Many Miles

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.

Yes, and yes.
And, I'm glad you have opinion, even though it happens to be complete nonsense.
If you want to refute the argument I've put forth then go here:
And, please do your best to apply conventions of logical constructs in your attempt at refutation. Cartoons won't work for that.

Pudgy, it is absurd that JW leadership claims JWs abstain from blood. JWs gobble up blood products by the drum loads all around the world. According to JW policy, JWs can undergo plasma exchange by accepting transfusion of cryosupernatant plasma. When this exchange is done, more than half the patient's circulating blood has been replaced by someone who donated blood, or at least plasma. A single patient could undergo this treatment daily for weeks. That is a massive about of product taken from the donor blood supply. Like I am with most any subject, I take time to research rather than just trusting someone else to tell me what I'm supposed to believe. Everyone should subject their views, and what they are taught, to critical analysis to  make sure what they believe and what they are taught is sound.

Yes. I’m familiar with what you say. Specifications may ask for documents of certification, and if you send a stack of small-print documents an inch thick, it just gets filed away by a bean-counter and that’s the end of it. Your in! It’s bad, but oftentimes that’s how it works. 

Lol! You may have no idea. Then again, you might. There are fractions of fractions of fractions of… Literally, there is no end until you get to quarks and leptons. On the other hand, the very idea that the Bible supports a position that white cells from blood should be treated as blood is wholly without support in biblical text or in nature. In the natural world it is utterly impossible that, for example, white cells are distinguishable, let alone a “major component” of blood compared to a product like cryosupernatant plasma.  

Well, honestly, though it serves the purpose, that cartoon is a little bit of an understatement. It's not just 13 fractions that are permitted.
There is no part of blood that JWs cannot accept from the donor blood supply so long as it is not classified as "a major component" by JW leadership. That's right. JWs can accept 100 percent of what is donated to the local blood bank, so long as it is sufficiently processed first.

Pudgy, it is absurd that JW leadership claims JWs abstain from blood. JWs gobble up blood products by the drum loads all around the world. According to JW policy, JWs can undergo plasma exchange by accepting transfusion of cryosupernatant plasma. When this exchange is done, more than half the patient's circulating blood has been replaced by someone who donated blood, or at least plasma. A single patient could undergo this treatment daily for weeks. That is a massive about of product taken from the donor blood supply. Like I am with most any subject, I take time to research rather than just trusting someone else to tell me what I'm supposed to believe. Everyone should subject their views, and what they are taught, to critical analysis to  make sure what they believe and what they are taught is sound.

100%

Since we have biblical text saying creation testifies as God's word (Ps 19:1), and since there is evidence in creation that some animals are predatory by design, then it is scripturally arguable that Noah took some live animals onto the ark as food in addition to the ones he was obligated to preserve alive. I'll leave that argument for you. So long as the argument you put forth is logical in form, and so long as each premise is well-evidenced, you'll see no objection from me.
PS: Among predatory animals, the strongest argument might be based on obligate carnivores.

Jehovah to Noah to stock the Ark with food of every sort. If Noah took an outrigger canoe to an island 300 miles away it would be logical to take caged or leashed animals with him. The Pacific Islanders do this, even  making a cooking fire in the boat ( on rocks or sand or dirt I suppose ?)
Jehovah delegated food supplies to Noah’s best judgement.
Does best judgement include partially decayed meat?  No.
How about a nice, fresh chicken?  Yay!
Of course, I have already explained WHY God told Noah to provide over three times  more unclean animals than clean animals.
Noah provided the food at his discretion. JEHOVAH PROVIDED THE DELIVERABLE ANIMALS.
Use your common sense, experience, and reading to decide what is probable, and what is improbable.
Fer cryin out loud …. when is the last time you scraped a flattened sun baked squirrel off the asphalt and took it home and ate it?

Amazing. Terrific! Wonderful insight!
How can you BE so friggin’ smart?
Oh … you read a lot of history?
….. well, ok then …..
 

It is a waste to explain the obvious to the clueless.

