Thinking

47 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

Yeah … first class mail was 4 CENTS !

Nowadays kids don’t know what stamps are…I made my grandkids write a thank you letter  to their great pop.

They didn’t know about stamps or writing a real letter and buying a stamp and walking to a post box and posting it….they thought it all tedious and a waste of time…and as we trudged back home they said……‘I dont see why we couldn’t have just rang him it doesn’t make sense…aaaah those bygone days…when getting a telegram was so exciting….we’ll sort of as it usually meant someone had died….

2 hours ago, Pudgy said:

When  I was about 13 years old I started collecting stamps, and having ADD I focused on this like the proverbial laser, and could even recognize stamps that had different numbers of perforations around the edges that were valuable, and those which were common because they had different numbers of perforations.  

This was about 1960, and it was the same time that I started getting an interest in Jehovah’s Witnesses.

The United States government came out with a series of stamps called “The American Credo Series“, about 1962 which has influenced my entire life, hopefully for the good, sometimes demonstrably for the good.

One stamp particularly resonated with me quoting Thomas Jefferson, and in 1964 when I was baptized it had become a part of my occasionally obnoxious and overbearing personality. 

I took the long version of this oath before my baptism oath, (… quite different from today’s baptism oath …), and in a massively imperfect way I consider both to still be in force.

Thomas Jefferson was also a massively imperfect man, as is the JW Governing Body.

Thomas Jefferson's second inaugural address, delivered on March 4, 1805 expressed his commitment to protecting individual liberties and declared, "I shall often go wrong through defect of judgment. When right, I shall often be thought wrong by those whose positions will not command a view of the whole ground. I ask your indulgence for my own errors, which will never be intentional, and your support against the errors of others, who may condemn what they would not if seen in all its parts. The approbation implied by your suffrage is a great consolation to me for the past, and my future solicitude will be to retain the good opinion of those who have bestowed it in advance, to conciliate that of others by doing them all the good in my power, and to be instrumental to the happiness and freedom of all."

Wow fancy having stamps like that…how interesting…

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

There could never have been a Mission Impossible without him.

 

No, but organizing does seem consistent with giving God a lot rather than giving him a little

It may be that as long as you don’t work to sabarolf organization, as though a freedom fighter, you’re okay—even as you stand apart from it yourself. Or it may not be okay. I’ll err on the side of sticking with what my experience tells me has worked to a reasonably fine degree, given that ‘we have this treasure in earthen vessels.’ I remember giving that talk on ‘Unified or Uniform,’ contrasting the unity of the earthly organization with the uniformity often demanding by nations, which goes so far as to stuff people into actual uniforms.

Yeah—I always figured it was something like that. You said it well:

It makes a difference, doesn’t it? It’s a little bit like coming back from the dead when you finally get back on your feet.

I put the following in ‘No Fake News but Plenty of Hogwash,’ a book I took down pending rewrite that I haven’t gotten around to, so now it is nowhere:

“After studying one book seemingly written for no other purpose other than to harp on dress and grooming and harangue about field service, the conductor said to me: “Tom, why don’t you comment? You know all these answers.” It was a turning point. He was right. I did know them all. It was time to stop sulking. From the circuit overseer on down, they had stirred up major chaos in the family. They had been heavy-handed and clumsy - but never malicious. And it had never been Jehovah. I had read of ill-goings-on in the first-century record. Congregations described in Revelation chapters 2 and 3 were veritable basket cases, some of them, but that did not mean that they were not congregations. Eventually things smooth out. Eventually 1 Timothy 5:24 comes to pass: “The sins of some men are publicly known, leading directly to judgment, but those of other men will become evident later.” “Later” may take its sweet time in rolling around but it always does roll around. Should I stumble when it becomes my turn? I’d read whiner after whiner carrying on about some personal affront or other on the Internet. Was I going to be one of them? 

