Alphonse

Because a person has a library at their disposal does not mean they understand what they're reading. Everyone needs help learning how to learn, learning what information means, and when or whether pieces of information do or do not have a relationship, and what that relationship is and potential consequences.
Both sources you cite can be useful though. And, I am a hearty advocate of reading. I'm also a hearty advocate of learning from everyone and everything around me, and I think everyone should be that way. We learn from one another.
I don't know that anyone here is trying to sound intelligent. It seems to me folks here are just sharing their thoughts, if they have any, on whatever the topic is.
I'm not sure what that has to do with this discussion. These days I don't know of any hospital that uses a product rendered from blood purely as a volume expander. What you cite of WWII is of a desperate measure for a desperate time and place. As late the the early 21st century there are also isolated reports of extremely remote medical services that have used coconut water (NOT coconut MILK!!!) as a volume expander. But this can be very dangerous because users are gambling that the osmotic pressure of whatever coconut water they use is suitable for IV administration. If it's not, the fluid will, basically, initiate a cascading event of hemolysis where erythrocytic cells explode in the peripheral blood stream. It can be lethal. Hence, anytime a medical facility has used IV administration of coconut water it's a desperate measure, and what they're really doing is gambling to buy time for access to better therapeutics. Again, though, this is unrelated to the subject of products rendered from blood.
I have no idea what you're talking about here. Administration of oxygen to a patient and that oxygen being sufficiently transported to organ tissues are separate things. There is such a thing as bleeding to death. Without enough erythrocytic cells to efficiently transport oxygen and carbon dioxide (alternatively) a patient's organs will shut down and they will perish.
What you write here paints a relatively correct picture. There are therapeutics that can stimulate erythrocytic production, but it takes time. As you say, it could be days. It could even be weeks for sufficient erythrocytic production rise to stabilize a patient. In the face of severe anemia, what fills the immediate gap is transfusion of red cells. These transfused cells will serve as transport for oxygen until the patient's own system can produce enough erythrocytes to do the job, and can sustain that production.
Neither life nor health is guaranteed. Nevertheless, humans in need of medical care are looking for the best care available for whatever is their condition. And, when the question is, "What is the scriptural basis for refusing transfusion of products rendered from blood?" it adds nothing to the discussion to, essentially, simply assert 'It does!'. So far you've ignored all the logical scriptural arguments put forth in this discussion, which is why I eventually just ignored you. But another reader thought your comments above could use a response.

A profound statement, and well said. Concise. Thorough. Thoughtful. Big gift in a small package. It's Christian.
The only thing I dislike is the phrase "truly Christian". Smacks of "no true Scotsman". I'm confident you understand. I'll let other readers figure it out. Life's a learning experience, after all.
PS: All underlining is added by myself for emphasis.

@Juan Rivera I finally read through this whole topic, previously only noticing some side topics of interest to me at the time.  And I see that you have often addressed me here and hoped I would offer "on-topic" comments much earlier. As I read through it, I think @Many Miles is offering exactly the kinds of responses I would have offered had I been a little more thoughtful and focused on the original topic.
I agree that Galatians contains themes about doctrinal purity and, per Miles, the limit of obedience to human authority. We get valuable perspectives on these topics as Paul writes about many different things, including his own authority, the good news, being justified by faith and not works, and the difficulties Jewish Christians had fully appreciating that last concept (coming from a background of 1500 years of "salvation by works," i.e., law). 
But it seems that you also intend to find in Galatians some evidence for an ecclesiastical, God-appointed, human authority, such as a governing body that provides a basis for the proper type of Christian unity. I know you are aware from past comments that I believe Paul goes in a different direction on that question. I do think such an authority would be extremely valuable and convenient. But I see too many scriptures that fly in the face of expecting exactly that type of authority today. That doesn't mean that a type of human governing body doesn't serve a good purpose, of course. And this doesn't mean that the congregations are without human teachers and authorities. It just means that we, if we are truly Christian, must share the responsibility with them for what we accept and believe.
Of course, just saying all that is easier than providing the scriptures and details behind it, but many of those points have already been made in this current discussion.
And I like that you are looking for a more methodical approach. I appreciated this about "Rotherham" when I often went on for many pages in discussions with him (over a decade ago). He remained in a private "theology" email discussion group that I lightly participated in for years but I now only read comments from others now and then. Is he still around? Haven't heard from "Rotherham" for years now. Do you know about his health? 
And thanks for locating that blog from Apologetic Front on the web.archive. I found many pages there with some good ideas to review:
https://web.archive.org/web/20150201214409/http://apologeticfront.com/category/faithful-slave/
https://web.archive.org/web/20150201220435/http://apologeticfront.com/category/governing-body/
 

