Pudgy

…

No it did not help.
To me the whole thing was just rationalizing gobbledegook.  
I don’t care if you believe it or not, but if you are an Elder or the Governing Body you can  … and do … ruin my life and family relationships if I don’t believe pretentious crap.
The Society never needed more than one book of hard facts (besides the Bible), easily understood and to the point, without the pretentious crap.
But NOOOoooo …. they came out with really good NWT of the Bible, and then PARAPHRASED it, so the crap was justified.
 

People should be educated, and that means sending everyone to a fishing course. Move/to displace people to live in places with water so that they can hunt for themselves and have fresh fish in their hands. This will be possible only in NW system :))

Flesh we can eat.
Blood has to be returned to God.
He says the blood belongs to him!
It is symbolic.  A form of teaching obedience and respect … to God and the animal.
Interestingly enough, it seems to only apply to animals who have “the breath of life”.
I have never heard of anyone bleeding a fish.

It is depressingly sad when the WTB&TS finally adopts the right viewpoint, then screws it up listening to their accountants and lawyers to avoid being sued by indecisive people terrified of dying.
What part of “Abstain from Blood” is not crystal clear?
Stealing a car is wrong, whole, or in dozens of car parts. It’s STILL a stolen car!
If you separate whole blood into 13 components, and hook up 13 tubes to your body and pump it in, you don’t get disfellowshipped.
…. and the Society doesn’t get sued.
 

After all those words, and you cannot say …
I like my system better.

@Pudgy Let me try one last time. To boil it down for convenience, my central argument has been that, without an infallible interpreter of divine revelation, we would have no way of distinguishing between what's objectively divine revelation and what's only human opinion about the scope and interpretation of the sources. That distinction is not primarily about how we attain certainty. Rather, my argument is about how we identify the primary subject matter of theology, i.e. divine revelation itself. Now if the subject matter of theology were primarily a set of texts and practices, make that set as broad or narrow as you please, then theology would be just like other disciplines such as philosophy, history, and sociology. Accordingly, it would not require positing inerrancy or infallibility. We would study the texts and practices, come to reasonable but provisional conclusions about their truth and/or value, and call some of our conclusions our theology. That's the methodology in departments of "religious studies."
I spent some time in that methodology when I was younger, and I learned things thereby. But as Christians we know that such a merely human discipline does not suffice for the purpose at hand. Thus, even though it often utilizes methods of inquiry like those of other disciplines, theology itself is not like other disciplines. What we're after in theology strictly speaking, as distinct from natural theology, which is a branch of metaphysics, is identifying the content of something we could never know or identify just by human inquiry, i.e. what Jehovah has revealed. And we take for granted that Jehovah is "infallible," in the sense that he knows whatever can be known, and can neither deceive nor be deceived. So, we want to know how to identify what Jehovah himself has revealed, as distinct from, but not always as opposed to, what mere man has said or done about him. The latter is not protected from error, and hence cannot be relied on for knowledge of what Jehovah has revealed.
In the nature of the case, knowledge of something as divine revelation can only be attained by recognizing certain sources of information as produced or authorized by God and thus protected by him from error. My argument is not over that point, but over the scope of those sources. 
Given as much, another way of putting my central argument is this: Without a living body that is divinely authorized to speak with divine and thus infallible authority, we would have no way of distinguishing reliably between theology and religious studies. That's because we would not even have a way of definitively settling the question what the relevant sources of transmission are, much less what they mean. You might personally choose to regard a certain set of texts, i.e. “Scripture," as the inerrant "Word of God," which is what you do; you might regard certain early interpreters of those texts as pretty reliable guides to interpreting them, which you also seem to do; you might even recognize certain traditions and concrete practices as relevant sources of information, which you could do consistently with your position. But your grounds for doing so would be human reasoning and opinion alone, not the teaching of any living body whose leadership we recognize as authorized by God to speak definitively in his name. Hence, all your conclusions would remain fallible and provisional. But you don't seem any more content with that than I am, nor should you be. That is why I've said to you before that your only alternatives to such an infallible interpretive authority are "rationalism" or "enthusiasm," whose concrete correlates would be an academic governing body. There is no third alternative that does not reduce to one of those two, or to some ramshackle combination thereof, such as (JW insider)  (if I’m not mistaken) idea that the scope and meaning of the biblical canon can be recognized with certainty by a combination of literary/historical analysis and the inner promptings of the holy spirit.
 
Hopefully that clears up what I’ve been meaning to say. Thank you for you time, I’m bowing out.