 . . . Recovery didn’t happen overnight, for I have a PhD in grumbling. Indeed, I was so good at it that few noticed I grumbled, for I had never left the library – I had only strayed from the same page. Now it was time to get on the same paragraph. Was that book truly a dog? They’re not all dazzling flashes of light, you know, for the treasure is contained in earthen vessels. Or was it the conductor? Or was it me? No matter. If life throws you for a loop, you thank God for the discipline and move on. “For those whom Jehovah loves he disciplines, in fact, he scourges everyone whom he receives as a son,” the Bible says Tell me about it. “Half of those at Bethel are here to test the other half,” the old-timers said. Yeah – tell me about that, too.”

Everyone has a mid-life crisis or two, during which they have to reassess. It doesn’t even matter if it is a servant of God we’re speaking of. Everyone has a mid-life crisis.

Why do a re write….its good and truthful….it would help others who have been hurt…..

Just now, Many Miles said:

I can assure you, that's not the majority reason.

 

This is closer to the majority reason. Just how many brothers has the GB fail to 'back up' over the years for trying to do right, even going to far as to beg for their help to understand why the GB is teaching certain things it teaches and imposes under pain of being ostracized by close family and friends? You tell me. 

I’ve been there and experienced such pain that lead to a death….you are speaking with a sister that was engulfed with a huge amount of anger and resentment and righteous indignation which led to my two ears of inactivity…….its a long story but eventually I had to reason out that I came into the truth knowing all these things existed within the org….why do you think we have the Judas types….the haughty…the cruel even amongst us.

Unfortunately they tend to have a lot of power within congregations.

Jehovahs people are no different to his people of old times….once I got a grip on that..and working on my feelings .( which I might add they caused ) …I guess I was and still am being refined by fire….and I am NOT going to let those sorts of men push me out where I know Jehovah led me.

2 hours ago, Many Miles said:

think it would seem to be quite presumptuous to say that we are the only spokesperson that God is using. Not my words. But I agree with the sentiment

He was playing with words when he said this…because the question was addressed to the GB specifically….he could say such a statement because he knew within the org there were many others who claimed to be anointed and the great crowed who were speaking on behalf of jehovah/ bible ….at this time the witness followed the GBs understanding that you had to be baptised witness to survive.

That has now changed,,,,as it should be.

nearly everything he said was nullified later by the rest of the GB.

he was caught on the hop….he didn’t expect to be part of the commission.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say he was lying..more like acting like Abraham when he claimed Sarah’s as his sister….technically he wasn’t lying as they were actually closely related ( cannot remember how close ) .

I think when he got back to HQs he got into hot water over some of his statements.

But  I also think the GB acted cowardly and it was an embarrassment to us that one of them didn’t willingly take part in that to back their brothers up.

We have a great shortage of brothers to take the lead over here ..they literally begged them to step up to the mark…..I cannot but think….it was fear as to what the courts could do to them.

13 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

To the extent that is true it would appear that I am the blockhead.

You have a great quality of humbleness Tom….i try to learn from it .

13 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Well, there’s plenty in Australia worth fighting for, like this guy:

Be honest. Doesn’t this remind you of Pudgy awakening from a nap?

I dunno. I think of that verse where Jesus said God hides things from the wise and intellectual, while revealing them to babes. Can a babe understand the above? I’m not sure I can myself.

 

Yes koalas are very cute but they have a big problem with STDs which I think they are trying to eradicate …..I wouldn’t hold one ..but one day ..it’s a sure thing….i don’t think pudgy looks as cute as that when he awakes…

On 11/26/2023 at 12:34 AM, JW Insider said:

Don't know if this will help, but I think he is just saying that when a foreigner comes to another country, that foreigner must still obey the laws of that country. But there is a limit to that obedience, because a foreigner isn't required to take an oath of allegiance or obedience in everything. For example, would a Chinese citizen visiting Australia be required to fight for Australia against China if war between the countries broke out during their visit? (Or vice versa.) In the same way, Russell says that Bible Students are all for obedience to the laws, but don't take an oath of obedience and allegiance in all things, because Bible Students are essentially "foreigners" in their own country when it comes to their higher allegiance to God. 