Perhaps God should have told her (and all women after her) that she has the right to resist any violent intention of a man who uses prophetic words with unjust and immoral motives. That women will not allow themselves to be exploited. Since God has nowhere specifically said that a woman may/must not resist dominion and/or violence from men in marriage or outside of marriage, this means that women may/have right to resist any kind of enslavement by men. And that they can see patriarchy as an unjust order. This would even apply to Jesus and his somewhat milder attitude towards women when he was on earth.
The apostolic words, which even command the subordination of the wife to her husband "in everything", do not correspond to the nature of things that were in Eden and the partnership that was established by the act of creation. A big minus for "Christianity".
So we see a flaw in the Bible or in the perfection of God Himself. God prophesies that Eve will be under the dominion of Adam. Then men (and women too) accepted this as their fate, as something "normal", God-given. The absence of God's word on this subject, of a God who says of himself that he hates injustice, has contributed to wrong attitudes in society in general and also in WTJWorg. Free space for wrong interpretations.

From the Introduction, we find this statement:
"In our study, we will clearly point out that this variability in medical issues makes the Watchtower Society an incompetent organization in this field, and especially regarding its determination of refusing blood transfusions."
I have to agree with that statement. When asked about the fundamental underpinnings of its doctrinal position on blood, the society has said the following:
Item 1: When asked by an elder why we would disfellowship/disassociate a JW for conscientiously taking a transfusion of a blood product like white cells but not for taking a product like cryoprecipitate, the society’s response was to say ‘while both may affect the life of the individual, both whole blood and major components (meaning red cells, white cells, platelets and plasma) carry nutrition to the body, and it is this aspect of providing nourishment that links blood transfusion with the biblical prohibition.’
Item 2: To another elder who asked a similar question, the response was to say “In weighing matters scripturally, the “slave" has decided with good-basis that blood's four primary components-plasma,-red cells, white cells, and platelets-should not be used. That is how unfractionated blood components settle out naturally. In its still unbroken-down state, each separated primary component, regardless of its respective percentage of whole blood, can still represent basically what blood as a whole symbolizes: the life of the creature.”
The problem with these two items of response is that both contain utter falsehood.
Regarding Item 1 above, it leverages the biblical statement to Noah about eating blood of animals killed to use them as food. (See Gen 9) The problem is, it is well known that transfusion of red cells offers no nutritional support. None. To be clear, if a patient was transfused with forbidden red cells for nutritional support, they would die of starvation. On the other hand, and ironically, if a patient were transfused with permitted cryosupernatant plasma it would offer a decent measure of nutritional support. Hence, not only is utter falsehood found in this position, the position is also self-contradictory.
Regarding Item 2 above, it leverages what we find in the natural world. (See Ps 19) The problem is, it is patently false to say blood settles out naturally as plasma, red cells, white cells and platelets. First of all, there is no instance in nature where this is true. None. In nature, when blood settles out, it settles out as two components, not four. Those two components are serum and a clot. Second, were it true that blood settles out naturally as plasma, red cells, white cells and platelets, we’d all be dead. This is because our blood is designed to clot if it is not circulating. If it does not clot then even small abrasions could lead to death because we’d bleed out. So this idea is just flat out false. 
Because the two fundamental underpinnings the society asserts for its religious position are total nonsense, then either they are just flat out dishonest or, as the author above says, the society is "an incompetent organization in this field".
Honestly, folks inside the society should feel utterly embarrassed at this nonsense, and perhaps this explains why not a single insider with any authority is willing to publicly discuss this subject with a learned person on its merit. All they will do in public is argue that a religion has a right to hold doctrinal views, and that individuals have a right to hold doctrinal views. But publicly address the merit with a learned person? No. Never! Well, they are right that religions and individuals have a right to hold whatever religious view they want, but that doesn't mean a religious view they hold is rational or, in this case, scriptural.

