Srecko Sostar

11 hours ago, Many Miles said:

After the fall into sin, Eve was told Adam would dominate her. (Gen 3:16)

Perhaps God should have told her (and all women after her) that she has the right to resist any violent intention of a man who uses prophetic words with unjust and immoral motives. That women will not allow themselves to be exploited. Since God has nowhere specifically said that a woman may/must not resist dominion and/or violence from men in marriage or outside of marriage, this means that women may/have right to resist any kind of enslavement by men. And that they can see patriarchy as an unjust order. This would even apply to Jesus and his somewhat milder attitude towards women when he was on earth.

The apostolic words, which even command the subordination of the wife to her husband "in everything", do not correspond to the nature of things that were in Eden and the partnership that was established by the act of creation. A big minus for "Christianity".

So we see a flaw in the Bible or in the perfection of God Himself. God prophesies that Eve will be under the dominion of Adam. Then men (and women too) accepted this as their fate, as something "normal", God-given. The absence of God's word on this subject, of a God who says of himself that he hates injustice, has contributed to wrong attitudes in society in general and also in WTJWorg. Free space for wrong interpretations.

I just came across this title:

Are Jehovah’s Witnesses competent to resolve the issue of blood transfusion? - Włodzimierz Bednarski

https://www.academia.edu/41133507/Are_Jehovahs_Witnesses_competent_to_resolve_the_issue_of_blood_transfusion?email_work_card=view-paper

57 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

Yet, nothing said to the earliest humans placed a penalty on killing a human, though humans had not been given dominion of other humans. So, only after the unjustified first recorded killing of a human do we find an express statement condemning the act.

To rule over or dominate others. I found this article an interesting perspective. It deals with man's dominion over creation. - https://religiondispatches.org/reexamining-the-shaky-theology-that-gives-humans-dominion-over-all-creation/

Domination has led to a global alienation between man and nature. Man is mostly a master who selfishly exploits and destroys all living things around him. The Bible translations use the term "rule over" the plant and animal world, over the earth (the planet). The consequences are catastrophic, but God has allowed or even commanded it, without giving instructions on how people should rule.

On the other hand, although there is no commandment or prohibition to rule over people, this is a consequence of the biblical text. For we are dealing here with ideas: 1) If something is not expressly forbidden, is it permitted or permissible? 2) If something is not expressly permitted, is it forbidden?

Did God give Adam authority over Eve? To rule over her? Is this stated directly or indirectly somewhere in the Bible text? Were Adam and Eve supposed to rule over children, grandchildren and other people?

Maybe we should put it under a new topic?

abstain

verb [ I ]

US  /æbˈsteɪn, əb-/

to not do something you could do, esp. something that is unhealthy or gives you pleasure:

Some families abstain from eating fried food.

If you abstain from voting, you do not vote although you are permitted to vote.

to choose to refrain: he abstained from alcohol

abstain (from something) to decide not to do or have something, especially something you like or enjoy, because it is bad for your health or considered morally wrong

to abstain from alcohol/sex/drugs

I have already noted that the term "abstain" is weaker than the term "prohibition/ban". Abstinence is left to personal choice, personal willpower, personal motivation. Furthermore, the word, at least for me, gives the impression of a decision that applies in the short term. Or as a decision not to do something temporarily. For the benefit (in favor) of yourself or others.

8 hours ago, Many Miles said:

"But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die."

"Only flesh with its soul—its blood—YOU must not eat."

The consequences of the procedures differ. The first one was sentenced to death. There is no penalty for the second procedure.
So why does the exclusion apply to those who take blood. That is, according to the new regulation, it is called self-exclusion.

WTJWorg Lawyers playing with legalism of term disfellowshipping and dissociating. They want to present GB as respecters of human rights to freedom of choice.

10 hours ago, Many Miles said:

As it turned out, there was an express statement of prohibition related to food, and it didn't include meat. Humans had already been given dominion over animals, which are made of meat. Humans had also been given vegetation, yet there was one item of vegetation that, though God had given humans vegetation, He singled out that one item of vegetation and said you can't eat of that, if you do you will die. But of the animals God had given humans dominion over, no such prohibition was issued. Would it have been "right" of God to have known there was another item given that if eaten it would lead to death, and He didn't tell Adam and Eve?

