Thinking

23 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Cornelius was new to Christianity. But Cornelius was not a new worshiper of God.

There is an untenable misconception that once Judaism came to exist there were no worshipers of God otherwise, until Christianity came along. That was never the case. This was a revelation for Peter too. "At this Peter began to speak, and he said: 'Now I truly understand that God is not partial, but in every nation the man who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.'". (Ref Acts 10)

A person that was not a Jew did not have to convert to Judaism in order to worship God, unless they opted to do so.

Cornelius was not an adherent to Judaism (he was a true Gentile) yet he was a worshiper of God, and God recognized his worship aside from Judaism. God also recognized Cornelius' worship aside from Christianity. God acknowledged the acceptability of his worship even prior to baptism. (Acts 19)

All worshipers of God since the flood (which would include men like Cornelius) would have been obligated to keep the decree issued to Noah regarding blood. Yet, other than Jews, God did not require anyone to abstain from eating the unbled dead carcass of an animal found dead, such as is depicted at Deut 14:21. Non-Jewish worshipers could have literally purchased such meat from Jews, and specifically to eat it. Cornelius likely used such flesh as food at one point or another during his life. Whether he did or didn't does not even matter. What matters is that he could have if he wanted to because he was never prohibited from it. Such flesh is as edible as any other flesh or vegetation, so long as it's not become too contaminated with dangerous pathogens.

Okay I get that bit now..thanks for the correction and over look any remarks concerning this….and I absolutely respect you and all the work you did within the org for Gods people …..as a side note we always call it a organization…I have never liked that  and I just call us Jehovahs people or family ….

23 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Let's start simple, beginning with the text you quoted:

- Where in that text does it say anything whatsoever about carcasses of animals that had died of natural cause?

- For that matter, even prior to this, when had anything been said about carcasses of animals that had died of natural cause? (This could be a tricky one since prior to this the biblical record does say something about dead carcasses)

Then ask yourself these questions:

- Prior to the flood had God issued a prohibition against more than one edible?

- Was permission given in Eden to eat vegetation a prohibition against eating minerals of the earth, like salt?

- What is a body made of but minerals of the earth?

- If you have a lifeless body (non-soulical) what is that if not just formed elements of earth?

Then ask yourself what you can learn from the natural created world (Ps 19; Rom 1:20):

- In  the natural order of things we see around us in creation, what is the the process by which dead carcasses are made one with the earth again? Who or what does this?

Finally, from a logical perspective:

- Is the absence of permission evidence of a prohibition when there is no presence of a need for permission?

Get back with me after you think through these as base underpinnings for discussion. If you can think of additional base underpinnings please include those too.

 

It doesn’t say anything about carcass already dead… because you will be eating them with blood..I don’t understand  how you don’t get  this ,…..but…I know they eventually did this…..but it wasn’t Jehovahs instructions to do so.

you are reading into it something that isn’t there….

Jehovah gave them all the trees and seed bearing vegetation to eat….I’m happy to be corrected on that……. good to look at and they could eat to their satisfaction..he also had rivers with water which no doubt gave them the minerals they needed..gold and onyx…was mention in the land when talking of the rivers in Eden ….

look if you want to eat carcass..go ahead but I dont see Jehovah condoning that anywhere in Eden……Jehovah gave good healthy living food…….a carcass  starts to rot and purify right at death…but I’m sure this was acceptable quickly after they left eden…as was every other detestable sin that Jehovah never spoke of specifically at the time.

But your argument( which is windy and windy for me )  on this doesn’t hold up for me…..and I cannot say more than I have.

But I enjoy many of your other posts….and I like you

19 hours ago, Many Miles said:

20 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

 

Job was outside the Judaic system, and potentially his life overlapped with Moses.

Elihu is another potential example.

But the most clear-cut example of this is Cornelius.

