JW Insider

9 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Stop judging others ,,,,Miles and you are the biggest Judges here

I'm not even sure exactly where MIles is coming from on this topic. I thought I was more in agreement with @xero and @Pudgy on this point that we aren't really abstaining from blood if we accept almost anything made from blood. I didn't think that this was "judging," because I'm in full agreement with anyone and everyone who accepts these components based on their conscience. I would not judge anyone for taking any component of blood that they deemed life-saving. I would rather err on the side of what Jesus said about how saving a life is more important than keeping the law. And, in a similar vein, I have no problem with anyone who decides that blood is too risky and potentially unhealthy in their situation and they would rather err on the side of "abstaining." And lastly, there will be those who are ready to give up their life even in a definite situation where they are completely aware than some form of blood therapy will extend their earthly life, and they still choose to abstain, even from the tiniest of fractions. For them: R-E-S-P-E-C-T. 

To be honest, I couldn't quite figure out how not judging others for taking blood therapies or transplants was making me a judge of others. I hope you didn't think that it meant I was judging those who would NOT take blood therapies or transplants. Perhaps it came across as too self-righteous because I invoked the example Jesus used and made it look like others were not listening to Jesus if they didn't accept something that might be life-saving. If that was your point, then I should have, of course, included the flip-side of what Jesus also said:

(Matthew 16:25, 26) . . .For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. Really, what good will it do a man if he gains the whole world but loses his life? Or what will a man give in exchange for his life? 

I hadn't thought it necessary to repeat that part of the equation because that's already the subtext that is baked into all of our discussions about blood. 
 

53 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

The same thing with blood. If it EVER was whole blood, the component parts never stop being blood.

I think this is true. A lot of people have made the argument that blood is 80% water, or that the major component called plasma is 90% water, and we know there is nothing wrong with water. This is still a bad argument.

It reminds me of what David might have said if some of his men said, "David, you said you wanted water, and a lot of men were bleeding, but we found a way to separate the water from their blood. Here! Won't you have this bottle of water we got for you?"

5 hours ago, Thinking said:

besides all that…I sincerely hope  you will be okay with your health and I mean that…I really hope things improve for you so you don’t even have to consider the above…

Thanks for your concern. I didn't mean to give the impression that I had any medical ailments that I know about. I'm 66 and my body aches a bit more after a hard day's work, but I have no diseases that I know about. 

I have been sleeping in very dry air this winter and I have a sore throat that I get about 1 out of 3 winters. My voice gets so low (bass) that I start singing "Old Man River" from Show Boat about 100 times a day.

Ironically I also got a nose bleed last night, very rare for me, and even more ironically I could taste and smell the iron when bits of it trickle into the back of my throat and I spit it out. I typed a couple of long posts last night with my head tilted back and a tissue stuffed into my left nostril. I couldn't even see the screen as I typed.

Another bit of medical disclosure. I have been a near-vegetarian for almost a year now, still having milk and cheese, and making a once-a-week exception for fish, and about a once-a-month exception for an egg or two. I love the new international flavors I had never tried before. I have nothing against meat, but I'm on this diet because my wife is on a very similar doctor-recommended diet and it seems to be helping her quite a bit.  

38 minutes ago, xero said:

My point is that when you can take what amounts to everything but the cell wall, just so long as you do it in small enough pieces just sounds to any unindoctrinated observer as pharisaical nit picking. 

I agree that it is. But that's if we are trying to claim we can take some fractions (especially the one you just alluded to) and claim we are still abstaining from blood. I'd say that it should be a matter of conscience if one accepts those fractions, but just don't go around claiming that you are still abstaining from blood. You are accepting blood, because your conscience has allowed you to take a risk that such a use of blood, even though technically not abstaining, is potentially life-saving. Also, that it is not the same as eating blood, and is still showing respect for life and the life-giving properties of blood itself. If it is a breaking of God's law, then it's only because one's conscience allows for the higher principles of Jesus about life over law, and the increased freedom of conscience that Paul promoted. 