 

I think WTJWorg could blur the answers to such questions along the lines of:

God is omniscient, he sees and foretells the future, but he doesn't want to know every thing in advance because he respects man's privacy. So, God did not know that Adam and Eve would sin. And because of his "ignorance", God could not give instructions for something he had no idea could be important to future generations.

17 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Obviously, what they drank would include water and milk, but the important part of the dietary food decree is what they were allowed to eat, with no concern for what they would drink. 

Please, what about alcohol? lol

20 hours ago, Thinking said:

I’ll say it….he would come under the mosaic Law and when Christ died faithful…..he would then become under Christs Law….and as Christ instructed Peter to put away his sword thus he would say to Cornelius….thus he would be just like you and me…completely neutral..and looking for another job.

I'm sorry, but that's just one of the possible outcomes, that is, it's one of the interpretations that WJWorg offered as the correct interpretation of something that could or could not have happened.

There is no biblical evidence that Cornelius did this. So it remains in the realm/sphere of interpretation and speculation. Some stories end romantically and some don't.

Neutrality. There is no complete neutrality, because there is none.
Let's take a blood transfusion for example. The GB says that certain blood products can be taken, so the commandments about "abstinence from blood" are not fully obeyed. They also did not take a neutral position, because they determine what is forbidden and what is not when it comes to blood.

15 hours ago, George88 said:

Here's yet another compelling case awaiting the appellate courts' consideration. An overwhelming number of judgments delivered by lower courts are being successfully overturned.

The claims against the church were later part of a confidential settlement.  

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

I don't know if C.T.Russell made use of the principle in this particular scripture . . . 

(1 Corinthians 7:20-24) . . .In whatever state each one was called, let him remain in it. ²¹ Were you called when a slave? Do not let it concern you; but if you can become free, then seize the opportunity. . .  ²⁴ In whatever state each one was called, brothers, let him remain in it before God.

But he didn't think a Christian had to necessarily break his military conscription "contract" on becoming a follower. But he did think that if called to active front-line duty as a soldier the Christian should just "shoot over the heads" of those in the opposing trench. Perhaps he didn't have a very realistic view of what war could be like, but other religions and religious leaders made the same suggestion (I'm told). 

I think that would only be possible if the soldiers in the trenches were about a hundred meters apart. But if the enemy soldier was with a bayonet over his head, the idea would suddenly change.

https://www.davislevin.com/blog/2023/july/circuit-court-awards-40-million-dollars-to-a-vic/?fbclid=IwAR1QYdkekqqPtbf04UrcuFkKlWXBqspO-7xrByHV_8A3BR1Gde81WXVv1Ec

excerpt from press release https://www.davislevin.com/documents/press-release.docx

Yesterday, July 18,2023, the Circuit Court of First Circuit issued a ruling on the damages awarded to the Plaintiff (N.D.) against Kenneth L. Apana, involving allegations arising out of childhood sexual abuse when the child was 12 years of age.

The lawsuit was filed in 2020 against Apana and the Makaha, Hawaii Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, of whom Apana was an “Elder”.  The claims against the church were later part of a confidential settlement.  However, the case proceeded on damages against the individual abuser who failed to respond.

673-FOF-COL-Order Hawai 2023 CSA slučaj.pdf673-FOF-COL-Order Hawai 2023 CSA slučaj.pdf

9 hours ago, George88 said:

The interpretation of the Genesis account on the fifth day relies on individual perspective. When it says "Then God saw that it was good," it raises the question: Was God affirming the goodness of the animals, or was he affirming the goodness of his creation as a whole? Considering that God instructed Adam to subdue the animals, it implies that the animal kingdom would have a distinct role in life. Perhaps their lifespan would follow a cyclical pattern, unlike human life, which would endure forever. 

Well, we can also "play" in this way. But should we expect a perfect God to have a single flaw in his creation?

Did the dinosaurs have a disadvantage? If so, then with a certain purpose, for example to become extinct after a while. But is death really a shortcoming and proof of imperfection? Judging by the dinosaurs and today's animals, death is a very good thing. Just as it is a good thing that there are animals that eat other animals. So if it was God's intention for death to exist, then death is not a disadvantage to be avoided.