But biblical text, though following the Abrahamic line, does show God recognize conduct of all peoples, individuals or nations, as to whether these 'feared him and worked righteousness'. For example, God saw what was happening in Nineveh. He always knew who were the men like Noah, Job, Elihu or Cornelius. It didn't matter to him what nation they belonged to. What God looked for were men and woman who feared him and worked righteousness. Of course, he made a special case out of the sons of Israel for something greater to come, which was Jesu

Yep I agree with this 

20 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Thinking, I didn't want you to think I overlooked this conclusion you shared. It's obvious we disagree. Just to be clear, I'm not offended by that, not that that should matter to you. If I'm wrong, as you suggest, I want to know it. But I want to know it for sure. This is why I pursued the discussion as I did in my post above. Insofar as I can read, there are some underpinnings of this subject I'm not convinced you've thought through. But, should you opt to pursue the discussion, we'll find out. Either way, thanks for the discussion.

I hope I didnt offend..I tend to write short and to the point….you and Tom and Juan tend to write long flowing posts with many intellectual words….we Australians just dont see the point in all of that.( I think we are wrong but that’s the truth as I see it ) 

I have tried hard to change but…what the heck….too tired and late to change now.

Brother Splane   was at our 2019 assembly ( the best ever ) and he made a long comment saying….you Australians need to watch how you speak, you come over as blunt and sarcastic…he said more but that’s all I remember ..I wondered what had been said to him by the branch.

I will go over your reply but I dont get your Cornealius point ….as I understand it he was Roman..and never under the Jewish system…therefore a follower of Christ .

14 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Since you asked...

The first article (https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1983290 ) conflated several topics, but the primary ones of interest here are the subjects of 1) unbled meat of an animal that died of natural cause and 2) donor blood from live humans. 

Whoever sent in the question was drawing a circle around the text of Deut 14:21 because that text was God giving Jews express permission to sell unbled carcasses of animals dead of natural cause to non-Jewish descendants of Noah specifically for them to eat, and all of Noah's descendants were bound to abide by what God told Noah after the flood about blood.

This would lead a person to believe if God felt it was appropriate for non-Jewish descendants of Noah to eat unbled animal flesh dead of natural cause then it must mean that what God said to Noah explicitly of living animals (soulical) was never to be understood to speak to animal carcasses dead of natural cause (non-soulical). Furthermore, a literal reading of Gen 9 also discloses that nowhere does it address the subject of donor blood given by a human to help save the life or health of a fellow human. The society's response says, "Such reasoning might sound valid". But then it goes on to offer commentary on why the society believes that reasoning is not valid. And, therein is found the rub. Here's why:

1) The commentary about why that reasoning would be wrong is constructed entirely on other biblical requirements stated to Jews under Mosaic Law. 

2) The second article (https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101983099?q="confirming+of+standards+recognized+prior+to+Moses"&p=par ) is very succinct pointing out that the decree issued by the apostles for Christians was "a confirming of standards recognized prior to Moses". That means, appropriately the response in that Questions from Readers article should have focused on standards recognized prior to Moses, but that's not what they did. Their entire case was constructed on stipulations of Mosaic Law, which law never applied to worshipers like Noah, Job, Elihu or Cornelius.

The rub? As a basis for answering the question the society plied the Law of Moses rather than standards recognized prior to Moses. In its response to the question asked, the society plied premises it admits didn't apply to the issue inquired of.

So the question is, what happens when we try to answer the question asked based on standards recognized prior to Moses?

The answer becomes pretty evident because, according to Deut 14:21 God had no problem whatsoever with non-Jewish descendants of Noah eating unbled animal flesh dead of natural cause. To the contrary, the text of Deut 14:21 has God telling Jews they could sell this sort of flesh to non-Jewish descendants of Noah specifically for the purpose of eating it.

So those two sources are providing a quite different view on how to view the decree from the apostles to abstain from blood and things strangled. The first article (the Questions From Readers article) would have us look at the question asked purely through the lens of Mosaic Law. The second article tells us we should look at things purely through standards recognized prior to Moses.