11 hours ago, Pudgy said:

I am a Barbarian at heart, and that is why the example of David pouring the water on the ground resonates so deeply with me

It resonates with me too. Life is too important to put at so much risk, even for soldiers believing they are doing the right thing for the war effort.

That same idea can be interpreted to think of the importance of blood as representing life. So those who take that idea seriously, even those who would never drink a drop of blood, might be all the more anxious to use any means possible to save a life, even if it involves the medical use of blood. (e.g., fractions, reintroducing one's own blood into one's body during a surgery instead of pouring it out on the ground, etc)

Jesus said that saving a human life was more important than following the law.  

As an aside, Paul was a kind of Barbarian for a Jew. As a tentmaker he had a very undesired job for a Jew. He was working with the hides of dead animal bodies. It could be a stinky job, too. That's similar to the job that Simon the Tanner from Joppa had. Peter was staying at this tanner's house when he had the dream that he was supposed to slaughter and eat reptiles (et al). 

Tertullian's father was also a Barbarian of sorts. After Tiberius condemned the practice of sacrificing babies, Tertullian's father helped to crucify priests of Saturn who had been caught openly sacrificing babies. He crucified them on the very trees overlooking the temples of Saturn where their crimes took place. 

And of course Jesus himself leads a war resulting in the spilling of much blood, even to the point of making his enemies drink blood. 

(Revelation 14:20) The winepress was trodden outside the city, and blood came out of the winepress as high up as the bridles of the horses for a distance of 1,600 stadia.
(Revelation 16:5, 6) . . .I heard the angel over the waters say: “You, the One who is and who was, the loyal One, are righteous, for you have issued these judgments, . . . and you have given them blood to drink; they deserve it.” 

I'm guessing that not all Barbarians will see what David did and draw the same conclusions.

2 hours ago, xero said:

When does life really begin?" "How many clumps of cells does it take before it's considered a human?"

Early Christians also spoke out against abortion, the "Didache" for example. I liked what Tertullian said about abortion and I included it above:

. . . it is not permitted to break up even what has been conceived in the womb, while as yet the blood is being drawn (from the parent body) for a human life. Prevention of birth is premature murder, and it makes no difference whether it is a life already born that one snatches away, or a life in the act of being born that one destroys; that which is to be a human-being is also human; the whole fruit is already actually present in the seed.

Curiously, however, Tertullian also thought abortion was wrong because one would be breaking up a 9-month-long blood transfusion that the baby was in the process of getting from its mother. This is, in effect, correct although not technically accurate medically. But it's curious that Tertullian picked up on this idea. 

4 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

So, from my point of view, any exegetical possibilities about some passages like the ones you mention pale next to the rest of the evidence. They are that, a possibility. For me, the certainty is that since Noah the servants of Jehovah did not drink/we don't drink/we will not drink  blood.

The fact that we as Christians are not under law does not mean that we would break just any law or advocate that anyone else would break just any law. I think we all have a proper aversion to eating or drinking blood and for me this includes avoiding any meat that hasn't been properly drained of its blood. 

Of course, when we say "properly drained" there are probably a variety of methods and I don't care to look into them too closely. Whenever I do, I end up being vegetarian for a few months. But I can look at meat and pretty much tell if it seems reasonably bloodless to me. I can't imagine that any meat eating Christians or Jews had methods that were so much better at squeezing out anything more.

I suspect that Paul thought Christians would use their best judgment (visually) and wasn't concerned that anyone should try to make rules about how best to butcher animals. For the most part, even among gentiles, there was a lot of natural aversion to eating/drinking blood, except for certain pagan rituals which, as Christians, they would already be avoiding. 

4 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

As we know, even Tertullian writes that Christians abstained from the custom of drinking blood. Yes, the Early Church held this commandment as a whole.