Thanks for trying but it still seems murky waters..if I had to say that to leave Australia I would think I was giving allegiance to our constitution thus our country…..so happy we never had this problem. Americans are very very political and religious compared to us…makes things so much easier on us.

On 11/26/2023 at 8:20 AM, Many Miles said:

In arguments before the US Supreme Court in Barnette v West Virginia State Board of Education, the society offered an alternate pledge of allegiance for JWs.

When Justice Jackson rendered the Courts opinion he recited the alternate pledge of allegiance offered. It reads:

“I have pledged my unqualified allegiance and devotion to Jehovah, the Almighty God, and to His Kingdom, for which Jesus commands all Christians to pray. I respect the flag of the United States and acknowledge it as a symbol of freedom and justice to all. I pledge allegiance and obedience to all the laws of the United States that are consistent with God's law, as set forth in the Bible.”

One can only wonder why the society felt the need for that alternative pledge of allegiance when they could have just told JWs they could pledge the same oath of allegiance sworn by all the society's top men, which reads like this:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation, or purpose of evasion; So help me God."

Anyone have any notion why the society didn't simply argue for the pledge all their top leadership was already swearing to? I mean, it's the highest oath of allegiance recognized in the USA.

Never could figure it out

16 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

I have not a clue as to what Juan Rivera was trying to say, and individually, I understood every word. 

It was hard work trying to stay focused, perhaps because I was well aware that that style of writing, and length of writing, is often deliberately used to induce hypnosis. 

I did try.

HEY! This calls for a CARTOON! 

 

I tend to break Juan’s and even JWI and their writing up in paragraphs at a time..just cannot do it in one hit …but it’s usually worth it even if I don’t understand everything…

3 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Well, GB does not prohibit the carrying of weapons for private or official use. But those JWs who have it are not ideologically eligible/acceptable for any ministry in the congregation. With Jesus, the apostles were eligible/acceptable for service. So GB does not follow Jesus. Clear as a sunny day. lol

We have a police officer who carry’s a gun etc in his line of duty and he witnesses……times are a changing…

7 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

I hear you, there is a fundamental difference between that for which a person is culpable before Jehovah, and that by which we (humans) may judge another human. I don’t think anyone here would claim that apart from the guidance of the Congregation, people cannot read and understand Scripture to some degree, a degree that allows them to have a conscious saving faith in Jehovah and Christ. Thankfully, they can. Knowing Jehovah and Christ is a matter of degree (not all or nothing). Jehovah and Christ can be known in various ways through different means, Scripture, worship, prayer, tradition, community, service. Jehovah can even be known (in some degree) through incorrect interpretations of Scripture. Hearing His voice does not necessarily mean perfectly hearing his voice correctly about every truth within the content of our faith. So a person can truly come to know and love Jehovah, without yet knowing that the Congregation is what Jehovah established and into which all Christians should be incorporated.

Even the notion that they must be either good guys or bad guys already makes it a loaded answer, because the truth may be more complicated. There is also the matter of motives, and of actions. Actions can be good in one respect, but deficient in another, all while motives may be very good. And so forth, so it is not so black and white. It is good, all other things being equal, for persons to be told about Jehovah and Christ and His love for us, and that He died for our salvation. It is not good for persons to be in schism, to be deprived of true worship, to be taught false doctrine (to be taught that they can never lose their salvation), to be deprived of the fulness of the truth, and all the other aids to our salvation available within the Congregation.

So far as I know, people like that prostitute you encountered, or James White, TD Jakes, Billy Graham, Greg Stafford, Raymond Franz, or Rolf Furuli were doing the best they could with what they knew, and bringing a message of Jehovah and Christ to many people. And in that way, they are good guys. But it is not for me (or any other JW) to judge the hearts of our fellow man and determine that this one or that one has placed himself in a state of sin by such a choice. We cannot read hearts, only Jehovah can. The principle of love calls us to believe the best about someone, all other things being equal, and to pray for those we see in error, rather than judge them. Not presuming that there is some intellectual dishonesty in their heart at the level of the will regarding this question, and not presuming that they are violating their conscience, but instead with the assumption that they are following their conscience as best as they can, and desire to know the truth, and will in fact sacrifice all to find and follow the truth no matter what it is. 