Possibilities don't make for very good premises. Possibilities are endless. For premises used in a logical scriptural argument, we should stick to what we have evidence of.
God has, to my knowledge, never had aversion of humans eating meat of animals as though doing so was wrong or contrary to His will.
This discussion is addressing pre-flood food.
God told Noah to bring some of every sort of food eaten onto the ark to serve as food for himself and the animals. That's God's word. Not mine. If you want to challenge God's word feel free. But it's His words you'd be challenging. Not mine.
If we accept God's word for what it says, then, as the Bible goes onto say in the very next sentence, "Noah proceeded to do according to all that God had commanded him. He did just so." (Gen 6:21)
We know animal carcasses dead of natural cause were a sort of food eaten, both prior to and after the flood. After the flood God held no aversion to non-Jewish descendants of Noah eating this very sort of food. So men like Elihu, Job and Cornelius were free to eat this sort of food. God even arranged that this sort of food could be purchased from a Jew specifically to use it as food eat it. (Deut 14:21)
Hence:
- It still remains the case that dead carcasses were a sort of food eaten prior to the flood.
- It also still remains the case that Noah was told to put some of every sort of food eaten onto the ark to serve as food for himself and the animals.

Testing. As an underlying factor that's what this whole discussion is about; what test does today's governing body lay itself bare to so that its teaching or teachings are falsifiable?
This is what Paul's letter to Galatia offered in its introduction. In essence, the apostles informed Christians who looked to them as leaders/teachers that should they (the apostles or any one of the apostles) ever change the testimony they taught about the Christ and was accepted by his followers of the Christ, that they should be held as accursed. Those words, and others elsewhere akin to them, offered a means of falsification to protect Christians from teaching allegedly of Christ that may not be of Christ. As much as I look for it, I see no place where the contemporary governing body lays themselves bare to a means of falsification as a protection to all those earnestly seeking the Christ, Jesus.

Indeed!
Before the Jewish high court the apostles exclaimed “We must obey God as ruler rather than men." These same men (apostles) also warned their fellow believers that if they (the apostles or any one of them) ever changed their testimony of Christ that they taught and believers accepted about the Christ, that those believers should hold them (the apostles or any one of them) as accursed.
In ancient Aaron's case, Moses was told by God that he (Moses) was to serve as "God" to Aaron. At Meribah Aaron was still condemned for the sin of disloyalty for standing in passive support of the one who served as "God" to him. Why? Because Aaron knew Moses was just a spokesman for God and that Aaron's ultimate loyalty belonged to that One and not His spokesman. 
As it was true for the apostles is was in Aaron's case, and always. We must obey God as ruler rather than men.
 

Logical conclusions are ideas/teachings/notions that are, among other things, falsifiable. Logical conclusions are not the result of personal interpretation. To the contrary, logical conclusions drive bias to the side and put what can be proven as sound to the front.
The biblical account shows it proper to reason from the scriptures. I confess to an assumption that this means sound reasoning (which is logic) and not unsound reasoning (which is fallacy). Logic is employed to help people learn valid information. Fallacy is employed to persuade toward a preferential view (a bias). Fallacy is a distraction from valid information.
There are well known and accepted conventions of logical construction. It works a lot like math and is very objective, which is why it's dependable to examine any idea, including one's own idea(s).
If you're unfamiliar with this discipline then I'd recommend you undertake a study of it. It's not really hard. But if you want to reason soundly then you have to learn how to form logical conclusions.
As for "who determines the logical conclusion, and how" anyone who understands conventions of logical construction can examine a conclusion to see if it's logical. The person would look at the argument's form to see that it is logically valid. If the form is logically valid the person would then examine each premise in the argument for veracity. If the form is valid and the premises are supported by evidence then the conclusion of the argument is as strong as the evidence in support of the premises.
 

I'm not even sure where to start responding to this. It completely overlooks so much of what I've presented, going contrary to much of it.
1) I do not believe it required more faith to be a Christian in the first century. Why? I've said this before. The early Christians had men among them who were working miraculous feats. Curing sick people. Feeding thousands with a few fish and loaves. Raising the dead. It's not hard to put faith in teaching coming from such men. In large part this is what led to Jesus having followers in the first place. Though a very loving man and excellent speaker and teacher, he turned water wine, he healed the sick, he raised the dead. This was enough to draw anyone's attention. After the Christ's resurrection and ascension Christ's apostles had similar supernatural power. You can't really refute that if it's real and you're there to witness it, which means you're doing well to listen and accept what they teach.
2) Though the early Christians could easily accept teaching from men working supernatural miracles, Paul warned not to accept even what they ("we") say if it departed from what they had already taught them and began teaching something different than they had accepted from prior teaching. I don't see how you can dispute this latter point. Paul said it point blank. To deny this is to deny the legitimacy of what Paul said, or to read a preferential interpretation into the text. Notwithstanding all that, what was to happen when the men with supernatural power to work miracles disappeared in death? Their very presence presented a restraint of false teachings and teachers. The answer is that they left behind their own inspired written works (miracle workers with supernatural power can be assumed to be inspired to also write a legitimate record of events and teachings). The earliest Christians had the inspired words available up to that time, which Paul spoke of to Timothy. But the new witness of words that we call the Christian scriptures today was left by inspired men for sake of Christians to come.
3) I've studiously avoided suggesting that any Christian should, as you say, 'trust in their own interpretation of scripture'. To say this is to totally misunderstand what it means to form a logical conclusion. Logical conclusions are not the result of personal interpretation. It's to the contrary. Logical conclusions drive bias to the side and puts what can be proven sound to the front.
4) Yes, I agree with that for the early Christians with exposure to teachers with miraculous supernatural powers. These men were walking and talking tangible evidence that they were teachers of truth. But when these men were gone Christians needed to take great care that they were not mislead by new teachers, and they needed to remember which loyalty is priority, which is to God and not men (no matter what position they may hold as teachers/leaders). They also needed to guard against following they own interpretations. The answer was learning to reason from the scriptures. I have to believe that the biblical notion of reasoning from the scriptures was sound reasoning (logical) and not unsound reasoning (fallacious).
 
