Many Miles

Yeah. If someone, no matter their lofty status, asks me to jump off a cliff, I ain't doing it!

What? It was a red herring? They got me all going over a red herring? I sure won’t make that mistake again!
Hmm…..if the ball cost x, and the bat cost x + 1, then the price of the ball . . . 
…okay, take a break, Tommy. Good thread, and all, but doesn’t your wife have some chores lined up for you? Better get to them.

I completely understand what you write here, and don't necessarily disagree. The sole reason I brought up the questions you responded to was only to show there is a limit to any obedience or loyalty we may owe any human or group of humans, regardless of whatever authority they might hold.

I had no idea this topic ran on for so long when I replied above. I am reminded of the popular psych line, ‘woulda shoulda coulda,.’ What one can discern in later years, with the benefit on unhurried time for meditation, one does not discern spur of the moment. Besides, 
Not to mention how it shows he caves under pressure. He’s not going to stand up to Moses spur of the moment. Maybe in his later years, the years most of us are in, but not at the time.

“Whoa, big fella! Whatcha doing here?!”
I can’t picture it. It’s not as though Moses wasn’t being severely tested. Probably Aaron felt the pressure of the same test. He was probably just as upset with the people and only sensed vaguely what Moses was doing wrong, or even if he was.
Even today, it’s hard not to excuse Moses. I liken it to, when a brother gives a good talk and ones approach him to say, ‘Good talk!’ he will, likely as not, murmur something to the effect that it is not he, but Jehovah. He says this even though it is perfectly possible for ones to speak persuasively without any help at all from Jehovah. So what are we to make of someone who takes full credit for doing something that no human in a thousand years would be able to do?
But it’s not immediately obvious. Most fail to make the point stand out as to how outrageous Moses’ response really is.
 

To me, more often than not, instances like this fall into a category of assertion called affirming the consequent.
- Jerry says, "On Sunday the Jets will win."
- On Sunday, the Jets win.
A person could assert "Jerry was Divinely inspired to prophesy the Jets would win, and the outcome proves he was inspired!" when what Jerry was really doing was just guessing. There was no prophesying at all. There was nothing Divine going on at all. The consequent (the Jets winning) does not support a notion that Jerry "was Divinely inspired" just because the Jets happened to win.

To me, more often than not, instances like this fall into a category of assertion called affirming the consequent.
- Jerry says, "On Sunday the Jets will win."
- On Sunday, the Jets win.
A person could assert "Jerry was Divinely inspired to prophesy the Jets would win, and the outcome proves he was inspired!" when what Jerry was really doing was just guessing. There was no prophesying at all. There was nothing Divine going on at all. The consequent (the Jets winning) does not support a notion that Jerry "was Divinely inspired" just because the Jets happened to win.

