Srecko Sostar

That's an interesting view. Let's take a closer look at it.
The society holds a religious position that we should "treat life and blood as sacred".
In logical form that looks like:
A = C
B = C
hence A = B
In mathematical form it would look like this, as an example:
2 + 3 = 5
1 + 4 = 5
Hence 2 + 3 = 1 + 4
In written form it looks like this:
Life equals sacred
Blood equals sacred
Hence life equals blood
From a theological perspective there's a huge problem with that notion in terms of our blood doctrine. Here's the problem:
Jesus said, "No one has love greater than this, that someone should surrender his soul in behalf of his friends."
So humans have explicit permission to donate their own life to help safe the life of his friends.
If we have explicit permission to donate our life to save life, and if blood equals life, then we have explicit permission to donate our blood to save life.

Quote:
“If the very things that I once threw down I build up again, I demonstrate myself to be a transgressor.”—Gal. 2:18.
It is a serious matter to represent God and Christ in one way, then find that our understanding of the major teachings and fundamental doctrines of the Scriptures was in error, and then after that, to go back to the very doctrines that, by years of study, we had thoroughly determined to be in error. Christians cannot be vacillating—‘wishy-washy’—about such fundamental teachings. What confidence can one put in the sincerity or judgment of such persons? - https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1976361
 
May we conclude that WTJWorg and all its members can think, based on this quote, how the less important doctrines can be changed, and the most important, fundamental ones must not be touched and changed?
Is there even such a thing that the teaching of the Bible, primarily contained in the teaching of Jesus, can be separated into two groups; more important and less important doctrines, lessons, commands, instructions?
This passage from the WT supports that idea. But what it does not support is changing theological/doctrinal teaching, in general. WTJWorg has been doing just that for decades.
Is the changed teaching about "generation" important or unimportant doctrine?. Is the instruction on "recording the number of hours" (field service) an important or an unimportant instruction?
If the answer is YES, it is irrelevant, unimportant, it means that accepting or rejecting obedience to WTJWorg in this things should be based on personal decision, interpretation and free will. But, this would not be tolerated by WTJWorg and individuals would be sanctioned in one way or another.
If the answer is NO, both things are crucial, core teachings of the Organization, then those who changed it are lawbreakers, "transgressors" as Paul says. Thus, WTJWorg, and/or GB, become "apostates".
 

Well the blood issue is a command..not a WT rule…..
the two witness thing was a rule and did cause great damage.It’s now been amended…but too late for so many …
Men did what you are talking about..men who had no right to…these sorts have always existed amongst Gods people….causing him great grief…and a mess he has to clean up.

Which "biblical rule", interpreted through the practice of WTJWorg, can cause more harm to JW members?
The "blood rule" or "two witnesses rule"?
I am not a supporter of blood transfusions for medical reasons. But on the other hand, every medicine or method of treatment has its own dangers.

The crime of that former JW deserves full condemnation and the most severe punishment. I hope that the court will punish him severely if he is guilty. Lives are irretrievably lost, the wounded may live hard with the consequences, and everyone else will have permanent trauma. It's a tragedy.