But such persons are in a gravely deficient condition, especially and to the degree that their understanding of Jehovah is incorrect. It is much more difficult to be saved without the fullness of the Good News and the means of help available in the Congregation which are the ordinary means by which we are to grow up into the fullness of conformity to Christ.

I know that because the holy spirit is at work in the hearts of all men, and because Jehovah is omnipotent, the Congregation does not rule out the possibility that persons in a condition of ignorance concerning the fullness of the Good News and the Congregation, can be saved. And the testimony of Scripture supports that teaching, which is not universalism but rather a recognition of the power and mercy of Jehovah who desires all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4). Paul wasn’t being redundant there. Knowledge of the truth about Jehovah is very important, but it is not the essence of salvation, we’re not saved fundamentally by gnosis, but by love and faith.

Correct doctrine allows us more perfectly to know Jehovah, and thus more perfectly to love Him. The more one knows the truth about Him, the more one is able to love Him, because we cannot love what we do not know. Similarly, the more one knows the truth about Jehovah, the more reason one has to love him. Moreover, not all theological error is equal, and not all theological error completely eliminates the possibility of loving Jehovah. It is possible for our beliefs to be imperfect and believe some falsehoods about Him, and still love Him. Yet the more distorted one’s understanding, the more difficult it is to love Him. 

What I have argued is that if Jehovah and Christ want us to be united in faith and love, then He would have provided the necessary means by which to preserve that unity. And in the Governing Body of the Congregation He has provided just that, a means by which our unity of faith, unity of worship, and unity of government are maintained. Even though Scripture is clear enough for a person to come to saving faith by reading it, it is not clear enough to preserve the unity of the Congregation without an authorized governing body. So for me a Governing Body it’s not just extremely valuable and convenient, which would amount to a pragmatic ad hoc way of thinking, but rather organic and intrinsic to the Christian faith.

@Many Miles @JW Insider @TrueTomHarley @Anna

Perhaps I should write this under the Galatians thread. Here’s anyways😅 

I’m beginning to think that the idea that we can approach the bible without an inherent bias or rose tinted glasses is an illusory ideal. This abstract view from nowhere seems to be more effective when we think we have obtained pure objectivity, all while unknowingly presupposing contemporary ideas and assumptions. Everyone uses glasses of some sort when they come to Scripture. No one can interpret Scripture from a completely clean slate. The question is not whether one will have glasses through which to interpret Scripture, but rather which glasses are the correct ones?

@Many Miles I understand that that our Congregation (Jehovah's Witnesses) takes pride in not articulating/ categorizing or claiming of having any explicit background philosophy (like Thomism, Scotism or Platonism) or theology per se. And that we Witnesses say that no background philosophy is needed, but prefer to base our beliefs on the Bible without philosophizing. But even though our Congregation says that no explicit philosophy drives our understanding of Scripture. I think we all agree that no belief developed in a vacuum and the Watchtower movement grew from different roots (In my opinion, from rationalist ideas from the enlightenment, humanism, democratic individualism and was influenced by different traditions according to at least one study -Rachel de Vienne and B. W. Schulz: Volumen I & II Separate Identity: Organizational Identity Among Readers of Zion's Watch Tower: 1870-1887.)

When we read (and interpret) scripture we are not starting from a clean slate. There is no traditionless theological vacuum, abstract view from nowhere from which to read or interpret Scripture, we come to it with some sort of glasses (tradition). There is no initial space where the reader brings nothing to the text, and where his interpretation is not contingent on what he brings to the text. Even biblical studies cannot be carried out in a philosophical vacuum (that is, their tools, techniques, principles and methods, all presuppose a framework). Theology and religion always start from certain hermeneutical principles whether explicitly or implicitly. And if we do not realize that we are even bringing philosophical presuppositions to the interpretive process, I don't think we will not be getting to the fundamental causes of our interpretive disagreements. Only then I think we'll realize that we need some way of evaluating these assumptions. Claiming to evaluate them by way of Scripture simply ignores the fact that we would be using these assumptions to interpret Scripture, so the evaluation would be question begging, and thus worthless.