Since you asked...
The first article (https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1983290 ) conflated several topics, but the primary ones of interest here are the subjects of 1) unbled meat of an animal that died of natural cause and 2) donor blood from live humans. 
Whoever sent in the question was drawing a circle around the text of Deut 14:21 because that text was God giving Jews express permission to sell unbled carcasses of animals dead of natural cause to non-Jewish descendants of Noah specifically for them to eat, and all of Noah's descendants were bound to abide by what God told Noah after the flood about blood.
This would lead a person to believe if God felt it was appropriate for non-Jewish descendants of Noah to eat unbled animal flesh dead of natural cause then it must mean that what God said to Noah explicitly of living animals (soulical) was never to be understood to speak to animal carcasses dead of natural cause (non-soulical). Furthermore, a literal reading of Gen 9 also discloses that nowhere does it address the subject of donor blood given by a human to help save the life or health of a fellow human. The society's response says, "Such reasoning might sound valid". But then it goes on to offer commentary on why the society believes that reasoning is not valid. And, therein is found the rub. Here's why:
1) The commentary about why that reasoning would be wrong is constructed entirely on other biblical requirements stated to Jews under Mosaic Law. 
2) The second article (https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101983099?q="confirming+of+standards+recognized+prior+to+Moses"&p=par ) is very succinct pointing out that the decree issued by the apostles for Christians was "a confirming of standards recognized prior to Moses". That means, appropriately the response in that Questions from Readers article should have focused on standards recognized prior to Moses, but that's not what they did. Their entire case was constructed on stipulations of Mosaic Law, which law never applied to worshipers like Noah, Job, Elihu or Cornelius.
The rub? As a basis for answering the question the society plied the Law of Moses rather than standards recognized prior to Moses. In its response to the question asked, the society plied premises it admits didn't apply to the issue inquired of.
So the question is, what happens when we try to answer the question asked based on standards recognized prior to Moses?
The answer becomes pretty evident because, according to Deut 14:21 God had no problem whatsoever with non-Jewish descendants of Noah eating unbled animal flesh dead of natural cause. To the contrary, the text of Deut 14:21 has God telling Jews they could sell this sort of flesh to non-Jewish descendants of Noah specifically for the purpose of eating it.
So those two sources are providing a quite different view on how to view the decree from the apostles to abstain from blood and things strangled. The first article (the Questions From Readers article) would have us look at the question asked purely through the lens of Mosaic Law. The second article tells us we should look at things purely through standards recognized prior to Moses.
Then we have this from Insight:
"At Deuteronomy 14:21 allowance was made for selling to an alien resident or a foreigner an animal that had died of itself or that had been torn by a beast. Thus a distinction was made between the blood of such animals and that of animals that a person slaughtered for food. (Compare Le 17:14-16.) The Israelites, as well as alien residents who took up true worship and came under the Law covenant, were obligated to live up to the lofty requirements of that Law. People of all nations were bound by the requirement at Genesis 9:3, 4, but those under the Law were held by God to a higher standard in adhering to that requirement than were foreigners and alien residents who had not become worshipers of Jehovah." (Ref https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000774?q="higher+standard"&p=par )  
Note when this paragraph initially speaks to worshipers is says "who took up true worship and came under the Law covenant". These are the same worshipers spoken of in the last sentence too. What this takes into account is that there were worshipers of God who never came under the Law covenant. Hence, men like Job, Elihu, Noah and Cornelius were never bound to the "higher standard" in respect to blood within Mosaic Law, though they were always bound by the standard recognized prior to Moses.
As it turns out, there is nothing in the provision of Deut 14:21 that conflicts with any standard recognized prior to Moses. Noah was free to eat unbled flesh of animals found dead of natural cause. He always was.
We also learn that no standard recognized prior to Moses remotely suggests that it is wrong to accept transfusion of donor blood, which is blood that another human has willingly donated for purposes of helping preserve the health and/or life of a fellow human.

Excellent point. It turns out that such a prophecy is of importance only to the one who uttered it, when he sees the fruits of its fulfillment.
 

That means everyone who studies with someone MUST MUST make them aware of ALL of this…and if that means showing them the elders book…yes,,,be up front about every thing and every possibility that may lay ahead 

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...
 

Juan, that's precious! Thanks. You gave me a smile this day. Thank you. Sometimes, simple is better. Take your time.

A statement I'll never forget reading for the first time is this:
"It is vital that we appreciate this fact and respond to the directions of the “slave” as we would to the voice of God, because it is His provision." (Ref https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1957446?q="the+voice+of+God"&p=sen
Somebody wants to be put on the same plane as the word of God. But then, I always thought that the voice of God was an inspired voice.
Yet:
"The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible." (Ref https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2017283?q=inspired+governing&p=sen
Wait. What?
Guess this means we should not respond to the "faithful slave" as we would to the voice of God.
Nothing like saying it like you mean it!
 

Juan, take all the time you need. It's apparent to me that you are sincere and genuine. (All decisions are not based on logic, though all decisions are subject to logical analysis!) Even if we end up disagreeing, it won't be because you don't care. You care about me. That says a lot. I care about you too.

It's possible for JWs to unify around the ever-fallible governing body you've described so long as that governing body does not ask those governed to ignore soundly reasoned conclusions.
Early Christians were subject to being stoned to death. But early Christians never stoned anyone to death.