Then we have this from Insight:

"At Deuteronomy 14:21 allowance was made for selling to an alien resident or a foreigner an animal that had died of itself or that had been torn by a beast. Thus a distinction was made between the blood of such animals and that of animals that a person slaughtered for food. (Compare Le 17:14-16.) The Israelites, as well as alien residents who took up true worship and came under the Law covenant, were obligated to live up to the lofty requirements of that Law. People of all nations were bound by the requirement at Genesis 9:3, 4, but those under the Law were held by God to a higher standard in adhering to that requirement than were foreigners and alien residents who had not become worshipers of Jehovah." (Ref https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000774?q="higher+standard"&p=par )  

Note when this paragraph initially speaks to worshipers is says "who took up true worship and came under the Law covenant". These are the same worshipers spoken of in the last sentence too. What this takes into account is that there were worshipers of God who never came under the Law covenant. Hence, men like Job, Elihu, Noah and Cornelius were never bound to the "higher standard" in respect to blood within Mosaic Law, though they were always bound by the standard recognized prior to Moses.

As it turns out, there is nothing in the provision of Deut 14:21 that conflicts with any standard recognized prior to Moses. Noah was free to eat unbled flesh of animals found dead of natural cause. He always was.

We also learn that no standard recognized prior to Moses remotely suggests that it is wrong to accept transfusion of donor blood, which is blood that another human has willingly donated for purposes of helping preserve the health and/or life of a fellow human.

  Jerusalem bible…Instructions given to Noah

Genesis 9:2-4 [2]Be the terror and the dread of all the animals on land and all the birds of heaven, of everything that moves on land and all the fish of the sea; they are placed in your hands. [3]Every living thing that moves will be yours to eat, no less than the foliage of the plants. I give you everything, [4]with this exception: you must not eat flesh with life, that is to say blood, in it.

Noah was NOT allowed to eat unbled meat..and to my knowledge you cannot bleed a dead animal….needless to say his descendants forgot their God and this law very quickly and I have no doubt drank blood and ate unbled meat.

1) why do you include Cornelius along with ones like Job…he was a new Christian thus come under the abstain and not eating the 

2) Not all aliens took up true worship therefore were not under the law..foreigners travelled amongst Gods people..so you have resident aliens ( under the law) and foreigners excepted from the law ( usually traders there for commercial intent so there for not considered to be under the law nor had any desire to be ) So you e got two laws going for two sets of differ t people amongst Gods one peoples….so it gets confusing for some,

Sorry I still don’t get what you are trying to say….I think there is plenty to suggest that Jehovah holds the blood as something that belongs to him and him alone .

I think that with knowledge comes a lot of confusion over something that once was simple to understand,,,,,makes me realize one of the reasons why Jehovah didn’t want Eve to eat that fruit because she DID received certain knowledge that she was not ready for and stuffed everything up.

Genesis 3:6

when the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and DESIRABLE FOR GAINING WISDOM …..and both of their eyes were opened. ( knowing good from evil ) 

I see this amongst ex JWs…mainly those who have web sites and pages…they are extremely knowledgeable about scriptures…..they taught me some good things….but eventually become proud and ever so slowly develop their own teaching thinking their inspired……I guess Eve felt that.

This blood issue just shows me satan still uses the same slimey crafty ways 

Genesis 3:1 

Now the serpent was more crafty than all the wild animals the Lord God had made and he said …Did God really say you must not eat from any tree in the garden…………..you will surely not die.

Hes doing the same thing amongst Gods people now over the blood issue…

Satan : Is it really so…take the blood and it will give you life….

Same  story different time period.

aaaah Miles..I really like you..but your dangerously wrong on this one..

7 hours ago, George88 said:

Do you believe, If people in Jesus' time had read the ancient scrolls, they would have undoubtedly realized that the Pharisees were engaging in dishonest practices, regardless of their literacy levels.