What is our scriptural basis for refusing transfusion of products rendered from blood?
Our organization’s policy regarding blood is to disassociate (effectively: disfellowship) fellow JWs for accepting transfusion of whole blood, or any of the products known as red cells, white cells, platelets or plasma. On the other hand, we are not to disassociate/disfellowship fellow JWs for accepting any other products rendered from blood, such as hemoglobin, albumin, cryoprecipitate or cryosupernatant plasma.
ONE ASPECT OF THE POSITION
We have these two items of response and discussion:
Item 1: When asked by an elder why we would disfellowship/disassociate a JW for conscientiously taking a transfusion of a blood product like white cells but not for taking a product like cryoprecipitate, the society’s response was to say ‘while both may affect the life of the individual, both whole blood and major components (meaning red cells, white cells, platelets and plasma) carry nutrition to the body, and it is this aspect of providing nourishment that links blood transfusion with the biblical prohibition.’
Item 2: To another elder who asked a similar question, the response was to say “In weighing matters scripturally, the “slave" has decided with good-basis that blood's four primary components-plasma,-red cells, white cells, and platelets-should not be used. That is how unfractionated blood components settle out naturally. In its still unbroken-down state, each separated primary component, regardless of its respective percentage of whole blood, can still represent basically what blood as a whole symbolizes: the life of the creature.”
The problem with these two items of response is that both are inconsistent with facts on the ground.
Regarding item one above, it leverages the biblical statement to Noah about eating blood of animals killed to use them as food. (See Gen 9) The problem is, it is well known that transfusion of red cells offers no nutritional support. None. To be clear, if a patient was transfused with red cells for nutritional support, they would die of starvation. On the other hand, and ironically, if a patient were transfused with cryosupernatant plasma it would offer a decent measure of nutritional support. This makes our position self-contradictory.
Regarding item two above, it leverages what we find in the natural world. (See Ps 19) The problem is, it is patently false to say blood settles out naturally as plasma, red cells, white cells and platelets. First of all, there is no instance in nature where this is true. None. In nature, when blood settles out, it settles out as two components, not four. Those two components are serum and a clot. Second, were it true that blood settles out naturally as plasma, red cells, white cells and platelets, we’d all be dead. This is because our blood is designed to clot if it is not circulating. If it does not clot then even small abrasions could lead to death because we’d bleed out. So this idea is just flat out false.
If there exists a scriptural premise for us TO disassociate (effectively: disfellowship) fellow JWs for accepting transfusion of whole blood, or any of the products known as red cells, white cells, platelets or plasma, but NOT TO disassociate/disfellowship fellow JWs for accepting any other products rendered from blood, such as hemoglobin, albumin, cryoprecipitate or cryosupernatant plasma, please steer me to it.

…
 

I listened to the PR representative of JWorg in India who was interviewed after the explosions at the Congress in which 3 people were killed and many wounded.
Several things stand out.
-He, Joshua David, says that JWs love the country they live in. He says; "We love India". This is the first time I have heard such a thing from the mouth of a JW. Saying it publicly like this speaks about a new twist on WTJWorg public policy and propaganda.
-He says that the core messages when JWs preach is to explain to people why there is so much suffering and why God allows suffering. On the contrary, according to the JWorg page, it is said that one message is core, and that is; "In fact, we may summarize the core message of the Bible this way: Jehovah sanctifies his name by means of the Kingdom ruled by his Son and restores righteousness and peace to the earth.
- https://www.jw.org/zib/search/?q=core+message
-His explanation to the public regarding the attitude of JW believers towards the doctrines of the Organization/Bible is worrying. From his explanation, one gets the impression that there is a great deal of individual freedom and decision as to which doctrines and instructions an individual JW will choose to follow or not to follow. He mentioned that this also applies to blood transfusion.
-When it comes to the hymn, he says that the JWs stand during the hymn. He did not delve into all the possible versions that are explained on the website about it. -https://www.jw.org/en/library/books/School-and-Jehovahs-Witnesses/Flag-Salute-Anthems-and-Voting/
All in all, this representative of WTJWorg in India is really misleading about some important things about the Organization and the position of followers inside this religious system. From the article I found on the official site that explains the flag and anthem and how JW adults or JW children behave in a variety of situations, it doesn't say at all that it is left to their personal decision, but rather everything is elaborated in quite a bit of detail as expected from JW how to react and behave without any other choice or conscience involved. Because JW conscience have to be trained by organizational rules of WTJWorg.
-----------------------
 The next thing I noticed was from an article that, among other things, includes an interview with an eyewitnesses to the event who was at the Congress and has been a JW since childhood. One is named Prakash and other is Poly. “
What is preached in Church doesn’t often match the Bible,” said Poly. He, too started questioning his beliefs and turned to the Biblical text for guidance. After learning more about the Witnesses from his wife and daughters, he decided to formally join." 
His statement is identical to the one Geoffrey Jackson made before the ARC in 2015. It is also regarding some of the posts on this forum regarding WTJWorg doctrinal things and the opportunity for members to personally test and question them.
Prakash said ; “We’re a peaceful community, and we don’t blindly follow rules — we do what is best for us and for God.”
How contrary to this; “All of us must be ready to obey any instruction we may recieve whether these appear sound from a human standpoint or not" -Watchtower Nov. 15, 2013 pg. 20
 