When each person is deciding for himself what is the correct interpretation of Scripture, Scripture is no longer functioning as the final authority. Rather, each individual's own reason and judgment becomes, as it were, the highest authority, supplanting in effect Scripture' unique and rightful place. I believe the discussion hinges on whether there is an authoritative interpretive authority and how that authority is determined. This is why I'm starting to believe that our attempts to resolve our disagreements by way of proof texting or exegesis is futile. The root of the disagreement is not fundamentally in an exegetical error, but instead within philosophical and theological assumptions we bring to the text. So this idea of approaching scriptures only thru hermeneutics presupposes that kind of rationalism and that hermeneutics and exegesis would solve interpretative problems. But there is more than exegesis that is at work in interpretation and it's not just exegetical tools but underlying philosophical and theological assumptions we bring to the text even if unaware.

Here's what a friend and philosophy professor (who won an award for excellence in the field of Biblical exegesis) challenged me on.

Let's test this claim Juan (that exegesis alone, without any reliance on philosophy or theology can first determine the meaning of Scripture, to which we can then subject our philosophical and theological assumptions). Lay out any exegetical argument you think resolves a substantive doctrinal disagreement that presently divides us, and I'll show you the hidden (or not so hidden) theological/philosophical assumption in that argument, an assumption either immediately brought to the text or built on an interpretation that is itself based on a prior theological/philosophical assumption brought to the text.

Thank you Juan and I definitely got the gist of your words, I’m sort of getting used to the way you write…and I sure hope when I speak in short bursts you get my awkward gists 

2 hours ago, George88 said:

Yet, none of the posts have explained why Malwian JWs didn't accept the Party card. It was not just the allegiance to a totalitarianism dictator, but its military service which would have been included in the political process of that party. 

By the way, trying to brush up on what an "oath of allegiance" means in the United States as compared to other nations.

This quote from Russell's thought about "allegiance" is clear.

“On the other hand, the Scriptural proposition is that while our citizenship is in heaven and we are aliens, strangers and foreigners in the world, with allegiance to the heavenly King, nevertheless, like all other foreigners, we are to be subject to the powers that be — subject to the laws of the country in which we may be living. But if obedience to the laws does not imply military service on the part of the foreigner, so obedience to the laws on the part of Bible Students does not imply military duty. Similarly with the oath of allegiance required by those who enter the Army — they are required to swear allegiance to the king and obedience to the officers of the king in all things. This oath is not required of aliens, foreigners, and is objected to by Bible Students, not because they are opposed to law and order or unwilling to be regulated by the government under which they live, but because they have already given allegiance to the higher power — the heavenly Lord. To them his words, his commands, etc., are paramount.” R5928:2,3

 

I love Russell but I don’t understand what he is saying here,.

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I believe there must have existed a real document with similarities to this one on his actual passport application, and the signature matches that of JFR in other places. But I find it hard to believe that a document like this one would have contained such a blatant typo: So held me God.

I have seen some other 1922 U.S. passport applications and had not seen one with this typo. Also the OATH OF ALLEGIENCE is in a different font on some of the others I have seen.

I seen many years ago on another site which I think is redundant now….i was never sure what to make of it…..this oath must have had many brothers and sisters who travelled overseas compromise themselves.

6 hours ago, Pudgy said:

I remember the times. If you search “JW Malawi MCP Party Card”, you can get the details. A great testimony of honor in the face of years of evil persecution.

If memory serves, anybody could buy the card for about 25 cents, often a half days pay there … and because there was only one political party in Malawi at the time, was roughly the same as a passport to keep you from being tortured and killed.

 

Yes this wasn’t good was it but I still wish I could hear their side of the story of why they felt that was okay…

On 10/28/2023 at 6:13 AM, Pudgy said:

Yes, that is certainly arguable.

Did Noah kill anyone?

Don’t think so…hope not!

