Many Miles

There was more than one reason I choked a bit on that attribution from Splane.
- Splane is part of the GB who deemed the GB is the "faithful slave".
- Schroeder was part of the GB who deemed those who felt the "faithful slave" pictures only the leading ones of the anointed as "objectors".
According to Splane, we should learn from Schroeder.
According to Schroeder, Splane would fit into the "objectors" category.
Choke...choke...
Alfred Hitchcock anyone?
 
 

Apostasy? Well that's a loud word! Let's say it again. Apostasy! Everyone feel better now?
Jesus was accused and put to death for blasphemy. Blasphemy was held on par with apostasy by the same murderers. So what? If our Master is the Christ, should any of us expect better treatment? The main thing is making sure of all things and holding fast to what is fine.
What is true is what matters. Those who prefer what is false over what is true will attempt to characterize (brand) persons all manner of ways to distract from their showing a preference for what is false over what is true. If we suffer, let it be over saying things that are true.
Don't let distractions interfere with focusing on truth.

I had discussions with him. He knows me. He had no answers either, except to fall back on secular constitutional legalism, which proves nothing from a logical let alone a scriptural perspective. But the worst was his use of demonstrably false premises. He just could not accept that certain premises put forth by the society could be false. This despite evidence as plain as his face in a mirror. Those premises asserted by the society are presented here:
 

Based on the latter clause of your sentence, by "Congregation" presumably you mean JWs.
I can't attend public meetings. To do so would represent tacit support for a teaching I know causes many, many deaths, and it is untenable. I long for the day when it is repealed, or at least relegated to a status similar to what it held prior to 1961.
In the meantime I consider myself like Elijah, or David who had to keep himself from the anointed of Jehovah in order to help those he still loved and cared about.
For now, that's all you need to know about me, if that.
I do not hide my identity from those who earn my trust. But that trust has to be earned. One day perhaps you'll learn of me from me. In the meantime, whether we have dialogue is up to you.

There was more than one reason I choked a bit on that attribution from Splane.
- Splane is part of the GB who deemed the GB is the "faithful slave".
- Schroeder was part of the GB who deemed those who felt the "faithful slave" pictures only the leading ones of the anointed as "objectors".
According to Splane, we should learn from Schroeder.
According to Schroeder, Splane would fit into the "objectors" category.
Choke...choke...
Alfred Hitchcock anyone?
 
 

In that case there's a single doctrinal position you need to apply yourself to. The society's blood doctrine.
That doctrine has led to a lot of premature death.
From day one there has been disagreement within the community of JWs about the merit of this doctrine. From day one. And people are dying over it.
If that teaching is demonstrably wrong then the society has bloodguilt. If a person stands in even tacit support of that, natural law condemns them. Also, what God said to Noah condemns them too. Look close. Look very close. And, look hard. You don't want to be on the wrong side of that teaching.
"No one has love greater than this, that someone should surrender his life in behalf of his friends." (Jesus)
In reverse chronological order:
- If we have permission to donate our life to save a friend then we have permission to donate our blood to save a friend
- Christians have never been under Mosaic law provisions related to blood
- Noah was told nothing whatsoever about donor blood
- God said nothing to Adam or Eve prohibiting them from anything they might want to do with blood
 

There was more than one reason I choked a bit on that attribution from Splane.
- Splane is part of the GB who deemed the GB is the "faithful slave".
- Schroeder was part of the GB who deemed those who felt the "faithful slave" pictures only the leading ones of the anointed as "objectors".
According to Splane, we should learn from Schroeder.
According to Schroeder, Splane would fit into the "objectors" category.
Choke...choke...
Alfred Hitchcock anyone?
 
 

There was more than one reason I choked a bit on that attribution from Splane.
- Splane is part of the GB who deemed the GB is the "faithful slave".
- Schroeder was part of the GB who deemed those who felt the "faithful slave" pictures only the leading ones of the anointed as "objectors".
According to Splane, we should learn from Schroeder.
According to Schroeder, Splane would fit into the "objectors" category.
Choke...choke...
Alfred Hitchcock anyone?
 