What you're depicted here looks like a bifurcation to me, and, I think, a false one. The bifurcation is, essentially, either 1) your making your own interpretation or 2) you're not. I'll get back to this.
Your familiar with what internally we term "conscience matters". These are of things that are left to each person to decide without organized communal repercussion because different ones among us may legitimately hold different views on the same subject. Sometimes these different views might stem from different interpretations of information. But that's not always the case. Sometimes the difference in view is not because of an interpretation but, rather, because of a good solid logical argument. Logical conclusions are subject to veracity, but not interpretation. The conclusion of a logical argument is sound if its form is valid and its premises are evidenced. The level of veracity of a conclusion reached by a logical argument is determined by the strength of evidence for the argument's premises. The existence of "conscience matters" shows that different decisions can live in the same room.
So, back to my opening statement. The bifurcation you present is because there is an option other than simple interpretation. The option is making oneself accept conclusions of logical arguments, whether we like those conclusions or not. Logical conclusions have no bias, and are always falsifiable. I can say for certainty (because I've felt the pain!) that accepting certain conclusions has proven to be very hard, because of biases that I held. I have to force myself to accept a conclusion different than my preference because I couldn't deny the mathematical equation staring me in the face, especially after I verified its form and values over and over again to make sure. I was not submitting to what I wanted to accept (my preferential interpretation). I was submitting to something else.
Here's a scenario that's very real:
JW 1 conscientiously accepts multiple plasma exchange therapies with more than half his circulating blood replaced multiple times with cryosupernatant plasma donated by anonymous donors.
JW 2 conscientiously rejects multiple plasma exchange therapies with more than half his circulating blood replaced multiple times with cryosupernatant plasma donated by anonymous donors.
We respect both persons despite the fact that these two individuals hold diametrically opposing views on a life and death decision. We do this because both persons hold views that each had soundly reasoned to different ends based on premises applied within their respective logical arguments.
My point here when there are competing conclusions each of which is the result of a logical argument (in our case, as logical scriptural argument) then each conclusion should be respected, and the differentiation is not based merely on personal interpretation.
Christians are like anyone else. They need teachers. But teachers should teach us how to think, not what to think. If a teacher has a conclusion they think is solid the burden is on that teacher to demonstrate that conclusion is as sound as they would have us accept and act upon it. If they can't then they've failed as teachers, or we could have failed as students, or perhaps both have failed. But the burden is always on the teacher. Always. Of course, a student has a duty to learn as best they can. Otherwise they've cheated themselves.
Oh, and the two JWs above, they can remain unified in common cause despite their opposing differences, which is what unity is.
 

A statement I'll never forget reading for the first time is this:
"It is vital that we appreciate this fact and respond to the directions of the “slave” as we would to the voice of God, because it is His provision." (Ref https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1957446?q="the+voice+of+God"&p=sen
Somebody wants to be put on the same plane as the word of God. But then, I always thought that the voice of God was an inspired voice.
Yet:
"The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible." (Ref https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2017283?q=inspired+governing&p=sen
Wait. What?
Guess this means we should not respond to the "faithful slave" as we would to the voice of God.
Nothing like saying it like you mean it!
 

Yeah. I hear what you're saying about the 66-year differential. Problem is, though they don't put it out there in plain language like they did before, they still expect to have their "voice" obeyed just the same as it was expected 66-years-ago. It's just woven into the cloth in different terms today. Even 66-years-ago they were saying they weren't inspired. But they still said what they said, and sometimes they said it exactly how they wanted it understood. That's what struck me the first time I read that remark from 57.
That said, I agree every little change of improvement is improvement.
And, since you mentioned the haircut thing, I was cut whisker close for years and years. As a teenager I remember letting my hair grow out just a smidge. Our congregation servant (dates me I know) told me he was ashamed to be seen with me because my hair touched my ears. Just touched  my ears! Still laugh about that one. Know what my dad said right then and there to me? "Son, don't get a haircut for a month!" I grinned from ear to ear! The congregation servant (former missionary and close personal friend of Knorr) clinched his jaw like there was no tomorrow. Hadn't thought of that incident in decades. Thanks for jarring my memory!

Juan, take all the time you need. It's apparent to me that you are sincere and genuine. (All decisions are not based on logic, though all decisions are subject to logical analysis!) Even if we end up disagreeing, it won't be because you don't care. You care about me. That says a lot. I care about you too.

