Pudgy

I have never heard this before? Where did you?
”Where did this pooch get his wisdom? Is this not Pudgy, who we used to walk every day?”

That’s why Cain was terrified of being banished …. outside the Garden the whole world was filled with proto-people that were not direct creations from God … “the land of exiles”, where life was hard and dangerous, and NO ONE lived forever.
They would naturally want to kill Cain on sight, because his family would have lived forever in a protected Paradise …. and they did not.
A modern day example is “everybody” hates and wants to kill the Jews because they suspect they might REALLY be God’s chosen people, and suspect that they, themselves,  are not.
Grrrrrrrr ….
 

Think in terms of "the Bible does not definitely rule out medical transplants of human organs." Just think it through.
 

It's because I believe that if a non-Jewish person could eat an unbled animal that died naturally, then they could also trap or hunt or net an animal (mammal/fish/bird/etc) and eat it unbled. But even if it were only animals that died naturally, which might have been ideal, then it was still OK for people of the nations to eat unbled animals. Narrowing it down to distinguish which kinds were OK doesn't change that overall fact.
With the Jews, they had Moses read in their synagogues week after week so they would know the Mosaic Law. Did all the nations have Noah (Gen 6-9) read to them every week, so they would know the Noahide Law?
(Acts 15:20, 21) . . .but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from what is strangled, and from blood. 21  For from ancient times Moses has had those who preach him in city after city, because he is read aloud in the synagogues on every sabbath.”
 
Also, the lines can get blurred. If I create a grazing path for bison at a precarious edge of a cliff, is it NATURAL that one might slip and fall to its death now and then? If a dog is trained to bring back a duck that I didn't quite kill when I hit it with a slingshot, but the dog kills it by holding it by the neck, did it die naturally? What if the dog brings me one that it caught on its own? What about the chipmunk the cat brought to my doorstep that dies after several hours of torture by the cat? If I take an animal from the mouth of a lion that just killed it by chasing away the lion, did it die naturally? 
I don't know the taboo you mean, but the above could just as well mean that Noah could NOT eat carrion. He could not eat an animal found dead of natural causes. And he couldn't eat an animal that still had blood (or breath) flowing in it. So he could only eat meat he purposely killed. He just couldn't eat it with the blood.
Blood made it taboo, and therefore blood WAS considered a sacred substance by decree of God himself. 

My buttered popcorn is good!

That's one way around it, I guess. I take it that fat, like blood, is never going to be completely removed from the meat. And several of the Jewish priestly sacrifices paid special attention to the liver, kidneys, and intestines where large chunks of fat could be cut away and made to smoke on the fire or with the 'fatty ashes.' 
But this was not the whole story. First of all the two verses I quoted separately before actually go together:
(Leviticus 3:16, 17) . . .The priest will make them smoke on the altar as food, an offering made by fire for a pleasing aroma. All the fat belongs to Jehovah. 17  “‘It is a lasting statute for your generations, in all your dwelling places: You must not eat any fat or any blood at all.’”
It wasn't just the major organs containing fat, and it wasn't just in relation to priestly sacrifices:
(Leviticus 7:22-27) Jehovah continued to speak to Moses, saying: 23 “Tell the Israelites, ‘You must not eat any fat of a bull or a young ram or a goat. 24 The fat of an animal found dead and the fat of an animal killed by another animal may be used for any other purpose, but you must never eat it. 25 For whoever eats fat from an animal that he presents as an offering made by fire to Jehovah must be cut off from his people. 26 “‘You must not eat any blood in any of your dwelling places, whether that of birds or that of animals. 27 Anyone who eats any blood must be cut off from his people.’”

Nominally, he was. I didn’t get the impression his heart was in it. The mom certainly was and I was there as much to support her as her son. Sometimes people just like an ally, regardless of how things go down.

First she gets perceived condescension from MM, and now you are going to give her a superiority complex.