5) I agree with everything you say here with one exception, which I've underlined. It's a false bifurcation here to say if a) they found their own conscience was uninformed then b) they were to conform to the mind of the congregation. This argument wrongly presumes two things, 1) that there is no alternative other than a or b (which is why it it's a false bifurcation) and 2) that "the mind of the Congregation" is "informed". Here's my question to you on this point: What if your mind is uninformed and the Congregation's mind is also uninformed? What then? Think about that. There is an good solid answer to that question.
 
6) In the presence of inspired biblical text and the testimony of God creation all around us, no one should form belief based on "their own interpretation", meaning how they prefer to see things. That would be no more than believing what you want to believe solely because that's what you want to believe, something I categorically reject.
7) You ask "was their an authority to which they were to submit their interpretation". For early Christians who had the testimony of miracle workers with supernatural power, my answer would be yes, unless (or when) they changed their testimony. This latter point is what Paul warned against. This is why obedience to teachers and teaching has a limit. For Christians that came after the men with supernatural power, they had the testimony left behind in the new witness which we call the Christian scriptures. Any teaching asserted based on the bible since the men with supernatural powers would have to conform to sound (logical) conclusions based on the testimony already given and codified as the Bible.
If the question is whether God expects us to obey Him ahead of whomever He may have placed in an appointed position, then we have to look to examples that test that question. This is why the incident of Aaron standing in passive support of God's appointed spokesman (Moses) is important. It succinct fashion it provides a very important object lesson. If we want to worship God then we have to obey Him no matter what anyone else tells us, even if that other person has, or is thought to have, divinely appointed authority. 
 
The priest at the ancient tabernacle in the wilderness had something standing above them that was unmistakable. It was a supernatural phenomena of a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. This made it pretty clear that what was coming from the priests should be followed because that supernatural phenomena demonstrated God's approval of what they were doing there. If you want to look to the priesthood to examine the question of whether a worshiper should passively support a wrong teaching or sin (like in the instance at Meribah) then you need to find and share an incident that tests that question, which you haven't done. We know Jews were told to obey the priests. But what about when those priests told somebody to do something wrong, or wanted someone to support them in wrongdoing? Were they supposed to obey them then?  Ultimately, though, Israel insisted on having a king like the nations around them, and God appointed a King over Israel. The first one was Saul. Saul went bad. Though he was the anointed of God, he went bad. David would not act to remove Saul from his position because God had installed him as king. But David did not obey Saul because he knew Saul could not be trusted. This, too, was another incident demonstrating that our loyalty/obedience to God appointed authority has limitations. If it was true of Moses, whose was "God" to Aaron, then it was also true of the priesthood of Israel.
There is too much here so that time does not allow me to proof read. If something is misspelled or you have a question of anything please just ask. I have yet to see anyone post a thing suggesting that there is not an appropriate limitation to our obedience toward leaders we look toward as teachers. You recognize that somewhat, and I respect that. But I'd recommend you spend some time honing your skills of logical construction. Learning how to reason soundly helps a person avoid the trap of falling for their own bad ideas, preference and/or biases, and it also helps us recognize unsound teaching coming from others.

George, I have nowhere suggested that only am I entitled to ask questions. Where or how you came up with this notion is for you to explain. Just above I answered a question of yours. But, in response, my hope that you'd answer the extremely simple question asked of you was dashed by what appears to be abject refusal.
Was it okay for early humans to feed their babies milk? 
if yes, why? 
if no, why?

