Thinking

I agree with him as well…all this thread does is make me stronger in my personal stand 

Blood is so easy to fraction. Modern medicine did not start that. Modern medicine just found ways to artificially fractionate blood, ways that don't exist in nature.
Otherwise what you wrote is not so much as an artful attempt to respond to the questions posed to you. More like a Kamala word salad.
You wrote:
So, I brought up a 1/100 fraction (white cells of your circulating blood) and asked you about it. Suddenly crickets.

 

This reminds me of a TV show the GC philosophy professor cited. ‘You couldn’t be more wrong!’ one character insisted, which prompted the reply, ‘What do you mean, more wrong? Wrong is wrong! How can you be more wrong?’ But then he went on to reason that you probably could. You could be wrong about something for a fundamental reason. Or you could be wrong for a picayune reason.
He then cited some survey indicating most people are satisfied with being ‘mostly right’ as opposed to ‘absolutely right.’ This seemed to disturb him, as his conception of philosophy is that it searches for ‘absolute’ truth. It sinks his entire endeavor, for I don’t think humans are capable of knowing ‘absolute truth.’ ‘Mostly truth’ will probably have to suffice. I am suspicious of those who insist upon more. As a hobby, it is okay, but as a discipline upon which consequences hang, no.
There are too many things like ‘the sum of all positive natural numbers is -1/12.’ Sounds crazy, no? Yet it is deduced from human reasoning on concepts of infinities, specifically ‘divergent series of infinities.’ Because they can yield such weird results, they have tongue-in-cheek been called ‘of the devil.’

You needn’t get overly technical on most things.
A favorite line of mine is, “You don’t have to know everything.” It is not original. I read it in a context involving today’s failing schools. (Ours was a homeschooling family) But it packs a lot of punch. You don’t have to know everything. Yet most of contemporary society carries on as though you do.
The Chesterton quote applies: 
The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head that splits.”

I’m not sure why not. As much belly-aching as there is about GB being ‘pharisaical,’ here we seem to want them to be Pharisees.
Three things govern my thinking on fractions: 1) you shouldn’t have to be a microbiologist to serve God, 2) you can’t serve God when you’re dead, and 3) if they can’t figure it out, neither can I.
I’m been surprised to find I am apparently in the minority in my position. This is why I queried about a breakdown of Bethelites regarding fractions but nobody seemed to know. ‘It’s not a cake until you mix the (minute) ingredients’ works for me but it is apparently the minority view.
I was especially amazed that people could spin fractions as a money thing. It just made so much sense to me that blood is blood, yet fractions can be so minute as to liken them to those traces remaining when you drain an animal, that I never thought to go beyond that obvious comparison. ‘Eyeball it’ is what you said previously. To insist people go beyond that seems to me pharisaical.
Beyond the dilemma to booze it up or not booze it up before the teetotalers (or alcoholics), this matter of fractions is the other ‘approved, (in the sense of being publicized,) use of conscience. We kind of gravitate to rules, even though we know rules quickly get out of hand. I think of the brother who quipped about the ‘Letters from Readers’ feature in those old Watchtowers:
“I just read the question,” he said, “then skip to the bottom to see if I can do it or not.”
He did quip. Honestly and truly, it was a quip. But there is also some truth in it.
 

Judging from your down-home profile photo, you’re used to them.

I tend to agree.

It is only you that has fractionalized soul this way. This is why when you first gave your convoluted breakdown of ‘soul,’ I countered, ‘You wanna say that in English?’
I learned, as first explained in the Truth book, that ‘your soul is you.’ Yes, of course it has prerequisites. When you start qualifying any noun you utter as the sum of many fractions, then I’ll acknowledge you have a point.
Meanwhile, there is a timeline we operate on. We are finite beings and must take things as they come. We don’t have the luxury of overseeing the past, present, and future as though they are equally plain. Occasionally, to be sure, we get around that inconvenience by condemning yesterday’s things in the light of today’s standards, but most fair people recognize that as a cheap shot. Go back to the philosophy professor, the great donkey, who speaks of ‘temporal omniscience,’ how we can view all events as real, even those that haven’t happened yet—and God knows the idiot surmises his fellows draw from that. 
Originally, blood was blood. Then, doctors began to separate it into ‘main components’ that might individually be transfused, and we said, ‘Who are you trying to kid? It’s still blood.’
Then they said, ‘You ain’t seen nothing yet,’ whereupon they came up with so many additional components, most quite tiny, that the HQ brothers threw up their hands and said, ‘We can’t figure it out. Leave it for every individual to hash it out best they can.’
You have already indicated the probable resolution with that form you cited several days ago. Things are settling down. It is only the hypercritical or vengeful who seek to keep them stirred up. Sure, it would be great to correct any missteps of the past. But that is the nature of the past: it is not the past when it first occurs, but is the present, and as such it is not so easily corrected. Best that is to be done in the overall world is to throw every such possible error into the laps of the lawyers, who will extract 1/3 of the involved wealth for their inconvenience in sorting it out.