Oh, it is hardly proof positive, but both have been around for a long, long time. Both respond to me in more or less the same way. Both are avante garde about respecting the GB’s wishes—MM has made it clear, and the Librarian just for hosting such a site. Both have a fixation on order—concerned when a thread wanders. Both respond to challenges with snippets about food—‘I like tacos’ for the Librarian, ‘pass the popcorn’ for MM
I mean, I wouldn’t stake significant sums on it, but no way is it an absurd speculation.

Adding to Thinkings list, of which each item is different, so that I think that would have answered your question, is just plain ‘ol human error. Anyone who has ever worked in healthcare (my wife is a retired nurse) knows there is plenty of it. 
In my area, hospitals laid off nurses who would not accepted the Covid shot. This led to collapse of the hospital system, as there were a lot of them, not easily or affordably replaced, so largely not replaced, making the remaining staff take up the slack over which they protested and went on strike. Do you think this worked to increase the safety of transfusion protocol?
Just recently local hospitals were found to be in severe violation of a law that they must not be understaffed. It’s a LAW—how could that have not fixed the problem? It’s as though administrators say, ‘If our nurses quit, the very stones will take care of you!’
Everything is collapsing. And whereas JW’s stand on war, tobacco, alcohol and drug abuse, and compliance with safety laws, place them BY FAR among the safest religions out there, you keep flailing a on a number so relatively tiny that neither Thinking nor myself can think of an example we personally know of. And neither of us are youngsters, especially Thinking.
In a revolving population of several million you are going to find countless examples of anything. But there is such a thing as focusing on the trees so minutely as to not see the forest.

I think that MM's questions here to Thinking were pertinent. Did the elders in Jerusalem mean it in Moses' terms, Noah's terms, or some new terms that was different from both of those?
And, per Paul's explanation for at least 2 of the terms of that decree, was it possibly only a necessary but temporary injunction to allow the congregation to accommodate coexistence with gentiles for the time when Jewish Christians were still "condemning" themselves to live by the Law. 
(Acts 21:20, 21) . . .After hearing this, they began to glorify God, but they said to him: “You see, brother, how many thousands of believers there are among the Jews, and they are all zealous for the Law. 21  But they have heard it rumored about you that you have been teaching all the Jews among the nations an apostasy from Moses, telling them not to . . . follow the customary practices. 
(Galatians 2:11-14) . . .However, when Ceʹphas came to Antioch, I resisted him face-to-face, because he stood condemned.*  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,. . . 14  But when I saw that they were not walking in step with the truth of the good news, I said to Ceʹphas before them all: “If you, though you are a Jew, live as the nations do and not as Jews do, how can you compel people of the nations to live according to Jewish practice?”
 
*The 2013 NWT decided not to translate the Greek of Galatians 2:11 (as was done previously) with "Peter ... stood condemned." They decided to water it down a bit and say that only that "Peter . . . was clearly in the wrong."