Imagine the future. Despite the overwhelming evidence that demonstrates Trump's racism, dishonesty, deceit, and manipulative nature, do you think there will come a point when MAGA supporters will open their eyes and see the truth about him as it is consistently revealed to them in the media?

Why do apostates refer to the Shepard book as a "secret book" when it is simply a manual for Elders? What is the basis of their belief? If the instructional manual is based on scripture, then it would be appropriate to refer students to the Bible when they have questions. It becomes the responsibility of the "teacher" to guide the students in comprehending and applying scripture to their everyday lives.

Yes just like I just said.

39 minutes ago, Anna said:

And this is why we have the closed club, so we don't have to put up with many Allen Smiths with many problems, and his buddy George. Oh why, oh why, did I even start commenting here I ask myself.

I’m surprised I did too…but Miles was an attraction…..and others had left….

34 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

The third reason. The organization is not naive to discover its weaknesses, mistakes, dubious practices and disastrous consequences of the policies it implements today or has implemented in the past.

This is a good thing,,no?

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Do you mean to say that every candidate should read, among other things, a secret book for elders eyes only? And read the "small print" at the bottom of the "contract"?

That means everyone who studies with someone MUST MUST make them aware of ALL of this…and if that means showing them the elders book…yes,,,be up front about every thing and every possibility that may lay ahead 

11 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Please, it's nonsense. GB says they proves own teachings, supposedly, on the basis of the Bible and verse/s in the Bible or so called "biblical context".

After some time, thye refutes these teachings on the basis of the same or some other biblical passages. What is the statement even supposed to mean - that someone is against what is "biblical"?

GB lives in contradictions. 

Joshua David, JW PR in India, stated that JWs are guided by their conscience whether or not they want to accept a blood transfusion, but the Shepard book outlines the procedure that JW elders should take if someone has received a blood transfusion.

Deceiving the public. There is no freedom of choice because members are sanctioned if they take blood.

"Biblical"? haha

That’s why each one must make sure before baptism..and yes..that was double speak…

On 11/7/2023 at 9:14 AM, Many Miles said:

I thought long about that comment. My story is no more and no less a story about a boy who was raised to respect truth.

Many generations of my family have been associated with JWs, even before JWs were a thing. My paternal side goes back to Russell.

I was raised to trust the society. So that's what I did. And, that was my mistake. 'Do not put your trust in nobles, nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs.' I should have listened to that with more care than I did.

When it came to the society's blood position, when I was baptized I trusted that someone higher up and smarter than me understood the details, and I trusted them.

Way, way later down the road, I found out the society could not and would not answer for important underpinnings of its position on blood. This was the case regarding physiological aspects of blood as a substance, and medical aspects of transfusion medicine. This was also true of biblical statements regarding blood, and particularly as it relates to Noah. Ultimately, what lit me up to take a closer look at this whole thing were things I read in our own publications. I realized the scriptural truth of the whole thing was already spelled out in our literature! So I showed it to the society. Crickets.

Compare these two articles:

Here: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1983290

Here: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101983099

In the second article, pay careful attention to paragraphs 7 and 8. Very close attention, as you look back over the first article linked above. This material was all published in the same year. None of it is the result of "new light" that changed. Remember there are biblical characters who worshiped the only true God who were never under Mosaic Law. Men like Noah, Job, Elihu and Cornelius. These latter had to obey the decree issued to Noah. But not to the different standard issued to Jews under Mosaic Law.

Those internal articles are just the tip. 

People are still dying over something that should be left for each person to decide on their own, without religious coercion of being potentially shunned.

In the end, my story doesn't and shouldn't matter. What matters is truth.

 

 

Well I dont know ..I read those articles and I don’t see a problem….I think I’ve got the grasp of them but I’m asking others here to comment as you seem so strong in this..understanding you have….so your going to have to spell it out for me

Also you seem to have a few irons in the fire and I get a bit confused ..so I’m just speaking on the blood issue here .

