George88

Reasoning is something that is done soundly or unsoundly. Reasoning is how a person thinks. But, not all conclusions (beliefs, decisions) are based on reason. Some conclusions (beliefs, decisions) are based on choice and choice is not necessarily subject to reason. But in a religious system whatever things (conclusions, beliefs, decisions) we opt to accept based on choice have to remain consistent as premises for what we end up using those choices to underpin in the way of deduced teachings (conclusions, beliefs, decisions).
There is rational and there is irrational. If a thing (whatever that is) is not rational then it is irrational. If a thing (what that is) is not irrational then it is rational. As a logical construction it would look like this:
not x then y and if not y then x
More succinct it is expressed as 
either x or y
When you speak about things that are irrational your speaking about things that boil down to choice alone. Yes. It's okay to have and hold irrational choices. But we must understand that this is what we're doing, and be responsible with how we hold and use whatever those choices are. That latter part is where being rational enters the room.
If you speak about things that are rational then it boils down to method of thought.
The notion that 'faith elevates the intellect beyond its natural limits, and thus supernaturally perfects the intellect' is as unevidenced assertion. Faith is a choice. That choice might have some sort of underpinning, but that underpinning is not necessarily fact or sound deduction. But whatever is held and asserted based on faith must, in order to be soundly projected, be held consistently as premises in whatever we deduce from them as peripheral beliefs (teachings, conclusions). Choices could be made strictly based on that which is rational. But when we chose to believe something that is not based on rational thought then we have an added responsibility to be cautious how we use and project our choices.

I would be more generous. I'd say some individuals find themselves atheists not because they want to be an atheist but, rather, because they find themselves incapable of doing otherwise. If, for instance, someone has examined evidence to the best of their ability, and they honestly come to the conclusion "there is no god", when in reality there is a god, what difference does that make to a almighty and benevolent god? An almighty and benevolent god would look for no more than any given human is capable of. How could he do otherwise?
In the case that God exists, and He's almighty and He's benevolent, the most He could possibly look for in any human is their best effort. Each human is unique and has their own capabilities. If, as it turns out, an honest person finds they are incapable of believing there is an almighty and benevolent God, then they have done their best. In this case the almighty and benevolent God would look upon an individual as one having no helper, and God would be their helper when the time came. In the meantime the individual would be held accountable for no more than abiding by natural law.
All that said, we're still left with a variable we cannot account for: what is or is not benevolent is entirely at the option of an almighty god.

If every man named Paul is bitten by a snake, then all such people will not care about the bite. lol

Link to book:
https://www.academia.edu/34138714/Ever_changing_teachings_of_Jehovahs_Witnesses_The_most_important_changes_in_the_doctrine_of_the_Watchtower_Society_in_the_years_1879_2015?email_work_card=title
Link to WT magazine:
https://archive.org/details/WatchTowerAndHeraldOfChristsPresence1910-1919/page/n1545/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/WatchTowerAndHeraldOfChristsPresence1910-1919/page/n1547/mode/2up

Many of us know that the early WT held the doctrine that all members of the movement would go to heaven. Then, in the early 1930s, they changed their doctrine. Another example of "old truths and new lies" or "old lies and new truths", take it as you will.
In both cases, we have difficulty literally living with such an idea. From which authority do you have documents such as birth certificate, identity card, passport, etc.? Do not talk about religious fictions and ideas about one's identity.
If a JW in the USA is a foreigner to the USA authorities, then where is his evidence that he is a citizen of Jesus' Kingdom? How can he prove this when according to WTJWorg theology, the invisible Kingdom has existed since 1914 and has not issued any certificates to its believers. Moreover, Jesus said that he would separate the sheep from the goats (separate its citizens from non-citizens) at some future time.
If we want to take it as a measure of belonging to the Kingdom (citizenship), then the personal aspiration and faith of an individual is the only "document" of belonging, but only as an empty form without the signature and seal of the competent service that may accept such an individual as its own citizen.
Even more, the right to citizenship, according to the interpretation, is obtained only after the final test at the end of the 1000-year Kingdom.
Who do today's JWs belong to? To those whose documents you have in your pocket.
The rebelliousness of citizens towards their own authorities has its justification in some matters and circumstances. But that applies to every government.

i would not characterize the pathetically transparent and lame diversion as a “red herring”.
That is an insult to dead, spoiled fish.