I've always thought this was important testimony, too. For those who haven't seen it, I'll include it here:

CHAP. IX. . . . . But to us, to whom homicide has been once for all forbidden, it is not permitted to break up even what has been conceived in the womb, while as yet the blood is being drawn (from the parent body) for a human life. Prevention of birth is premature murder, and it makes no difference whether it is a life already born that one snatches away, or a life in the act of being born that one destroys; that which is to be a human-being is also human; the whole fruit is already actually present in the seed. With regard to banquets of blood and such like tragic dishes, you may read whether it is not somewhere stated (it is in Herodotus, I think) that certain tribes had arranged the tasting of blood drawn from the arms of both sides to signify ratification of a treaty. Something of the same kind was tasted also under Catiline. They say that among certain tribesmen of the Scythians also each dead person becomes food for his own relations. But I am wandering too far. On this very day, in this very country, blood from a wounded thigh, caught in a palm of the hand and given to her worshippers to drink, marks the votaries of Bellona. Again, what of those who, by way of healing epilepsy, at the gladiatorial show, drain with eager thirst the blood of slaughtered criminals, while it is still fresh and flowing down from the throat? Or what of those, who dine on bits of wild-beast from the arena, who seek a slice of boar or stag ? That boar in the struggle wiped off the blood from him whom he had first stained with gore; that stag wallowed in a gladiator's blood. The paunches of the very bears are eagerly sought, while they are yet gorged with undigested human flesh; thus flesh that has been fed on man is forthwith vomited by man. You that eat such things, how far removed you are from the feasts of the Christians! . . . Your crimes ought to blush before us Christians, who do not reckon the blood even of animals among articles of food, who abstain even from things strangled and from such as die of themselves, lest we should in any way be polluted even by blood which is buried within the body. Again, among the trials of the Christians you offer them sausages actually filled with blood, being of course perfectly aware that the means you wish to employ to get them to abandon their principles is in their eyes impermissible. Further, how absurd it is for you to believe that they, who you are assured, abhor the blood of beasts, are panting for the blood of man, unless perchance you have found the former more palatable! . . .  

31 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

I would like to ask a question. Were the writers of the Bible aware that they were "inspired", as the term "inspired" is explained today?

Don't know.

But the explanation for the differences in this particular example could easily be that the Acts 15 decree was right for the time and place, just as letting prophets speak up in the first century congregation was right for the time and place. Peter's "killing" of two members of the congregation for lying about the extent of a financial contribution might have been right for the time and place. Certain types of healing, use of oil, speaking in tongues, etc., might also have right for the time and place. The holy spirit may well have been "leading" through difficult periods in ways that were not going to be right for another time, or even for other congregations with different situations.  

Just a quick recap. I flippantly predicted that all medical blood products become a matter of conscience in 2026 and you said then that means you could argue that fornication and idol worship would also be a matter of conscience:

On 12/19/2023 at 8:46 PM, Thinking said:

On 12/19/2023 at 7:52 PM, JW Insider said:

2026: Blood related therapies in any form are now (officially) a matter of conscience. 

2026…so I could argue that means fornication and idol worship was a matter of conscience 

I wanted to acknowledge that idea by saying that a Christian like James would react similarly if he knew Paul was now saying it was OK for gentiles to eat meat sacrificed to an idol, after James had written that gentile Christians should abstain from meat sacrificed to an idol. Thus: 

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

. . . a Jamesian Christian would react much like @Thinking just reacted before. Something like: "Well, if Paul says we can eat meat sacrificed to an idol, then that's like Paul saying fornication is now OK." 

To that, you said: 

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

No..dont twist my words and meanings…yes I said that ….but my conclusions on transfusions come from the way Jehovah viewed blood all the way thru the scriptures…thus  I am not a Jamieson  Christian but a scriptural one….well I’m trying to be..

