righteousness resulting from faith. ⁶ For in union with Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any value, but faith operating through love is. ⁷ You were running well. Who hindered you from continuing to obey the truth? ⁸This sort of persuasion does not come from the One calling you. ⁹ A little leaven ferments the whole batch of dough. . . . ¹³ You were called to freedom, brothers; only do not use this freedom as an opportunity to pursue fleshly desires, but through love slave for one another. ¹⁴ For the entire Law has been fulfilled in one commandment, namely: “You must love your neighbor as yourself.” . . . ¹⁸ Furthermore, if you are being led by spirit, you are not under law. 19 Now the works of the flesh are plainly seen, . . . ²² On the other hand, the fruitage of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, ²³mildness, self-control. Against such things there is no law. . . . 6 . . . ² Go on carrying the burdens of one another, and in this way you will fulfill the law of the Christ. 
 

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, Pudgy said:

I can understand the scripture that says eat no fat at all…. if thats the only thing on the plate. 

That's one way around it, I guess. I take it that fat, like blood, is never going to be completely removed from the meat. And several of the Jewish priestly sacrifices paid special attention to the liver, kidneys, and intestines where large chunks of fat could be cut away and made to smoke on the fire or with the 'fatty ashes.' 

But this was not the whole story. First of all the two verses I quoted separately before actually go together:

(Leviticus 3:16, 17) . . .The priest will make them smoke on the altar as food, an offering made by fire for a pleasing aroma. All the fat belongs to Jehovah. ¹⁷  “‘It is a lasting statute for your generations, in all your dwelling places: You must not eat any fat or any blood at all.’”

It wasn't just the major organs containing fat, and it wasn't just in relation to priestly sacrifices:

(Leviticus 7:22-27) Jehovah continued to speak to Moses, saying: ²³ “Tell the Israelites, ‘You must not eat any fat of a bull or a young ram or a goat. ²⁴ The fat of an animal found dead and the fat of an animal killed by another animal may be used for any other purpose, but you must never eat it. ²⁵ For whoever eats fat from an animal that he presents as an offering made by fire to Jehovah must be cut off from his people. ²⁶ “‘You must not eat any blood in any of your dwelling places, whether that of birds or that of animals. ²⁷ Anyone who eats any blood must be cut off from his people.’”

[Srecko Sostar]

12 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

For the entire Law has been fulfilled in one commandment, namely: “You must love your neighbor as yourself.” . . .

If I understand these words at all, it would mean that no one should stand between the patient and his choice of treatment, especially if his life depends on it. Putting in a religious doctrine the kind of prohibition in which one's own life is endangered (in the case of pregnant women, two or more lives are at stake) is different and more dangerous than forbidding some JW to go to war in which they will violate God's commandment "Thou shalt not kill".

In the second case, a person loves another so much that he is ready to give his life so that the other does not die.

In the first case, the person who threatens his life because he refuses treatment actually hates himself. And if you hate yourself, how will you love another?

[Pudgy]

“We?”

Jehovah never accepted a sacrifice “as food”. He didn’t eat it AT ALL, for nourishment. Fat on the alter had to be prepared “as food” …. not incinerated like medical waste.

Only fat melts and falls into the fire as a liquid fuel.

Perhaps that is how a person separates fat from steaks with no obvious fat.

Well done …. crunchy. (?)

 

AND … if all else fails, and we get wrapped up in a matrix of semantics traps, and ONLY as a last resort …. look up a scripture IN CONTEXT. I know its a novel idea, but watch what happens when you DO! …

Leviticus

3 “‘If his offering is a communion sacrifice*+and if he is presenting it from the herd, whether a male or a female, he should present a sound animal before Jehovah. 2 He is to lay his hand on the head of his offering, and it will be slaughtered at the entrance of the tent of meeting; and Aaron’s sons, the priests, will sprinkle the blood on all sides of the altar. 3 He will present part of the communion sacrifice as an offering made by fire to Jehovah:+ the fat+that covers the intestines, all the fat that surrounds the intestines, 4 and the two kidneys with the fat on them that is near the loins. He will also remove the appendage of the liver along with the kidneys.+ 5 Aaron’s sons will make it smoke on the altar on top of the burnt offering that is placed on the wood that is over the fire;+it is an offering made by fire as a pleasing*aroma to Jehovah.+

6 “‘If his offering is from the flock for a communion sacrifice to Jehovah, he will present a sound male or a female animal.+ 7 If he is presenting a young ram as his offering, then he will present it before Jehovah. 8 He will lay his hand on the head of his offering, and it will be slaughtered in front of the tent of meeting. Aaron’s sons will sprinkle its blood on all sides of the altar. 9 He will present the fat from the communion sacrifice as an offering made by fire to Jehovah.+ He will remove the entire fat tail near the backbone, the fat that covers the intestines, all the fat that surrounds the intestines, 10 and the two kidneys with the fat on them that is near the loins. He will also remove the appendage of the liver along with the kidneys.+ 11 And the priest will make it smoke on the altar as food,* an offering made by fire to Jehovah.+

12 “‘If his offering is a goat, then he will present it before Jehovah. 13 He will lay his hand on its head, and it will be slaughtered before the tent of meeting, and Aaron’s sons must sprinkle its blood on all sides of the altar. 14 The part he will present as his offering made by fire to Jehovah is the fat that covers the intestines, all the fat that surrounds the intestines,+ 15 and the two kidneys with the fat on them that is near the loins. He will also remove the appendage of the liver along with the kidneys. 16 The priest will make them smoke on the altar as food,* an offering made by fire for a pleasing* aroma. All the fat belongs to Jehovah.+

17 “‘It is a lasting statute for your generations, in all your dwelling places: You must not eat any fat or any blood+ at all.’”