 

Early Christians were a body of individuals united in a common cause of following the Christ as best they could. They understood that no matter their family history God accepted their worship so long as they feared (respected) Him and worked righteousness. Jesus life, death and resurrection served as assurance, it gave them hope to add to love and faith they already had. That was it. Those same Christians also realized there were persons who had yet to learn of Jesus, and likely among them were persons' whose worship God accepted, just like He accepted the worship of Cornelius. Christianity was not a unity intended create a hierarchy to lord over worshipers of God and potential worshipers of God. Christianity was a common cause of helping all of these learn of the hope in Christ, and that God had not forsaken them. 
Today we can theorize about concepts like denomination, but it's an exercise in futility. Nothing has changed about what God expects, and focusing on things like the nit of denominations has potential to detract us from things that really matter, like natural law.
Yes.
See my first paragraph above. Insofar as I know, nothing has changed except humans have transposed a bunch of ideas that distract from Christian unity. It's God place to determine whose worship He accepts, and no one else's.

That happens sometimes. When it does the problem is not how strong a person's grasp of concepts is but, rather, whether the person's willingness to learn is greater than their desire to persuade (or protect).
More often than not, the problem I see between persons engaged in a contentious subject is a goal to persuade (or protect) rather than a goal of sharing and learning.

Yes. I heard that. Loud and clear. Couldn't help but wonder the same as you did. Only you had even more personal reason for feeling what you felt than I.

Yes. I heard that. Loud and clear. Couldn't help but wonder the same as you did. Only you had even more personal reason for feeling what you felt than I.

Apostasy? Well that's a loud word! Let's say it again. Apostasy! Everyone feel better now?
Jesus was accused and put to death for blasphemy. Blasphemy was held on par with apostasy by the same murderers. So what? If our Master is the Christ, should any of us expect better treatment? The main thing is making sure of all things and holding fast to what is fine.
What is true is what matters. Those who prefer what is false over what is true will attempt to characterize (brand) persons all manner of ways to distract from their showing a preference for what is false over what is true. If we suffer, let it be over saying things that are true.
Don't let distractions interfere with focusing on truth.

Apostasy? Well that's a loud word! Let's say it again. Apostasy! Everyone feel better now?
Jesus was accused and put to death for blasphemy. Blasphemy was held on par with apostasy by the same murderers. So what? If our Master is the Christ, should any of us expect better treatment? The main thing is making sure of all things and holding fast to what is fine.
What is true is what matters. Those who prefer what is false over what is true will attempt to characterize (brand) persons all manner of ways to distract from their showing a preference for what is false over what is true. If we suffer, let it be over saying things that are true.
Don't let distractions interfere with focusing on truth.

Apostasy? Well that's a loud word! Let's say it again. Apostasy! Everyone feel better now?
Jesus was accused and put to death for blasphemy. Blasphemy was held on par with apostasy by the same murderers. So what? If our Master is the Christ, should any of us expect better treatment? The main thing is making sure of all things and holding fast to what is fine.
What is true is what matters. Those who prefer what is false over what is true will attempt to characterize (brand) persons all manner of ways to distract from their showing a preference for what is false over what is true. If we suffer, let it be over saying things that are true.
Don't let distractions interfere with focusing on truth.

Apostasy? Well that's a loud word! Let's say it again. Apostasy! Everyone feel better now?
Jesus was accused and put to death for blasphemy. Blasphemy was held on par with apostasy by the same murderers. So what? If our Master is the Christ, should any of us expect better treatment? The main thing is making sure of all things and holding fast to what is fine.
What is true is what matters. Those who prefer what is false over what is true will attempt to characterize (brand) persons all manner of ways to distract from their showing a preference for what is false over what is true. If we suffer, let it be over saying things that are true.
Don't let distractions interfere with focusing on truth.

Good for you. I was denied this. Perhaps my questions where too precise and hit too close to home. They asked for my questions up front. But they also knew I was not going to be intimidated or distracted from having them answer what needed to be answered. They knew me plenty well enough to know that. Then they outright refused to meet with me in person despite long time appointment within the organization. They just would not do it.
It's really too bad, and sad. It could be so much better.