Nope I don’t think there is one because it’s the PRINCIPLE behind the abstain from blood.
You eating fractions when you eat the meat..yeah some of it’s washed with pink dye to make it look good but there is still fractions in there.
jehovah knew when you bled an animal you would not get all of the  blood out…but he is teaching us his right over us..the principle of the blood letting …
I’ve seen a number of Roos hung up and bled with their head cut of and skinned..hardly any fat on them …but they had muscle..and the blood in them was  visible …yet they had been correctly bled……...they butchered them cooked and ate them …lots of fractions in that meal….antidotes apparently have fractions in them.   Some medicines do..and people don’t even know it…so stop straining  the Nat and concentrate on the principle of abstaining from blood….anyway that’s how I see it…we are all different on it and going by scripture none of us are wrong. I respect your view but it’s not my view and this is where we get into not judging each other I suppose.

Nope I don’t think there is one because it’s the PRINCIPLE behind the abstain from blood.
You eating fractions when you eat the meat..yeah some of it’s washed with pink dye to make it look good but there is still fractions in there.
jehovah knew when you bled an animal you would not get all of the  blood out…but he is teaching us his right over us..the principle of the blood letting …
I’ve seen a number of Roos hung up and bled with their head cut of and skinned..hardly any fat on them …but they had muscle..and the blood in them was  visible …yet they had been correctly bled……...they butchered them cooked and ate them …lots of fractions in that meal….antidotes apparently have fractions in them.   Some medicines do..and people don’t even know it…so stop straining  the Nat and concentrate on the principle of abstaining from blood….anyway that’s how I see it…we are all different on it and going by scripture none of us are wrong. I respect your view but it’s not my view and this is where we get into not judging each other I suppose.

That is why I think some of JWI's tongue in cheek* predictions are not too far fetched.
*(Or maybe he was being completely serious, not sure this time) 

…
As is, I read two different kinds of faith being considered.
The first is about the philosophical concept of faith, the idea of faith, and
The second is about how to make that idea and concept transition from a capability to a real thing.….
BECAUSE … If that “leap” is not made … faith without works is dead.
Two entirely different ideas, would be my guess.
Jehovah can DECLARE a man rightous who has faith that never heard of the Law of Moses.  The Scripture is talking about how FAITH transitions from concept to reality.
I may see it differently tomorrow if I get more sleep.
 
 

Each must do what they feel is right…..and I’m sure it was a nightmare for the apostles and the James's of the time to explain what was and wasn’t acceptable in their worship…we just look at those  scriptures differently…I guess I didn’t realise just how different we looked at things …
besides all that…I sincerely hope  you will be okay with your health and I mean that…I really hope things improve for you so you don’t even have to consider the above…..and nobody can judge what another does…and you should know by now I wouldn’t…..🤗
 

Each must do what they feel is right…..and I’m sure it was a nightmare for the apostles and the James's of the time to explain what was and wasn’t acceptable in their worship…we just look at those  scriptures differently…I guess I didn’t realise just how different we looked at things …
besides all that…I sincerely hope  you will be okay with your health and I mean that…I really hope things improve for you so you don’t even have to consider the above…..and nobody can judge what another does…and you should know by now I wouldn’t…..🤗
 

Each must do what they feel is right…..and I’m sure it was a nightmare for the apostles and the James's of the time to explain what was and wasn’t acceptable in their worship…we just look at those  scriptures differently…I guess I didn’t realise just how different we looked at things …
besides all that…I sincerely hope  you will be okay with your health and I mean that…I really hope things improve for you so you don’t even have to consider the above…..and nobody can judge what another does…and you should know by now I wouldn’t…..🤗
 

Each must do what they feel is right…..and I’m sure it was a nightmare for the apostles and the James's of the time to explain what was and wasn’t acceptable in their worship…we just look at those  scriptures differently…I guess I didn’t realise just how different we looked at things …
besides all that…I sincerely hope  you will be okay with your health and I mean that…I really hope things improve for you so you don’t even have to consider the above…..and nobody can judge what another does…and you should know by now I wouldn’t…..🤗
 

I have heard (from a reliable source) that Ramapo has hit another hiccup. The brother who moved there so he could help has been reassigned to a project on Long Island, NY where a new assembly hall is being built. (JWI might know something about that).