The me…thinks one shouldn’t be disfellowshipped for taking blood but going by all those scriptures in the articles…it would amount to a death sentence by Jehovah himself…before and after Noah’s time and it was of such importance out of three things from the Law …blood was one of them for the new Christian’s.

We are talking about blood here..Frank blood.

Im guessing someone like you wrote in and explained how fractions of blood were in vaccines and certain injections…( which was good )..so then the fractions had to be explained.

As to some of the treatments you have explained and as to why one would get disfellowshipped and not for the other…I wouldn’t have a clue.

I read in one of our articles some one felt okay to transfuse cows blood…..( I remember thinking,,,,what the heck,,,and why would they even publish that)

I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree …..for me..it’s like taking the fruit…..but I would never look down on or judge anyone if they took it or disagreed with me,

You go back a long time and it’s a shame in those days there seemed to be blind obedience with children and youths of your time…no internet…some had not even a library to compare things. In a way you could say you were a victim of your era

I on the other hand come from the 70s and questioned everything….I could see a number of worrying things….wrong things…but I was like one of those no good Egyptians grabbing hold of the hem of that Jew…. .not sure where he was taking me nor not really wanting to go…but I knew he was heading in the right direction.

You’re expecting too much Miles….lives have been lost because of wrongful beliefs pushed on us ( organ transplants)…just as King David lost tens of thousand of lives …for his error…so it happens today as then….and will until Michael comes and finishes it.

Your an interesting man with a lot of fascinating experiences…I hope we hear more of them…you sure write really well….now I wonder where you learnt to do that hey 😉

On 11/7/2023 at 2:51 PM, George88 said:

Many, Anna and Pudgy, I fail to comprehend what aspects of these articles you all fail to grasp in regard to the application of the Mosaic laws. Before and after, there were instances where certain requirements of the law were unnecessary for Gentile Christians. This is due to the fact that the Jewish High Court extended the laws and considered themselves the ultimate authority. Regarding the matter of transfused blood, there shouldn't have been any issue since it didn't exist back then and wouldn't have been applicable based on that understanding. The only scenario where it would have been a concern is if someone chose to consume an animal without properly draining its blood or if they indulged in the gruesome practice of drinking the blood, as done by certain Roman nobility who would consume the blood of fallen gladiators.

So, let me ask you all, what part of the transition do you fail to understand when a person repents? We have been presented with the following questions in those articles. Based on scripture, what biblical foundations do you oppose, under the conditions outlined in the understanding of the Word, not your personal interpretation?

Nevertheless, it will undoubtedly result in an intriguing book, much like the works of Carl Olof Jonsson.

Carl was very very wordy and hard to read 

4 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Yes. But the "extraordinary prophecy" cited by the society from The World Magazine specifically references Russell's prophecy and not any predecessors. And, as it turns out, The World Magazine was wrong because Russell's prediction that 1914 would see Armageddon was false. It didn't happen.

Do you deny that Russell taught that 1914 would see Armageddon? THAT is what The World Magazine credited Russell with correctly prophesying. 

Yes. He was.

"Be not surprised, then, when in subsequent chapters we present proofs that the setting up of the Kingdom of God is already begun, that it is pointed out in prophecy as due to begin the exercise of power in A. D. 1878, and that the ''battle of the great day of God Almighty " (Rev. 16:14.), which will end in A. D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership, is already commenced. The gathering of the armies is plainly visible from the standpoint of God's Word."—(The Time is at Hand, Chapter IV, The Times of the Gentiles, 1902, p 101, underlining added for emphsis)

Russell came right out and predicted that Armageddon would end in 1914. He was wrong. The World Magazine was wrong. But that didn't stop the society from using the positive press coverage.

What Russell said about 1914 prior to 1914 is not subjective. It's conveniently written down.