@Srecko Sostar “Inspiration”is a technical term that refers to the inspiration of scripture and that term is used in 2 Timothy 3:16 and that’s the only place the bible uses that word: Inspiration. It refers to the written or verbal revelation that Jehovah gave. Guidance(spirit led) refers to the holy spirit prompting to truth. In Acts 15 the apostles are speaking on their own authority given by Christ, and they are deemed with this authority because they are the ones taking the lead and governing the church. The reason they can do that is because they are guided by the holy spirit, but is not because of inspiration. Claiming they were inspired in Acts 15 when the passage nowhere mentions they were inspired its an unfounded deduction. This is similar to the Apostles in the first ten to fifteen years of the Congregation (before any Scripture was written), when exercising their authority over the Christian congregation as their appointed representatives, and yet not speaking inspired Scripture.
I think you are equating inspiration, with the assistance of the holy spirit. The holy spirit works in and through the fallible Christian congregation not apart from it nor does it dispense with the human factor.  With respect to the notion of the holy spirit’s  guidance of the Governing Body, the events of the Jerusalem council in Acts can again be helpful. It is important to understand that the spirits guidance of the Governing Body  is not to be thought of as magical or mystical, or in any manifest way noticeable in the concrete reality of the Governing body’s activity. The spirits guidance is more subtle, powerful, and comprehensive than that. In reading the account of the gathering and conducting of the Jerusalem council, there does not appear to be anything especially divine about how the proceedings develop. There is heated argumentation and debate, and finally, after various opinions and objections had been placed on the table, those taking the lead (James and Peter)speak and make something like an executive decision with respect to the question of circumcision. From a purely human point of view, it does not appear to be much different from what one might encounter in a Fortune 500 board room. And yet, when the decision or decrees of the council are drawn up for promulgation to the various congregations, it includes a rather extraordinary claim regarding the identity of one of the parties involved in the process. For it begins: “it seemed good to the holy spirit and to us”. This correspondence between the activity of the Governing Body and the spirit in promulgating definitive teaching is the prototype for all their activity going forward.
 