Sometimes, when you read something, or somebody tells you something, it makes perfect sense. Other times you get the uneasy feeling it’s somewhere somehow you were being observed through binoculars by a duck.
…. there is an actual Latin word for this, but it escapes me at the moment.
You probably remember the scripture that says, paraphrased, “… you must not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk .…”.  The instant I read this scripture, many years ago, I understood why God would command such a thing, and I wholeheartedly agreed with it at the same level of seriousness that I instantly understood that it was intended.
Occasionally over the past 50 years, in discussing other subjects, I would mention that commandment, and was genuinely stunned that others did not also instantly “get it”. It made no sense to them. If you are going to KILL an animal for food … what’s the big deal how you cook it?
The younger animal is food. The mother’s milk is food. What’s the big deal? Neither one knows or is capable of comprehending WHAT is done with their being a resource.
Just as soldiers become soldiers for dozens of different reasons, even among soldiers, sometimes what is a moral necessity for one is incomprehensible for another.
The SYMBOLIC (  … if you will, the SPIRITUAL …) value of blood is unique, because by example and by edict from God, it is a common theme that runs throughout the whole Bible. It’s clear that we have permission to use as food anything that walks, crawls, swims or flies, including (if you can overcome the strong CULTURAL taboos, like when Jerusalem was under siege) people … presumably bled out from war wounds. Some people would rather starve to death …. and have.
The prohibition against blood is consistent in principle throughout the entire Bible, but what convinced me was the example of King David, a soldier who slaughtered men and animals by the thousands … himself … personally … in hand to hand and eyeball to eyeball combat. When he in laying siege to a city remarked he was thirsty, and the only close by water was in a well near the city walls, two of his men risked their lives in a hail of arrows, spears, and rocks to bring him back a bucket of water. 
David did NOT drink the water. He poured it out on the ground, not because it was blood, or even blood fractions, but because it REPRESENTED the lives of his two soldiers, the EXACT same way that blood represents all air-breathing (pneuma=air) souls. 
In 1960, when I first read that, I instantly “got it”, the same way I instantly understood about the “boiling a kid in it’s mothers milk”.
That’s why, for me, it is just as much respect for the IDEA, or SYMBOLISM of respecting that which Jehovah God has clearly stated is his jealously guarded personal property, as well as actual blood.
Some people “get it”.
Some people don’t.

I’m sad to hear this.

Miles himself raised that objection. But I told him to suck it up. He’d already gotten his licks in. Time to move on. I knew Pudgy would back me and the card-catalog Librarian would be too tipsy to notice.

Yeah. That's why I said earlier that I believe in evolution! lol

You are not listening…..because you don’t like what I am saying .
We are under Christ law….we therefore abstain from blood…..what is it you want me to say?

When Jehovah’s organization was confronted with Covid and the vaccine campaign, and all the controversy generated, they tracked those whom they found easiest to track—those among their worldwide circle of full time servants. This informal survey indicated to them that any risk of vaccinate was quite low, acceptable in view of the risk of Covid which seemed quite high. Soon we began hearing of how most of those at Bethel had gotten vaccinated. 
Since then I have read, from the worldwide population, how ‘died suddenly’ is now a thing. Did they always?  A book by that name charts insurance company data to discover a significant, statistically most unlikely, spike in sudden unexplained deaths in otherwise healthy people, often the young, which coincides exactly with the time period in which vaccines began to be mandated for those employed in large companies.
There is no doubt that the worldwide statistical pattern shows this. Yet I look around the congregations and circuit and if it shows up, it is not so marked as to be noticeable to me.
It is probably similar with blood transfusions. You asked my personal experience. I gave it. I don’t know the overall pattern. I accept when you and others say some have died that you are not lying. As with Thinking, however, there does appear to be a lot of “fearmongering” (her word) to make the situation appear worse than it is.

No..by Christ's Law.
What you are doing here is clouding the blood issue in tangled webs and murky water with the fog of words so as to mislead.
Your arguments don’t make sense Miles….its and emotional issue in modern days times but it’s not all that hard to work out.