The "big freaking deal" is the part of Genesis 9 that holds individuals responsible for deaths caused for teaching something that is false. That falls squarely in the realm of bloodguilt.
You've just put words into God's mouth. Under Mosaic Law Jews were to treat blood as a sacred substance that should not be used for anything, with the sole exception of using it for sacred sacrifice, and Jews were required to use blood in that way.
Aside from Mosaic Law God has never required anyone to treat blood as a sacred substance. Noah was not required to waste blood onto the ground. Of living animals he would kill to eat, Noah was not required to pour the animal's blood onto the ground. Noah could do with that blood anything he wanted to do, except for eating it. That was the sole abstention required of Noah in respect to the substance of blood.
Oh, and, before I forget to mention it, God didn't not say anything to Noah about "all blood". The only blood he talked to Noah about was blood of living animals and the blood of human's who were killed for unjustified reason. To Noah, at no time did God address 1) blood of animals dead of natural cause, or 2) donor blood.
One more thing. Christians are not under Mosaic Law. They never have been.

In 200 years, no one on this planet will ever know that we existed and we will have been DEAD a long time.
Jehovah has the power to change all that, so what’s the big freaking deal?

JWI, you have my profound apology that I made you feel goaded into a response. It was not my intention. You articulate yourself as knowledgeable and willing to entertain subjects others would ignore because of the work of thinking. (And thinking is work!) When I run into a person like this I feel I can learn from them, so I engage. In this case it felt like goading on your end. For that I apologize.
What you've written sounds appropriate to me, especially the part about not being dogmatic in the face of a possibility "IT" could refer to everything God had just given to humans, not only the vegetation. And, to be sure, I'm not going to leverage a possibility here.
WARNING: What follows uses the term "eat" to mean take in the digestive track as food nutrition. If this usage offends a reader's senses this is forewarning.
Assuming the likelihood that "IT" only refers to vegetation that was given, that still does not change that, as vegetation was given, dominion of the animals and "all the earth" was also given. The antecedent of giving dominion of animals and "all the earth" had to have a consequent. If, as you propose, the consequent is not expressly stated then the question becomes, what is the consequent of being given dominion of animals and of being given "all the earth". So then we look at actions involving animals and "all the earth" that God approved of for an answer. What do we find? Here are a few examples:
- Humans could use animal skins as clothing; hence humans could use animal flesh to serve practical needs, including transplanting animal tissue onto their own tissue (that's what clothing is).
- Abel herded sheep, so humans could coral or otherwise control animals.
- Abel killed animals, so humans could take the life of animals for their own purposes.
- Abel offered choice animal parts to God, so humans understood the rich pieces of meat and offered those to God. (Would Abel have offered to God something for Him to consume that he [Abel] thought was indecent or inappropriate to consume for himself?)
- Humans could eat milk. This despite it not being vegetation.
- Humans could eat water. This despite it not being vegetation.
Given these, it is utterly impossible to conclude the consequent of being given dominion of animals did not include eating their flesh, and this is precisely the unstated consequent of being given vegetation presented in the near parallel account at Genesis 9. I mean, if humans could transplant animal tissue onto the own tissue, how does one argue this wouldn't include the tissue of the mouth and esophagus? Tissue is tissue.
I'm glad to hear this. I agree there is some sort of poetic prose going on in the early Genesis account. You've alluded to it yourself in former postings here, and in this case you do so by underscoring what comes across as deliberate intent in relation to vegetation (herbs, trees, et. al.). Yet we know humans being given dominion of animals and "all the earth" had some consequent, and if it's unstated that leaves practically endless possibilities. We know too that vegetation was not the sole thing humans could eat, because they could eat water and milk too (of necessity).
Which brings something else into question regarding animals. What, precisely, is the "green vegetation" that deep sea creatures are supposed to eat? The text doesn't say, and there's no photosynthesis to produce green vegetation.
When it comes to what soulical creatures could utilize as food, the early Genesis account is woefully incomplete. It paints a picturesque serenity, when in fact there was lots of defecation, death and ecosystem at work (what many people look upon as "gore"). It's interesting that, as an educated agrarian, my view understands all this (natural earth ecosystems) is at work all around me all the time (including in my own gut!), and it does not strike me as "gore". Even looking upon maggots existing and doing what they do is not gore for me to watch, it's a wondrous example of converting biological tissue into something useful for other forms of life to flourish. Anyone who grew up enough years ago also knows what an "outhouse" is. Anyone who says they never got curious and looked to the bottom to see what was going on is a liar. It's ecosystem on steroids. Those worms are just lapping that defecation up like their swimming a pasta! It's not green vegetation that those animals are eating. They're eating something that Adam and Eve were unavoidably defecating as a natural process. After eating that defecation the castings left behind by those worms is a super-food for botanical life in the form of nitrogen and other important nutrients.
 All this just strikes me as natural and normal. But, for whatever reason, the Genesis writer seems to have wanted to paint an idealistic view of Eden.
 

