Then why don't we ask the Jehovah’s Witnesses what they think you need to do in order to preserve your soul? You know, the guys who "misinterpreted" Leviticus 3:17 as not just prohibiting the ingesting of blood (as well as fat by the way; which is something they conveniently ignore, as they have no rules against eating fatty foods, or even pure fat, like lard) but also extending it to include transfusions as well.
Says you! I say being no longer willing to tolerate the crap from the Left and instead wanting to punch back ten times harder for every strike is a good thing.
Its also explicitly stated in the New Testament that the Mosaic Law only ever applied to Jews, and that a Gentile convert to Christianity need not become Jewish in order to become Christian. I'm not sure why you expect your "biblical" arguments to be taken seriously if you can't be bothered to do any research on the matter and are just repeating tired old internet atheist 'gotchas'.
Did I claim you didn't exist, or am I perhaps talking about the social justice movement that focusses in trans issues? Hmmm, I wonder. Could I be claiming that a brand new phenomenon just popped up and before a couple years ago never existed at all, or could I possibly mean something else?
Yeah, that... that's what I was referring to when I said that those were things "most Christians agree they shouldn't treat as sins". Your 'gotcha' was already preempted. Mind you, not every Christian agrees with that view; or at least, they like to pick and choose from the Old Testament what they believe. Case in point; Leviticus 3:17 is Old Testament, and yet it serves as the justification Jehovah’s Witnesses use for why their religious beliefs proscribe blood transfusions. That's just one of the easiest example I can think of, mind you; another is that the vast majority of the time I've seen someone try to argue that homosexuality is a sin, according to Christianity, it's the Old Testament they like to quote as evidence.
I'm not sure what to think about you; except that you seem to be someone who has a very high opinion of himself, and a very low opinion of everyone else. Also, none of what you just said constituted an argument against what I said; so I'm just going to assume you've got nothing substantial to contribute to the topic anymore, and move on.
That's not true. Jehovah's Witnesses don't consider Old Testament law to apply to them, and they don't follow Leviticus 3:17. The scripture they base their blood restriction on is Acts 15:29
While it has been quite a while, my mother used to invite Jehovah's Witnesses into her home when they came knocking on our door, and have hours-long conversations with them; and I recall Leviticus 3:17 being one of the passages they claimed justified their proscription against blood transfusions, so I categorically reject the notion that I am spreading bad information here. And even after about half an hour with a search engine trying to find any evidence to suggest that Jehovah's Witnesses in general consider Leviticus 3:17 to be invalid, I have found none other than your assertion. It's possible you've talked to some who reject that particular passage; but that just proves my point that there are differing beliefs amongst Christians, even within particular denominations.
Huh, took me under less than a minute to find evidence that they consider Leviticus 3:17 invalid. Maybe check their actual website instead of relying on vague memories from quite a while ago?
Who the heck ever came up with that criticism and who the heck thinks it become common? That's insane troll logic. Let's look at the actual scripture, which has four restrictions:
Actually no; my only argument is that different Christians believe different things, and that they have different ideas on what is and is not "moral". You'd think that would be easy to accept, that there is no "universal Christianity" upon which we could build a functioning society, but nope!
I'm just putting a stop to this right now, because I am not interested in delving any further into a religious argument; and I'm fairly certain such would be drastically off topic for the thread. Suffice to say, the idea that there's some sort of unified "religious right" is a myth.Huh, took me under less than a minute to find evidence that they consider Leviticus 3:17 invalid. Maybe check their actual website instead of relying on vague memories from quite a while ago?
Blood was to be used only “to make atonement for your souls” upon the altar.—Lev. 17:10-14. While Christians are not under the Mosaic law-
So yeah, you're passing bad information. They quote the scripture and then immediately mention they're not under that law.
Who the heck ever came up with that criticism and who the heck thinks it become common? That's insane troll logic. Let's look at the actual scripture, which has four restrictions:
20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals, and from blood.Bible Gateway passage: Acts 15:20 - New International Version
Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.www.biblegateway.com
By the bizarre standards you've applied, we'd have to also conclude that restrictions on sexual immorality only include doing it with idols so screwing live donkeys is fine just not donkey statues. That's quite obviously an absurd take on the scripture.
As for Gen 9:4 referring to raw meat, that's not only not blatantly obvious,it's a very uncommon way to interpret that scripture.
I guess the last two thousand years of societies being built around churches, with state churches, many of which persist to this day just didn’t exist. I mean for fucks sake, secularism has the problem you ascribe to Christianity 10 freaking fold, because at least with Christianity you tie it to an existing moral framework, an existing set of texts and beliefs that cannot be changed very easily that have a stronger reinforcement than “I like this and I don’t like that.” With secularism and democracy you can get absolutely anything and everything if you just get enough people to want something or like something, and there’s vastly less to even bind anyone within society together.
So you'd be happier with a theocracy run by Jehovah's Witnesses then?
Well that’s like asking me if I want to have my right arm cut off or my left arm cut off. I don’t really see the purpose or relevancy. I don’t even want a theocracy. If you think a state church is theocracy, surprise surprise, most governments were theocracies apparently. Even then I don’t really want a state church per se, just a return to it having a dominant social role and not Hollywood and corporate materialism and celebrities and all this other trash that creates all the things you dislike and directly erodes the liberty you want.