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?

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

Jay Franklin was three when he had a blood transfusion, 18 when he discovered by chance that it infected him with hepatitis C, and 40 when he died in October waiting for a federal government apology to “tainted blood” victims that never came.

GB behaves similarly, when they say that they do not bother to apologize for bad doctrines and instructions. It is a contagion that affects the "mighty men".

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

Yes we are held to a higher standard

Who is in a higher standard than whom? Jews were held to a "higher standard" than non-Jews because they had the Law.

In what standard are Christians? Is that standard higher than the Jewish one? If the rule from Gen.  9 is valid for Christians (formulated and adapted in Acts 15), so to the pre-Christian and pre-Jewish standard, then this standard is lower than the so-called "higher standard" of the Jewish religion.

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I also recall being asked to visit a teen from some rural congregation who had been in an accident and was being advised a transfusion was necessary. His mom was a Witness, his dad was not. I went with the idea that if this lad, who I did not know, wished for no transfusion, I would back him in his wish.  He did not indicate any such desire and he was transfused. I do not know what became of him afterwards. The experience was awkward and uncomfortable for me, not knowing any of the people involved. 

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

4 hours ago, Pudgy said:

That’s why, for me, it is just as much respect for the IDEA, or SYMBOLISM of respecting that which Jehovah God has clearly stated is his jealously guarded personal property, as well as actual blood.

Some people “get it”.

Some people don’t.

I respect the point of view.
Let me mention, when it comes to David and the like, that he really shed hundreds of liters of blood without respecting other people's lives (blood). An exception can be when a man defends himself and his family.

But he killed people when he wanted to marry Saul's daughter and when he competed with Saul. So it's just a whim and a bet, the rivalry between the two. In another situation, he does not want to drink water because his soldiers exposed themselves to death, so the water represented blood to him. What sanctity of blood and life can we talk about then? One man and two measures of blood value.

GB has a similar practice. They act pragmatically when threatened with confiscation or judicial execution (penalty) of property and money. "Consecrated property" is more important to them than "consecrated blood" (ie the life and health of followers).

I'm of the opinion,JWs (and WTJWorg) must decide with what argumentation they want to present their doctrine of refusing blood transfusions. Do they want to do it with exclusively religious proof that their position is correct? Or, Do they want to include in their theology the accompanying medical and material aspects that increase the effect of why it is good to refuse blood transfusion?

If theological reasons are the only important and decisive for the JWs position on blood transfusion, then all other "scientific and material" aspects should not be considered and used as a supplement to that only important "biblical" reason. Accordingly, the "philosophizing" that GB engages in explaining the acceptability or prohibition of certain parts of blood (components and fractions) becomes mundane and inappropriate while discussing "the most sacred substance" in the entire universe, blood.

8 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Exactly. That is why you sit in the penalty box for a while till they let you back in the game.

Your heart and mind made the wrong assessment and conclusion. I'm sending a smiley.  

For those who have a religious dilemma about taking blood transfusions and fear the consequences of such a "sin", I can say that God has forgiven much greater (intentional and unintentional) sins committed by people who have declared themselves to be his worshippers. Why torture your soul as if everything after "sin" is irreparable and futile.

The only problem a sinner will have is a problem with people, not with God. Then tell me, whose, which relationship is more important to you?

5 hours ago, Pudgy said:

Speaking of ideas … it just occurred to me that if somewhere in the Milky Way Galaxy there is a species of sentient Octopus Aliens with 8 legs, perhaps they were created like Adam and Eve without sin but ate of the forbidden lobster and were expelled from the Crystal Lagoon and the blessings of their Creator were removed from them, and the were condemned to shrivel up and die. But God had mercy on them and sent his Son to redeem them and reconcile with God. 

Would that Redeemer be Jesus with two arms and legs, or have a different name and have eight arms and/ or legs?

Hmmmmm … perhaps that’s a question best asked in “Questions From Readers”.

Arauna once commented on that segment. She says that Jesus' sacrifice laid the foundation for everything that could happen in the universe in that context. So now choose what suits you best.

