Alphonse

I think the point everyone is forgetting, and that we can IGNORE the drivel of who is right and who is wrong about 1914, 1975 and the dozens of other issues that have no credibility whatsoever.  The price is high and the scars are painful and permanent and the casualty rate is high …. but it CAN BE DONE! 
If 85% of what you believe and act on is 85% drivel, the Core Truth is still valid, and that is enough to demonstrate fealty and allegiance to Jehovah God. 
We may even slay or cripple each other, and fall in the battle but  defending or castigating “1914” has NOTHING to do with becoming a close friend of God and Christ.
In the “Big Picture” only the 15% Core Truths are important.
Who pees in their pants in a game of chicken over “1914” or “1975” is only a distraction that subverts the righteous away from concentrating on the mission.
If we fall under a hail of unrelenting stupidity … guess what?
….. we get a “Do Over”!
 

Is it possible, Georgie, that you you and your transparent up and down voting sock puppet that AI  is an acronym for “Applied Ignorance”? 
It’s clear your TDS has evolved to include WDS … “… the sword that cuts both ways …”.
I should ask ChatGBT … it’s only wrong 55% of the time.
 
                                                                ↘️
                                                                      ↘️
                                                                           ↘️

You sure you weren't a stand-in for one of Jobs' comforters?

Stockholm syndrome is a psychological response where hostages or victims develop positive feelings, empathy, or even loyalty toward their captors or abusers.
It often occurs in situations of intense fear, isolation, and perceived threat to one's life. The term originated from a 1973 bank robbery in Stockholm, Sweden, where hostages developed a bond with the perpetrators. Even loyalty.
The syndrome involves a complex interplay of psychological mechanisms, including identification with the aggressor, survival instincts, and a coping strategy to endure the traumatic experience. Victims may rationalize their captor's behavior, empathize with them, and form a sense of dependency.

As usual, Georgie, as always you have missed the point.
I am sure everyone who comes here fully understands the symbolism …
…. but many hate how it has neen consintamtly been misapplied as a tool to manipulate the Brotherhood, to maintain ecclestical power to keep the money waterfall flowing.
Remember it was Aaron that misrepresented Jehovah by making the Golden Calf,  declaring
“This is Jehovah your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt!”.
He convinced the Jews to contribute tons of gold to the project.
Someone should have searched his tent.
There is a reason that above the circuit or district level there is ZERO accountability for contributed funds to the Brotherhood.
I have carefully considered your agenda driven perspective, and what I see is a classic case of Stockholm Syndrome.

Yes, that was really weirdly worded. Makes no logical sense. What did they mean? It's one of those mind games/word salads that makes you scratch your head. 

It is quite possible that there are a number of men in JW congregations who wear beards. Because of this, they cannot be excluded, but they are rather "unused" for various functions within the Church. In the chronic shortage of "manpower" for "congregational positions of responsibility", it is possible that this change is aimed at this target group.
It is also possible that some who wear beards have put themselves in that position on purpose, for the reason that they do not want to be burdened with any responsibilities in the Organization.
Also, a certain number of PIMO members (physically inside, mentally outside) chose to wear a beard just to stay connected with the congregation only for free social contacts (because they are not excluded), and on the other hand, so that they cannot be held accountable because they are in the category "spiritually weak individuals".
Changes are made because the Organization is in trouble, not because God has loosened the reins of His Chariot.

Well, didn't GB tell you a long time ago: Don't think and conclude logically, because our instructions will not look/be logical.

What are you babbling about? You sound like a confused, economically ignorant, covetous socialist.

If the shoe fits.

I wonder if head coverings will be next....Out in service this morning I asked the car group (of six) who wants to come with me (on a study), they can't be male though because I haven't got anything to put on my head...

You mean Jehovah created sub humans like he created dinosaurs? 