The curious thing is that neither in the case of the attack in Hamburg nor here in India did I read in the JW official news that the perpetrators were ex-JWs.
link to article - https://theprint.in/india/no-birthdays-no-blood-transfusions-jehovahs-witnesses-have-a-committed-way-of-life/1829912/
link to video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoU9Apc_Oj0
 
 

I know, these kinds of questions are very uncomfortable. Because whatever answer the interlocutor gives, it will get him into trouble. :))
 
 

But only temporarily. Temporarily stopping evil. Nothing else.
God doesn't even have an aversion to blood. Liters of blood were used for the altar. While the animals are being slaughtered and the blood is sprinkled on the altar, weren't the hands, face and body of the people present "defiled" with the blood? Well, remember how we react when blood stains our hands or clothes.
Also.
Deuteronomy 14:21 New King James Version (NKJV)“You shall not eat anything that dies of itself; you may give it to the alien who is within your gates, that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner; for you are a holy people to the LORD your God.
So the blood remained in the body. And blood can be eaten, without possible health risks. Or did God intend to "kill the unbelievers" with rotten food and clotted blood?
.........and you can create a profit too.
 

Pudgy, it is absurd that JW leadership claims JWs abstain from blood. JWs gobble up blood products by the drum loads all around the world. According to JW policy, JWs can undergo plasma exchange by accepting transfusion of cryosupernatant plasma. When this exchange is done, more than half the patient's circulating blood has been replaced by someone who donated blood, or at least plasma. A single patient could undergo this treatment daily for weeks. That is a massive about of product taken from the donor blood supply. Like I am with most any subject, I take time to research rather than just trusting someone else to tell me what I'm supposed to believe. Everyone should subject their views, and what they are taught, to critical analysis to  make sure what they believe and what they are taught is sound.

Don’t fall into the same trap as the WTB&TS does when they change the definitions of words to convince the rubes that they were always right.
 

Amazing. Terrific! Wonderful insight!
How can you BE so friggin’ smart?
Oh … you read a lot of history?
….. well, ok then …..
 

Pay attention, as there will be a test later involving the nautical term “Keelhaul”.
If you are in charge of provisions on a trans-Atlantic voyage from Ireland to the Americas in an old wooden sailing ship … a trip that could take a month or two … and the Captain says take all kinds of food on board … the decks and cargo holds will be filled with dozens or hundreds of cages with live animals as well as food for them, and great wooden casks of drinking water.
There was no refrigeration back then, so as the trip went along, the animals …. chickens, turtles, sheep, pigs, rabbits, and more would be slaughtered as needed for food.  
Even better than vegetables that start dying when they are separated from the plant.
They were not thought of as cargo, because they were never intended to reach shore.
You could have 532 different live animals on board, CATAGORIZED AS “FOOD”.
I have read they even used to do this on warships. I have seen this in several movies.
The Bible DOES NOT SAY that there was carrion on the Ark, and there is no need to make that up … unless of course you have a runaway imagination and are trying to enhance something you said previously that you realize later makes no sense at all.