God created life and God created death as an expression of his perfect act of creation. Not only animals and humans die. Stars and galaxies also die.

We all avoid death, even animals that are "destined" to die. How can it be explained that God destined animals to die in one way or another? If man thinks he must live "forever" while the animal is destined to die, and God intended it that way, where does the struggle and resistance of both rational humans and irrational animals to preserve life at all costs come from? How is it possible that a human created "in God's image" has the same primitive, instinctual feeling as an animal created "not in God's image" when it comes to basic things like food, mating and life/death?

Has God forgotten to impress upon the consciousness of animals that death is normal, while he has not forgotten to impress upon the consciousness of humans the desire for eternity?

10 hours ago, George88 said:

When considering baby dinosaurs, another thought to ponder is how they could have been preserved on Noah's Ark as God instructed Noah along with his family and all the animals to stay alive. Given their rapid growth and insatiable appetite, one can only imagine the measures Noah would have had to take. Perhaps he would have ingeniously suspended the baby dinosaurs at the side of the Ark, allowing them to feast on fish and carrion. A whimsical solution, indeed!

Possibly. Some scientists say that dinosaurs laid eggs, others say that living dinosaurs were born. If we accept the egg theory, Noah could have collected a few eggs. I think that would be a tough assignment, but "all things are possible with God", right? lol

I used InstaText to improve the Google translation. Please tell me if the text is more readable? I do not accept criticism of the content, lol.

2 hours ago, George88 said:

To fully grasp the details, it is necessary to carefully revisit the Genesis narrative. Here, it clearly states that seven of every clean animal and a pair of unclean animals would have been chosen to board the Ark. 

Imagine if dinosaurs had existed during the time of Noah's Ark - they would have surely posed an extraordinary challenge, don't you think?

WTJWorg has a tendency to interpret and invent some events and accounts of the Scriptures, so I will play similarly. Could the fact that dinosaurs did not exist at the time of Noah mean that God knew, in advance, that there would be a Flood in the future, and that destroying the dinosaurs would be an option so that there would be no problem with the space in the Ark.
But they could have collected the baby dinosaurs so I guess there would be room, lol.

9 hours ago, George88 said:

I guess the question is, have you ever tasted a Kangaroo burger? lol!

No.

9 hours ago, George88 said:

Noah had certain instructions on how to collect and receive animals in Genesis 7:2. The question you need to decide, were kangaroos clean?

For me, the biblical statement in which God, after the creation (of animal species), claims that everything turned out well and does not put them in the categories of clean and unclean, is sufficient. I guess that includes dinosaurs. lol

But I never saw in the WTJWorg pictures that Noah collected kangaroos. So your photo with the distance in miles and comment is a bit suspicious to me. Many would say, the WTJWorg pictures are more credible than yours.

:)))))))

It is not for me to introduce "order" into the discussion, but I would be more interested in seeing and determining, by the participants in the discussion, what they conclude about the current JW doctrine on blood.
That seems to me to be more important than the discussion about meat products. Because there will be blood in the meat one way or another and no one will call you to account if you ate more or less blood in the meat. It is interesting to read various arguments about the diet of people from the past, but .....

I would give answer to the question in the title, "What is our scriptural basis for refusing transfusion of products rendered from blood?"

We have seen that the WTJWorg interpretations seem to imply that the taking of animal or human blood is unacceptable because they tend to draw that conclusion based on a few passages of the Bible.
Then they subsequently made it clear that blood (and blood products) should not be used for nutritional purposes, but some blood products can be used (allowed) to protect or improve health.
They also inserted into that thesis the vague and inconsistent use of the amount of a certain ingredient in the blood as a measure of acceptable or unacceptable.

Whatever of their logic they want to use as a "biblical argument", we see that they (GB) have ruined the original commandment with their politicization and assumptions. If it is said that blood is not to be used (let's add a sequel-for any purpose except for a religious act) but must be shed on the ground, then it is clear that WTJWorg and GB along with their followers is a violator of that commandment because they doctrinally and literally allow the use of blood (and its parts) for an illegal (non-religious) purpose.

Since GB did not provide a single biblical quote as possible proof that some minor parts (fractions) of blood are allowed to be used by believers, GB falls into the "false teachers" category.