So I first wanted to point out that James was also a scriptural Christian and he would also have drawn his conclusions about blood (and meat sacrificed to idols) from the way Jehovah viewed blood (and sacrifice and idolatry) all the way throughout the scriptures. So I think that in this regard all of us should want to be Jamesian Christians. 

If anything, James was looking for a good scriptural compromise that would help Christian Jews and Christian Gentiles be able to associate more closely.

After all, Christian association involved feasts and eating together. So much so that some were even using the Memorial celebration as another time for a feast. 

• (Galatians 2:11, 12) . . .However, when Ceʹphas came to Antioch, I resisted him face-to-face, because he was clearly in the wrong. ¹² For before certain men from James arrived, he used to eat with people of the nations; but when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself, . . .
• (Jude 12) . . .at your love feasts while they feast with you, shepherds who feed themselves. . .
• (2 Peter 2:13) . . .while feasting together with you. 
• (1 Corinthians 11:20, 21, 33, 34) . . .When you come together in one place, it is not really to eat the Lord’s Evening Meal. ²¹  For when you eat it, each one takes his own evening meal beforehand, so that one is hungry but another is intoxicated. . . . Consequently, my brothers, when you come together to eat it, wait for one another. ³⁴  If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that when you come together it is not for judgment
• (Matthew 9:11) . . .“Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”
• (1 Corinthians 10:27) If an unbeliever invites you and you want to go, eat whatever is set before you. . .
   

Without putting words in your mouth, or twisting them, like I did before, I'm going to try to guess what you probably mean. I think you are saying that Paul may have had a point in contradicting James on the "food sacrificed to idols" part of the decree, but that the blood part of the decree was too important, and there could be no rationale against such a longstanding decree that seems to go all through the entire Bible.  

If that's what you mean, then I'd say that personally I agree. The Bible remains clear on the blood issue, and I can't think of eating blood without finding it repulsive. I find the same thing goes on in my mind with medical uses of blood, even though I am aware that this isn't really the same as eating blood. Making use of whole blood or fractions of blood for medical purposes is more like a partial organ/tissue transplant. And it can be just as dangerous as other organ/tissue transplants. 

But I think that the central body of elders for modern day congregations of Witnesses have done something similar to what James was doing. They have looked for a scriptural compromise in allowing once-forbidden organ transplants and once-forbidden tissue transplants, but have still tried to show a respect for the idea of abstaining from blood, even in medical procedures that have nothing to do with eating blood. 

So although I am still a bit revulsed at the idea of using blood for medical purposes, I remember that I had the same revulsion for heart, kidney and liver transplants. To a smaller extent I still do. What you said before about heart transplants resonated with me. And what Pudgy said about David's refusal to even drink water representing blood resonated with me too. 

But the more we understand about medical procedures, and the more we can make our own decisions about safety risks, we can start to be less revulsed by the medical use of fractions, and less revulsed by other tissue/organ transplants. In fact, I long ago decided that I wouldn't impose my own conservative conscience upon my children. Then more recently I decided that some of these medical options might even become viable for me if a situation ever called for it. 

On David's choice, it seems that Jesus made a point that it actually would have been OK for David not just to drink that water, perfectly legal, but to actually break God's law and even eat the shewbread that only the priests could eat upon penalty of death for anyone else:

(Matthew 12:2-7) . . .the Pharisees said to him: “Look! Your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” 3 He said to them: “Have you not read what David did when he and the men with him were hungry? 4 How he entered into the house of God and they ate the loaves of presentation, something that it was not lawful for him or those with him to eat, but for the priests only? . . . ⁷ However, if you had understood what this means, ‘I want mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless ones.

(Matthew 12:11, 12)  He said to them: “If you have one sheep and that sheep falls into a pit on the Sabbath, is there a man among you who will not grab hold of it and lift it out? ¹² How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! . . .

(Matthew 15:6-11) . . .’ So you have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition.. . .¹¹  It is not what enters into a man’s mouth that defiles him, but it is what comes out of his mouth that defiles him.”