Testing. As an underlying factor that's what this whole discussion is about; what test does today's governing body lay itself bare to so that its teaching or teachings are falsifiable?
This is what Paul's letter to Galatia offered in its introduction. In essence, the apostles informed Christians who looked to them as leaders/teachers that should they (the apostles or any one of the apostles) ever change the testimony they taught about the Christ and was accepted by his followers of the Christ, that they should be held as accursed. Those words, and others elsewhere akin to them, offered a means of falsification to protect Christians from teaching allegedly of Christ that may not be of Christ. As much as I look for it, I see no place where the contemporary governing body lays themselves bare to a means of falsification as a protection to all those earnestly seeking the Christ, Jesus.

Indeed!
Before the Jewish high court the apostles exclaimed “We must obey God as ruler rather than men." These same men (apostles) also warned their fellow believers that if they (the apostles or any one of them) ever changed their testimony of Christ that they taught and believers accepted about the Christ, that those believers should hold them (the apostles or any one of them) as accursed.
In ancient Aaron's case, Moses was told by God that he (Moses) was to serve as "God" to Aaron. At Meribah Aaron was still condemned for the sin of disloyalty for standing in passive support of the one who served as "God" to him. Why? Because Aaron knew Moses was just a spokesman for God and that Aaron's ultimate loyalty belonged to that One and not His spokesman. 
As it was true for the apostles is was in Aaron's case, and always. We must obey God as ruler rather than men.
 

First, I've not suggested anyone should apply their own interpretation of scripture.
Today we can 1) read and depend on what the Bible expressly states, and 2) what can see what can be be deduced from what the Bible says with a conclusion that is subject to known conventions of logical construction (i.e., a demonstrably sound conclusion).
I don't see how anyone can disagree with this, unless they don't understand how conventions of logical construction work. Please don't mistake this as disrespect. I intend none. But it is a commonly misunderstood discipline.
One important thing that knowing conventions of logical construction teaches is how to identify logical fallacies. Here's a decent article that talks a little bit about this: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/101990365?q=five+common+fallacies&p=par
Applying conventions of logic is an excellent way to avoid conclusions that are biased. If anything, they keep conclusions independent of personal biases.
 

Speaking of loyalty and whether there is a rightful limitation to obedience toward teachers, the subject reminds me of the anointed position held by Moses. Moses was anointed to high position and Israel was supposed to obey him as God's spokesman.
But there was an incident at Meribah where the anointed of Jehovah overstepped. There was another person there by the name of Aaron. He observed what was going on. Aaron had a choice. He could just go along, or he could have spoken up and checked Moses for what he was saying. Because Aaron just went along, he was guilty of sin, with the result that he was removed from high office and prevented from entering the promised land. In that case, loyalty would have had Aaron recognize that obedience (whether passive or active) had an appropriate limit in relation to men (even a man known to be anointed as God's spokesman), and that his ultimate obedience belong to God.

What does negativity (or positivity) have to do with whatever is true or false? 
 
And, what do you refer to in reference to “the accurate interpretation of Matthew 18”?

That is the most insane conclusion I have read since last week’s Babylon Bee!
Although some scripture may be twisted into a pretzel to suggest a Snickers Candy Bar is nature’s most perfect food!
And just HOW do you know that less perfect people have a greater capacity for imagination?  
…. and describing edible foods is evidence of that?
YIKES!