Or, in order not to offend some readers, we can say it like this: Teachers who do not know how to use God's Word correctly. ("...rightly dividing the word of truth” KJV), ("...handling the word of the truth aright. NWT) - 2 Timothy 2:15.

4 minutes ago, George88 said:

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Like you said, "why does it matter" that a millionaire business tycoon was the first president of the Watch Tower Society before Russell.

So, why is it relevant to mention that the person is a tycoon in the first place?

Well, I could say that:
1. it is possible to be very (highly) educated, very rich and at the same time be a good Christian
2. it is possible to make a good deal and see a business opportunity as the president of a publishing company that deals with religious topics

I think this video can fit into the title theme.

13 minutes ago, George88 said:

Would it be more appropriate to construct synagogues or worship in tents to address your question?

I've never had the chance to pitch a tent, but I don't think that skill should be underestimated.

14 minutes ago, George88 said:

The Elders actually have a list that covers a span of 65 years, documenting the actions of certain individuals, but not everyone. This is done while respecting the privacy laws of the respective governments. However, it is not accurate to claim that the Watchtower instructed anyone to keep this information to themselves. In fact, there was a situation in the Australian Royal Commission where at least one person, who was being investigated, insisted that secular authorities should not be contacted.

Address that situation.

ARC said that WTJWorg had not reported a single case. What came to the police was because of individuals who reported the crime.

16 minutes ago, George88 said:

This is incorrect as well. Secular laws were modified to accommodate the Australian Royal Commission (ARC). However, some territories in Australia still maintain clergy privileges that apply to "all" religions, not just a few. In matters of government, it's a matter of all or nothing, and the decision to protect the Vatican, just as the government did with "Pall", was made by Caesar, not the Watchtower.

Why haven't you challenged the ARC's decision to overlook Australia's detention centers and the government's readiness to apprehend and imprison doctors, nurses, or any whistleblowers who expose concerns regarding these institutions? Back then, a law was specifically passed for that very purpose.

I will answer that in a "stupid" way: "The whole world is under the power of Satan. And people are imperfect. What to expect?". 

.....WTJWorg operate under same conditions.

Good answer?  

I came across some more interesting information that I would like to share with you.
You remember that we saw how God arranged the issue of dead animals for human consumption. He told the Israelis that they were not allowed to eat such animals, but that they could freely sell them to non-Israelis, thus commercializing the prohibition to their advantage.
However, I came across an article from the WT, October 15, 1981, which puts a negative light on that decree of God if it were to be applied today. 

Quotes (not in same order as in article):

...Finally, questions have arisen about disposing of animal carcasses that have blood in them. In Israel a person who found a carcass of an animal that died of itself could sell it to a foreigner who was not interested in keeping God’s law. (Deut. 14:21) It is noteworthy, however, that this provision was not made so that an Israelite might make a regular business of trafficking in blood or unbled meat. .........

....Accordingly, a farmer today might have to get rid of an unbled carcass, such as a cow that he found dead so that it was no longer possible to drain the blood. Or a hunter might find a dead animal in a trap. What could he do with such an unbled animal? Sell the carcass to a rendering plant? Sell the dead animal to a non-Christian who had some personal or commercial use for the flesh? The individual Christian would have to decide for himself after considering what the law of the land requires and factors such as those discussed above, including the value of having a good conscience before God and men.—Acts 24:16 -

.....Yet Christians know from the Bible that blood is not simply another biological product to be used in any way possible or profitable.

.....Do you see the point? Though they could eat neither blood nor fat, Jehovah said that they could put fat to uses other than in sacrifice. But God did not say that about blood. If blood was not put on the altar, it was to be poured out on the ground, thus returning the animal’s life to the Life-Giver.—Lev. 7:22-27.

Christians are not under the Mosaic law. (Rom. 7:6; Col. 2:13-16) We are, though, specifically commanded to “abstain . . . from blood.” And we surely ought to respect the sacredness of blood, realizing that our salvation has been made possible through the blood of Christ. (Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:13, 14, 20) A Christian who deeply appreciates this does not need endless rules about what he should do with regard to commercial uses of blood.