 

 

 

He also admitted he was wrong and it seemed there was a bigger work that lay ahead that someone else other than he would address .

he never forced anyone to beleive his chronology…they could beleive or not beleive…he didn’t think any less of them…and he still considered them his spiritual brothers.

3 hours ago, Many Miles said:

I hear you. Now if only a lot of folks could regain the best years of their lives by not taking the society as seriously as they told them to but weren't doing themselves.

For your information, cryosupernatant is not a small part of blood. Cryosupernatant is more than 50 percent of the blood circulating in your veins this very moment. It's no wonder the society does not list it on its charts and graphs of what we can accept as a personal conscience matter. I mean, what message would that send in terms of a "minor fraction"?

For me, this is not medical word play. As an elder I helped parents make decisions about their babies, and some of them died when they could have been saved. it makes me cry to this day just to think about it. Keyboarding this makes me grieve for those babies, and their families.

I do respect you too, either way. Real unity is folks holding common cause despite differences. Unity is not to be confused with uniformity.

The dead babies won't let my eyes glaze over. They keep me up at night.

Many Miles I am genuinely with hand on my heart so sorry for your pain. no words will extinguish the guilt you feel….personally I do not see that you should think you have any..

I dont know how many babies you lost in this way..or why this happened.

in my books the blood issue needs to be respected…and you helped some parents when they needed that.You were a pillar of strength. It’s a massive emotional and spiritual burden to take on and you did it in good faith at the time.

I dont know your story thus why you no longer have the same belief as us anymore concerning it.

I sighed loudly when I read your post and thought…what has he been thru.

I have been on line for..oh well…ever so long …and heard many sad stories and I can honestly say…my story has been the saddest of all I have read…..I too wish I could turn back the clock and avoid what lay ahead…but alas..it has only been the internet that uncovered many things for me……………..and Franz’s book made me stronger….NOT weaker in our faith.

Dont let the King Sauls and Korah’s or the JUDAS LIKE brothers force you out.

I hope you find a little scrap of peace brother. I’m barely hanging on but soon this will all be over with and I don’t want to be known by Jehovah for hurting my brothers and sisters……….I write this with much grief xx

7 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Yes. Transfusion of blood is an organ transplant.

Because JWs accept transfusion of product rendered from blood than JWs are exposed to all the dangers of transplantation.

Scripturally the notion of "eating" is something done for nutrition. We can render several products from the donor blood supply.

Let's talk about a product from blood we are supposed to reject, the one called red cells. If you solely transfuse red cells in an attempt at parenteral nutrition the patient will get no nutritional benefit and the patient will die from starvation.

Now let's talk about a product from blood we can accept, the one called cryosupernatant plasma. If you solely transfuse cryosupernatant plasma in an attempt at parenteral nutrition the patient will get nutritional benefit and you have an opportunity to prevent a patient from starving to death.

Hence, in relation to "eating" we have the contradictory position where a product we are told to reject provides no nutritional benefit when administered intravenously where of a product we are told we can accept it does provide nutritional benefit.

 

You are talking a lot just as the brothers have to talk a lot to explain something so simple…..there is no need to give such a salad of words…..when the brothers explain all of this like you did my eyes just glaze over …..the society talks like it..you talk like it….others talk like it…..for and against and it never ends..over and over and over for years and years I’ve seen this play out on line.

You are talking about eating…about nutrition…it’s nothing to do with either of that…it’s about respect …..Respect to Jehovah….just like Eve was supposed to show respect to a certain fruit from a tree…..blood can be likened to that.

Get away from this medical intellectual word play…yes yes I know the brothers use it and I guess it’s a must at times..but cryosupernatant is still a small part of the full blood…..and a lot of this is straining the gnat talk….if you do not agree with the blood aspect..then best not to get baptised…I would respect and welcome you either way.

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

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.

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.

