Srecko Sostar

Any person who sacrifices their life under an honest impression that what they are doing is right, has done nothing wrong insofar as I can tell.
However, if someone taught the basis for that sacrifice and that basis is false (or unsound), then there is accounting to be held for the teacher. If you're going to teach a certain thing (notion) is worthy of sacrificing life over, you better be right in your teaching. Moreover, if in any way that teacher learns the teaching is false (or unsound in any way!) and continues teaching it nevertheless, the bloodguilt goes from bad to worse.

I think many people here would agree with the proposition that the Church of Covid for two years became the world’s fastest growing religion.
Instead of a cross or a star of David it was the mask that identified its believers.
My wife and I did not join that Church, did not wear masks except where required to get in a building, and did not take shots or boosters.
The fanaticism was rampant, and my wife was fired from her teaching job as she refused to be part of a school Covid research project.
She was treated like an anti- health dangerous criminal and cried a lot about it. I barely noticed.
We did wear masks to the KH when it opened up again, not because it was reasonable or rational, because it wasn’t … but because it was almost no trouble, and we had gotten used to masks at the Golden Corral, as well as those silly blue plastic gloves on one hand.
Covid is airborne. Covid on your hands is digestable.
So … what if …. what if wearing masks actually INCREASED your risk of infection …. hmmmm?
Do you blame the Governments, the Church of Covid, the School Boards, or … who? for increased unnecessary sicknesses and cripplings, and deaths?
Ya gotta blame SOMEBODY!
Or … you improvise, adapt, and overcome the basic limitation … if you can … that all living things are subject to:
”STUFF HAPPENS”
Sometimes getting sucker punched kills you … sometimes you loose a few teeth … and sometimes it’s a swoosh and a miss.
”STUFF HAPPENS”
That’s the way the real world works. If you are stupid, it tries to kill you. 
This is known as … ”normal”
That’s why I like Indiana Jones Movies …. when the Nazis make their appearance, nobody has to explain the plot to me.
We all take turns standing up for rightous principles, and we all take turns being unbelievably stupid.
I cracked up when i learned the President’s wife, Jill Biden, a card carrying, mask wearing  member of the Church of Covid, with three covid shots snd two booster shots, got covid TWICE!
Like being crushed by a toppled cast iron statue in the lobby, I appreciate irony.
 

The reason it is self-condemning is because it is no longer about the sacredness of blood … it’s about the sacredness of money.

Yeah. Looks like I've had heavier things to deal with than keeping up with cinematic nuance.
Have you ever helped a mother and father deal with the death of a small child who died because they refused a recommended medical remedy with a proven good outcome and, instead, you were part of talking them into opting for something the society said was okay but was nevertheless a tremendous gamble? Then the child died, and died exactly of what the treating physician said was the primary complication that could have been avoided with the recommended treatment?
Oh. I forgot. You were at the movies. My apologies.

vaccinations?
Covid “shots”?
For the most part I agree with TTH, and I will not take blood or blood fractions “circa 1960” but you do make a good point MM. But then, people DO get Nobel Prizes for accidental discoveries, or conversely, like Barak Obama, who got a Nobel Prize for being black.
By the end of 1945 about 220,000 people had been killed by the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, plus perhaps a million damaged for life.
Life is experimental. “Stuff Happens”. The result is ALWAYS the same … you die. 
I think, MM, your not attending meetings BECAUSE of the blood issue is a rationalism born of an entirely different motivation, but then again, i don’t care.
I recognize that for the long term best interests of the Japanese People, their defeat by atomic bombing was the best thing that could have happened to them.
The tree of freedom has to be fed with the blood of tyrants and patriots … and innocent bystanders.
…. that’s the way reality works.
Life is experimental. “Stuff Happens”. The result is ALWAYS the same … you die. 
There are no exceptions.
 
 
 