Going back on topic, (of a post that hasn't been on topic, lol) in reading everyone's comments I see the reasoning behind both the against and the for blood. Personally I can see why someone would abstain (which means both eating and transfusing). My main issue is that the organization says this is a conscience matter, whereas in practice this is not true. It is the societies conscience we are told to obey. We were always taught to tell the doctors that our conscience will not allow us to break God's law on blood. But what if someone's conscience did allow them, for whatever reason? This is why I think the blood issue (whole blood) should be something between them and Jehovah only. (Someone said well then we could say the same about fornication. Well, if no one in the congregation finds out about it, then it will still be between them and Jehovah, and they will have to answer to Jehovah for it in the end.
In line with this, I have noticed that elders on the HLC no longer "interfere" or are privy to a person's medical decision. In the USA hippa laws are strict, and absolutely no one should be able to find out if someone has had a blood transfusion, even relatives. So if someone does get a blood transfusion, it remains between them and Jehovah.
I think Tom's handling of the situation with the young brother in hospital was very good. No elder should be persuading another person to follow his (the elder's) conscience, or anybody else's conscience for that matter. The conscience is each person's their own. (This is why the conscientious objection to alternative service was a farce because the brothers who objected, for the most part, didn't know why they were objecting, they were just following the societies conscience). 
The stance now is we do not fight the Superior Authorities when it comes to transfusing children. Which makes me wonder where the principle "obey God as ruler rather than men" went to? Did we decide this because we do not want to make a spectacle of ourselves, fighting court battles and making it look like JW parents want their children to die? Don't get me wrong, I am glad about it, but where in truth does it leave  "obey God as ruler rather than man?" It seems like the organization has compromised... or not? Same with the fractions becoming  a conscience matter. I get why this was so, they "didn't want to get "dogmatic" (a phrase we will probably be hearing a lot more). But how much of this was also for practical reasons? The guidance about blood fractions itself says that people should realize that many vaccines (which members of Bethel used) and other therapeutic medicines contains blood fractions. So the person who says no to blood fractions should realize this, and then make an informed decision. I wonder if the covid vaccines had been based on blood fractions, or contained blood fractions, how would the organization have handled that? Probably they wouldn't have been able to "push" it like they did, and would have just had to say it's each person's decision, based on their own conscience. 
For me, when it comes to the question of blood, we don't want to be putting our life at risk just for man made rules. We have to be sure it is Jehovah's law, and by the looks of it this camp is split into two. Some say yes and some say no. 
I feel like we should apply Occam's razor and go with the simplest and clearest explanation. 
It's all giving me a headache...
 

I seriously doubt that with those vague, general, non-specific, word salads anyone cares except you, Georgie.

I understand what you mean now.
Newspapers, for the most part, write to sell rather than write to educate. I don't really pay much attention to them, except to get a general idea of what's going on in the world. That's probably why I didn't pick up on the nuance you pointed out to me. Thanks.

It is not commonly recognized how smart beavers are. Most of them are graduates of Dam U.

@Many Miles I'm reading thru the forums comments and catching up on the conversation you started on the other thread. So far these statements by @JW Insider has put things on a different light for me.
 
 

Any person who sacrifices their life under an honest impression that what they are doing is right, has done nothing wrong insofar as I can tell.
However, if someone taught the basis for that sacrifice and that basis is false (or unsound), then there is accounting to be held for the teacher. If you're going to teach a certain thing (notion) is worthy of sacrificing life over, you better be right in your teaching. Moreover, if in any way that teacher learns the teaching is false (or unsound in any way!) and continues teaching it nevertheless, the bloodguilt goes from bad to worse.

Well, now that you’ve established your position in the pecking order, no.
You had me saying, ‘Oh, he’s not such a bad guy after all,’ until that line.