To me, her view is somewhat illogical, even if at first it seems acceptable, because as you also gave an example, various forms of life are possible and there can be a different context of their "free will". We are currently faced with the parameter "free will choice" in the context of whether God has the right to dictate to people how they will live. In some other part of the universe, the dilemma may be something else, so I wonder how Jesus' sacrifice, according to Arauna, would be a cover for some new "case" that was or will be in the future.

11 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The heart makes a grab for what it wants, then charges the head to devise a convincing rationale.

This is an excellent thought. Do not forget that it is applicable to everyone and to every situation. GB convinces himself of ideas, and then every JW finds his ideas within the general idea of his religion. We all do it, in one way or another to one degree or another.

18 hours ago, Thinking said:

It’s not actually …they have to accommodate the many many who have had very little and often no education…..if we need and want more depth well that’s up to us..they can not spoon feed us everything.

we got corrected as apparently a number were complaining about the lack of meat or depth to the studies…and they said..get used to it….but they needed to preach and teach to all sorts of men…..that’s fair enough I reckon.

Writing with professional terminology requires special knowledge on the part of the reader, i agree. In the case of WTJWorg, the reading should be simplified by a vocabulary that does not use phrases and sentence forms that are unclear to a normal, averagely educated person. Of course, WTJWorg is susceptible, prone to the low education level of its members because they "hate" so-called higher education. But the society is not averse to seeking and hiring (free labor) lawyers to defend them in court. WTJWorg even pay their school fees to attend university so that they can later use it for some  morally questionable and dishonest actions.

All in all, simplicity is the key to a happier life, you're right. But is "simplicity" in theology as offered by WTJWorg the way to truth? 

Was the medical explanation offered by the organization in several versions simple enough for the "normal" JW? So the Society discourages "higher education" and then dares to interpret what blood is and what blood is not. And then it sets up hospital committees elders to explain to JW patients what is acceptable and what is not, not realizing that they often do not even know what they are explaining or why they are explaining it that way.

23 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

Mislim da ono što George 88 pokušava prenijeti je zamršena tapiserija jezičnog izraza, s eteričnim pojmovima implikacije i nijansirane rezonancije koja se isprepliće unutar labirinta hodnika diskursa, gdje se granice između onoga što je implicirano i onoga što je eksplicitno zamagljuju u enigmatsko stjecište značenja.

Nebulozne vitice implikacije, sa svojom nedostižnom prirodom, evociraju semantičku dvosmislenost koja, iako zaogrnuta sintaksom elokvencije, ostaje trajno suspendirana u liminalnom području sugestije, vječno aludirajući na nedokučive dubine interpretativne zamršenosti.

Labirint impliciranih značenja koji se isprepliću s kadencom jezičnog izraza, tvoreći zagonetan plato u kojem subjekt, poput fantoma, neuhvatljivo plovi zamršenim hodnicima insinuacije.

To, ili guranje njegove agende.

Super written. What is more difficult to read and understand must be important. That's why WTJWorg has a "simple edition" to present the theological tangles as simple.

7 hours ago, George88 said:

I must admit, it's quite amusing to consider the notion that all other Christian denominations strictly adhere to the standards set forth in the Bible. Can you provide another one?

You misapplied my comment, because you didn't see where the thought was going. As it is, no religion has an insight into the complete essence/truth. All religions have good and bad doctrines. It's the same with WTJWorg. 

Can any JW guarantee with his life that any past and existing doctrine is the only correct one today and that there will be no change of doctrine?

Since we can say in advance with absolute certainty that WTJWorg theology will change and that there is no continuity in the rigour of their own teachings, despite the persistent claim that all WTJWorg teachings /past, present and future/ are firmly based on the Bible, what you believe and claim about the JW religion has no meaning or purpose. 

JWs do not believe in the evolution of the universe and life, but they are fanatical in believing that there is an evolution of JW theology (in JW vocabulary it is said "that the light shines brighter and brighter").

7 hours ago, George88 said:

with one caveat: we are all inherently flawed, but that doesn't imply that we must choose a path of wickedness. 