8 hours ago, Pudgy said:

There is NO Biblical injunction or prohibition against cannibalism … but for a moment, let’s assume God said “ABSTAIN FROM CANNIBALISM”, which all rational people would understand as “Don’t eat people”.

OK, got it. But you are a Catholic in a Castle on the coast of Valencia, Spain in 1099, under siege by the Muslim Hoards, and the people and soldiers are starving, seemingly about to be totally overwhelmed by the Moors and slaughtered. The Catholic Bishop is a guy that normally never misses a meal, even in times like these, and for  his entire life has preached “Abstain from cannibalism”, because in times like these, the issue does occasionally come up in real life.

The people are dying of starvation, but can still run HIM through with a sword, so he tells them “Any soldier or citizen killed may be eaten, as long as it does not appear to be people.” No faces, fingers, toes, genitals, etc., but brains, livers, and appendages cut into steaks are ok.

OH, and uh …. the Church leaves it up to your conscience to decide IF THESE FRACTIONAL PEOPLE ARE STILL “PEOPLE”, if the “fractions” are prepared and cooked so they are not recognizable.

The same “problem” exists with blood.

Separated  fractional blood, if it EVER WAS blood, does not ever cease being blood because of fractionalization, any more than a separated arm and a hand is not still a human arm and hand …. even when separated from the whole body.

So you can eat a T Bone or lamb loin chops or liver with out eating fractions of blood cooked along with them….or have I misunderstood you.

On 11/22/2023 at 3:25 AM, Many Miles said:

The protein of erythrocytes (red cells) that release oxygen to tissue is called hemoglobin. Essentially, the erythrocytic cell is a carrier of the hemoglobin protein. This protein is a combination of the heme molecule and globin proteins. The heme molecule in this protein has an affinity for oxygen, which is why it releases carbon dioxide and binds with oxygen in lung tissue. As this oxygen rich molecule circulates through the body, when it encounters tissue with more oxygen affinity than it has, it releases oxygen to that tissue and binds with that tissue's carbon dioxide, which it then circulates back to lung tissue to release the carbon dioxide and acquire oxygen for another trip to transport more oxygen to needy tissue.

But here's the important part. The body is not catabolizing the erythrocytic cell. It's not "eating" the cell. The cell remains intact and functioning as a tissue. Also, though the erythrocyte is rich in protein, its protein is not catabolized as food. Transfused red cells are transport vehicles for oxygen and carbon dioxide. The oxygen and carbon dioxide they exchange, retrieve and deliver is not eating, its inhalation and exhalation; it's catch and release.

Each person must conclude what they will about other persons. That's the way it is, it'll always be that way, and it should be that way.

In my case, I prefer to learn from those around me, whether I like what they say or not. This is because I want to learn, even if that means I find out I'm wrong about something. For me, I could care less about your personality. But I do look to learn from each interaction. Also, sometimes, someone puts information out in public view that the public deserves to know is incorrect. In this case, it's incorrect to assert:

That was said in terms of intravenous administration, and it is just plain false. And, the one who said this did so under auspice of someone who "worked in the medical field". This suggests the notion above is said authoritatively. Yet, the statement that "there is no difference as to eating the blood and being fed the blood via a tube" is patently false.

- If you eat blood the body sees nutritional elements and it metabolizes those elements as food. It's eating.

- If you transfuse blood the body see biological tissue that it uses as tissue. It's a tissue transplant.

Think of my person however you want. But if you're going to say things at least say things that are correct.

Some in the medical field who are involved in organ transplant admit IV  blood transfusion should always be viewed as a organ transplant..I think we both view Red blood cells as vital for Oxygen maker and carrier. I’m not sure on the rest of your scientific knowledge but I will bow to it as I know nothing of what you say .

Either way you think on it clearly one is not abstaining from it…but I stand corrected on the rest of your post…

18 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Maybe you worked in the medical field, but you don't seem to understand that blood products like packed red cells are of absolutely no value as parenteral nutrition. Though red cells are loaded with protein, if a patient were starving and given red cells by transfusion as their nutrition, the patient would starve to death because given intravenously the body will not catabolize its own red cells for sake of nutrition.