No need to apologize. I didn't mean to sound too serious. It was merely a setup to be able to say that I will "stop kicking against the goads" which I decided to skip saying anyway.
I don't mind the overlapping meaning of eating with drinking on a technical level, but regarding Bible commentary, Hebrew and Greek both had separate terms for eating chewable food and drinking liquid food. So I don't know how much we could ever expect the term to overlap in Hebrew (or Greek).
(Deuteronomy 9:9) . . .I remained on the mountain 40 days and 40 nights, eating no food and drinking no water. 
(Luke 17:26-28) Moreover, just as it occurred in the days of Noah, so it will be in the days of the Son of man: 27  they were eating, they were drinking,... and the Flood came and destroyed them all. 28  Likewise, just as it occurred in the days of Lot: they were eating, they were drinking, they were buying, they were selling, they were planting, they were building.
True. You can't expect a Bible account to give every detail we might wonder about. Much of the text is poetic shorthand. Also although the term does mean "green," the exact same term will often just mean grass/leaves/stalks etc. For example, both of the following are good translations:
(Numbers 22:4) So Moʹab said to the elders of Midʹi·an: “Now this congregation will devour all our surroundings, just as a bull devours the grass in the field.”. . .
(Numbers 22:4) 4 So Moʹab said to the elders of Midʹi·an: “Now this congregation will devour all our surroundings, just as a bull devours the green in the field.”. . .
This reminded me that the term "devour" is actually the NWT choice for a word that technically means to "lick up" which is the way the KJV and others translate it. But I mention it because the usual term for "eat" is the same word often translated "devour," especially when it comes to beasts. It would be odd, but a translator would thus have the right to say that Adam and Eve were given every tree to "devour." Or to Noah "You must not devour [flesh with its] blood." That potential connotation could refer to the fact that the mouth is chewing something up and therefore smashing and crushing with teeth, for example. That may be part of the reason that the word is never used of milk, water, or alcohol. 

The text of Genesis 9 is not of my making. I'm just taking it for what it addresses, and what it says about what it addresses. The portion that required an abstention from eating blood was said of living creatures that would be killed to eat.
By soulical, I refer to that which is alive as a soul. A soul is composed of two things that must be joined, or else there is no soul, no life. Those two components are a body formed from the dust and the breath of life. (Gen 2:7; Eccl 3:19-20) As living flesh, humans are souls. As living flesh, animals are souls. Without life both are just formed dust of the ground. No more.
The text of Genesis 9 does not speak at all to animals that died of natural cause, but it does speak of animals killed by humans. Hence how an animal dies is relevant. Of natural cause, the text does not speak of it. Of human hand, the text does speak of it.
Unless the animal's life was taken by human hand, then it's not subject to the text of Genesis 9. Otherwise, the sort of deaths you speak of would be natural cause in the animal kingdom. (2 Pet 2:12) How a person would determine cause of death would be up to each person before God's eyes. But there would be instances where cause would be discernible as natural. If, for instance, you see a goat fall from a cliff face it's attempting to climb, you could be pretty sure the cause was natural. If, for instance, you find a cow dead from hemorrhage during calving, you could be pretty sure the cause was natural. I could go on.
The relevance of "soulicalness" is addressed just above.
This is irrelevant. The same could be said of vegetation. Humans are subject to illness from every food source known to man. This is true of fresh and preserved food, whether botanical or biological.
Well, for starters, human hunting and killing of an animal would make food of that animal subject to the text of Genesis 9. Second, you legitimately raised the issue of 'low-hanging fruit', and making use of animal flesh found dead of natural cause whose flesh is fit to eat is 'low-hanging fruit' from multiple perspectives, including the fact that one didn't have to subject themselves to the dangers of trying to kill an animal who's going to fight in defense of itself.
What Adam or Noah may or may not have been able to do is speculation, and I don't like to build arguments on speculation. I'd rather start with premises that are actually evidenced.
Hopefully my response in this case helps. If you still have questions to challenge things I've said, please do ask them. If I'm wrong I want to know it.
In this discussion I've addressed multiple subjects that impinge the issue of scriptural underpinnings for refusing transfusion of products rendered from blood. The subject of animal carcasses dead of natural cause is just one of many I've raised. These carcasses are potentially loaded with blood, and nothing said to Noah (or Adam!) prohibited the eating of this flesh one way or another.
 

