Pudgy

After reviewing resources at my disposal, I offer this:
The thing at issue is language in the apostolic decree. Specifically whether abstain "from blood" and "things strangled" belong in the decree, and if so what that means.
As an initial matter, the letter containing this decree says it is the result of the holy spirit. I don't take that lightly. When someone with miraculous supernatural power says something is of the holy spirit, I listen. And, the men posting this letter are testified to have had such power.
As a second matter, this decree came after Jewish Christians, namely Peter and others who went with him, witnessed holy spirit falling upon gentile worshipers of God, even before they were baptized. Hence Jewish Christians were schooled (let's just say, very pointedly reminded!) that God accepted worship of men and woman outside Jewish law and tradition so long as they met basic standards (though God didn't immediately spell out what that was). Hence, eventually Jewish Christians were going to have to come to grips with the fact that regardless of descent "the man that fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him." But what did this mean? What made their worship acceptable? At the moment, all Jewish Christians knew was they were not the only ones whose worship God accepted; hence Jewish Christians would have to adjust their view of essential elements of acceptable worship, that is in relation to their own Jewish tradition, and in the face of their new faith in Jesus.
That said, this, together with consideration of multiple accounts of this decree (from various early church traditions, i.e., Western, Alexandrian and Caesarean text), most likely both abstain from "blood" and "things strangled" belong in the decree.
So what do we gather from both these being in in the apostolic decree?
Jewish Christians would have to dig deeper than their ritualistic traditions constructed around Mosaic Law, the temple and all that these entail. And, they had a new faith in Jesus that moved them! Holy spirit helped them out. Acceptable worship included essential things aside from Mosaic Law and beyond what natural law would dictate. One item that would fall into this gap had to do with Noahide law. It addressed a prohibition in relation to killing and blood. According to Noahide law, to "abstain from blood" would include abstention from "things strangled" by human hand. So why was "things strangled" included in the decree? It would be repetition. So why include it?
I can't be dogmatic about answering the question. I would say, though, that invoking Noahide law as essential would basically require the notion of abstain "from blood". (I.e., blood of slaughter) So that aspect was a given within the decree. When it came to "things strangled" there could be something practical going on. As a practical matter, the fresher and cleaner the meat the more preferable. Keeping an animal alive until it was sold kept its meat fresher. At the time, meat sold for dietary purposes, if it was killed at the point of sale, would often be strangled then and there. Killing a critter made the carcass more manageable. Killing a critter by strangulation aided in protecting its flesh from external contamination, which is initially helpful. (Modern processing houses for wild game much prefer an animal to be intact as possible. Field dressing, for example, tends to introduce all manner of contaminants that would not otherwise be there to have to deal with.) Hence, the notion of abstain from "things strangled" could arguably be no more than addressing a practical matter that contemporary Christians would find themselves confronted with.
In short, including "abstain from blood" and "things strangled" may mean nothing more than one is statutory language and one addresses a practical matter.
PS: Nothing about this presentation is intended to construct a logical argument. It's no more than sharing potential.

In 200 years, no one on this planet will ever know that we existed and we will have been DEAD a long time.
Jehovah has the power to change all that, so what’s the big freaking deal?

That's a perspective I've not really explored, as least not that I can recall at the moment. In English translation from different original languages, we have:
Gen 2:17: you must not
Gen 9:4: YOU must not
Acts 15:20: abstain from
Could be the difference between you can't versus you shouldn't.
It's subtle. But it's a curiosity. I'm gonna give this more thought.

abstain
verb [ I ]
US  /æbˈsteɪn, əb-/
to not do something you could do, esp. something that is unhealthy or gives you pleasure:
Some families abstain from eating fried food.
If you abstain from voting, you do not vote although you are permitted to vote.
to choose to refrain: he abstained from alcohol
abstain (from something) to decide not to do or have something, especially something you like or enjoy, because it is bad for your health or considered morally wrong
to abstain from alcohol/sex/drugs
I have already noted that the term "abstain" is weaker than the term "prohibition/ban". Abstinence is left to personal choice, personal willpower, personal motivation. Furthermore, the word, at least for me, gives the impression of a decision that applies in the short term. Or as a decision not to do something temporarily. For the benefit (in favor) of yourself or others.
 

i have had that in my files for a very long time. the difference is, my copies are readable.
Unreadable “proofs” are by definition utter nonsense, only bluster .