Sometimes, when you read something, or somebody tells you something, it makes perfect sense. Other times you get the uneasy feeling it’s somewhere somehow you were being observed through binoculars by a duck.
…. there is an actual Latin word for this, but it escapes me at the moment.
You probably remember the scripture that says, paraphrased, “… you must not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk .…”.  The instant I read this scripture, many years ago, I understood why God would command such a thing, and I wholeheartedly agreed with it at the same level of seriousness that I instantly understood that it was intended.
Occasionally over the past 50 years, in discussing other subjects, I would mention that commandment, and was genuinely stunned that others did not also instantly “get it”. It made no sense to them. If you are going to KILL an animal for food … what’s the big deal how you cook it?
The younger animal is food. The mother’s milk is food. What’s the big deal? Neither one knows or is capable of comprehending WHAT is done with their being a resource.
Just as soldiers become soldiers for dozens of different reasons, even among soldiers, sometimes what is a moral necessity for one is incomprehensible for another.
The SYMBOLIC (  … if you will, the SPIRITUAL …) value of blood is unique, because by example and by edict from God, it is a common theme that runs throughout the whole Bible. It’s clear that we have permission to use as food anything that walks, crawls, swims or flies, including (if you can overcome the strong CULTURAL taboos, like when Jerusalem was under siege) people … presumably bled out from war wounds. Some people would rather starve to death …. and have.
The prohibition against blood is consistent in principle throughout the entire Bible, but what convinced me was the example of King David, a soldier who slaughtered men and animals by the thousands … himself … personally … in hand to hand and eyeball to eyeball combat. When he in laying siege to a city remarked he was thirsty, and the only close by water was in a well near the city walls, two of his men risked their lives in a hail of arrows, spears, and rocks to bring him back a bucket of water. 
David did NOT drink the water. He poured it out on the ground, not because it was blood, or even blood fractions, but because it REPRESENTED the lives of his two soldiers, the EXACT same way that blood represents all air-breathing (pneuma=air) souls. 
In 1960, when I first read that, I instantly “got it”, the same way I instantly understood about the “boiling a kid in it’s mothers milk”.
That’s why, for me, it is just as much respect for the IDEA, or SYMBOLISM of respecting that which Jehovah God has clearly stated is his jealously guarded personal property, as well as actual blood.
Some people “get it”.
Some people don’t.

You missed the ENTIRE point George 88!
It’s NOT about travel!
It’s about the JW leadership pledging allegiance to the Constitution of the United States for their Passport, while the Brothers and Sisters in Malawi are being tortured and killed by the thousands for obeying not making a similar political statement. to get THEIR “passport”.
To not get raped, tortured and KILLED.
https://jwfacts.com/watchtower/malawi-mexico-oath-allegiance.php
This link has the COMPLETE STORY, and I found it to be fair, true, and accurate.  I was paying attention.
 

——————————————————-
It’s not about David respecting the blood of his enemies, or any animals slaughtered for food, or our respecting the blood.
It’s not REALLY about real blood. 
God does not collect it into some big celestial swimming pool and swim in it.
He considers all blood his personal property to teach us respect for the fact that He is the source of all life, but knows we cannot eat sunlight, so licenses the management of life to us.
That’s why animals have no restrictions on blood. BECAUSE they are not being included in the Ransom. 
The Mosaic law is not in force now, but the underlying principles still are.
That’s what “Abstain from blood” means.
 

Oxford Dictionary……ABSTAIN 
1, Restrain oneself from doing or enjoying something 
2, Formally decline to vote either for or against a proposal 
3, To Refrain from something 
 
I cannot make it any clearer….

…. consider the time from the beginning of the first hemoglobin molecule metabolizing sugar and oxygen to Moses as preschool and kindergarten, but as soon as humanity learned to “do basic math”, figuratively speaking, bathe more or less regularly, and not poop in the middle of the tent it was time for God to introduce them to a new concept (for them) now that they had centuries of experience as a frame of reference to integrate with….
Now it was time for some more abstract concepts …. about life and death … about responsibilities to God …. about respect for God in a violent and crude world, and to teach the Jews basic background information about how in the future the blood of one man was so valuable that God would accept such a simple thing to rescue the entire human race that respected that blood.
Sorta like once you have the 12x12=144 table down pat …. going on to Algebra I.
 