From a purely medical standpoint, I'd not advocate for a liberal use of donor blood. For all the reasons you cite plus more. From a purely medical perspective I'd advocate whatever is the current gold standard of care. If that includes use of some product rendered from donor blood, fine. If that includes abstaining from use of some product rendered from donor blood, that's fine too.
Undoubtedly the JW patient population who refused donor blood products over the years has pushed the science of medicine in ways that may otherwise have taken longer. But here is a critical thing that so far has not changed: there is still such a thing as bleeding to death. That is to say, if in a medical setting a patient's peripheral blood lacks sufficient volume or sufficient oxygen distribution capacity the patient is going to die.
The GB has not tried to advance the gold standard of medical care. The GB has acted to protect a religious position it has found itself entrenched in, with adherents it's compelled to place a lot of skin in the game by way of preventable deaths. What they've done is modified the doctrine to still be able to say they have the doctrine but mitigate the damage it causes. (More on that in my question to you below, should you choose to answer it) That's no Nobel Prize effort. People are still dying due to this policy, and particularly they're dying the result of severe anemia. They die because they can't accept transfusion of donor red cells without losing fellowship of lifetime close friends and family due to the isolating effect of the sister policy of unilaterally disassociating the person.
I'm not sharing this information to convince anyone to change their mind. It's just information for people to do with what they want. I'm also not sharing this information to protect a preferential view. If I'm wrong I put this out so whatever is wrong can be identified and learned from.
You've inquired of me regarding a purely medical perspective. I'll do the same for you.
Here's a medical question for you: What is the simplest method you can think of to use blood medicinally that does not have a patient receiving whole blood, red cells, white cells, platelets or plasma?

A standard technique for mass hypnosis.
AND … if you translate that into Latin, it makes you appear very smart … and noble.
“ Puto quid Georgius 88 significare conatur, perplexum esse linguae linguisticae peripetasmata, cum notionibus aethereis implicationis, et sonorum sonorum in labyrinthinorum corridora sermonis implicantis, ubi termini inter implicationem et explicitam labem in aenigmate. confluentem significatio.
Nebulosus claviculis implicationis, cum natura sua fallax, ambiguitatem semanticam evocans, quae, in syntaxi facundiae velata, perpetuo in limine suggestionis regni manet suspensus, aeternaliter alludens ad inscrutabilem profunditatem interpretativae intricationis.
Labyrinthus significationum implicatarum cum clausula locutionis linguisticae connexio, tabulam aenigmaticam efformans ubi subiectum, sicut phantasma, insinuationis perplexas corridores elusive navigans.
Id aut eius agenda”
Wah-de-do-dah!

My comments are more along the line of (paraphrased), “STUFF HAPPENS … get used to it!”.

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.

I think what George 88 is trying to convey is the intricate tapestry of linguistic expression, with the ethereal notions of implication, and nuanced resonance entwining within the labyrinthine corridors of discourse, where the boundaries between what is implied and what is explicit blur into an enigmatic confluence of meaning.
The nebulous tendrils of implication, with their elusive nature, evoking semantic ambiguity that, while cloaked in the syntax of eloquence, remains perpetually suspended in the liminal realm of suggestion, eternally alluding to the unfathomable depths of interpretative intricacy.
The labyrinth of implied meanings intertwining with the cadence of linguistic expression, forming an enigmatic tableau where the subject, like a phantom, elusively navigating the convoluted corridors of insinuation.
That, or pushing his Agenda.

There was more than one reason I choked a bit on that attribution from Splane.
- Splane is part of the GB who deemed the GB is the "faithful slave".
- Schroeder was part of the GB who deemed those who felt the "faithful slave" pictures only the leading ones of the anointed as "objectors".
According to Splane, we should learn from Schroeder.
According to Schroeder, Splane would fit into the "objectors" category.
Choke...choke...
Alfred Hitchcock anyone?
 
 

Apostasy? Well that's a loud word! Let's say it again. Apostasy! Everyone feel better now?
Jesus was accused and put to death for blasphemy. Blasphemy was held on par with apostasy by the same murderers. So what? If our Master is the Christ, should any of us expect better treatment? The main thing is making sure of all things and holding fast to what is fine.
What is true is what matters. Those who prefer what is false over what is true will attempt to characterize (brand) persons all manner of ways to distract from their showing a preference for what is false over what is true. If we suffer, let it be over saying things that are true.
Don't let distractions interfere with focusing on truth.