3 hours ago, Anna said:

The premise is that fractions of the 4 major components of blood may be regarded as being no blood. So if someone accepts a transfusion of these fractions it is not regarded as a blood transfusion. 

On the other hand  having a transfusion of whole blood or it's 4 major components is considered as breaking God's law and therefore is deemed a disfellowshiping offense, unless the recipient of the transfusion has acted under duress and is repentant. 

On the ward and in medical institutions a blood transfusion is considered as dangerous and a organ donation/placement/ transplant

A accredited medical person must start the delivery and stay by their side taking all their observations every ten minutes for an hour…then every 15 minutes then every half hour …then hourly.

I was not born into our faith, I was an adult and worked in the medical field so it was a subject I had to make sure of. Scripturally I don’t understand why anyone cannot understand there is no difference as to eating the blood and being fed the blood via a tube…..you are being FED blood via a tube….this does not require a scientific explanation..it is common sense…

If everyone understood as to who gave their blood and the incredible amount of parasites and bacteria that are not screened for you wouldn’t ever want one.A Erica s should be especially wary of this, your screening is terrible as are your sources of blood.

Jehovah claims the blood and we need to respect the PRINCIPLE  behind it.

He is not fanatical..he knows we consume cooked blood in even the bled meat..but it is honoring him to pour it out onto the land thus giving it back to him,

It’s such a simple thing to understand …It’s the principle We need to observe……he even forgave those who did not follow his instructions as in King David’s account ….thus persons can and should be forgiven if they are sorry for having a transfusion.. 

 As to fractions..every vaccine and anti venom from snake bite etc has fractions in them.

JWs have the right understanding ..like it or not….as to wether it should be a conscience matter…well I considered that seriously for some time but then that would make fornication  and idol worship a conscience matter…so I had to step back from that reasoning…..

You all do as you want..no skin of my nose…

5 hours ago, Errikos Tsiamis said:

Ultimately, it is up to church leaders and parents to discern the readiness of a young person for baptism, taking into account their level of understanding, maturity, and commitment to the Christian faith. I

Ultimately it is up to Holy Spirit as to wether a child or anyone is ready for baptism.

You’re wrong on this one ….your teaching an invisible dogma of our organization and no young person ….especially a child can ever understand the weight and the cost of loyalty to Jesus and Jehovah.

I speak from a lot of experience in the truth..and talking with some very sad cases.

What some of the elders and parents do to these young ones is nothing short of spiritual abuse. Their young shoulders cannot carry such a heavy yoke that even we adults struggle with….

From their own lips they admit they had no idea what they were really doing nor the cost of taking such a stand but the pressure of pleasing their parents and the congregation was a major part .

You are very wrong on this brother…and I’m am very heavy hearted that we have not learned from our past.

On 10/19/2022 at 1:23 AM, Anna said:

Oh dear...now this sounds like I am saying Americans can't help being stupid. I think I've been watching too much Blacklist and I'm beginning to sound like Aram Mojtabai. Those who have watched the show will know what I mean. I should just shut up...

it’s the same over here…Australians are stupid too…😀

On 10/1/2022 at 2:00 AM, ComfortMyPeople said:

(Daniel 11:43) . . .And he will rule over the hidden treasures of gold and silver and over all the desirable things of Egypt. And the Libʹy·ans and the E·thi·oʹpi·ans will be at his steps.

I guess this assessment is a bit controversial...

Yes it is but nevertheless extremely interesting…very very interesting so thanks for sharing 

4 minutes ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

Does seem very strange when a person can, as i did, just resigned from the JW org. It would seem that a person is being asked to be 'punished' by the Edlers for some reason....  Does it not go against 'company policy' though for Elders to not disfellowship a non repentant sinner. 

They were not interested in company policy…..they wanted to follow Christ’s lead and were interested in her life and well being and we’re aware of her mental health at the time…..by the way she wants to come back….