As it should be.
So, then, each of us will render an account for himself to God. (Ro 14:12)
 
 
 
 

Each must do what they feel is right…..and I’m sure it was a nightmare for the apostles and the James's of the time to explain what was and wasn’t acceptable in their worship…we just look at those  scriptures differently…I guess I didn’t realise just how different we looked at things …
besides all that…I sincerely hope  you will be okay with your health and I mean that…I really hope things improve for you so you don’t even have to consider the above…..and nobody can judge what another does…and you should know by now I wouldn’t…..🤗
 

Don't know.
But the explanation for the differences in this particular example could easily be that the Acts 15 decree was right for the time and place, just as letting prophets speak up in the first century congregation was right for the time and place. Peter's "killing" of two members of the congregation for lying about the extent of a financial contribution might have been right for the time and place. Certain types of healing, use of oil, speaking in tongues, etc., might also have right for the time and place. The holy spirit may well have been "leading" through difficult periods in ways that were not going to be right for another time, or even for other congregations with different situations.  

Yes, I see your point, I see your point...
I think that for any 1st century Christian of Gentile origin, when they learn that Jehovah from the beginning (Noah) prohibited the consumption of blood. This was later highlighted in dozens of mentions in the Mosaic Law and, finally, in the apostolic decree (with Paul present) of Acts 15. In short, I am sure that in no way would they want to consume blood.
As we know, even Tertullian writes that Christians abstained from the custom of drinking blood. Yes, the Early Church held this commandment as a whole.
So, from my point of view, any exegetical possibilities about some passages like the ones you mention pale next to the rest of the evidence. They are that, a possibility. For me, the certainty is that since Noah the servants of Jehovah did not drink/we don't drink/we will not drink  blood.