The consequences of the procedures differ. The first one was sentenced to death. There is no penalty for the second procedure.
So why does the exclusion apply to those who take blood. That is, according to the new regulation, it is called self-exclusion.
WTJWorg Lawyers playing with legalism of term disfellowshipping and dissociating. They want to present GB as respecters of human rights to freedom of choice.

That's fine. From here on I'll let readers alert me if anything you present deserves my attention. So far all you've done is spew blather in the face of simple questions a child should be able to answer. Why you do this (and the same is true of us all) is for readers to decide as they will, and that's how it should be.
Should want to me to re-engage discussion with you then it's as easy as you answering the two simple questions asked here:
Until then, goodbye.

… so, Alphonse … what is it you are downvoting?
Are you downvoting the hard fact that Jehovah himself mentioned Canibalism?
Or are you downvoting the hard fact that he did not prohibit Cannibalism?
And what REALLY happened to Able’s body after Cain killed him?
Hmmmmmm?
 
 

With false premise logic, you can unravel EVERYTHING!


 
Jehovah God HIMSELF mentions cannibalism several times …. and NOWHERE prohibits it.
 

Answering "why" is always difficult, and we may never have a definitively solid answer to the questions posed above.
However, in Journal of Contemporary Religion (Vol. 12, No. 2, 1997, pp. 133-157) professors Rodney Stark and Laurence Iannaccone co-authored an article titled Why the Jehovah’s Witnesses Grow so Rapidly: A Theoretical Application. Therein they posit a theoretical model of why religious movements succeed to see how well it explains growth amongst JWs. A proposition within this model may offer insight into the "why" question above.
That proposition is:
New religious movements are likely to succeed to the extent that they maintain a medium level of tension with their surrounding environment—are strict, but not too strict.
According to Stark and Iannaccone,
Applied to the Witnesses, the issue is not whether they are sufficiently strict, but whether they aren’t too strict. Their stormy relations with outsiders, especially governments, make it clear that they are in considerable tension with their environment. The very high expectations concerning religious and missionary activity, their unbending pacifism, rejection of flag-saluting and anthem-singing, and their refusal to have blood transfusions all demonstrate considerable “strictness”. On the other hand, the Witnesses are comfortable with much of the general culture. Although they prohibit smoking, they do not prohibit drinking—and most of them do. They have no distinctive dress requirements and female Witnesses do not stint on cosmetics—publishers are expected to be nicely dressed and well-groomed, when they go calling. They do not prohibit going to sporting events, movies, plays, or watching television--although many believe this is a waste of precious time better devoted to missionary work. Consequently, it is impossible to identify a Witness, unless he or she volunteers the information. Visibility may, in fact, be the crucial factor for identifying when groups impose too much tension or strictness. [Underline added for emphasis]
If this is true, there is reason to believe the answer to the "why" question has more to do with growing a religious movement than being rational. If true, this would explain a great deal. It would, for example, explain why, to this day, not a single member of the governing body is willing to openly and publicly engage in a critical analysis of the blood doctrine they stubbornly hold to despite overwhelming evidence the doctrine is not only unsound but outright refuted. It would also explain all the society's demonstrably fallacious responses it offers in its literature addressing the subject. Then we have all the society's online die-hards, who, to the person, fail over and over again to offer any rational reasons supporting their leaders' position. They don't have this rationale because the ones they entrust with their decision-making have not offered them suitable material.
It may end up being the case that the society is running a religion business rather than a moral compass anchored on rational biblical foundation. It pains me to say it, but there it is. I've said it out loud. Of course, those of us like me know we were taught from infancy that the society's religious positions are [soundly] reasoned from the scriptures. Yet, as older, more experienced and educated adults we've learned we do not have sound reasoning that support the society's current religious position on blood. We also learned that insiders tasked to answer for this doctrine (like Fred Rusk) have utterly failed in their attempts. Over and over again they've offered false premises to underpin the doctrine.
This finding may be confirmed by the society's own publications and doctrinal evolution:
The society's own literature demonstrates that since 1945 the JW community consistently objected on sound bases to the notion that it was wrong to teach the scriptures forbid transfusion of donor blood to save life and/or health. Regardless, the society just turned up the heat on this doctrine to the point where it became a matter that could lead to a JW being disfellowshipped (excommunicated).
The doctrinal evolution of this religious position also shows a dial feature related to "personal conscience matters" and what it terms "minor fractions" that have the effect of mitigating harm to JWs whilst maintaining the overall doctrine. Over the years the society has used these doctrinal features to dial up or dial down the tension caused by its blood doctrine, again whilst still maintaining the overall doctrinal position.
The whole thing smacks of business building strategy rather than offering a sound scriptually based moral compass.