15 “If your brother or sister[b] sins,[c] go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[d] 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
The first assumption about someone's "sin" is that someone's action is really "sin". The second assumption is whether it is a "sin" that requires intervention. A further condition is based on the mutual relations between the one who rebukes and the one who is potentially rebuked. Is the "sin" committed directly to the one who wants to rebuke. Or it is someone who is not personally involved in the "damage" that was done to someone. Is it even about damage that someone personally suffers, or is it outside of such a context (someone took a blood transfusion, for example, so it is not damage caused to us personally). The condition would also be set as to whether I have the knowledge and skills to explain what is actually wrong and what is the solution to the problem, because that is, like, the first and basic reason why someone should be approached (ie win over a brother).
However, the problem arises in the legislation of "sin". Because sometimes a sin is a crime. Although it is theologically possible to conclude that in fact every sin is a crime, a crime against God, so it's actually a complicated situation.
If "sin" is rape or theft, etc., then our participation in all this is actually problematic. Is the purpose of our intervention to persuade the offender to turn himself in to the police or to just repent of his actions?
However it all turns out in the end, every person is actually a "neighbor", even an unrepentant sinner. Because there are many walking around the world who do not repent of their sins, and yet we should consider them our neighbors, regardless of what knowledge about them we have or not.
I would understand that I am not being greeted by someone whom I have personally harmed. It is easily possible that I would have retaliated in kind if someone else had wronged me. I am "imperfect" after all. :))
Furthermore, the question is who and what is a "congregation". Judicial Committee or the entire community of believers?
What in today's WTJWorg procedure is close/equal to that of the 1st century? Is the interpretation of today's GB a faithful imitation/copy of the actions of the 1st congregation?
Is it the authority of the individual and the congregation to judge only the "moral and doctrinal" transgressions of its members, or does this authority also apply to all other sins/crimes? Because the Bible speaks of "higher powers that carry a sword to punish". Is WTJWorg then allowed to punish or pardon the sin/crime of its members instead of those whom God has "ordained to that position"?

I think this is the first time I'm reading this comments from Anna and JW Insider.
I really like their observation about how fewer JWs notice the wrong things coming from GB. There are several reasons for this, in my oppinion. "Boundless" trust in those who lead the Organization from America (I'm talking about many who don't live in the USA, so that part is far for them, which is due to the literal distance, and also because of a perhaps fairy-tale idea about people they've never seen or heard of and never could until digital connectivity came along. Consider that this was especially evident for that part of Eastern European countries until 1990 and other parts of the world with limited communication in many ways as further factor)
People notice things with more or less confidence in their own judgments. However, this is perhaps more obvious when it comes to some more everyday, physical topics. When it comes to theology itself, most (of them, of us) don't even have time to deal with it that much, so that part of  brain activity is slowed down or underdeveloped, so to speak. Also, the idea that after becoming a JW they came "to the truth", came "to have the truth", becomes an obstacle and a trap, because now I am "safe, God is with me, he protects me because I believe in him and his organization". Furthermore, people are different and their current interests and circumstances, age, gender, length of time spent in the "organization", psychological and emotional development of the individual, etc. all affect our current awareness or unawareness of what is happening around us.
About "guide by spirit"
I think there is a difficulty in using this term because we don't really agree on the true meaning and purpose of such an idea. 
When GB uses that phrase about "being guided" it means something different from the words "led, guided by". Look at what it says, how explains this in the WT - https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-study-february-2017/who-is-leading-gods-people-today/. 
 