Just a quick recap. I flippantly predicted that all medical blood products become a matter of conscience in 2026 and you said then that means you could argue that fornication and idol worship would also be a matter of conscience:
I wanted to acknowledge that idea by saying that a Christian like James would react similarly if he knew Paul was now saying it was OK for gentiles to eat meat sacrificed to an idol, after James had written that gentile Christians should abstain from meat sacrificed to an idol. Thus: 
To that, you said: 
So I first wanted to point out that James was also a scriptural Christian and he would also have drawn his conclusions about blood (and meat sacrificed to idols) from the way Jehovah viewed blood (and sacrifice and idolatry) all the way throughout the scriptures. So I think that in this regard all of us should want to be Jamesian Christians. 
If anything, James was looking for a good scriptural compromise that would help Christian Jews and Christian Gentiles be able to associate more closely.
After all, Christian association involved feasts and eating together. So much so that some were even using the Memorial celebration as another time for a feast. 
(Galatians 2:11, 12) . . .However, when Ceʹphas came to Antioch, I resisted him face-to-face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12  For before certain men from James arrived, he used to eat with people of the nations; but when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself, . . . (Jude 12) . . .at your love feasts while they feast with you, shepherds who feed themselves. . . (2 Peter 2:13) . . .while feasting together with you.  (1 Corinthians 11:20, 21, 33, 34) . . .When you come together in one place, it is not really to eat the Lord’s Evening Meal. 21  For when you eat it, each one takes his own evening meal beforehand, so that one is hungry but another is intoxicated. . . . Consequently, my brothers, when you come together to eat it, wait for one another. 34  If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that when you come together it is not for judgment (Matthew 9:11) . . .“Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” (1 Corinthians 10:27) If an unbeliever invites you and you want to go, eat whatever is set before you. . .
  Without putting words in your mouth, or twisting them, like I did before, I'm going to try to guess what you probably mean. I think you are saying that Paul may have had a point in contradicting James on the "food sacrificed to idols" part of the decree, but that the blood part of the decree was too important, and there could be no rationale against such a longstanding decree that seems to go all through the entire Bible.  
If that's what you mean, then I'd say that personally I agree. The Bible remains clear on the blood issue, and I can't think of eating blood without finding it repulsive. I find the same thing goes on in my mind with medical uses of blood, even though I am aware that this isn't really the same as eating blood. Making use of whole blood or fractions of blood for medical purposes is more like a partial organ/tissue transplant. And it can be just as dangerous as other organ/tissue transplants. 
But I think that the central body of elders for modern day congregations of Witnesses have done something similar to what James was doing. They have looked for a scriptural compromise in allowing once-forbidden organ transplants and once-forbidden tissue transplants, but have still tried to show a respect for the idea of abstaining from blood, even in medical procedures that have nothing to do with eating blood. 
So although I am still a bit revulsed at the idea of using blood for medical purposes, I remember that I had the same revulsion for heart, kidney and liver transplants. To a smaller extent I still do. What you said before about heart transplants resonated with me. And what Pudgy said about David's refusal to even drink water representing blood resonated with me too. 
But the more we understand about medical procedures, and the more we can make our own decisions about safety risks, we can start to be less revulsed by the medical use of fractions, and less revulsed by other tissue/organ transplants. In fact, I long ago decided that I wouldn't impose my own conservative conscience upon my children. Then more recently I decided that some of these medical options might even become viable for me if a situation ever called for it. 
On David's choice, it seems that Jesus made a point that it actually would have been OK for David not just to drink that water, perfectly legal, but to actually break God's law and even eat the shewbread that only the priests could eat upon penalty of death for anyone else:
(Matthew 12:2-7) . . .the Pharisees said to him: “Look! Your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” 3 He said to them: “Have you not read what David did when he and the men with him were hungry? 4 How he entered into the house of God and they ate the loaves of presentation, something that it was not lawful for him or those with him to eat, but for the priests only? . . . 7  However, if you had understood what this means, ‘I want mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless ones.
(Matthew 12:11, 12)  He said to them: “If you have one sheep and that sheep falls into a pit on the Sabbath, is there a man among you who will not grab hold of it and lift it out? 12  How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! . . .
(Matthew 15:6-11) . . .’ So you have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition.. . .11  It is not what enters into a man’s mouth that defiles him, but it is what comes out of his mouth that defiles him.”
Perhaps we are just not ready for what may well have been Paul's outlook for gentiles on blood, things strangled, and meat sacrificed to idols. But we are slowly moving in the right direction. Previously, I think I made too much of a point about James going for the Noahide decree as opposed to the Mosaic decree when making a burden for gentiles. Now, I am looking at Paul's view which is apparently against ALL LAW, no matter how good those laws appear. Under Christ, we are no longer under law at all. We don't need to be. There will always be those who will fight the idea and say that if we don't put Christians under at least some law, they are going to go "hog-wild" as a friend of mine at Bethel used to put it. They'll say we can't trust the brothers to do what's right unless we give them rules and goals and quotas. But Paul would have been against the Noahide laws, too. Christians are under "undeserved kindness" not law. 
I like the way Colossians puts it.
(Colossians 2:8-3:5) . . .Look out that no one takes you captive by means of the philosophy and empty deception according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ; because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily.  . . .  God made you alive together with him. He kindly forgave us all our trespasses and erased the handwritten document that consisted of decrees and was in opposition to us. . . . Therefore, do not let anyone judge you about what you eat and drink or about the observance of a festival or of the new moon or of a sabbath. . . . Let no man deprive you of the prize who takes delight in a false humility and a form of worship of the angels, “taking his stand on” the things he has seen. . . .  If you died together with Christ with respect to the elementary things of the world, why do you live as if still part of the world by further subjecting yourselves to the decrees: “Do not handle, nor taste, nor touch,”  referring to things that all perish with their use, according to the commands and teachings of men?  Although those things have an appearance of wisdom in a self-imposed form of worship . . . they are of no value in combating the satisfying of the flesh. . . .  Deaden, therefore, your body members that are on the earth as respects sexual immorality, uncleanness, uncontrolled sexual passion, hurtful desire, and greediness, which is idolatry. 