Yeah. Seen it. Experienced it. Reminds me of another source that would go “crickets” when asked tough questions. Once, when suggesting an in-person audience on a narrow subject, the response was “We don’t have an arrangement for that.” Too many people don’t want to answer for themselves on the spot, which they should be willing to do, if they’re convinced they’re right and do not worry about being wrong. But I don’t want to whine. I’m as imperfect as the next man. But, if I’m wrong I want to know it. 

I wouldn't hold my breath. Not saying anything about George specificially, of course, but you will find certain people on forums, including ones who love or need a few 'sock puppets' and, over time, literally 40+ different "handles" are often of the type who will never admit a mistake. I've been on this forum for about 8 years now, and someone ilke George, throughout 40 of his different names never admitted to one mistake during that entire time, and probably made hundreds of them. Someone couldn't even point out a simple typo without seeing his supposed justification for it. I suppose you could get: "I was testing you to see if you were still ignoring me." But more likely you will get ignored, and then soon notice a new name carrying on the same style of 'dialogue' and 'discussion.'

Like you said, "why does it matter" that a millionaire business tycoon was the first president of the Watch Tower Society before Russell.
Russell sent Rose Ball and her husband to Australia just before the trial. So Rose couldn't be there to testify. Russell would not have been able to deceive the court about her age if she had been there. The court didn't refuse to allow it. Russell made a fool of himself in court. He showed his vindictiveness and he was deceitful and egotistical.
On another occasion in court Russell directly perjured himself but was allowed to change his testimony in the following day(s) to state the exact opposite of what he testified earlier (under oath!). The courts were fairly lenient with C T Russell. Russell then used his own public "pulplt" including the pages of the Watchtower itself to fight against (and perhaps even slander) Mrs Russell in the court of public opinion.
Since we got onto this topic of the power of the Watchtower's presidency, this reminds me that Rutherford also used the pages of the Watchtower and even a Watchtower Convention resuolution to slander a man who, by almost all accounts, had told the truth about Rutherford and even won in a lawsuit against him.
Obviously these scandalous occasions do not define the Watchtower or Watchtower presidents. They were rare, and all the good that has been successfully accomplished overrides these past fiascos and failures. Like the Bible's account of Samson, we have to accept some bad with the good. People are imperfect, often unfaithful and indiscreet.

Well, I could say that:
1. it is possible to be very (highly) educated, very rich and at the same time be a good Christian
2. it is possible to make a good deal and see a business opportunity as the president of a publishing company that deals with religious topics
 

The Watchtoewr's publications including those promoted and distributed by the Watchtower Society have always presented the opposite view. And I don't think they would have any reason to lie about this. See "The Biography of Charles Taze Russell" published by the WTBTS and Russell's funeral address by Rutherford, and "Fatih on the March" by A H MacMillan but promoted and distributed by the WTBTS. Also see Russell's own statements about how he would make all decisions by himself and that the board would not come into play at all until and unless Russell died.
The view from the Watchtower has been that it was only the President of the Society who made all decisions and that the board was just a legal formality. Russell WAS the Society, as claimed in Watchtower publcations. It sounds like you are saying the Watchtower wasn't telling the truth when they made this claim. Do you have any evidence against the Watchtower's claims?