What you're depicted here looks like a bifurcation to me, and, I think, a false one. The bifurcation is, essentially, either 1) your making your own interpretation or 2) you're not. I'll get back to this.
Your familiar with what internally we term "conscience matters". These are of things that are left to each person to decide without organized communal repercussion because different ones among us may legitimately hold different views on the same subject. Sometimes these different views might stem from different interpretations of information. But that's not always the case. Sometimes the difference in view is not because of an interpretation but, rather, because of a good solid logical argument. Logical conclusions are subject to veracity, but not interpretation. The conclusion of a logical argument is sound if its form is valid and its premises are evidenced. The level of veracity of a conclusion reached by a logical argument is determined by the strength of evidence for the argument's premises. The existence of "conscience matters" shows that different decisions can live in the same room.
So, back to my opening statement. The bifurcation you present is because there is an option other than simple interpretation. The option is making oneself accept conclusions of logical arguments, whether we like those conclusions or not. Logical conclusions have no bias, and are always falsifiable. I can say for certainty (because I've felt the pain!) that accepting certain conclusions has proven to be very hard, because of biases that I held. I have to force myself to accept a conclusion different than my preference because I couldn't deny the mathematical equation staring me in the face, especially after I verified its form and values over and over again to make sure. I was not submitting to what I wanted to accept (my preferential interpretation). I was submitting to something else.
Here's a scenario that's very real:
JW 1 conscientiously accepts multiple plasma exchange therapies with more than half his circulating blood replaced multiple times with cryosupernatant plasma donated by anonymous donors.
JW 2 conscientiously rejects multiple plasma exchange therapies with more than half his circulating blood replaced multiple times with cryosupernatant plasma donated by anonymous donors.
We respect both persons despite the fact that these two individuals hold diametrically opposing views on a life and death decision. We do this because both persons hold views that each had soundly reasoned to different ends based on premises applied within their respective logical arguments.
My point here when there are competing conclusions each of which is the result of a logical argument (in our case, as logical scriptural argument) then each conclusion should be respected, and the differentiation is not based merely on personal interpretation.
Christians are like anyone else. They need teachers. But teachers should teach us how to think, not what to think. If a teacher has a conclusion they think is solid the burden is on that teacher to demonstrate that conclusion is as sound as they would have us accept and act upon it. If they can't then they've failed as teachers, or we could have failed as students, or perhaps both have failed. But the burden is always on the teacher. Always. Of course, a student has a duty to learn as best they can. Otherwise they've cheated themselves.
Oh, and the two JWs above, they can remain unified in common cause despite their opposing differences, which is what unity is.
 

Juan, take all the time you need. It's apparent to me that you are sincere and genuine. (All decisions are not based on logic, though all decisions are subject to logical analysis!) Even if we end up disagreeing, it won't be because you don't care. You care about me. That says a lot. I care about you too.

@Many MilesThank you for your comments. Let me take some time to think and consider and wrestle with your criticism/ response in light of your other comments as well, and try to reply tonight