Consider, for instance, the use of blood as fertilizer. When an Israelite hunter poured an animal’s blood out on the ground it was not in order to fertilize the soil. He was pouring it on the earth out of respect for blood’s sacredness. So, would a Christian with a similar appreciation of the significance of blood deliberately collect it from slaughtered animals so that he could use it as fertilizer? Hardly, for such commercialization of blood would not be in accord with deep respect for the life-representing value of blood.

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1981770

We must be clear about one fact. WTJWorg equates animal blood with human blood. This is something that deserves further discussion. Because every blood prohibition mentioned in the Bible is related to animal blood and flesh.

In the past, the commercialization of blood was not prohibited. Today GB considers it something bad and non-Christian behavior. They go so far as to admonish JWs that it would be improper to feed our pets with the blood of other animals.

The GB literally interprets the commandment "to abstain from the blood" of the flesh of animals to mean that the animal must be slaughtered and that the blood must be bled, poured on the ground.

Now the problem begins when this teaching (Bible command) should be applied to human blood. Obviously, GB believes that other rules apply here. But they didn't explain why.

If all blood is to be "poured on earth", how is it possible that GB has no objection to human blood being collected and commercialized?

How is it possible that GB thinks that JWs are allowed to use blood, even some parts of blood, when that blood has come out of the body and therefore cannot be used for any purpose other than the one that God intended for it? God intended the use of blood only as a sacrifice.

Is the blood that people donate (or charge for it, anyway) a kind of act that implies some kind of sacrifice (for humanitarian reasons) for another human being?

5 hours ago, George88 said:

You constantly highlight all the negative aspects of the Org, yet fail to acknowledge the significance. Secular laws are subject to change, and this necessitates that Elders receive guidance to support their decision-making.

 

Illustration. When WTJWorg builds KH and residential buildings, under what laws does it do so? Does it have a building internal manual just for JW workers? I guess it adheres to "secular" building regulations.

Biblical Law says that lawbreakers, even JW members, are subject to punishment by a "secular court", not a JW court. Why, then, did the WTJWorg Australia branch keep a record of law breakers and not report a single one to the authorities? Similar is in all other countries. Because the manual (Shepherd book) told them to call Bethel, and they told them, "keep it to yourself."

The "secular law" was not changed, and neither was the biblical law. Both laws say that "Caesar" should decide about crimes.

1 hour ago, George88 said:

As you rightly noted, the book serves as an invaluable guide for Elders to navigate various situations that may arise. It is crucial to acknowledge that Elders exercise discretion in matters concerning the congregation, as the Watchtower cannot possibly dictate every decision. After all, even imperfect human beings, like ourselves, make mistakes regularly. None of us can claim to be perfect in a flawless world. It is often those who are quick to criticize others that fail to recognize their own shortcomings. These individuals mistakenly assume their voice should hold authority, even though their understanding may lack wisdom and discernment.

Who should we trust and strive to emulate: the Pharisees or Christ?

Although I can agree with the assumption that some guidelines should exist for those who are required to implement such guidelines, we can hardly consider them "invaluable".
The reason, which you yourself confirm my opinion, is found in the continuation of your comment, when you talk again and again about "imperfections, mistakes" that are inherent in human organizations. So, if something is imperfect and with errors, then the "Shepherd" book is not "invaluable" in any sense. Especially, when these same elders, who have to implement the "guidelines of the Organization" (of lawyer's), cannot (should not) rely on their conscience, understanding and logic in some decisions.

5 hours ago, George88 said:

The "Shepherd" book serves as a comprehensive guide, incorporating biblical principles to provide valuable insights for Elders. This distinctive aspect lies in its inclusion of practical scenarios, which can greatly assist Elders in their decision-making process. Likewise, numerous other publications by the Watchtower organization adopt a similar approach, making them accessible to individuals of all ages, be it men, women, or even children who possess a profound understanding and ability to discern scriptural truths.

This publication is confidential. If an elder is deleted  he should turn over this publication  to be destroyed, and any electronic copies in his possession should be deleted.

The book deals with "legal" matters within the religious community. If a citizen of a country wants to know what the "legal" system/procedure of the country in which he lives looks like, he can easily get information.
What reason is there that JWs cannot get information on what the "legal" system/procedure of spiritual Paradise looks like?