Okay. I'll entertain your question asked of me in the hope that you will answer the question I asked of you.
You asked, "What motivated you to shift the topic from spoiled meat to breast milk?"
First, that question poses a falsehood. I have not shifted the topic from "spoiled meat" to milk.
In my second entry of this discussion I pointed to milk as a food item. Thereafter I pointed it out again, to you specifically. I raised this because of the subject matter, which is pre-flood food. My motivation is to examine the subject of what was used as food prior to the flood.
So nothing about my motivation has shifted. I'm still on the subject of the discussion.
So, my outstanding question to you remains, and is:
 
Was it okay for early humans to feed their babies milk? 
if yes, why? 
if no, why?

George,
Look at the title. This discussion is about pre-flood food.
So, my question to you remains:
 
Was it okay for early humans to feed their babies milk? 
if yes, why? 
if no, why?

George, I have nowhere suggested that only am I entitled to ask questions. Where or how you came up with this notion is for you to explain. Just above I answered a question of yours. But, in response, my hope that you'd answer the extremely simple question asked of you was dashed by what appears to be abject refusal.
Was it okay for early humans to feed their babies milk? 
if yes, why? 
if no, why?

First, I've not suggested anyone should apply their own interpretation of scripture.
Today we can 1) read and depend on what the Bible expressly states, and 2) what can see what can be be deduced from what the Bible says with a conclusion that is subject to known conventions of logical construction (i.e., a demonstrably sound conclusion).
I don't see how anyone can disagree with this, unless they don't understand how conventions of logical construction work. Please don't mistake this as disrespect. I intend none. But it is a commonly misunderstood discipline.
One important thing that knowing conventions of logical construction teaches is how to identify logical fallacies. Here's a decent article that talks a little bit about this: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/101990365?q=five+common+fallacies&p=par
Applying conventions of logic is an excellent way to avoid conclusions that are biased. If anything, they keep conclusions independent of personal biases.
 

Speaking of loyalty and whether there is a rightful limitation to obedience toward teachers, the subject reminds me of the anointed position held by Moses. Moses was anointed to high position and Israel was supposed to obey him as God's spokesman.
But there was an incident at Meribah where the anointed of Jehovah overstepped. There was another person there by the name of Aaron. He observed what was going on. Aaron had a choice. He could just go along, or he could have spoken up and checked Moses for what he was saying. Because Aaron just went along, he was guilty of sin, with the result that he was removed from high office and prevented from entering the promised land. In that case, loyalty would have had Aaron recognize that obedience (whether passive or active) had an appropriate limit in relation to men (even a man known to be anointed as God's spokesman), and that his ultimate obedience belong to God.