Perhaps we are just not ready for what may well have been Paul's outlook for gentiles on blood, things strangled, and meat sacrificed to idols. But we are slowly moving in the right direction. Previously, I think I made too much of a point about James going for the Noahide decree as opposed to the Mosaic decree when making a burden for gentiles. Now, I am looking at Paul's view which is apparently against ALL LAW, no matter how good those laws appear. Under Christ, we are no longer under law at all. We don't need to be. There will always be those who will fight the idea and say that if we don't put Christians under at least some law, they are going to go "hog-wild" as a friend of mine at Bethel used to put it. They'll say we can't trust the brothers to do what's right unless we give them rules and goals and quotas. But Paul would have been against the Noahide laws, too. Christians are under "undeserved kindness" not law. 

I like the way Colossians puts it.

(Colossians 2:8-3:5) . . .Look out that no one takes you captive by means of the philosophy and empty deception according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ; because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily.  . . .  God made you alive together with him. He kindly forgave us all our trespasses and erased the handwritten document that consisted of decrees and was in opposition to us. . . . Therefore, do not let anyone judge you about what you eat and drink or about the observance of a festival or of the new moon or of a sabbath. . . . Let no man deprive you of the prize who takes delight in a false humility and a form of worship of the angels, “taking his stand on” the things he has seen. . . .  If you died together with Christ with respect to the elementary things of the world, why do you live as if still part of the world by further subjecting yourselves to the decrees: “Do not handle, nor taste, nor touch,”  referring to things that all perish with their use, according to the commands and teachings of men?  Although those things have an appearance of wisdom in a self-imposed form of worship . . . they are of no value in combating the satisfying of the flesh. . . .  Deaden, therefore, your body members that are on the earth as respects sexual immorality, uncleanness, uncontrolled sexual passion, hurtful desire, and greediness, which is idolatry. 

5 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

Yes, I see your point, and I agree. It could, from our point of view, have been made clearer. Could it be because they are two different contexts?

That seems likely that there are two different contexts. But the two contexts of faith and works are very understandable because they are so intrinsically tied and therefore relatable. If you had first heard only James' "motto" you would understand why Paul was transforming it to make a point, and if you had first heard only Paul's "motto" you would understand why James was transforming it to make a point. A relatable "synthesis" is possible.

But in terms of what we can and can't eat we have two extremes that are not relatable. The differences are so extreme that a Jamesian Christian would react much like @Thinking just reacted before. Something like: "Well, if Paul says we can eat meat sacrificed to an idol, then that's like Paul saying fornication is now OK." 

So, right or wrong, I'm just thinking that a different perspective --which has already been posited by several Bible commentators in the past -- is the most likely one that the WT would consider if the blood doctrine were to be given a complete adjustment. And, to be clear, that perspective is the one that says the directive against "blood" and "things strangled" was important for Jewish acceptance of Gentile believers during a specific time when Jewish-Mosaic norms were still extremely strong among MOST of the original Christians. Jewish Christians didn't trust Gentiles to be truly ready for Christianity. Here are some of those more obvious reasons:

• At the time, Gentile pagan rituals included direct forms of polytheistic idolatry.
  • And Gentile Christians had therefore come from cultures where multiple gods were accepted at once, so that a Gentile Christian might think it was OK to accept Jehovah as God and Jesus as Lord, but still think it was OK to continue the rituals for other so-called gods.
• Gentile idolatry and the religious temples themselves were often associated with immorality. Some pagan festivals highlighted drunkenness (Bacchus) and fornication (Emperor cults, etc) and other obscenities related to fertility, phalluses, etc.  
• Greek and Roman pagan feasts and rituals included eating bloody meat, drinking blood, and might even allow someone to bathe in the dripping blood of a freshly sacrificed bull (Mithraic). 
• Greek and Roman mystery cults did not announce their secret rituals which allowed Jews and Christians to become suspicious of even more grotesque practices.

