Srecko Sostar

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.

I was really looking for a view from a casual observer. It means something to me.
I think they're trapped.
The question of fractions harvested knowingly and purposely from blood to take what we want is like asking God if it would have been okay for Adam to knowingly and purposely harvest what he wanted to eat from the tree of knowledge and throw the rest away without eating it. And what response do you think that would have evoked from God? Who knows, maybe Adam didn't like peelings.

Yeah. That's why I said earlier that I believe in evolution! lol

I want to understand what you're saying.
When it comes to what is expected of Christians:
1) When it comes to abstaining from blood, are we expected to abide by provisions found in Mosaic law?
2) When it comes to abstaining from blood, are we expected to abide by requirements predating Mosaic law?
3) Or, When it comes to abstaining from blood, are we expected to abide by something else that's different than either of those two things?

I've weighed in on the blood issue discussions before, but I don't feel competent to add anything of value. Just opinions. Miles seems to have given it more thought and had more direct experience with it, so I'm glad to hear him out.
It happens too rarely these days but now and then someone stops by ready to share and discuss information in more depth on a topic. I'm always happy for that even if I end up with nothing to offer, or end up being unconvinced about a position, because I always learn something.
I'm not sure exactly what Miles' position is but I'd like to go back and catch up with what's going on in this topic.
And why is the blood topic in a discussion that started out about Malawi anyway?

Here is what the society teaches about the "three things" you alluded to:
"When the issue involving application of the Mosaic Law to Gentile Christians was presented to the governing body in Jerusalem in the first century, their decision was in harmony with these facts. They recognized that Jehovah was not requiring Gentile believers to perform works in obedience to the Mosaic Law before holy spirit was poured out on them. The decision of that governing body did list as “necessary things” certain prohibitions that were in harmony with that Law, but these were based on the Bible record concerning events that predated the Law. So there was not an imposing on Gentile Christians of a responsibility to conform to the Mosaic Law or some portion of it but, rather, there was a confirming of standards recognized prior to Moses." (Ref United in Worship book, underlining added)

Of course the who blood policy of the society stands squarely on Mosaic law. Only, the society says that's not the case.

How can you realize something you've never personally known of? You must have some idea in your mind of how often an occurrence. You characterized it as "occasional". What is that supposed to mean? 

That's a nice opinion. But it fails the test.
Of the substance of blood, nothing whatsoever records God having humans treat blood as a sacred substance until Mosaic Law. Pre-flood humans were not required to treat blood as a sacred substance. Post-flood, humans were still not required to treat the substance of blood as sacred.
I think you conflate the value God attributes to life with the substance of blood. Everything you say I find agreement in biblical text in relation to life. But regarding the substance of blood, I see none of it until the time of Mosaic Law.
The thing about not boiling a baby its mother's milk? I totally get that. But this thing about the substance of blood? You conflate.

Sometimes, when you read something, or somebody tells you something, it makes perfect sense. Other times you get the uneasy feeling it’s somewhere somehow you were being observed through binoculars by a duck.
…. there is an actual Latin word for this, but it escapes me at the moment.
You probably remember the scripture that says, paraphrased, “… you must not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk .…”.  The instant I read this scripture, many years ago, I understood why God would command such a thing, and I wholeheartedly agreed with it at the same level of seriousness that I instantly understood that it was intended.
Occasionally over the past 50 years, in discussing other subjects, I would mention that commandment, and was genuinely stunned that others did not also instantly “get it”. It made no sense to them. If you are going to KILL an animal for food … what’s the big deal how you cook it?
The younger animal is food. The mother’s milk is food. What’s the big deal? Neither one knows or is capable of comprehending WHAT is done with their being a resource.
Just as soldiers become soldiers for dozens of different reasons, even among soldiers, sometimes what is a moral necessity for one is incomprehensible for another.
The SYMBOLIC (  … if you will, the SPIRITUAL …) value of blood is unique, because by example and by edict from God, it is a common theme that runs throughout the whole Bible. It’s clear that we have permission to use as food anything that walks, crawls, swims or flies, including (if you can overcome the strong CULTURAL taboos, like when Jerusalem was under siege) people … presumably bled out from war wounds. Some people would rather starve to death …. and have.
The prohibition against blood is consistent in principle throughout the entire Bible, but what convinced me was the example of King David, a soldier who slaughtered men and animals by the thousands … himself … personally … in hand to hand and eyeball to eyeball combat. When he in laying siege to a city remarked he was thirsty, and the only close by water was in a well near the city walls, two of his men risked their lives in a hail of arrows, spears, and rocks to bring him back a bucket of water. 
David did NOT drink the water. He poured it out on the ground, not because it was blood, or even blood fractions, but because it REPRESENTED the lives of his two soldiers, the EXACT same way that blood represents all air-breathing (pneuma=air) souls. 
In 1960, when I first read that, I instantly “got it”, the same way I instantly understood about the “boiling a kid in it’s mothers milk”.
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.

Bartholin's opinion was based a premise that transfusing blood is equivalent to eating blood. For more than a century that notion has been known to be false.
If you're going to place confidence an notions from the 17th century then maybe we need to re-start witch swimming to know who's innocent and who's guilty.
I can understand why Bartholin held the opinion he held. But I can't understand why anyone in the 21st century would hold that eating blood is equivalent to transfusing blood. It's just false. Plain false. Transfused blood works as tissue, not nutrition.
I'm sure that's reassuring to family who've lost loved ones for nothing more than bad teaching. Worse, for known false teaching.
 
My primary concern is for individuals who devotedly follow what the society teaches on the subject simply because they've been convinced to trust and obey whatever it says.