…
 

Sigh … well, I’ve thought of three ways to do it, without diodes, none involving strawberries ….
The feedback of the globe subjected to constant voltage changes to achieve equilibrium probably created torque and at 60hz bumped it up to rotational speed. Diodes would create a simulated DC  CURRENT to create the electromagnet, but it would stop and start at 60hz, possibly creating a bump effect. (?)
 
 

The consequences of the procedures differ. The first one was sentenced to death. There is no penalty for the second procedure.
So why does the exclusion apply to those who take blood. That is, according to the new regulation, it is called self-exclusion.
WTJWorg Lawyers playing with legalism of term disfellowshipping and dissociating. They want to present GB as respecters of human rights to freedom of choice.

I think WTJWorg could blur the answers to such questions along the lines of:
God is omniscient, he sees and foretells the future, but he doesn't want to know every thing in advance because he respects man's privacy. So, God did not know that Adam and Eve would sin. And because of his "ignorance", God could not give instructions for something he had no idea could be important to future generations.
 

If it takes 100,000 words to explain “abstain from blood” doesn’t really mean that, you missed your calling as a Watchtower Lawyer.

I can answer all your above questions thusly:
Without thinking you came out with the statement about the value and availability of “carrion”.
Since then you have twisted logic and reasoning every which way but loose to defend your original mistaken position.
A common mistake. Repeated every day in every area of human interaction.
I am mortified that I have done the same sort of thing when I was just learning the Truth.

Well ….  I have ENDURED a plethora ( def. “plethora”: Whole damn potload) of silly defenses of carrion to get to the point that Cornelius was neither Christian or Jew … and he was a Roman Soldier … and he was approved by God.
…. so, I guess it was worth it.
But now… I have to rethink my whole perspective on the boundaries of relative allegiances and subjection, political neutrality, and WHY Jehovah God allows war, and NEVER considered warfare murder.

I'm sorry, but that's just one of the possible outcomes, that is, it's one of the interpretations that WJWorg offered as the correct interpretation of something that could or could not have happened.
There is no biblical evidence that Cornelius did this. So it remains in the realm/sphere of interpretation and speculation. Some stories end romantically and some don't.
Neutrality. There is no complete neutrality, because there is none.
Let's take a blood transfusion for example. The GB says that certain blood products can be taken, so the commandments about "abstinence from blood" are not fully obeyed. They also did not take a neutral position, because they determine what is forbidden and what is not when it comes to blood.

That doesn't explain it well enough for me. The "baggage" of Genesis 9 appears to be retroactively applied to Adam and Eve or at least their descendants up until Noah. If an animal that died on its own is not "soulical" (whatever that means) then an animal that was killed by another animal or by a human (like Abel) is not soulical either.
Also, when coming upon an animal that appears to have died on its own, how do you diagnose that it wasn't chased by another animal or human until its heart gave out? How can you quickly diagnose that a bird that's dead from an apparent broken neck had accidentally run into something or if an animal or human had caused it? A buffalo may fall off a cliff, but it may have been part of a herd that was driven off, or maybe it had mad buffalo disease and jumped. What difference does it make to its "soulicalness?"
I know that some kosher butchering methods attempted to drain blood before an animal was thoroughly dead, and this seems to fit the idea of draining "LIFE"-blood from it, whereas if the animal were killed first and then strung up to drain blood, the animal is no longer a "soul" in some sense apparently, and one is draining blood from a non-soulical animal. (The method was used because the living heart helps push out the blood so it drains faster, although the method has been deemed very cruel to the animal.) 
Also, others have already pointed out that an animal that dies on its own may have been an unhealthy animal, perhaps even dangerous for eating or feeding to other animals, no matter how fresh it was, or how well it was treated to preserve it.
You mentioned that carrion were easier to gather without the dangers of hunting, but why are we worried about the dangers of hunting? Noah had to "capture" an awful lot of animals, and it would only have been an incremental effort to kill a few of the ones captured. Adam may have had the animals subdued to such an extent that they just walked right up to him as he decided on names for them. And, for what it's worth, Adam may also have had a tattoo in the shape of a red herring in place of a belly-button. We just don't know. 
So, I still don't see what makes carrion such an important part of this question that started out as a discussion of the scriptural basis for refusing certain whole or partial blood products.
You have provided a thorough attempt to support a specific conjecture about the dietary decrees given to Adam and then to Noah. Up to a point it's an interesting Bible discussion to me, but it still feels like we are beating a dead horse. Don't ask me how it died.