I think that some brothers feel they can do a lot more good for both the organization and the congregations overall by not declaring themselves apostates, even if they hold beliefs different from the accepted doctrinal party line. For example, I recall very clearly when I did research for Brother Bert Schroeder (1977-1982) that he often hinted at different beliefs and sometimes even got in trouble for promoting them as "trial balloons" when giving talks during his travels. In those days, the accepted doctrinal party line, even among members of the Governing Body, was that it had to be whatever was already approved (or would be approved) by Brother Fred Franz. This kept other GB members from even attempting to propose alternatives to prophetic interpretations. 
In 1974 there were only 9 active members of the GB, and that number suddenly doubled almost exactly at the time when there was talk about changing the nature of the GB from a "non-governing" governing body into a GOVERNING  Body. Along with the already declined health of Groh and Sullivan, it became known that Knorr might soon die and leave the non-governing GB with only 8. So 8 additional GB members were added in late 1974 to double that active number to 17 (although Brother Fekel wasn't very active).
Until then, many of these same GB members, and even a lot of long-time Bethel "heavies" as they were called, were willing to talk about a pet doctrine that differed in some way from the party line. In fact, they appeared to take some pride in the fact that they could think independently of Fred Franz on a certain topic. When I started in 1976, there was still talk among various table heads (Bethel elders and "heavies") that up until 1974, it was easy to get Brother "so-and-so" to tell you his alternative explanation of this or that doctrine (or policy) [the mediator, the tribulation, parable of leaven, mustard tree, dragnet, etc]-- "but now he's on the Governing Body." As one example, I had questions about 1918 and 1919 and was told that Brother Sydlik had an alternative explanation. It took some doing, but I finally got Brother Sydlik to share what I was told he had shared freely before his appointment to the GB in late 1974. Also, when I worked for Brother Schroeder, he had alternative explanations to the "generation," to the various "type" and "anti-type" classes, to the meaning of "house-to-house," to the physicality rather than just the symbolism of the "heart," and several other ideas. He even asked me to research supposed health differences among people who were left-handed, right-handed and those who were forced to change from left to right at a young age. [He wanted me to "prove" that people who were forced to change had more blood sugar problems. It was the only research assignment that seemed to have nothing to do with the Bible.]
Should Schroeder and Sydlik and all those Bethel "heavies" and other Bethel Elders have declared themselves apostate? They were among at least 5 GB members who, at least around 1978-81 didn't even fully accept our 1914 doctrine. 
Now I don't agree with most of the novel ideas that Schroeder had, but I think it there was some good in the freedom of thought and expression that allowed some to stand up against the "old guard" thinking of Fred Franz on some issues. Fred Franz fought back right in front of the Bethel family sometimes. I was there the morning he railed loudly against those who thought Jesus was "the mediator of every Tom, Dick, and Harry." My own table head at the time was one of those persons, as were probably many others. Fred Franz thought it was apostasy to even harbor a doubt in your mind about 1914, 1918 and 1919. 
But when Brother Splane gave the first major announcement about finally dropping the unsupported "type" & "antitype" classes, who did he credit with promoting this very idea from decades earlier? Listen to his talk and note that he specifically credited Brother Bert Schroeder, who had died about a decade before this change was finally implemented. 
So I would agree that "apostate" ideas are not good to promote as a certainty. But Schroeder was apparently more careful promoting them under Fred Franz tenure, but then more openly when Fred Franz died. And what was apostasy has now become something he is credited for promoting.

I had discussions with him. He knows me. He had no answers either, except to fall back on secular constitutional legalism, which proves nothing from a logical let alone a scriptural perspective. But the worst was his use of demonstrably false premises. He just could not accept that certain premises put forth by the society could be false. This despite evidence as plain as his face in a mirror. Those premises asserted by the society are presented here:
 

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

Based on the latter clause of your sentence, by "Congregation" presumably you mean JWs.
I can't attend public meetings. To do so would represent tacit support for a teaching I know causes many, many deaths, and it is untenable. I long for the day when it is repealed, or at least relegated to a status similar to what it held prior to 1961.
In the meantime I consider myself like Elijah, or David who had to keep himself from the anointed of Jehovah in order to help those he still loved and cared about.
For now, that's all you need to know about me, if that.
I do not hide my identity from those who earn my trust. But that trust has to be earned. One day perhaps you'll learn of me from me. In the meantime, whether we have dialogue is up to you.

@Many Miles I haven't fully read your above response, but I will follow up. 
Can you disclose or tell me a bit more what is your relationship with the Congregation and if you consider yourself a Witness? I’m intrigued in learning where you are coming from? I don’t mean to be nosy, and fully understand the repercussions. 
To give you some background. And please don’t take this the wrong way. I am of the belief of using your real name, unless doing so would risk your career or livelihood. Real names makes us accountable for our words, by tying our reputations to what we say and how we say it. Transparency contributes to authentic dialogue, anonymity detracts.  I’ve said in the forum before that I am not a fan of anonymous internet dialogue because it artificially separates persons from ideas and arguments, and in this way it assumes a false anthropology, as if we are mere intellects, and not embodied beings with feelings and biases and emotions, character, histories, etc. In my opinion, so long as a person remains anonymous or hides his or her identity behind a moniker or an avatar she remains incapable of entering into authentic dialogue, because authentic dialogue requires the personal authenticity by which we reveal who we are, where we stand, and take responsibility for our words, by allowing them to be connected with our personal identity by those who we enter into dialogue. Maintaining anonymity, for example, hinders the development and expression of sociability. I don't think that ideas and persons can ever be fully separated. All dialogue is between persons, and it involves the character of the participants.
My reason for including some biographical facts here and elsewhere in the forum is not to persuade other Witnesses, but only to explain that I don't think that ideas and persons can ever be fully separated. The more I know about you, the more I can determine your credibility, your sincerity, your authenticity, and likewise the same is true the more you know about me.
I'd be glad to learn more specifically what your position actually is from a JW framework. Feel free to write me privately to discuss your thoughts.