What part of the Wikipedia article expresses why the society didn't simply argue for the pledge all their top leadership was already swearing to?
I mean, the society's top leadership was already pledging the oath of allegiance to the United States of America, which is the highest oath of allegiance recognized in the USA.

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.
 

You don’t have the foggiest idea what you’re talking about. For starters, those images above are not images of passports. So you’re wrong about that. Also, having an MCP card was essential for travel inside Malawi at the time. So you’re wrong about that too.
Do you know anything at all about MCP party card distribution, party registration, or party affiliation? Anything at all? 

I remember the times. If you search “JW Malawi MCP Party Card”, you can get the details. A great testimony of honor in the face of years of evil persecution.
If memory serves, anybody could buy the card for about 25 cents, often a half days pay there … and because there was only one political party in Malawi at the time, was roughly the same as a passport to keep you from being tortured and killed.
 

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.

Two entirely separate issues.

Him and his fellows have done some really good research into Russell and the early days of Zion's Watch Tower. I don't think he's ever seen pages of the early minutes of the society's board of directors. If he has, I'd love to read what he had to say. He might have more than I've seen. I don't know.

Actually, I found the book “Shepherding The Flock Of God“ to be quite valuable.
I found absolutely nothing wrong with it, having read every word from cover to cover, although the part dealing about brazen conduct was creepy and a catchall for anything the Elders didn’t like, like when you confronted them with overreach.
”Brazen Conduct”. (?)
What I did not like is that it was top-secret. What I did not like is that sisters were not supposed to know of it’s existence, or touch it..
How would you feel if you were dragged into court for some traffic offense or some criminal offense and you wanted to know what you were charged with, and the court or the police said I’m sorry I’m not allowed to tell you what law you broke or to know in advance what they are, and you’re not allowed to know how the proceeding is going to go against you.
SURPRISE!!
And if you’re convicted it’s roughly the equivalent of being executed, Because you’ll be evicted from the Congregation from which is the source of life.
Secrecy ALWAYS begets tyranny! 

Ahh, interpretation of scripture, who can get it right? That is the question. In my opinion, the most important scriptures, those that help us to live as Christians, do not need much interpreting. When read in context they are self explanatory. It is prophetic books that are written in riddles that need interpreting. Also some of Jesus' illustrations about the Kingdom etc. We have made a number of adjustments to our interpretation of prophecies, but there is no quarantee that we have got even the latest right. (It always makes me laugh when we say that sometimes prophecies are understood after they have occurred. I always wonder, what is the point of the prophecy then, lol. At the same time, I believe that full understanding of prophetic words won't happen until they are revealed not by people, but by Jesus himself in a supernatural way. And I think this will occur when other supernatural things are already occurring, i.e. during and after Armageddon). 
The point is, if you live your life as best as you can, according to what you know the scriptures that need no interpretation say about it, then that is all you can do presently. If you are unsure about the interpretation of something the GB teaches, especially things that pertain to the future, like the order of what will occur during the great tribulation etc. and who will attack who, then you have to evaluate if that is something God will judge you on. Or will he rather judge you on how you lived your life. I think the latter. I believe the Witnesses are the only group that teach people how to live their life in order to be pleasing to God, using scriptures which need no interpretation. The book Enjoy Life Forever covers it all. There are just three lessons out of a total of 60 which personally I am unsure about. Those three I put on the back burner. I have not covered them  with a Bible student yet but when I do, I will let the Bible student form their own opinions, of course. It will be up to them how they receive them, I am definitely not going to influence them either way. And if they by any chance ask my opinion, I will tell them my opinion is irrelevant, they have to form their own opinion on the information they have read...
 

Of item 1, I'd listen to the man just like I would any other, to see if what he said conformed to sound reason (another phrase to mean conforming to conventions of logical construction). If his teachings (his conclusions) were soundly reasoned than I'd accept what he said as valid. The first thing I'd look for is whether a particular teaching is falsifiable. If it's not then that teaching needs some very extraordinary evidence. If it is falsifiable then I'd look to see what evidence supports each premise of his conclusion (his teaching).
Of item 2, they're only necessary for extraordinary claims. (See Ex 4:1-9)
Of item 3, yes, fallible but with two powerful things. 1) God's testimony in writing (the Bible) and in His creation all around me, and 2) a God-given brain capable of decision based on sound reason.
You've written a lot of words and I'm not sure why.
If a teaching comes from any man or group of men and it cannot stand up to sound scrutiny then it should not be accepted as a valid teaching.