That's right, ......... but I wasn't implying anything you're implying.

45 minutes ago, George88 said:

This notion suggests that every human is born with evil tendencies, and even babies are contrary to God's intentions, haha! 

I'm delighted to witness an endorsement (upvote) of contradiction.

Yes, according to WTJWorg. But is it possible that you forgot the basic things from the Bible study before your baptism? People are born marked by sin. Familiar?
In addition, the idea is older than all of us because it is somehow written in the Bible..."every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood..." - Gen 8:21

lol

33 minutes ago, George88 said:

It appears that your perspective is slightly misguided. The crucial aspect isn't merely comprehending scripture, but rather implementing that comprehension into action.

Have you observed any other religions faithfully practicing all that Christ taught his Christian followers? If you believe there are "many," then it seems that there is a discrepancy between what is actually happening in this world and the practices of other Christian sects.

I had to laugh at your idea that only one religion (WTJWorg) has been able to resist (over 140 years) every human weakness while manipulating/using God's Word for the supposed benefit of followers. The GB admits that they are imperfect and that they make "mistakes", while at the same time expecting complete obedience to all the instructions they give to their followers. Any other hierarchical organization is susceptible to corruption, but WTJWorg is not? So George you and millions of your JW brethren, collectively believe in these contradictory ideas, still?

There is no form of hierarchy without abuse of power. Unless the leader is very gentle and soft and allows everyone everything. But even then, he will have more sympathy for some people, and some will not be to his liking.

42 minutes ago, Juan Rivera said:

In regards to the second part of Bro. Jackson’s answer, what do you think is presumptuous, arrogant, about claiming to be the Governing Body? Was Jesus arrogant when He claimed to be the Son of God? (No, because he is the Son of God.) It is not arrogant to claim something if you have it. Nor is it arrogant to claim to be what one actually is. Also, claiming that one’s own Congregation is the Congregation Jesus established is not triumphalism or sectarianism even when the person making the claim is mistaken.

If I misunderstood or mischaracterized your statement about this point, then I apologize and please follow up.

You understand the GB member's statement exactly as every faithful JW should; "When GB speaks it is the same as Jesus speaking." This part of understanding applies to the entire JW brotherhood.

How should this same statement by a GB member be understood by the world? Like this; "We (GB) are not the only ones who understand the Bible correctly and we are not the only ones who speak in the name of God. We are part of a broad community of believers in Jesus like many other religious communities."
A few (8) years later, another important new cognizance came that GJ didn't know about at the time, namely, that GB doesn't know (correct answers).

15 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Choices could be made strictly based on that which is rational. But when we chose to believe something that is not based on rational thought then we have an added responsibility to be cautious how we use and project our choices.

 At that time, the life-saving direction that we receive from Jehovah’s organization may not appear practical from a human standpoint. All of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether these appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not. - https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/w20131115/seven-shepherds-eight-dukes/

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The Great Courses professor (David Kyle Johnson: The Big Questions of Philosophy) says that it does makes sense. It alone is logically consistent. He traces it to Augustine and says, ‘Maybe God permits evil because it is essential to his pursuit of his greater goal of allowing free will.’ This is essentially what the Watchtower says, though they develop it more.. Moreover, you who sniff because uneducated ‘dumbbells’ say it today might not sniff upon learning that a highly esteemed and educated philosopher also said it.

I completely agree with the comment by @Many Miles. 

Man's free will has nothing to do with God's decision to allow or not allow something, in this case evil. If God's will decided to allow evil, he did not do it because of my free will, because my free will has no influence on God's free will.

But God's free will to allow evil makes me unhappy. And it threatens my free will. It means that God is actually restraining my free will because his free will is more powerful than mine. It means that the idea of a person's free will loses its meaning, if mine is overpowered by someone else's free will.

Second thing. Quoting educated members of academia who support WTJWorg ideas is a ruse. How many educated scholars WTJWorg does not quote in its publications because their views are critical of the Society's doctrines or completely refute them. Do not use this method on experienced forum members. (We've covered 607 BCE in topics here. The scientific community says that's not the correct date, but JWs don't accept them.)