Srecko,
That last video has a lot of the same points made by Fred Franz when he gave his infamous Sept 1975 speech at the 59th Gilead Graduation and railed and ranted against the idea of a governing body. Of course, he was preparing to take over as a governing individual, and thus opposed a governing body for the wrong reasons, it seems. But at least Brother Franz' points were all scriptural when he showed why a governing body was not scriptural.

I've never had the chance to pitch a tent, but I don't think that skill should be underestimated.
ARC said that WTJWorg had not reported a single case. What came to the police was because of individuals who reported the crime.
I will answer that in a "stupid" way: "The whole world is under the power of Satan. And people are imperfect. What to expect?". 
.....WTJWorg operate under same conditions.
Good answer?  
 

I came across some more interesting information that I would like to share with you.
You remember that we saw how God arranged the issue of dead animals for human consumption. He told the Israelis that they were not allowed to eat such animals, but that they could freely sell them to non-Israelis, thus commercializing the prohibition to their advantage.
However, I came across an article from the WT, October 15, 1981, which puts a negative light on that decree of God if it were to be applied today. 
Quotes (not in same order as in article):
...Finally, questions have arisen about disposing of animal carcasses that have blood in them. In Israel a person who found a carcass of an animal that died of itself could sell it to a foreigner who was not interested in keeping God’s law. (Deut. 14:21) It is noteworthy, however, that this provision was not made so that an Israelite might make a regular business of trafficking in blood or unbled meat. .........
....Accordingly, a farmer today might have to get rid of an unbled carcass, such as a cow that he found dead so that it was no longer possible to drain the blood. Or a hunter might find a dead animal in a trap. What could he do with such an unbled animal? Sell the carcass to a rendering plant? Sell the dead animal to a non-Christian who had some personal or commercial use for the flesh? The individual Christian would have to decide for himself after considering what the law of the land requires and factors such as those discussed above, including the value of having a good conscience before God and men.—Acts 24:16 -
.....Yet Christians know from the Bible that blood is not simply another biological product to be used in any way possible or profitable.
.....Do you see the point? Though they could eat neither blood nor fat, Jehovah said that they could put fat to uses other than in sacrifice. But God did not say that about blood. If blood was not put on the altar, it was to be poured out on the ground, thus returning the animal’s life to the Life-Giver.—Lev. 7:22-27.
Christians are not under the Mosaic law. (Rom. 7:6; Col. 2:13-16) We are, though, specifically commanded to “abstain . . . from blood.” And we surely ought to respect the sacredness of blood, realizing that our salvation has been made possible through the blood of Christ. (Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:13, 14, 20) A Christian who deeply appreciates this does not need endless rules about what he should do with regard to commercial uses of blood.
Consider, for instance, the use of blood as fertilizer. When an Israelite hunter poured an animal’s blood out on the ground it was not in order to fertilize the soil. He was pouring it on the earth out of respect for blood’s sacredness. So, would a Christian with a similar appreciation of the significance of blood deliberately collect it from slaughtered animals so that he could use it as fertilizer? Hardly, for such commercialization of blood would not be in accord with deep respect for the life-representing value of blood.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1981770
 
We must be clear about one fact. WTJWorg equates animal blood with human blood. This is something that deserves further discussion. Because every blood prohibition mentioned in the Bible is related to animal blood and flesh.
In the past, the commercialization of blood was not prohibited. Today GB considers it something bad and non-Christian behavior. They go so far as to admonish JWs that it would be improper to feed our pets with the blood of other animals.
The GB literally interprets the commandment "to abstain from the blood" of the flesh of animals to mean that the animal must be slaughtered and that the blood must be bled, poured on the ground.
Now the problem begins when this teaching (Bible command) should be applied to human blood. Obviously, GB believes that other rules apply here. But they didn't explain why.
If all blood is to be "poured on earth", how is it possible that GB has no objection to human blood being collected and commercialized?
How is it possible that GB thinks that JWs are allowed to use blood, even some parts of blood, when that blood has come out of the body and therefore cannot be used for any purpose other than the one that God intended for it? God intended the use of blood only as a sacrifice.
Is the blood that people donate (or charge for it, anyway) a kind of act that implies some kind of sacrifice (for humanitarian reasons) for another human being?