Good for you. I was denied this. Perhaps my questions where too precise and hit too close to home. They asked for my questions up front. But they also knew I was not going to be intimidated or distracted from having them answer what needed to be answered. They knew me plenty well enough to know that. Then they outright refused to meet with me in person despite long time appointment within the organization. They just would not do it.
It's really too bad, and sad. It could be so much better.

I had discussions with him. He knows me. He had no answers either, except to fall back on secular constitutional legalism, which proves nothing from a logical let alone a scriptural perspective. But the worst was his use of demonstrably false premises. He just could not accept that certain premises put forth by the society could be false. This despite evidence as plain as his face in a mirror. Those premises asserted by the society are presented here:
 

Good for you. I was denied this. Perhaps my questions where too precise and hit too close to home. They asked for my questions up front. But they also knew I was not going to be intimidated or distracted from having them answer what needed to be answered. They knew me plenty well enough to know that. Then they outright refused to meet with me in person despite long time appointment within the organization. They just would not do it.
It's really too bad, and sad. It could be so much better.

Based on the latter clause of your sentence, by "Congregation" presumably you mean JWs.
I can't attend public meetings. To do so would represent tacit support for a teaching I know causes many, many deaths, and it is untenable. I long for the day when it is repealed, or at least relegated to a status similar to what it held prior to 1961.
In the meantime I consider myself like Elijah, or David who had to keep himself from the anointed of Jehovah in order to help those he still loved and cared about.
For now, that's all you need to know about me, if that.
I do not hide my identity from those who earn my trust. But that trust has to be earned. One day perhaps you'll learn of me from me. In the meantime, whether we have dialogue is up to you.

Early Christians were a body of individuals united in a common cause of following the Christ as best they could. They understood that no matter their family history God accepted their worship so long as they feared (respected) Him and worked righteousness. Jesus life, death and resurrection served as assurance, it gave them hope to add to love and faith they already had. That was it. Those same Christians also realized there were persons who had yet to learn of Jesus, and likely among them were persons' whose worship God accepted, just like He accepted the worship of Cornelius. Christianity was not a unity intended create a hierarchy to lord over worshipers of God and potential worshipers of God. Christianity was a common cause of helping all of these learn of the hope in Christ, and that God had not forsaken them. 
Today we can theorize about concepts like denomination, but it's an exercise in futility. Nothing has changed about what God expects, and focusing on things like the nit of denominations has potential to detract us from things that really matter, like natural law.
Yes.
See my first paragraph above. Insofar as I know, nothing has changed except humans have transposed a bunch of ideas that distract from Christian unity. It's God place to determine whose worship He accepts, and no one else's.

That happens sometimes. When it does the problem is not how strong a person's grasp of concepts is but, rather, whether the person's willingness to learn is greater than their desire to persuade (or protect).
More often than not, the problem I see between persons engaged in a contentious subject is a goal to persuade (or protect) rather than a goal of sharing and learning.

Yes.
We all have natural law written in our hearts. Those who choose to follow it don't need a hierarchy telling them what to do. Also, when encountering someone else holding the same common cause there is an equally natural unity, and that unity will maintain despite non-essential differences that may exist.
Folks who want a different system, say a political human government (nation), probably need some form of hierarchy. It's not going to be pretty. Man dominating men leads to ruin. After creating Adam and Eve God gave humans dominion over animals, plants and the earth. He did not given man dominion over men.
Do not put your trust in nobles or in earthling men. Read that again. Are you sure you read that?

It's likely that the majority of persons who have ever lived never heard of the man from Nazareth, Jesus. Yet all men have had opportunity to hear and respond to natural law and in doing so manifested fear (respect) for God and righteousness based on that law written in their hearts. What I've offered on this matter is not the other arguments you allude to (which you admit so I don't know why you throw them into a response to me). My offer is no argument from silence. We have the testimony of Peter and his entourage of Cornelius and his household having holy spirit being poured onto them though not worshiping as Judaism and before baptism as Christian. God accepted them just as they stood at the time. Of course, we know they were invited to baptism into Christ. But their worship was already acceptable to God.