This has been known since the late 19th Century when Dr. William Hunter and his colleagues published very extensive methods and findings of blood physiology and transfusion medicine. Among other things, of transfusion of whole blood they found, "We have seen that transfused blood possesses no nutritive value." Of the transfused blood's physiology they found, "It behaves, not as a mass of nutritive material, but as a tissue." (British Med J, Hunter et al, 1889 Aug 10, p 308; British Med J, Hunter et al, 1889 July 20, p 117)

Transfusion of blood is, essentially, an organ transplant. We can eat a kidney and get nutrition. We can accept a kidney transplant and we get no nutrition. Transfusing blood works essentially the same way.

The findings of Dr. Hunter et. al. were later confirmed beyond any doubt by further experimentation and research conducted by Drs. J. Garrott Allen, Edward Stemmer and Louis R. Head in the 1950s. They proved conclusively that intravenous administration of red cells offered no nutritional benefit whatsoever. None. Nada. (Annals of Surgery, Allen et al, Sept 1956, pp 345-354; see also J of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, Drs. Erik Vinnars and Douglas Wilmore, Vol 27 Numb 23, 2003, p 226)

Oddly enough, though, the same trio of researchers also found that products like cryosupernatant were effective for parenteral nutrition, and this is one of the products rendered from blood the society lets JWs accept transfusion of. This finding was established in the 1930s and conclusive confirmed in the 1950s. (Ibid)

Yes, internal homogenic or xenogenic tissue transplantation should always be weighed carefully. You don't want them if they are not essential to protecting mortality or morbidity. A risk-to-benefit analysis is in order for sure!

The packed red blood cells do provide a protein to help 

OXYGYEN…the oxygen is what it’s all about…go anywhere on line away from the societies writings and you will read that.

i think miles as you may have some interesting stories to tell I think your a stirer  who  at times just want to sound of hearing your own voice and over the dumbest subjects..I’d like to know your other alias names you use on line.

there is something familiar out you…and sadly I don’t think it’s good 

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Not necessary to rethink it. We don't have any reason to think that Eve or Adam drank from Eve's breasts. Only that her children would have, and that was outside the Garden, as I stated previously. So we still have no reason to think that milk was an important part of the diet of Adam and Eve at the time of dietary decree in the garden. Not important enough to mention. They may have drunk milk too, maybe inside the garden, and maybe when they were outside. It should have been common knowledge that humans and other mammals drank milk and water, and they may have inadvertently breathed in a bug or two while sleeping. But the part the Bible included as if the most important points about their diet was about how the fruit of [almost] every tree would serve as food for them. When they were outside the garden we have additional vegetation mentioned as food, e.g. grains/bread. And then the only outstanding difference in the dietary decree to Noah is that it was the first mention of a diet containing meat.  We can make of that whatever we will, and I agree that no position on this is definitive.

 

Not exactly. Having permission to gather the food the animals ate is not necessarily the same as permission for Noah himself to eat those same foods. The Bible's silence on what is forbidden or permitted only means silence on the matter: not necessarily permitted, and not necessarily forbidden.

If you were implying that Cornelius must have been following Noahide requirements only known to readers of the Jewish Bible, then surely Noah might have understood the ideal human diet in a (at least currently) common way of understanding the dietary decree from Adam's time. And, per the Bible's timeline, Noah's had several living relatives who may have spoken to Adam personally, including Noah's own father.   

Well I’m preety sure Eve had mammary glands as she had a womb…but I like the rest of your post.

5 hours ago, Pudgy said:

I think a much BIGGER question needs to be asked.

If Cornelius was a worshipper of Jehovah God, and his worship was acceptable to God, as stated specifically that it was …and he was a Roman Soldier …. what does that say about “… render unto Caesar …”.?

To me, the conclusion is inescapable and profound, and logical … but even so, I am afraid to even utter the words.