I hear you. I probably mentioned already on the forum that I grew up as a Witness and baptized at 15, but then got caught in Greg Stafford’s theology (Mere Christianity) at 18 which then evolved in me becoming a Neo-Anabaptist for 5/6 years when I was 21, back in (2011- 2016) while still being a Witness. I explored other options after as well, but found that I could not take them seriously as intellectual propositions and remained a Witness.
I try to be careful when constructing arguments and often wonder if I have understood and learned the other person’s position. So I try to live by these three options:
Try to refute the argument.
Say that I need time to think about it.
Or accept the conclusion of the argument.
Anything else would be intellectual sloppiness at best.
I’m still trying to grasp and understand your position and of other Witnesses here, especially JW Insider’s since I used to believe the same thing you guys do (a more rudimentary form though 😂) in ecclesiology.
I'm not saying that the thesis you have described is unreasonable. But I do believe that it is neither fitting nor true.
Looking forward to our discussions. I've some catching up to do. I’ll get to reading all your points and JW insiders eventually.
 

This is why I'm a firm believer that people who want to conduct academic debates about theology, study philosophy before they study theology. Some of those concepts are metaphysical. But even more necessary are the epistemological ones, especially those in logic and critical thinking. (I’ll admit I’m an epistemological tyro). Without a proper study of philosophy, there is a lot of frustrating going-round-in-circles.
 

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.

Yes. I’m familiar with those merry-go-rounds. I don’t ride those rides.
Here I have no goal of settling or resolving any disagreement(s). Were that to happen? Fine. But I’m here to share and learn. 

Atheists are humans who do not believe in God because they don't see evidence for God, or at least not the God of the Bible. These could fall into different categories in terms of spirituality. One could be an atheist because he's unable to see evidence though he is looking for it. This would put him in the category of spiritual man because he's looking, but in this case he'd be a person who has no helper (he's unable), and sooner or later, according to the Bible, God would help this person. Another could be an atheist because he doesn't want to look into everything and he doesn't want to bother to believe in a God. This would put the person in the category of physical man.
Scientists are trained to use inductive reasoning to find probabilities and then narrow things down more definitively with deductive conclusions, if they are unable to find direct evidence. Mostly scientists are looking for direct evidence. When they do find direct evidence then they apply inductive and then deductive reasoning as either is warranted to further their exploration of all things. Based on what you posit above, I'd say of a scientist who's looking to the universe to examine all things without regard for what others may think of his search, that he's a spiritual man because, according to the Bible, the natural world is God's testimony too. Hence, though a scientist may not end up believing in the biblical God, he ends up obeying natural law like Cornelius did, and Cornelius was a spiritual man aside from Judaism and Christianity.
As for acupuncture, I said it was false to say the practice is pseudoscience.
In my response, which you quote above, I was careful not to say all claims by acupuncturists are scientific. I just said it's false to say the practice is pseudoscience. My reason for saying this is that, as I stated earlier, scientific methods of information examination shows some peripheral neuropathies are demonstrated to respond to acupuncture. Such a systematic review falls within the realm of scientific method. [Emphasis added this go-round]
A spiritual man would find themselves abiding by natural law. Hence, if "the deep things of Satan" are notions that defy natural law then there's nothing there to see, because they'd already know the information is contrary to nature hence rather than being information it would be disinformation. A person who looks into all things does not look where nothing is there to see. They go where the information is. Juan brought up Eve earlier, suggesting maybe she wanted to know why she was not supposed to eat of the forbidden tree. Satan coaxed her into eating of it. But she didn't have to look into "the deep things of Satan" to answer that why question. She already knew it was wrong to eat of the forbidden fruit. So all she needed to do then and there was abstain from eating the fruit. She could have inquired about the "why" by a method other than the proverbial "spark test" (clicking a lighter looking for a natural gas leak!).
God bless you for having the patience to read that stuff. I have neither the time nor inclination. In public and private each has made it known they have no interest whatsoever in constructive dialogue. When it comes to them, and others like them, I find myself helpless due to limited time. I only wish each well. But they need more than I am able to give.

At that time, the life-saving direction that we receive from Jehovah’s organization may not appear practical from a human standpoint. All of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether these appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not. - https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/w20131115/seven-shepherds-eight-dukes/