RE: Why can't Christians say that parts of the Old Testament don't apply??..
October 18, 2010 at 5:00 pm
(October 18, 2010 at 3:43 pm)Thor Wrote: Isn't this the passage that some religious whackos use to justify the denial of blood transfusions? Even for their kids?
Yes, but like with the story of Onan being misused to justify anti-masturbation attitudes, this passage is being misunderstood or taken out of context.
"Not eating blood" seems pretty straightforward to me as relating strictly to atonement and sacrifice rituals. Lev 17 goes into detail the proper way to sacrifice animals to atone for sins, in a way that doesn't match with the Christian idea of the blood sacrifice for atonement. Reading the entire chapter, it seems clear to me that it's a condemnation of any gruesome cult practices of consuming the blood of animals sacrificed (or pretending to do so during communion). Just goes to show you, the Bible's not always wrong, though needless to say I'd vote to get rid of blood sacrifice altogether.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