@Pudgy Feel free to call the five absolute true statements of the Bible as Gobbledygook. The stakes are far too high to treat this as a game, and treating as profane what is consecrated to God is the sin of sacrilege, which is grave matter, so  I don't need to spell out the seriousness of that error.
@Pudgy When each person is deciding for himself what is the correct interpretation of Scripture, Scripture is no longer functioning as the final authority. Rather, each individual's own reason and judgment becomes, as it were, the highest authority, supplanting in effect Scripture' unique and rightful place. That approach results in us becoming a law unto ourselves and Scripture is interpreted according to our conscience and reason. Everything is evaluated according to our final standard and "opinion" of what is and is not scriptural. We, not Scripture, is the real final authority according this approach. The Bible nowhere gives any hint of wanting every individual believer to decide for himself and by himself what is and is not the true meaning of Scripture.
Following what I said in a previous post, Congregations/ Churches can maintain natural authority, just as the leaders and laws of voluntary civic societies have natural authority over those who wish to be members of such societies. This sort of authority, however, can never bind the conscience in an unqualified way, but it can bind the conscience regarding what one must do if one wishes to participate in that congregation or civic society.
The state is a natural society, but the Congregation is a supernatural society. Authority in the natural order is divinely established, as the New Testament teaches. For this reason, kings, princes, presidents and mayors are to be obeyed, unless they command us to violate our conscience,  or to violate the divine law. Voluntary civic societies also can have internal laws, and hence dutifully appointed leaders. Anyone who wishes to participate in such societies must be subject to these leaders and laws. This is true of sporting leagues, philanthropic organizations, educational organizations, etc. But the authority had by the leaders and laws of voluntary civic societies is still natural authority, i.e. on the natural order. It is divine only in the providential sense, not in the supernatural sense. It remains at the level of nature. Hierarchy and authority are natural to human society, whether that society be the immediate society into which we are born (i.e. the family), the larger society into which we are born (e.g. USA), or voluntary societies which we form or enter (e.g. Rotary Club).
Human opinion remains human opinion, whether it is private or public, held by one person or held by a group of persons. Take a group of persons each having the same theological opinion. They discover that they share this opinion, form a club, and then make adherence to this theological opinion a condition for continued membership in their club. Their opinion has not thereby acquired any divine authority just because this group of persons made adherence to this opinion a condition for club membership. Rather, the club leaders having the [merely human] authority to exclude others from this club (as do leaders of the Elks club, the Rotary club, etc.), are exercising their own authority in making adherence to this opinion a necessary condition for club membership.
Thus the so-called 'authority' of the theological opinion is in actuality a cover for the governing authority of the club leaders, masking the actual locus of authority. That would be ok if the club leaders were divinely authorized to determine which theological opinions are orthodox and which are not. But, if the club leaders don't have such authority (and don't claim to have such authority), then the club and its theological opinion are no more authoritative than any other person's opinion. It is just a club, and since its leaders have no divine authority, their theological opinion has no divine authority. Their theological opinion is a condition for membership in that club, but it is still only an opinion of men.
@Srecko Sostar I have no interest in your legal and lawyer arguments, I deal with theology.
Now, you know that I am Jehovah’s Witness, not a good at that, but still identify as one. Our relation to the act of consent of becoming a Witness, can take one of two forms. Either we inherit it by being born into it (like a child born into a religion), or we choose to participate in that act of consent (either by joining the institution or by forming an institution). But even the child eventually chooses either to participate in that act of consent (by remaining in the institution) or not (by leaving that institution). So ultimately, if ecclesial authority comes from man, then it has its ground in the consent of the individual. In other words, if ecclesial authority comes from man, then its authority over me is grounded in my consent. If I do not consent to the authenticity of that ecclesial authority, then it has no authority over me. That is precisely why your local Episcopalian priest, Presbyterian pastor, Baptist pastor, Catholic priest, charismatic pastor, etc. have no authority over you or me. You have not consented to their authority, and thus not given them authority over you.
One does not sign a legal contract when one joins a church. That is why anyone in the Jehovah's Witness community or  Catholic or Mormons or any of the 8,000 denominations can (and should) leave as soon as he realizes that it’s  not in the true Congregation that Christ established, but in a counterfeit institution. Even if Catholics, Evangelicals etc.… or JWs or Mormons did sign legal contracts upon becoming members, they should violate those contracts as soon as they recognize that they are false religious institutions. No one is under an obligation to fulfill an oath that would require injustice to fulfill. We are not to give ourselves to false shepherds, or false religious institutions. We should give ourselves (in religion) only to the Congregation Christ established. That is why all false religious institutions have no actual authority, for men not only owe others (i.e. the true shepherds) the obedience that these false shepherds illicitly receive, but men are required by God not to give their obedience to false shepherds.
On another note, when I hear people say that they just want people to be "faithful to the word of God," what they really mean is that they want them to be faithful to their own interpretation of Scripture. And that is why there is an implicit presumption of governing authority in the very claim they are making. As for statements about conscience, of course I agree that a person must never violate their conscience. But, a person with a poorly formed conscience can do much evil without violating his conscience. And therefore it is incumbent upon us all to seek to inform our conscience, so that it may be a more reliable guide.
A large portion of Christians, including believing Ex-JWs at some level resonate with Luther's statement at the Diet of worms, "My conscience is captive to the word of God, and it is neither safe nor wise to act in violation of one's conscience." Precisely. This is the fundamental principle of this framework, the principle of the individual as his own ultimate interpretive authority.
 
 

…

No it did not help.
To me the whole thing was just rationalizing gobbledegook.  
I don’t care if you believe it or not, but if you are an Elder or the Governing Body you can  … and do … ruin my life and family relationships if I don’t believe pretentious crap.
The Society never needed more than one book of hard facts (besides the Bible), easily understood and to the point, without the pretentious crap.
But NOOOoooo …. they came out with really good NWT of the Bible, and then PARAPHRASED it, so the crap was justified.
 

You have described well the true state and position of followers within WTJWorg. Namely, in the changes to the baptismal question that is publicly asked of the candidates immediately before the baptism, this reality was highlighted. The candidate does not tie his affiliation and loyalty to God and Christ, but only and exclusively to the Legal Entity that is registered as a non-profit Corporation/Organization.
2. Do you understand that your baptism identifies you as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses in association with Jehovah’s organization? -https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102014954
I'm glad someone here has given a clearer view of the legal position of (ordinary) JW individuals, who are not considered as "members" in the new terminology, but only individuals, as "one of".
Of course, this will only be useful to those who will read this on a forum or blog, because the candidate with whom the "Bible study" is being conducted will not learn this from his "teacher".

I have slowly and carefully read the past 20,000 or so words, and both of you have many valid points, some I fully agree with, some I “somewhat” agree with, and some are wishful thinking.
It boils down to two elements:
1.) You have NO moral obligation to support ANYONE when they are wrong.
About ANYTHING.
2.) We all have a “natural conscience” and with every statement each individual alone has to decide what part is TRUTH, and what part is agenda.
The classic example is practice and policy on disfellowshipping.
Do we do it as Jesus said in Matthew 18?
NO WE DO NOT!
We even take hostages and punish THEM, 
Show me THAT in Matthew 18.
I 100% agree that we should conform to the standards and edicts of Congregational Authority ….
…. unless they are WRONG, and you can prove it.
OTHERWISE … we don’t even NEED a conscience !!
Sometimes a Christian is  called upon to sacrifice his life or his freedom for the sake of Christian Unity, but he should never be called upon to sacrifice his Conscience.
 