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 find it so frustrating when something is so simple…seems so complex to such seemingly highly intelligent people…I’m coming to the conclusion that I must be more of the mind of Einstein that I ever realized.

On 11/18/2023 at 2:56 PM, Pudgy said:

Two can play THIS WORD SALAD, Annie.

In the perplexing realm of circular discourse, where words pirouette without purpose and sentences meander aimlessly, we find ourselves trapped in a linguistic labyrinth of unparalleled absurdity. Picture a discourse so circuitous that it makes a dizzying carousel seem like a straight line. As we embark on this linguistic rollercoaster, we must prepare to navigate the convoluted contours of verbosity.

In the grand tapestry of talking in circles, the artistry lies in crafting sentences that orbit meaning without ever daring to land. Words, like mischievous acrobats, perform feats of linguistic gymnastics, contorting themselves into shapes unfamiliar to logic. It's a parade of paradoxes, where coherence is the elusive unicorn and clarity the rarest of gems.

As we delve into the heart of this linguistic carnival, one may be tempted to believe that profundity resides in the obscurity of expression. Alas, it's a masquerade where the emperor wears robes woven from the threads of ambiguity, and the courtiers nod sagely, pretending to decipher the indecipherable. Verbose vortices suck meaning into their whirlpools, leaving behind a vacuum of understanding.

Each sentence, a maze with no exit, beckons the listener to wander in perpetual confusion. It's a dance of diction where the music is composed of vague allusions and the choreography an intricate ballet of equivocation. Attempting to grasp the central theme is akin to chasing shadows, for just when you think you've caught hold of meaning, it slips through your fingers like ethereal mist.

In this topsy-turvy world of circular dialogue, the destination remains elusive, and the journey becomes an endless loop of linguistic acrobatics. It's as if words have donned roller skates, careening wildly through the terrain of syntax, leaving punctuation in disarray and grammar in a state of disrepair. A sentence may start with the promise of lucidity, only to spiral into the abyss of convolution.

To converse in circles is to revel in the absurdity of language, to embrace a carnival of confusion where coherence is sacrilege and simplicity a heretical notion. So, let us celebrate the linguistic mayhem, where words frolic in a field of lexical anarchy, and meaning is but a distant echo in the cacophony of circumlocution.

Wah de do DAH!

Well done……now I have a migraine 

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

After my father died during but not from COVID, my mother moved from their house to a two bedroom apartment then to a one bedroom and now to a smaller one-bedroom. Even THAT won’t always keep your housing costs level, this being California. 
So I am out here in California helping her “keep her eye simple” tossing out stuff she wishes she could keep. There is a stack of electronics magazines in which my dad wrote articles which I already got for her a year ago in PDF and she has never looked at any of them anyway, not even the physical copies. My father also has a couple inventions to his name (via Univ of Missouri) and I was hoping to find prototypes at least. 
I’ll talk about two things I did find. One is shown in a video next. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Looking forward to your next post on this and I’m Terribly sorry about your dad. also feel awfully sorry for your mum..so many losses on all fronts …too sad too sad….

8 hours ago, Many Miles said:

There's that.

And, there's this.

Does this mean I have no need to respond to that?

Had I known you were Aussie, I'd have kept my work here to just a sentence or two at-a-time.

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit….but that’s okay..I know it must be hard to know I licked ya!!

8 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

It seems like if we are going to do overstepping headship, we should criticize Aaron for not going all the way and saying to God, ‘Oh, come on! After all he’s done? It was just a little loss of temper, and goodness knows, they had it coming!’

That is the sentiment most of us have to come to grips with upon reading the account. Aaron was human. Would he not have had to come to grips with it too?

The trouble with overstepping headship is that people don’t have the judgment to know when to do it. For every ‘proper’ time they do it, there are 5 improper times.

Did Jehovah think it just a little loss of temper..or Aaron’s failure to be strong in his faith . Jehovah was goi g to strike him dead except for Moses begging for his life.

Do I feel sorry for either of them…absolutely..more for Moses than Aaron….as there for the grace of god go I…….I ponder on both of them…and I think,,,….Thinking … your dead...