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.

I did a search of “The Babylon Bee” site for Jehovah’s Witnesses ….. there’s MORE!!
 



 
… one of my favorites …..
 

Over the years I have immensely enjoyed the continuous religious satire of “The Babylon Bee”, as they have excoriated and sometimes figuratively disemboweled Catholics, Baptists, Mormons, and Mega churches, the idea of a burning hell, and doctrines galore.
Today, it was Jehovah’s Witnesses turn, and it was painfully funny!
I had to ask ChatGBT what a “J-Dub” was, because I thought it was an insulting term. Then I had to think about that answer until it made sense
ChatGBT:  “The term "J-Dub" likely originated as a casual and abbreviated way for people to refer to Jehovah's Witnesses. It's a combination of the letter "J" from Jehovah and "Dub" from the "W" in Witnesses, creating a more informal and nickname-like expression. Informal language and slang often evolve naturally within communities, and this appears to be an example within the context of Jehovah's Witnesses.”  
As a small boy I had an uncle always referred to as “DubaGee” and many years later I figured out it meant W. G. for William Garrison something, the W. being pronounced “DubbaYuu”
With that insight, I find the ChatGBT EXPLANATION very reasonable.

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?
 

When I say a presentation looks like an apologetic work it's not a disparagement. There's nothing wrong with apologetic presentations. What I mean by "apologetic work" is a presentation that's written to protect a particular point of view.
What you wrote about problems related to donor blood and its availability and efficacy for transfusion medicine is not necessarily false, but it may lead to a false impression. Here's an example of what I mean:
You have two patients. Both patients are otherwise healthy young adults. But they have just suffered horrendous trauma and are hemorrhaging blood at an alarming rate. Each is bleeding out internally so fast that both will die before the underlying reason(s) for hemorrhage can be found, let alone remedied. Their Hb levels are lower than 2.0 g/dL. What to do? The doctors need more time. One thing can give them that time. Transfusion of volume expander and red cells. This will buy time to find and attempt to repair underlying cause(s) of hemorrhage, if that's possible.
All the problems you pointed out remain. But the simple fact is that if one of those patients accepts red cell transfusion and one declines, then there's a near 100% probability that one of those patients will die.
When it comes to subjects like this, any and all problems deserve attention and discussion, but if medical outcome is the critical factor then that factor can't be ignored as though it doesn't matter. So, for instance, the patient who accepted red cells and lived, maybe he contracts some disease or condition the result of that choice. But he's alive to deal with it.
If you want to write about difficulties of medical use of blood then do that. If you want to write about religious aspects of medical use of blood then do that. But those two things have nothing to do with one another. If religiously taking red cells is wrong then say so and show why religiously. If medically taking red cells is wrong then say so and show why medically. Sweeping statements about problems of using blood can easily mislead.
Apologetic works are written to protect (defend) a particular point of view. I prefer works that are written to share information and let people make of what they will. 
But, again, there is nothing inherently wrong with apologetic works.

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.

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.

Loosely speaking, Srecko is my template for the character Vic Vomodog, sort of a Wily E. Coyote figure who lurks in wait of any comment about anything and converts it into yet another attempt to catch the Road Runner. Thus far, Road Runner thwarts him every time, but we do not know what tomorrow will hold. If we did, the gag would have lost its enduring appeal long ago. Vic’s perpetual attacks on the faith are not logically consistent, but I don’t worry about it because neither are Srecko’s. Anything that comes up—how can it be used against the faith? Nevermind if it is consistent with prior criticisms.
It probably never would have occurred to me but for reflection upon the inane, ‘hehehe )))))))’ he used to append to comments, ceasing the practice only after Nana Fofana (who does not appear to be here any more) began imitating the style so mercilessly, even meanly overacting a chopped style that stems from English being a second language, that he could endure it no more.
Oh, yeah: hehehe ))))))). How can one not think of Wily E. Coyote cooking up another scheme with some Acme products?

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.

Not surprising …. in any organization where there is plenty of Free money and the only competency test is “good intentions”, liberal scum will rise to the top. 
I betcha Job’s three companions originally came over for a free meal.

Many years ago I performed a little experiment involving hospital liaison committees and their training. It was fairly easy. At that time various members in diverse parts of the world had published email accounts in recommended practices documents published for use in hospital systems. I asked a simple question. Could JWs accept transfusion of cryosupernatant plasma as a matter of personal conscience?
With one exception, each responded that they didn't know, but they'd check and get back with me. The one exception responded initially that he didn't think so, but he too said he'd check to make sure. Eventually every one of them responded with an answer. Yes. They could. When the one HLC elder who initially had guessed "No" responded, he said "You should realize this component from blood is on the very limit of what we can accept as a matter of conscience."
My experiment was not to test knowledge of HLC members. What I wondered was just how tightly held the information was. It turned out it was so tightly held that not one of the HLCs I contacted knew the answer. That's how close to the vest that information was being kept.
It was professionals in the medical field who first made it known to public view about this product being acceptable if a JW wanted to take it. Even today, you can't find any reference at all to this at the society's web page, unless you first go to the special Medical Information for Clinicians section. Even then, all you find there is a link to an article on the use of it for TTP patients.

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.

My piece of advice: Conduct your own thorough research in order to draw a conclusion worthy of being owned by you. You have to know your own capabilities and limitations, but don't let other people think for you if you can help it. There are folks with passions, and there are folks with biases, and there are outright charlatans too. Of course, there are unbiased experts. But you have to dig to make sure whatever information you gather is viable, and then you have to make sure whatever you deduce from that information is done soundly.