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

If you do damage, or allow damage to happen, and you can fix it, that makes huge difference from one who does damage, or allows it to happen, and cannot fix it.

One who does harm to others should be prevented from continuing to do harm.

The one who allows someone else to harm his fellow man should be asked why he allows it. 

It remains to be seen whether the one who allows another to do harm can actually fix things. Usually, the damage is repaired by a third party, not by those who participated in the problem. The doctor is treating the wounds of those injured in the bar fight, but he did not take (active or passive) part in the conflict.

It is said that God did not prevent people from making war, because making war was a free decision of the warring parties, or at least one party, and the other had to defend itself even though they did not want war. Is God a doctor? Mediator? Or the Observer? Because God did not mediate in the reconciliation of the warring parties nor did He resurrect them after they died.

The Bible says; Whoever knows how to do good, but does not do it, it is his sin.

"Therefore, if someone knows how to do what is right and yet does not do it, it is a sin for him".- James 4:17 NWT

Allow me a few more thoughts on the aforementioned "controversial issue".

WTJWorg has a doctrine that says; it takes a very long time to answer Satan's challenge about who has the right to rule over people. Well, they say, how JHVH could have destroyed Satan immediately, but that would still leave doubt in God's justice.

This could mean that the angels in heaven were ignorant of the nature of God and his virtues. This could mean that the angels grew up in a climate of doubt and mistrust of God from the very beginning, so it was easy to persuade them to believe Satan. This could mean that all that time (say, millions of light years) was not enough for the angels to develop "complete trust" in God. Everything said also applies to people, of course adapted to the spatial and temporal frameworks on Earth.

So, the famously silly claim that God allows evil on earth because his credibility must be proven and that it takes time, a very long time, in which, among other things, millions of innocent children and adults will be subjected to the greatest suffering and torture, does not hold up to the argument .

Angels don't need any further evidence that Satan is wrong and God is right. As for humans, they have never seen God anyway, nor do they have any insight into the relationship between God and Satan. The only thing they can do is read the Bible and "invent" explanations and assumptions.

The idea of a "Universal Court Case" is a construction of people who came up with new ideas by reading the Bible. Jesus, who is the unique "witness for the living God" did not provide such material in his teachings that this WTJWorg doctrine could be developed.

At the end of the day, if there is such a great and inevitable need to prove some kind of "Universality" that belongs to God, and how that "Case" includes countless millions of years in the past and countless millions of years into the future, then I would say that it is already long ago answered.

Since the book of Job is taken as the "biblical argument" of this WTJWorg doctrine, then I can say that in this sense Job gave the "Universal Answer". To further insist that every child, man and woman (born after Job) should be subjected to horrors in the name of the same cause is silly.

The second turning point is the life and death of Jesus. He answered the same question once more. Job, as an imperfect man, passed the test. Jesus, as a perfect man, passed the same test.
So what else needs to be answered?

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

”How do you know if an animal is venomous?” they say, and then answer: “If it bites you and you get sick, then the animal is venomous.”

If every man named Paul is bitten by a snake, then all such people will not care about the bite. lol

1 hour ago, Many Miles said:

universal court case

In my days (1970s) it was kind of summed up in the questions of who is the true God and will man choose the God whose name is YHVH or will he choose the false Gods of Babylon the Great. And the question, does YHVH have full right to rule.
It turns out that man, not God, answers both questions about the status of God. A bit strange, isn't it?
The man answered only one question; Who will he choose for. Only because it is about the freedom of choice that people have.
The question of who is the true God and whether he has the legal right to rule is not for man to answer. Because how can "created matter" answer that question? Not at all. If a man chooses his master, this does not speak of the status of the master, but of the status and condition of the man who is given the opportunity to choose. One can argue; "my lord is good, just, merciful, generous, etc." But then it is primarily an expression of the perception of a man, who has actually never seen his master or talked to him, in this case. It is the product of some other experience in a person, outside of the classic, well-known and experiential way of getting to know another person.