Thank you for the comments  @Anna The Bible is a holy book, but it is also a dangerous book, because if you don't interpret it correctly, you can be led into false beliefs. I could point to some groups where you would agree that their misinterpretation of Scripture has led to their spiritual destruction. 
@Many Miles I do not believe that for us (Witnesses) authority is identical to truth. Authority is moral power to which submission and obedience is due from those entrusted to it. But when I submit (so long as agree), the one to whom I submit is me. In other words, reducing authority to truth (or agreement by those under authority that the authority is speaking the truth), conceptually eliminates authority. That doesn't entail that every authority has equal authority. As Witnesses, we obey the rightful ruler of our country, but only under God's greater authority. If the president asks us to do something that violates our conscience, or would require disobeying Jehovah, we must serve God rather than men, because God is greater in authority than any creature. But, that doesn't entail that we must submit to the government only when we agree with the civil law or only when we agree that it is good for our country. We might think some laws are bad, but, so long as they do not require us to violate our conscience or the divine law, we must submit to them, because of their authority.
The authority of Scripture is authority with respect to divine revelation. The authority of the Governing body, is interpretive authority with respect to that revelation. These are two different types of authority. They do not compete but complement each other and are mutually dependent according to Witnesses. Witnesses believe that Christ has given divinely appointed men the authority of stewardship and the gift of explaining the Scriptures to His Congregation. So for a Witness the correct way of approaching Scripture is to learn and study it as informed by the guidance of the Congregation. 
That is the choice for a Witness, either they are going to trust and follow Christ by following a divine appointed authority that interprets the faith or follow Christ by determining for themselves and relying on their own judgment on how it is to be interpreted. The Witness who wants to subject the interpretive authority of the governing body to some other interpretive authority to hold them accountable is actually saying whether they realize it or not that they want the Governing body to be accountable to their own interpretation of scripture. This Witness is taking that authority to themselves. And that is another way of showing that the requirement is in essence a denial of their own need for a Governing body.
Some have been concerned that this amounts to authoritarianism. But we all (insiders/outsiders) have to understand the nature of the authority a Witness believes has been given to the Governing Body. If that wasn’t the case, to whom do they wish to make the Governing body accountable? For a Witness there is no higher interpretive authority on earth than the Governing body of the Congregation. So the idea of subjecting the Governing Body to something else presumes that there is something else on earth that has greater interpretive authority than the Governing Body.
So let me ask you guys, I'm assuming we are all Witnesses @Anna @xero @Many Miles @JW Insider   I think we are coming up against the common problem encountered when the authority argument is pressed to its last frontier. Namely, given that the fallible individual (us) must ultimately be the one to make the authority choice, it would seem that whatever authority is embraced will necessarily be tainted with the corruption of our fallibility and choice. If we claim that the Congregation is our authority, but we pick it as our authority, and retain it as our authority, on the basis of their agreement with our own judgment, then performatively they only have semantic authority (is our authority in name only) and is not functioning as our authority.
The apparent incoherencies start to appear when a Witness asks, if a fallible interpretative authority can bind the conscience?... let me explain. Witnesses are called to train or inform their conscience. Part of informing their conscience is coming to understand that the governing body has been divinely appointed as the teaching authority of the Congregation. So thru reason after examining the evidence (history, prophecy, other marks and signs) they come to have moral certainty that this authority comes from God, and that Jehovah has a Congregation, and that Jehovah's Witness are the Congregation Jesus established. So they enter and join this community of faith. A faith which is communicated in part in propositions. Propositions which are professed, believed and shared by its members. These propositions they appeal to, are revealed in Scripture and have to be interpreted by someone if they want to understand their meaning and assent to it. So there is no other way. For JW's it is reasonable to accept the Governing Body’s teaching authority when they interpret scripture because they believe they share the authority of the elders and apostles of the Jerusalem Council in the first century. They also believe they share the assistance of the holy spirit promised by Jesus which would guide them to the truth which gives them reason for confidence in their guidance of the Congregation. This makes it reasonable for Witnesses to be disposed to accept their teaching authority even when it is not infallible because their teaching enjoys the presumption of truth. So far as their conscience knows and understands that the Congregation has divine authority then their conscience tells them to submit. If a Witness doesn't believe the Congregation has divine authority then their conscience is not bound to follow it.
Now the question is if they can extend this binding of the conscience to particular doctrines that have been settled by the Governing Body for the past 100 years. 
Of course the teachings or claims to authority of the Governing Body to make sense they have to be reasonable and consistent and faithful, but their authority does not come from the strength of the arguments, or because Witnesses happen to agree with that teaching, or because it makes sense. If that were true, their teachings would have no more claim to their assent than it does to anyone else outside of their religion who happens to read their teachings on their website or publications.
So once a person locates, identifies and enters the Congregation, a shift takes place. Meaning their reason submits to this divine authority, where their reason no longer remains the ultimate judge concerning the truth of what the Governing Body teaches. Of course Witnesses search the scriptures, but not to determine whether their doctrines are true, but to seek to understand how they are contained and presented in scripture.
The reason I say this is because the Governing Body doesn’t seem to agree that the apostles anywhere in scripture exhorted other Christians to test the authority of the apostles against their own subjective interpretation of Scripture. (1Th 5:21; Ga 1:7-9; 1 John 4:1; Acts 17:11)
What I'm trying to get at is this. On the one hand JW's have a perpetual openness to correct their understandings of doctrines that deal with faith and morals as the discovery of new biblical arguments overturn current understandings. But on the other hand they are commanded to submit and obey to current teachings. If that is the case, there has to be a way to be able to distinguish between:
Beliefs(teachings/doctrines) that express what is revealed in scripture, thus an interpretation with divine authority.
and
Beliefs(teachings/doctrines) arrived by mere fallible human inferences or a human way of interpreting them.
This seems to create problems:
1) All of the Governing body's conclusions will remain fallible and provisional amounting to mere opinions.
2)If the Governing Body is fallible, and thus could always be wrong, then the assent witnesses render to their teachings are always tentative and subject to substantive revision.
3) It follows that they know next to nothing with any certainty.
4) They can never know with certainty if what they are having faith is a true expression or a true interpretation of scripture.
5)If the Governing Body is fallible how do Witnesses distinguish mere human opinions as opposed to a divine interpretation and how can they have faith that the interpretation is divine revelation?
So ultimately, the problem is if it’s possible for Jehovah’s Witnesses to exercise faith in the interpretations of the Governing Body if the five points above are true?
Do you guys agree with this assessment or is there another Framework the Congregation is operating under?
 