@Many Miles Sorry for the delay. As you can verify, this comment runs to nearly 1,300 words; I had been working on it since this morning when I saw all your comments again this morning, but somehow life kept getting in the way. You know how that is, and sometimes ought to be. I'll only reply to two comments here and tie the rest of your points in a separate post.
I can see why it appears that way from your point of view. It truly required more faith to be a Christian in the first century in Galatia than what your advocating, precisely for this reason. From your perspective you only have to believe that Scripture is divinely inspired. The first century Christian had to believe not only that Scripture was divinely inspired, but also that the Congregation was divinely guided in interpreting and explicating the doctrines and teachings. So the rationalist solution it seems tried to cut out the need for a divinely appointed interpretive authority, by positing them to just allow the text to speak for itself. Such a proposal meant that in a certain sense, they didn't have to trust any human in order to exercise faith. All questions of faith could be verified or falsified to their own satisfaction, by examining the Scriptures for themselves. But, from the first century point of view, not trusting the Congregation in her divinely appointed role as steward and interpreter of Scripture, was a deficiency of faith. They were not called to trust Jehovah & Christ by trusting their own interpretation of Scripture, but to trust Jehovah & Christ by trusting the Congregation.
So there were two kinds of Christians. Those who I would call ecclesiological Christians, and those for whom being a Christian was primarily, if not exclusively, a matter of individual decision. Those whom the act of faith in Jehovah & Christ and the act of faith in the Congregation was one act of faith. And those for whom the act of faith in Jehovah & Christ was the act of faith, and the act of faith in the Congregation was secondary or somewhere down the line. If you put yourself in the time period of the first generation of Christians it is easier to understand what it meant to be an ecclesiological Christian. In order to put faith in Jehovah & Christ you would have needed to trust the Apostles and those appointed by them, who were taking the lead at that time.
I’m not suggesting in the least that anyone was violating their own conscience. As I said, I think what Paul is teaching in Galatians 1:6-8 is a middle position between a rationalism that tests all claims by one’s own interpretation of Scripture, and a mindless fideism that accepts as infallible whatever those taking the lead were saying regarding the faith.  According to Galatians 1:6-9 an individual must never go against his conscience. If someone taking the lead asked them do something that went against their conscience, they should not do it so long as it was in conflict with their conscience. But they had an obligation to determine whether their conscience was uninformed, or whether what the person(apostle, angel, overseer) was asking them to do was contrary to the teaching of the Congregation. If what the person(apostle, angel, overseer) was asking them to do was contrary to the teaching of the Congregation, then they were not to do it. But if they discovered that their conscience was uninformed, then they were to conform their conscience to the mind of the Congregation. 
So I’m speaking at the level of how they informed their conscience regarding what was false. Were they to go by their own interpretation of Scripture, or was there an authority to which they were to submit their interpretation? If they went by their own interpretation, then false teachings just meant any theological position that differed significantly from theirs, as determined by them. So these terms would become relativized.  Part of informing one’s conscience was determining the rightful ecclesial authority and its basis, and what doctrines had been taught by the Congregation. 
Better examples than Meribah that Illustrate what Paul was saying in Galatians is Aaron and the Levites.  The task of teaching the people from the law belonged especially to the priesthood of Aaron and his sons through every generation. After Moses wrote the law, he "gave it to the priests, the Levites, who carry the ark of Jehovah’s covenant, and to all the elders of Israel. (Deuteronomy 31:9) The Levitical priests had stewardship or “charge” over the law (Deut. 17:18). And when Moses gave his final blessing over each of the tribes of Israel, when he came to the tribe of Levi he prophesied: “Let them instruct Jacob in your judicial decisions, And Israel in your Law.” (Deut. 33:10) The Levitical priests were not only stewards of the scrolls, they were stewards of the proper understanding and explanation of what was written upon them. Jehovah told Aaron that throughout the generations of his sons, they were to “teach the Israelites all the regulations that Jehovah has spoken to them through Moses.” (Lev 10:11) When there were questions about the interpretation of the law, the people were to go up to the place that Jehovah would choose, where the Levitical priests were “ministering before Jehovah,” and they were to inquire the Levitical priests (Deut. 17:9), and the priests would hand down their decision. And in these cases the people were to do according to all the direction of the priests. “The man who acts presumptuously by not listening to the priest who is ministering to Jehovah your God or to the judge must die.” (Deut. 17:12) Moses exhorted the people to “be very careful to do according to all that the Levitical priests will instruct you” (Deut. 24:8) The Levites were to “answer every man of Israel with a loud voice” the curses of the law (Deut. 27:14).

The author of 2 Chronicles connects having the law, with having a “priest to teach,” precisely because the exposition of the law belonged to the Levitical priests. The author writes, “For a long time Israel had been without the true God, without a priest teaching, and without law.” (2 Chronicles 15:3) It wasn’t as though the scrolls were missing. But, without a teaching priest, it was as if there were no law. And when Jehoshaphat set out to restore the people to true worship, he did not simply make copies of the scrolls and have them each read them. Instead, he sent authorized teachers (including a group of Levitical priests) to the cities of Judah, to teach the people from the “the book of Jehovah’s Law.” (2 Chronicles 17:9) Likewise, it was no accident that Ezra the priest and the “ the Levites, were explaining the Law to the people... And they continued reading aloud from the book, from the Law of the true God, clearly explaining it and putting meaning into it; so they helped the people to understand what was being read.” (Nehemiah 8:7-8)

The  priests had their teaching authority not fundamentally because of any academic training they had received, but fundamentally because of their appointment from Aaron, whom God had divinely chosen to be the high priest, and to whom and to his descendants God had given the task of teaching and interpreting the law for the people. In this respect the Levitical priesthood was like the first century Governing Body, because the teaching and interpretive authority of the Levitical priests was not in virtue of their intelligence or academic training, but in virtue of their divine calling as descendants of Aaron. Same with the Apostles. Divine teaching authority in the Congregation is not reducible to academic authority. God chose the weak and foolish, fishermen and tax collectors, to be the foundation stones of the Congregation (Ephesians 2:20, Rev 21:14).

What does negativity (or positivity) have to do with whatever is true or false? 
 
And, what do you refer to in reference to “the accurate interpretation of Matthew 18”?