 

A congregation is a group of people, believers. The JW congregation is led and governed by elders. Elderse is set by GB. Consequently, the GB governs all doctrines and instructions in the congregation, not the group of believers. 
Submission to the JW congregation is direct submission to the GB at US Headquarter.

Sorry, but they put themselves in this or that category with their doctrines. They publicly say/claim that Jesus did not promise to distribute perfect spiritual food through the FDS.
Hey,  didn't to a single JW in the world explode his own brain after GB member Gerrit Losch stated that on JWTV? Memories fading.., collectively?
Gerrit Losch, to this day, has not been sanctioned for his statement by the rest of GB.
In fact, he should not be sanctioned because Jesus did not promise to distribute perfect spiritual food through WTJWorg GB, ..........but through HS.
But the rest of the GB team should have removed him for a simple reason. It causes public embarrassment, scandal and threatens followers' faith in the Organization.

Every time we appeal to the Bible, we are appealing to an interpretation of the Bible. The only real question is: whose interpretation? People with differing interpretations cannot set a Bible on a table and ask it to resolve their differences. In order for the the Bible to function as an authority, it must be read and interpreted by someone. The person who fails to recognize this is failing to know himself.
Obeying Jehovah rather than men is not a justification for rebellion against divinely established authority, it is rather a recognition that rebellion against God on the part of those who have been given such authority does not require those over whom they have been given authority to follow them in that rebellion, we must not follow rebellious leaders in their rebellion against God. We cannot justifiably rebel against the Lord’s anointed when he sins, except if he were to command us to believe or do something that contradicted prior authoritative teachings, in which case witnesses must not follow them. The standard for obedience to God isn’t one’s own interpretation of Scripture, such that any brother taking the lead who doesn’t conform to one’s own interpretation of Scripture is by that very act in rebellion and therefore can rightfully be disregarded.
In my experience many of the criticisms that you and others have mentioned do not take into account, nor make the distinctions between the different declarations that the Governing body makes and the answer those declarations require of Jehovah's Witnesses. 
So you must distinguish between the Governing Body’s  teachings on faith and morals on the one hand, and on the other hand prudential judgments, disciplines, or practices. Do the teachings have to do with faith, with morals? Are they prudential judgments, policies, disciplines, practices, admonitions, worship? Prophecies, symbolic language, parables, prophetic passages? 
Not all of the Governing Body's declarations have the same level of authority and not all of them are open to the same conditions. What do I mean by that? Well, some declarations deal with provisional aspects of policies, practices, worship, prudential judgements and discipline. This category always has space to be better formulated, clarified and defined. It would be an oversimplification to think that either we must submit to all the teaching statements of the governing body or that we are entitled to disagree from anything not formally taught. But it wouldn’t be an exaggeration to state that as Witnesses we are expected to give our private and public assent to the Governing body’s teachings. Sometimes we are giving prudential admonitions or judgments by the GB and congregation elders. Other times we receive concrete applications of biblical principles. We should give serious consideration and attention to these, but we can legitimately differ or disagree. Some of our teachings have different status of obligatory force, not all of them are in the same category or levels of authority. For example, when the Governing Body departs from or changes some prudential measure observed previously, they are not necessarily saying that they were wrong before. They can be saying that this is what they believe Jehovah is calling them to do in this present time for some particular reason.  Even if it were to turn out that they are wrong that Jehovah is calling them to these actions or that it is prudential for them to take these actions at this time. It does not mean that the way things were handled before are wrong or incompatible with the way things are handled now. Such measures can be for a particular person, or a particular season, because of what it is needed for a particular time or circumstance.

The dilemma is 2000 years old. For/To WTJWorg GB, the Gospel was not transmitted from the Apostles.  So the chain of reliability of information transmission was broken a long time ago.
On a personal level in modern times (20th and 21st century) all generations of newly baptized persons are faced with the fact that the doctrines they accepted through BS with a brother or sister has been changed in the meantime. If they would adhere to the principle stated in your comment, then these people should not subject themselves to new interpretations that arose after their baptism.
Which statement is stronger? Perfect Direct Instruction from Galatians or the Imperfect Interpretation  by GB based on the biblical passage about "the light that shines more and more"?
The first thesis (direct instruction), is based on a clearly expressed position of the writer. Is the apostle's statement open to some interpretation that might be softened by the GB's interpretation about "progressive knowledge"? Shall we allow to water down the Apostolic faith?
One excludes the other, and GB must decide which Doctrine, between these two, it wants to implement in practice.
As an illustration of how an individual should act in such cases, we can use the well-known "command" to obey God more than people. In the JW doctrine that explains the position of Christians before worldly authority, it is ordered to disobey the authorities when that something goes against God's commandments. Any JW would therefore be able to reject GB doctrines and instructions without consequence, as he would HAVE to use his conscience in deciding. Not WTJWorg Doctrine and Instruction, but own Conscience.
The issue of shaping/reshaping the JW member conscience is a new topic.
 