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.

Well done……now I have a migraine 

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!

While you are “away” for a few days, Many Miles, be on the lookout for viable carrion to scrape up, and cook up, and actually eat.
Try to choose something that is not covered and infested with flies, parasites, bacteria and ants.
Even if you cook it the toxins will still be there … you know … the pee and poop from bacteria and  viruses. Toxins.
Or … you could play Russian Roulette, which will give you about the same odds of survival, and only hurts for a microsecond.

I think that would only be possible if the soldiers in the trenches were about a hundred meters apart. But if the enemy soldier was with a bayonet over his head, the idea would suddenly change.

Perhaps this is why NOWHERE in the Bible is warfare by any side against any people for any reason considered … by God … to be murder.…
... if it was how could there ever be peace?
 

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.

Intent is simple enough to test.
Try feeding puppies only vegetation, and see how that works out.…. all else is playing with words.

I don't know if C.T.Russell made use of the principle in this particular scripture . . . 
(1 Corinthians 7:20-24) . . .In whatever state each one was called, let him remain in it. 21  Were you called when a slave? Do not let it concern you; but if you can become free, then seize the opportunity. . .  24  In whatever state each one was called, brothers, let him remain in it before God.
But he didn't think a Christian had to necessarily break his military conscription "contract" on becoming a follower. But he did think that if called to active front-line duty as a soldier the Christian should just "shoot over the heads" of those in the opposing trench. Perhaps he didn't have a very realistic view of what war could be like, but other religions and religious leaders made the same suggestion (I'm told). 

We do know that it was not uncommon for humans to eat animal carcasses dead of natural cause. Jews had to be told NOT to do this. Yet those same Jews were told they could sell that very food to gentiles who would eat it. Hence, I have no reason to think Cornelius didn't make use of such food and every reason to think he probably did. That said, of course the biblical account of Cornelius does not bore down to the detail of what he knew specifically about Noah. But God knew what He looked for in worship He accepted, and He accepted Cornelius' worship. Even though not a Jew. God accepted his worship. Even though not a Christian. God accepted his worship. Of course, when Christianity was revealed to Cornelius he accepted it. But from God's reaction we can have a decent idea that Cornelius was doing right by what God expected of folks.
I agree, there is natural law to consider. There is also ignorance to consider. What is a good hearted person to do who's acting on the best they know, despite their ignorance. One of my very favorite biblical texts is a psalm that exclaims God will deliver the poor one crying for help, also the afflicted one and whoever has no helper. Could be that Cornelius landed on this ground.
 

In the past, even on this forum, I have argued the necessity of the Noahide Laws (the Acts 15 version at least partially motivated by them) for Jehovah's acceptance of Gentiles. Not that it was counted as righteousness, but "acceptableness" at least.  But we don't know that Cornelius actually feared God through a knowledge of those Noahide Laws, specifically, the law about blood, strangulation, or even the law about not eating a portion of his nutrition derived from a living animal.  It's quite possible. And that idea that Cornelius may have been a proselyte actually comes from a similar idea that Jews (and therefore early Christians) would call someone a "God-fearer" only when they had already shown a desire to follow the true God. It could be a step below a proselyte. The Watchtower publications are clear that Cornelius was not a proselyte although acknowledging that some commentators have made that claim. 
But Cornelius may have been considered a God-fearer for other reasons, unrelated to any knowledge of or practice of Noahide-style requirements. For example, there is the reference to natural law in Romans 1:
(Romans 1:19, 20) . . .because what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. 20  For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, . . .
(Acts 17:22-28) . . .“Men of Athens, I see that in all things you seem to be more given to the fear of the deities than others are. 23  For instance, while passing along and carefully observing your objects of veneration, I found even an altar on which had been inscribed ‘To an Unknown God.’ Therefore, what you are unknowingly worshipping, this I am declaring to you. 24  The God who made the world and all the things in it, being, as he is, Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in handmade temples; 25  nor is he served by human hands as if he needed anything, because he himself gives to all people life and breath and all things. 26  And he made out of one man every nation of men to dwell on the entire surface of the earth, and he decreed the appointed times and the set limits of where men would dwell, 27  so that they would seek God, if they might grope for him and really find him, although, in fact, he is not far off from each one of us. 28  For by him we have life and move and exist, even as some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also his children.’