@xero It seems our epistemological stance is exemplified in the words of Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms:
"Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason. I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other, my conscience is captive to the Word of God."
Luther’s statement captures the very essence of our religious epistemology and his claim that his conscience was “captive to the Word of God” meant in actuality that his conscience was ultimately bound by his own interpretation of Scripture. 

It's possible for JWs to unify around the ever-fallible governing body you've described so long as that governing body does not ask those governed to ignore soundly reasoned conclusions.
Early Christians were subject to being stoned to death. But early Christians never stoned anyone to death.

What you're depicted here looks like a bifurcation to me, and, I think, a false one. The bifurcation is, essentially, either 1) your making your own interpretation or 2) you're not. I'll get back to this.
Your familiar with what internally we term "conscience matters". These are of things that are left to each person to decide without organized communal repercussion because different ones among us may legitimately hold different views on the same subject. Sometimes these different views might stem from different interpretations of information. But that's not always the case. Sometimes the difference in view is not because of an interpretation but, rather, because of a good solid logical argument. Logical conclusions are subject to veracity, but not interpretation. The conclusion of a logical argument is sound if its form is valid and its premises are evidenced. The level of veracity of a conclusion reached by a logical argument is determined by the strength of evidence for the argument's premises. The existence of "conscience matters" shows that different decisions can live in the same room.
So, back to my opening statement. The bifurcation you present is because there is an option other than simple interpretation. The option is making oneself accept conclusions of logical arguments, whether we like those conclusions or not. Logical conclusions have no bias, and are always falsifiable. I can say for certainty (because I've felt the pain!) that accepting certain conclusions has proven to be very hard, because of biases that I held. I have to force myself to accept a conclusion different than my preference because I couldn't deny the mathematical equation staring me in the face, especially after I verified its form and values over and over again to make sure. I was not submitting to what I wanted to accept (my preferential interpretation). I was submitting to something else.
Here's a scenario that's very real:
JW 1 conscientiously accepts multiple plasma exchange therapies with more than half his circulating blood replaced multiple times with cryosupernatant plasma donated by anonymous donors.
JW 2 conscientiously rejects multiple plasma exchange therapies with more than half his circulating blood replaced multiple times with cryosupernatant plasma donated by anonymous donors.
We respect both persons despite the fact that these two individuals hold diametrically opposing views on a life and death decision. We do this because both persons hold views that each had soundly reasoned to different ends based on premises applied within their respective logical arguments.
My point here when there are competing conclusions each of which is the result of a logical argument (in our case, as logical scriptural argument) then each conclusion should be respected, and the differentiation is not based merely on personal interpretation.
Christians are like anyone else. They need teachers. But teachers should teach us how to think, not what to think. If a teacher has a conclusion they think is solid the burden is on that teacher to demonstrate that conclusion is as sound as they would have us accept and act upon it. If they can't then they've failed as teachers, or we could have failed as students, or perhaps both have failed. But the burden is always on the teacher. Always. Of course, a student has a duty to learn as best they can. Otherwise they've cheated themselves.
Oh, and the two JWs above, they can remain unified in common cause despite their opposing differences, which is what unity is.