I should point out that you misunderstood what I said as though I were suggesting that only the Governing Body is the Congregation. That is not what I was saying or implying. The divinely appointed shepherds of the Congregation are a very important organ in the body of Christ, but they are not the whole body. 
When the Bible speaks about the Congregation and its prerogatives to judge, you will find, for example, in Acts 5:1-6 when Annanias and Saphira were judged by Peter as hoarding money, with the result that they were struck dead on the spot. Acts 15, as I said in an earlier post, speaks of the Apostles and elders judging whether Christians could partake in various practices. 1 Cor 5:1-11 speaks of Paul judging the man caught in fornication and telling the elders to remove him from the Congregation. There are many more such instances. Peter and Paul are not acting independently, but as leaders of the Congregation of that day. And thus, whatever Congregation you think existed back then, it was the Congregation that was judging individuals.
I agree that Jehovah was not bound to do it this way. Jehovah, being omnipotent, could have done it other ways. He could have set up His Congregation such that it had no visible hierarchy, and each man was guided entirely by the holy spirit through his own reading of Scripture. But, that would be entirely unfitting to human nature. We are social beings, and our nature is expressed in societies, as Aristotle explains in his Politics. In addition, Jehovah delights in allowing us to participate in His work, and by setting up a hierarchy, Jehovah and Jesus have given men the gift of participating in many unique ways in the extension of their work, with their authorization. The Body is an extension of the Head. The Apostles and those taking the lead have been given the great gift of participating in a very special way in the work of Christ, governing Christ’s Congregation, sharing in ministry, and guarding and providing the interpretation of the faith.
Ecclesial egalitarianism with respect to interpretive authority is precisely the individualism that makes each man his own Governing Body. The decision of the Jerusalem council (of Acts 15) was definitely more authoritative than any Bob or Joe's interpretation of Scripture opposing that council's decision. (I'm hoping that we at least agree on that point.) 
If Christ's ecclesial setup was that each Christian has a direct, unmediated pipeline to God regarding the truth of the content of the gospel and the proper interpretation of Scripture and the distinction between orthodoxy and heresy, such that there was no need for Apostles and elders but something like Montanism were true, then Christ wouldn't have chosen, trained, authorized and commissioned Apostles. Instead, on the day of Pentecost each person would have been zapped by the holy spirit directly, and there never would have been a Jerusalem Council, because the spirit would have already guided all Christians to the same position, so the resolution of the dispute at the Council would have been unnecessary. In fact, you and I wouldn't be in disagreement right now, because the spirit would have already guided us into the very same unity of the faith. Presumably, your response will be that either I'm not listening to the spirit, or that I'm not being reasonable, one of the two. Well, if you think I'm not being reasonable, feel free to show where and how. But if you think I'm not listening to the spirit (but you are listening to the spirit), then we need to talk about how we know who is really following the spirit, and who is co opting the spirit to support their own opinion.

…. When someone says “that’s not the question that should be asked…” because it’s offensive or inappropriate or awkward, or just plain embarrassing……
That’s the question you should be asking!
 
 

We touched on the topic of "tyranny" in previous comments. WTJWorg uses some forms that can be classified as "tyranny", because it does not allow members to question the GB, does not allow the asking of "uncomfortable" questions, does not allow the use of arguments that are not in accordance with the GB doctrines. 

sure…. lizards eat insects.
So did John the Baptist.
…. and that was before toothbrushes!

… “Food at the proper time” means different things to different people.
Ice cubes should probably not be made with hot dog water.
 

I think SS’s questions, whatever else they may or may not be the case, need to be addressed, if you want to have a dialog … it’s a two-way street.
in a forum such as this one asking someone not to ask certain questions reeks of petty tyranny at worst, and arrogance at best.
The way to handle it is if you don’t think the question is appropriate … too bad.
You are in the wrong room.
Just ignore the question and leave it unanswered. 
 

… “Food at the proper time” means different things to different people.
Ice cubes should probably not be made with hot dog water.