Sometimes, when you read something, or somebody tells you something, it makes perfect sense. Other times you get the uneasy feeling it’s somewhere somehow you were being observed through binoculars by a duck.
…. there is an actual Latin word for this, but it escapes me at the moment.
You probably remember the scripture that says, paraphrased, “… you must not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk .…”.  The instant I read this scripture, many years ago, I understood why God would command such a thing, and I wholeheartedly agreed with it at the same level of seriousness that I instantly understood that it was intended.
Occasionally over the past 50 years, in discussing other subjects, I would mention that commandment, and was genuinely stunned that others did not also instantly “get it”. It made no sense to them. If you are going to KILL an animal for food … what’s the big deal how you cook it?
The younger animal is food. The mother’s milk is food. What’s the big deal? Neither one knows or is capable of comprehending WHAT is done with their being a resource.
Just as soldiers become soldiers for dozens of different reasons, even among soldiers, sometimes what is a moral necessity for one is incomprehensible for another.
The SYMBOLIC (  … if you will, the SPIRITUAL …) value of blood is unique, because by example and by edict from God, it is a common theme that runs throughout the whole Bible. It’s clear that we have permission to use as food anything that walks, crawls, swims or flies, including (if you can overcome the strong CULTURAL taboos, like when Jerusalem was under siege) people … presumably bled out from war wounds. Some people would rather starve to death …. and have.
The prohibition against blood is consistent in principle throughout the entire Bible, but what convinced me was the example of King David, a soldier who slaughtered men and animals by the thousands … himself … personally … in hand to hand and eyeball to eyeball combat. When he in laying siege to a city remarked he was thirsty, and the only close by water was in a well near the city walls, two of his men risked their lives in a hail of arrows, spears, and rocks to bring him back a bucket of water. 
David did NOT drink the water. He poured it out on the ground, not because it was blood, or even blood fractions, but because it REPRESENTED the lives of his two soldiers, the EXACT same way that blood represents all air-breathing (pneuma=air) souls. 
In 1960, when I first read that, I instantly “got it”, the same way I instantly understood about the “boiling a kid in it’s mothers milk”.
That’s why, for me, it is just as much respect for the IDEA, or SYMBOLISM of respecting that which Jehovah God has clearly stated is his jealously guarded personal property, as well as actual blood.
Some people “get it”.
Some people don’t.

Sometimes, when you read something, or somebody tells you something, it makes perfect sense. Other times you get the uneasy feeling it’s somewhere somehow you were being observed through binoculars by a duck.
…. there is an actual Latin word for this, but it escapes me at the moment.
You probably remember the scripture that says, paraphrased, “… you must not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk .…”.  The instant I read this scripture, many years ago, I understood why God would command such a thing, and I wholeheartedly agreed with it at the same level of seriousness that I instantly understood that it was intended.
Occasionally over the past 50 years, in discussing other subjects, I would mention that commandment, and was genuinely stunned that others did not also instantly “get it”. It made no sense to them. If you are going to KILL an animal for food … what’s the big deal how you cook it?
The younger animal is food. The mother’s milk is food. What’s the big deal? Neither one knows or is capable of comprehending WHAT is done with their being a resource.
Just as soldiers become soldiers for dozens of different reasons, even among soldiers, sometimes what is a moral necessity for one is incomprehensible for another.
The SYMBOLIC (  … if you will, the SPIRITUAL …) value of blood is unique, because by example and by edict from God, it is a common theme that runs throughout the whole Bible. It’s clear that we have permission to use as food anything that walks, crawls, swims or flies, including (if you can overcome the strong CULTURAL taboos, like when Jerusalem was under siege) people … presumably bled out from war wounds. Some people would rather starve to death …. and have.
The prohibition against blood is consistent in principle throughout the entire Bible, but what convinced me was the example of King David, a soldier who slaughtered men and animals by the thousands … himself … personally … in hand to hand and eyeball to eyeball combat. When he in laying siege to a city remarked he was thirsty, and the only close by water was in a well near the city walls, two of his men risked their lives in a hail of arrows, spears, and rocks to bring him back a bucket of water. 
David did NOT drink the water. He poured it out on the ground, not because it was blood, or even blood fractions, but because it REPRESENTED the lives of his two soldiers, the EXACT same way that blood represents all air-breathing (pneuma=air) souls. 
In 1960, when I first read that, I instantly “got it”, the same way I instantly understood about the “boiling a kid in it’s mothers milk”.
That’s why, for me, it is just as much respect for the IDEA, or SYMBOLISM of respecting that which Jehovah God has clearly stated is his jealously guarded personal property, as well as actual blood.
Some people “get it”.
Some people don’t.