I hear you. Now if only a lot of folks could regain the best years of their lives by not taking the society as seriously as they told them to but weren't doing themselves.
For your information, cryosupernatant is not a small part of blood. Cryosupernatant is more than 50 percent of the blood circulating in your veins this very moment. It's no wonder the society does not list it on its charts and graphs of what we can accept as a personal conscience matter. I mean, what message would that send in terms of a "minor fraction"?
For me, this is not medical word play. As an elder I helped parents make decisions about their babies, and some of them died when they could have been saved. it makes me cry to this day just to think about it. Keyboarding this makes me grieve for those babies, and their families.
I do respect you too, either way. Real unity is folks holding common cause despite differences. Unity is not to be confused with uniformity.
The dead babies won't let my eyes glaze over. They keep me up at night.

And I have just placed you on ignore. Have a good life George. You can waste someone else's time now.

Three things:
1) Your statement that I've lied is an assertion. The burden of proof for any assertion is born solely by the person making the assertion, which in this case is you. So, where's your evidence that I've lied? Where?
2) And, please read this slowly, saying something is not true does not make that something not true. Please read that again.
3) So far you've demonstrated no ability to critique an argument. Guess they didn't teach that in engineering school.

I want you to look back on your own personal life, for as long as you have lived, and also look back to all the friends you have ever known, all inclusive.
Add to that to everybody you’ve ever passed on the sidewalk going to and from anywhere.  
From your personal experience, added to the personal experience of everyone you have ever met, how many people in total have ever gone to the grocery store or by any other means purchased Carrion?
Carrion being defined as animal life that has died of its own initiative with no help from mankind.
….. Carrion being defined as animal life that has died of its own initiative with no help from mankind.
ZERO?
… and that is the only point worth making. All else is manufactured stretch.…. and that’s the fact, Jack!
 

Kosher meat is meat that has been prepared in accordance with Jewish dietary laws, or kashrut. To be considered kosher, the meat must come from certain animals that are considered clean according to Jewish law, such as cows, sheep, and chickens. Additionally, it must be slaughtered by a trained Jewish individual in a specific way to minimize cruelty and ensure proper drainage of blood. The meat should also be inspected for any imperfections or injuries that could render it non-kosher.
Finally, it should not be mixed with dairy products, as mixing meat and dairy is generally prohibited in kosher dietary laws.
Prayer has nothing at all to do with MAKING meat kosher, it’s AFTER it is slaughtered that a blessing is asked from God on the already kosher meat.

Georgie, if you aspire to be seen as an expert, fer cryin out loud, READ your own references, plus hundreds of other articles on the subject …. FIRST.

That is the most insane conclusion I have read since last week’s Babylon Bee!
Although some scripture may be twisted into a pretzel to suggest a Snickers Candy Bar is nature’s most perfect food!
And just HOW do you know that less perfect people have a greater capacity for imagination?  
…. and describing edible foods is evidence of that?
YIKES!

The instant you proposed your basic question , I knew the correct answer, as do you, although you have a much more elegant and civilized way of expressing yourself.
it’s like the Farmer in the bar telling a friend about his talking mule. The Farmer tells his friend to go out to his place, and behind the barn his talking mule is tied up, but go ahead and he will follow in about ten minutes.
When the Farmer gets home his friend is trying to have a conversation with the mule, with no success, and accuses the Farmer of lying about his talking mule.
The Farmer picks up a 4x4 and whacks the mule upside his head. The mule falls over, and when it gets up it won’t stop talking.
The Farmer looks at his friend, Many Miles, and says “… What you fail to understand is …. FIRST …. you have to get his attention!.”
Breaking away from Agenda driven thinking often requires a knock down blow  to “get your mind right”.

Honestly, that’s what it sounds like. Ask a basic question regarding Aaron’s behavior at Meribah, the answer to which should be known by everyone in the room, and we see everything but a straightforward answer. Admittedly, I fail to understand this.