Our elders are now very very kind ….I’m sure there may be still some of the old kind…..three strikes and your out….but the society is trying to weed them out or retrain them…..

18 hours ago, Anna said:

I am surprised they did. Usually they don't disfellowship someone just because they ask to be disfellowshipped (?) The only way I think that would work is if you handed them a letter of dissasociation...(?) But what do I know....

And yes, if you want to join the closed club you can.....as Tom said, it might be more beneficial for you than here only. 

We had some one asked to be disfellowshipped …the elders didn’t want to but she was insistent…..so they did…but it seems now the elders are loathed to disfellowship anyone,,,they really try hard to get the person to take a break….

13 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Hmm. Well, we DO have to work on that. On the other hand, police are known to develop a sort of “gallows humor” due to what they have experienced. Maybe it’s something like that with you too.

You didn’t have to say this. No one here would ever have known. The fact that you did say it nonetheless indicates several things: 1) respect for the arrangement of the congregation of God, 2) a personal sense of honor, 3) proof that you do what you do out of fear of God and not humans, and 4) a desire not to ensnare others, even unknowingly, into violating congregation discipline not to engage with disfellowshipped ones. My respect for you has steadily heightened, and with this it goes through the roof. 

At the same time, I still see no reason you should not join the closed club, nor for @Annato reject your request when you make it. Disfellowshipped ones can attend meetings, in fact they are encouraged to do so when repentant. I’ve no doubt that the ‘honor system’ would compel you to behave there as though sitting in the Kingdom Hall. There’s no reason to cut yourself off from proper association, particularly as there are those there who are just the ticket for you to be readjusted. Find things worthwhile and you could even repackage them for the crowd here. I mean, the malcontents here repackage and run again the same pablum ad infinitum. No reason you can’t repackage stuff as well.

Well, yeah. I see where you’re coming from. But there’s no need to add to it unnecessarily. You should come, as the eagle does, to the carcass that is JWI—and all the others, too. 

I’m not sure what to make of this. Yes, you don’t want the Truth to be spoken of abusively. But with the elders apparently willing to keep you on board under some lesser form of discipline—well, I’m not sure one has to be less forgiving than God. Lots of sins are exposed these day. Adding them up, Jehovah’s people still have less than the population in general, because of the godly principles they diligently seek to apply. Even without holy spirit, it rubs off through sheer repetition.

We all fall short many times, James says. The truth of the matter might be as when Bud was replacing my car brakes and he couldn’t figure out how to reinstall the anti-rattle clip. “What’s one more rattle on a Ford?” he said at last as he threw it away.

Maybe I can serve as a character witness for you someday. I’d like that.

”Dear, TTH. Please don’t offer to serve as a character witness for Pudgy. We’re well away that he’s a character.”—the brothers.

This was a lovely post….and Pudgy please come over…your our brother!!!!!

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I don't think the question was about what the "Flood" represented, but what the "Ark" represented. The Children book says it represents God's organization, as you saw. But I only brought up the Children book because someone here had just mentioned the book. You could actually go to MOST of Rutherford's books and find a similar statement.

Here's his book "Riches" (1936)

. . .

...

If it sounds odd to say that the "other sheep" must work with Jehovah's witnesses, it was because, in those years, only the anointed remnant were called Jehovah's witnesses. The "other sheep" were called Jonadabs.

In the Salvation book (1939) he also says the Ark represents God's organization. Curiously, this time he made Noah represent Jesus instead of the faithful remnant (faithful and discreet slave), but still had his sons and their wives represent the "other sheep" (Jonadabs). In this particular book (Salvation) he somehow left out the faithful remnant.

At any rate, you are probably aware that Rutherford consistently says that Noah's Ark represents God's organization, and that this means only Jehovah's witnesses could expect salvation.

Yes I’m aware of teaching on this..thanks for the info 

49 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

At the International Congress in Vienna, I think 1989 or so, they repeated that nonsense about marriage and children.

I must have zoned out at that one…