Today's believers, as well as many from the past, primarily "got to know" God through the upbringing and teachings of their parents, people and/or reading the Holy Scriptures.
Every other "experience" of God is up for debate. Biblical characters mostly literally heard "God" (or angels) with their ears, experienced through visions, through supernatural manifestations. Today, say JWs, this cannot happen, and if someone were to claim that this happened to them, then JWs will say that they are under the influence of demons, drugs or mentally ill.

Our personal choice, about own selection of one of the organized religions headed by YHVH, which spreads to other people through street or house preaching, gives testimony to our choice of religion. It cannot answer the question whether God has a legal right to be God. It is presumptuous to attribute such importance to oneself, to a human being. If God is really God then he does not need our confirmation, consent or testimony that he is really God who has the right to rule. It is utter nonsense that God is so dependent on human testimony. Angels in heaven are not stupid. Everyone should have seen and understood who their God is, if they were with him every day of their lives. They don't need an answer to such a human question posed by WTJWorg.

So, what kind of universally, controversial, disputed question (Universal Court Case) do JWs actually answer?

There are irregularities in nature that are studied as chaos theory. Even in this chaos there is a certain order, but that order is different from our usual understanding of order and organization. I am reading a written work and there it says.

There are three basic characteristics of chaos:
1. disproportion between input and output;
2. inconspicuousness of the entrance;
3. unpredictable output

In the last few years, the application of chaos theory in social phenomena has been seriously considered. It is interesting that in the last 10 years or so, a number of physicists have moved into the field of sociology and political science.

They realized that some nonlinear equations that describe certain processes, even those that describe quantum physical events on at the level of the atom, can be applied to social and political phenomena, with the proviso that instead of the flow of liquid, for example, the transfer of information is considered: that instead of a phase transition, where a parameter suddenly changes, in society, for example, a law can change, and that instead of an essential phase transition can have a political revolution, so systems of differential equations that describe physical processes are applied for describing changes in society. By solving this system of equations, treating society as a chaotic system, one tries to predict the likely outcome. Politicians in the West are now closely following these pioneering studies.

Organizational chaos represents disorder, confusion, commotion in the organization. Organizational chaos means that the organization is in a state of entropy. Entropy is a measure of disorganization of the system, it is a state in which the system falls apart. The tendency towards disorganization, that is, organizational chaos, is a natural tendency of the system. organization as a measure of order in the system, the entropy of the system and its tendency towards organizational chaos is reduced.

My comment:

The schisms within the initial, Russell's WTS, and later other doctrinal turmoil under other presidents, indicate a certain chaotic state and consequently dramatic changes that the Society goes through, constantly. They could say that the leadership's pursuit of order and control is possible, but it is also not impossible to have disorder and chaos.
What kind of chaos could or should YHVH have anticipated, foreseen before the creation of angels and men?

9 hours ago, George88 said:

Given the historical context and circumstances, it can be argued that the purpose of carrying a sword for the apostles was not for actual use but for self-defense.

One of the self-defense tools highly recommended by WTJWorg, when it comes to women, is to scream loudly. They never encourage them to take an actual self-defense course.

Please clarify what is the difference between "actual use " and "self-defense"? When is the "sword"  really used in actual defense use, and when is it used in self-defense?

12 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

You blockhead. I mean, Duh, if anyone discards belief in God they necessarily focus on only the inconveniences of being Christian in the present system, which no Witness would ever deny there are some, but they are compensated by realities to come.

If there really is a God, and if there really will be a new system in which He rules unopposed, then he will enforce his own standards. Just like during that circuit assembly in the early 70’s in which two resurrected ones were bellyaching over everything under the sun, impervious to the correction that the loving elders (who weren’t packing guns) were pouring on like syrup, then the lights went out, there was a loud zap and a flash from heaven, and they were gone! Oh, yeah—a ‘dramatization’ it was.

Blockhead? lol

I thought that by now you already had the chance to know my sense of humor and some kind of irony and sarcasm in some of the written sentences. Well, for such things, we don't need to "conduct a Bible study" in order to master the material. Or do we? lol