How about that?

“All the fat” is specifically defined!

Who knew?

[Many Miles]

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

True. It says something more like "flesh with its nephesh,blood" where "nephesh" can often mean breath/life/self/being).

I tried to overstate the point as part of the odd "kill-it-first" interpretation that says they could not eat living, moving, breathing animals that still had breath,blood flowing in them. So when verse 4 mentions "flesh with its soul,blood," that's the reason that if you go here, for example, https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/gen/9/1/t_bibles_9004 you only see the word life [that is] blood and life-blood as a translation of nephesh,blood. (Except one of the Spanish translations has "alma [o vida])."

You had said: "Animals" are like "man". Each is "soul".  That is not the meaning in the context of Genesis 9. Verse 4 is not using "soul" [nephesh] in the same way that Genesis 2:7 and the most of the Hebrew Bible uses the term. (Even the NWT stopped using the term "soul" as a consistent translation for "nephesh" in the 2013 NWT.) 

We are always taught that the living animal or human does not HAVE a soul but it IS a soul. It is different here. Here the animal is not a soul, but it HAS a soul.

(Leviticus 20:25) You must make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean and between the unclean bird and the clean; you must not make your souls loathsome by means of an animal or a bird or anything that creeps on the ground that I set apart for you to regard as unclean.

Or "psyche" (soul) in Greek:

(Acts 15:24) Since we have heard that some went out from among us and caused you trouble with what they have said, trying to subvert your souls . . . [NWT leaves out the term souls, here and just says "trying to subvert you."]

(1 Thessalonians 5:23) . . .And may the spirit and soul and body of you brothers, sound in every respect, be preserved blameless at the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ. 
 

It's similar to the term "spirit" here in Ecclesiastes:

(Ecclesiastes 3:21) Who really knows whether the spirit of humans ascends upward, and whether the spirit of animals descends down to the earth?
 

So, I'm arguing, as most translators also do, that this is a special case of "nephesh" just as the NWT often treats special cases of nephesh and psyche without translating it as "soul."

The objection at issue is my correction of a statement where, in relation to Mosaic Law and Noah, you said,

"By that LOWER standard after Noah, a non-Jewish person could eat an animal that was not bled."

My correction you objected to was:

By that LOWER standard after Noah, a non-Jewish person could eat an animal found dead of natural cause that was not bled.

You didn't like that correction saying it was "a distinction without a necessary distinction." (Underlining added)

Then we got into "soul".

So let me restate my initial response to your objection to get "soul" out of the way and focus on the distinction between a LOWER and HIGHER standard between the Noahide and Mosaic laws.

My restated response to what you say is a distinction without a necessary distinction:

The text of Gen 9 stands as God's expression of what he expected of humans who opted to use a living animal as food ("Every moving animal that is alive"). There is nothing in the text suggesting it had anything to do with what happened otherwise in the world of nature, as created by God.

"Animals" are like "man". Each is "alive".

Based on the narrative of creation, a carcass Noah found dead of whatever happened in the natural world was neither "animal" nor "man" that was alive. (Gen 1:24 and 2:7) Neither was alive. Noah was not to take life of an animal to eat its flesh as food and eat the blood from taking that life, and he also couldn't use a living animal's flesh as food unless he killed it. On the other hand, an animal found dead of natural cause was not alive. It was just formed dust of the earth without breath of life. I don't particularly like the taboo that leads to, but there it is.

As a logical expression it looks like this:

If x then y

Not x then not y because of x

In the text of Gen 9 the antecedent (x) to the consequent (y) of not eating the blood was said of something alive in human domination, not something that was not-alive in human domination. Living things that are dead of natural cause are just another part of the earth, which was also placed under human dominion. (Gen 1:26 "and all the earth")

Under Mosaic law none of that worked because God introduced a higher standard regarding the substance of blood. Now, in ADDITION to what Gen 9 required, Jews had to pour blood out onto the ground and not use it at all for their own purposes. ALSO, Jews could NOT eat even flesh dead of natural cause (which could not be bled out). ALSO, Jews HAD to use blood in sacred sacrifice to God. That was a MUCH HIGHER standard regarding blood than what we find in Gen 9.

Under Mosaic law Jews had to treat blood as a sacred substance.

Under Gen 9 no one had to treat blood as a sacred substance.

[Pudgy]

[Many Miles]

5 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Adding to Thinkings list, of which each item is different, so that I think that would have answered your question, is just plain ‘ol human error.

Thanks. That's helpful, and it anecdotally confirms a thought I've suspected for quite awhile.