Srecko:
(2 Samuel 23:2) . . .The spirit of Jehovah spoke through me; His word was on my tongue.
(Mark 12:36) . . .By the holy spirit, David himself said, . . .
(2 Timothy 3:16) . . .All Scripture is inspired of God . . .
(1 Corinthians 7:10) . . .To the married people I give instructions, not I but the Lord, . . .
(1 Corinthians 7:40) . . .and I certainly think I also have God’s spirit.
Well, not only those who wrote, but the apostles speaking of themselves or with reference to the past positively believed that Jehovah directed their writing, at least in part, of what they were writing.
Concerning the modern "doctrinal guardian", nowhere in Scripture do we find support for believing that they are inspired. A separate issue are reckless or pretentious statements by themselves that they are "guided." I would like more humility on your part (their part I meant to say).
 
 
 
 
 
 

I have never claimed to be a “good” JW, as I am a Barbarian at heart, and that is why the example of David pouring the water on the ground resonates so deeply with me …. I understand that that on a gut level … and the reasoning behind it.
I can see how Jehovah holds that all blood belongs to him and is jealous for it.
It feels perfectly right and proper and like Thinking, I don’t see any loopholes.
The perspective of a righteous (sometimes) man who fought in hand to hand combat carries more weight with me.
Even a non-JW Barbarian can understand the underlying principle that blood is sacred.

No..dont twist my words and meanings…yes I said that ….but my conclusions on transfusions come from the way Jehovah viewed blood all the way thru the scriptures…thus  I am not a Jamieson  Christian but a scriptural one….well I’m trying to be..
I also am not fanatical ..I for one know fractions are in certain medicines and as the brothers pointed out..if one wants to be fanatical then one would not be able to have blood tests as all blood should be poured out on the ground and not used for any purpose.
So this  isn’t about straining the gnat…I see it as showing respect for blood as the life is in the blood….and that belongs to him.
I tried many years ago to shoot holes in this….even a loop hole…sure would have made my life a lot easier. As time and science moves on..all I can say it has proven to be a highly dangerous substance and must be used with the greatest of care…speaking of that blood is not properly screened for the parasites of Lyme…which is really a pandemic in the states and across the world.
They are finding hundreds of different species of just one of the parasites …still I feel as comfort my  people says….my stand is based on the scriptures ALL of them… I don’t agree with the WAY we disfellowship people…Jesus set the bench mark for that when he forgave Peter….also Paul exclaimed to the Corinthian cong for being to hard on the Adulterer….and there was a danger of the man becoming over saddened……yes he gave counsel to remove him…but it is my understanding it was only a matter of months when he directed them to bring him back into the brotherhood…anyone can correct me on that.
As a people we tend to beat disfellowshipped one’s down …tho I do see that slightly changing….trouble is when the GB say something it seems like a number of stiffnecked elders stick to their own thoughts…..we have new elders and I have seen ones reinstated very quickly.
so my thought is everyone can do what they want…but be careful when you are responsible for a newly interested one….
 

No..dont twist my words and meanings…yes I said that ….but my conclusions on transfusions come from the way Jehovah viewed blood all the way thru the scriptures…thus  I am not a Jamieson  Christian but a scriptural one….well I’m trying to be..
I also am not fanatical ..I for one know fractions are in certain medicines and as the brothers pointed out..if one wants to be fanatical then one would not be able to have blood tests as all blood should be poured out on the ground and not used for any purpose.
So this  isn’t about straining the gnat…I see it as showing respect for blood as the life is in the blood….and that belongs to him.
I tried many years ago to shoot holes in this….even a loop hole…sure would have made my life a lot easier. As time and science moves on..all I can say it has proven to be a highly dangerous substance and must be used with the greatest of care…speaking of that blood is not properly screened for the parasites of Lyme…which is really a pandemic in the states and across the world.
They are finding hundreds of different species of just one of the parasites …still I feel as comfort my  people says….my stand is based on the scriptures ALL of them… I don’t agree with the WAY we disfellowship people…Jesus set the bench mark for that when he forgave Peter….also Paul exclaimed to the Corinthian cong for being to hard on the Adulterer….and there was a danger of the man becoming over saddened……yes he gave counsel to remove him…but it is my understanding it was only a matter of months when he directed them to bring him back into the brotherhood…anyone can correct me on that.
As a people we tend to beat disfellowshipped one’s down …tho I do see that slightly changing….trouble is when the GB say something it seems like a number of stiffnecked elders stick to their own thoughts…..we have new elders and I have seen ones reinstated very quickly.
so my thought is everyone can do what they want…but be careful when you are responsible for a newly interested one….