CAN YOU EXPLAIN?
In the first century and today, how have those taking the lead among God’s people been . . .
empowered by holy spirit?
assisted by angels?
guided by God’s Word?
.........5 Christians in the first century recognized that the governing body was directed by Jehovah God through their Leader, Jesus. How could they be sure of this? First, holy spirit empowered the governing body. (John 16:13) Holy spirit was poured out on all anointed Christians, but it specifically enabled the apostles and other elders in Jerusalem to fulfill their role as overseers........
 So today's GB refers to the pattern from the 1st century as legitimacy for its roles today. But here in the text of this magazine it speaks of some kind of "empowerment", not "guidance", also not "poured out on". (Being empowered and guided shouldn't be the same, right?)
But despite this terminological difference or similarity of terms and meanings in use, the WT passage uses the 3rd term to denote the operation of the same Power. It says that the spirit was "poured out" on those in the 1st century. So, three terms are used here to confirm exactly the same position of the Apostles and the position of the GB. Both of them are in a position to legitimately act on followers due to the action of HS. On the other hand, they say that there is a difference between these three words, and the biggest difference should be through the use of the 4th term through the meaning of the word "inspired".
Although all these words are associated with HS and should prove that HS acts on people in one way (to do God's will), it turns out that it is still not possible to achieve the same results during this superhuman action and that HS does not actually have the same power of action today as it had in the past. Because His biggest disadvantage is that  He is not able to "inspire" people today. He could only do that in the distant past. Why can't HS do that today? It turns out that he can't perhaps because God doesn't allow him, or because today's people don't have something that people in the 1st century had, or something else is the cause. WTJWorg claims that HS cannot "inspire" people today, is final result of GB theology.
If this is so, then there is no need to prove one's current Administrative status by comparing it through the structure of the existence of leadership in the past, which then arose only because of the action of HS which caused people to be "inspired".
 In the past, our publications have said the following: At Pentecost 33 C.E., Jesus appointed the faithful slave over his domestics... 4 The context of the illustration of the faithful and discreet slave shows that it began to be fulfilled, not at Pentecost 33 C.E., but in this time of the end. Let us see how the Scriptures lead us to this conclusion....Therefore, we may conclude that his words about that faithful slave began to be fulfilled only after the last days began in 1914. Such a conclusion makes sense... In recent decades, that slave has been closely identified with the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses. - https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/w20130715/who-is-faithful-discreet-slave/
Although WTJWorg explains that Jesus' words about the FDS were not fulfilled on the Apostles in the 1st century, but only from 1919, GB insists that they actually took over the governance model based on the established 1st congregation over which the Apostles were Hierarchical superiors. It is another in a series of inconsistencies. How could something that did not exist then (FDS aka GB class), in the past, become a model for what exists today?
 
The illustration of the faithful slave is part of Jesus’ prophecy about “the sign of [his] presence and of the conclusion of the system of things.”  - https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/w20130715/who-is-faithful-discreet-slave/
On what basis did WTJWorg turn the illustration into a prophecy? When can we expect other biblical illustrations and parables and comparisons to become prophecy?
 
Assisted by angels
Second, angels assisted the governing body. Before Cornelius was baptized as the first uncircumcised Gentile Christian, an angel directed him to send for the apostle Peter...Moreover, angels actively promoted and accelerated the preaching work that the governing body was overseeing. . - https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-study-february-2017/who-is-leading-gods-people-today/
For me, it is a superhuman effect on people and their actions. How can angels exert their influence and HS cannot? Experiences that were heard or read by JWs and were publicly published support the idea of superhuman intervention. Controversial to the existing idea of HS not being able to do what angels do.
"Directed, promoted, accelerated by angels" are additional words indicating superhuman action.    
Guided by God's Word
Third, God’s Word guided the governing body. Whether they were settling doctrinal issues or they were giving organizational direction, those spirit-anointed elders were led by the Scriptures. - https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-study-february-2017/who-is-leading-gods-people-today/
GB says, we hear that on JWTV, they meet and discuss, brainstorm, confront ideas, etc. It's a clash of minds and ideas. A completely normal human activity. Brainstorming and similar methods are called "guided by" the Bible. So what is the difference with "guided by HS"?
 

….

When I get something I don’t understand, I print it out on paper, then read it once fot the overall idea. I have ADD and tricky vision.
Then I read it again for detail, underlining and highlighting points, and making arrows over to the margins for notes. 
All during this I try to build a mental picture that makes sense. Visualizing a portrait with a smushed bug makes the problem obvious, so to speak.
Problematic syntax sentences can be diagrammed (which nobody teaches anymore) to determine exactly what is being actually said. Usually this is not what the author meant.
Sometimes I meditate and let the whole thing sit overnight, and read the text the next day.
I PAID to see “2001  -  A Space Odyssey“ nine times, because I didn’t “get it”. It wasn’t until I bought the Screenplay (book) and read it that I understood the movie.
Many times you can wrestle the secrets out of the Universe if you are willing to do the work, and never submit to not understanding.