In that case there's a single doctrinal position you need to apply yourself to. The society's blood doctrine.
That doctrine has led to a lot of premature death.
From day one there has been disagreement within the community of JWs about the merit of this doctrine. From day one. And people are dying over it.
If that teaching is demonstrably wrong then the society has bloodguilt. If a person stands in even tacit support of that, natural law condemns them. Also, what God said to Noah condemns them too. Look close. Look very close. And, look hard. You don't want to be on the wrong side of that teaching.
"No one has love greater than this, that someone should surrender his life in behalf of his friends." (Jesus)
In reverse chronological order:
- If we have permission to donate our life to save a friend then we have permission to donate our blood to save a friend
- Christians have never been under Mosaic law provisions related to blood
- Noah was told nothing whatsoever about donor blood
- God said nothing to Adam or Eve prohibiting them from anything they might want to do with blood
 

Early Christians were a body of individuals united in a common cause of following the Christ as best they could. They understood that no matter their family history God accepted their worship so long as they feared (respected) Him and worked righteousness. Jesus life, death and resurrection served as assurance, it gave them hope to add to love and faith they already had. That was it. Those same Christians also realized there were persons who had yet to learn of Jesus, and likely among them were persons' whose worship God accepted, just like He accepted the worship of Cornelius. Christianity was not a unity intended create a hierarchy to lord over worshipers of God and potential worshipers of God. Christianity was a common cause of helping all of these learn of the hope in Christ, and that God had not forsaken them. 
Today we can theorize about concepts like denomination, but it's an exercise in futility. Nothing has changed about what God expects, and focusing on things like the nit of denominations has potential to detract us from things that really matter, like natural law.
Yes.
See my first paragraph above. Insofar as I know, nothing has changed except humans have transposed a bunch of ideas that distract from Christian unity. It's God place to determine whose worship He accepts, and no one else's.

That happens sometimes. When it does the problem is not how strong a person's grasp of concepts is but, rather, whether the person's willingness to learn is greater than their desire to persuade (or protect).
More often than not, the problem I see between persons engaged in a contentious subject is a goal to persuade (or protect) rather than a goal of sharing and learning.

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

Yes.
We all have natural law written in our hearts. Those who choose to follow it don't need a hierarchy telling them what to do. Also, when encountering someone else holding the same common cause there is an equally natural unity, and that unity will maintain despite non-essential differences that may exist.
Folks who want a different system, say a political human government (nation), probably need some form of hierarchy. It's not going to be pretty. Man dominating men leads to ruin. After creating Adam and Eve God gave humans dominion over animals, plants and the earth. He did not given man dominion over men.
Do not put your trust in nobles or in earthling men. Read that again. Are you sure you read that?

No. There was no consequence. Jesus gave Thomas what he needed.

Here's the testimony you allude to:
Q. And do you see yourselves as Jehovah God's spokespeople on earth?
A. That I think would seem to be quite presumptuous to say that we are the only spokesperson that God is using. The scriptures clearly show that someone can act in harmony with God's spirit in giving comfort and help in the congregations, but if I could just clarify a little, going back to Matthew 24, clearly, Jesus said that in the last days ‐ and Jehovah's Witnesses believe these are the last days ‐ there would be a slave, a group of persons who would have responsibility to care for the spiritual food. So in that respect, we view ourselves as trying to fulfill that role.
Jackson said "we" (read: GB) "view ourselves as trying to fulfill" the role of a slave caring for the spiritual food.
Yoda 101: Do or do not. There is no try.
What is arrogant is the GB enforcing what comes from it under pain of potentially lethal shunning when, according to Jackson, the GB is not actually DOING the work of caring for spiritual food but, rather, are only TRYING to fulfill that role. If the role played by the GB is as you say then it's MEN should be CHRISTLY ENOUGH to say that in full open view, even if it means they are exposed to great personal sacrifice. Isn't that what Jesus did?
To those under its foot, the GB acts like a dictator. To those not under its foot, the GB acts like there's nothing to see here; please just move along and leave us alone (so we can keep doing to our subjects what we want to do to them because this is religion and religion is a protected activity).
 

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.