3 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

So the question was whether or not the meat was offered in a pagan sacrifice, not the blood it might contain.

I agree that blood is not in the context at all. But this was also my point. If abstaining from unbled meat was so important for a Gentile to learn about when it came to matters of conscience, then why wouldn't Paul make the reminder? Especially here, when he uses the same exact term for "meat sacrificed to an idol" that the Jerusalem congregation used (Acts 15 and Acts 21).

Paul said, don't abstain from εἰδωλοθύτων [meat sacrificed to an idol].

James said, abstain from εἰδωλοθύτων [meat sacrificed to an idol].

Paul took the point to an extra degree by saying to eat anything an unbeliever might set before asking NO questions about it.

If it was so important to follow the Acts 15 decree for all time --even when not in the presence of  "Mosaic Christians" like James, Peter and John-- then there would have been at least two additional important questions to ask about it: 1) Was it correctly bled? 2) Was the animal strangled?

3 hours ago, Thinking said:

2026…so I could argue that means fornication and idol worship was a matter of conscience 

I think the reasoning the WT would go with will be something like this: The Acts 15 decree said to abstain from food polluted by idols, and from the meat of strangled animals, too: 

 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.  Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols [εἰδωλοθύτων], from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.

There is a very specific Greek word for "food polluted by idols." [εἰδωλοθύτων] Paul used that exact same specific Greek word in 1 Cor. 8.

Note first what Paul says about "food sacrificed to idols." [εἰδωλοθύτων]:

(1 Cor 8 ) Now about food sacrificed to idols [εἰδωλοθύτων]: We know that “We all possess knowledge.” But knowledge puffs up while love builds up. Those who think they know something do not yet know as they ought to know. But whoever loves God is known by God. So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: [εἰδωλοθύτων]:We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.

And Paul goes on to imply that you as a Christian could actually go ahead and eat this meat sacrificed to an idol right there inside the pagan idol temple itself. But that it's not a good idea because of the weak Christian with a weak conscience who might see you and can't understand why you might be eating food sacrificed to idols in any place.

Then in 1 Cor 10, Paul goes on to say that we don't even need to question whether food was strangled, or whether it was bled correctly, or whether it was sacrificed to an idol. The only thing to be concerned about are those people with weak consciences who are still around and who think we still need the Mosaic Law. (Or at least they were still around in Paul's day.) 

Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.”^[ If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” [εἰδωλοθύτων] then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience. I am referring to the other person’s conscience, not yours. For why is my freedom being judged by another’s conscience? If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?

So a very specific thing that Acts 15 told Gentiles to abstain from was food sacrificed to idols. Yet Paul said go ahead and eat it without any qualms of conscience. Paul said to eat whatever an UNBELIEVER puts in front of you to eat; eat ANYTHING sold in the meat market. This could easily include bloody, strangled meat. ANYTHING!! An unbeliever didn't even necessarily follow the Noahide Laws, much less the Mosaic Laws. 

There were people in Corinth who thought they could argue that fornication and idolatry were OK. Some might consider celebrating the Lord's evening meal along with one of the big idol feasts that each city often held. Paul said that was idolatry, and Paul said to Flee from idolatry. Some were evidently "proud" that the congregation could put up with a notorious fornicator, but Paul gave arguments in 1 Corinthians about why fornication was always wrong. 

So if you follow Paul, you might find that bloody meat and food sacrificed to idols was now a matter of conscience, but you couldn't argue for idolatry and fornication.

The best explanation must therefore be that the holy spirit led those Christians who were still zealous for the Law of Moses to find a reason for some useful compromise. It would be necessary for Gentiles to follow this compromise for as long as Gentile Christians needed to associate with Jewish Christians who were still zealous for the Law.

Acts 21: Then they said to Paul: "You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law.

But after 70 CE, no Jewish Christians could be zealous for the Law any more. If you thought you had to follow any part of the Law then you must follow the whole Law, and the whole Law required the temple. The book of Hebrews shows how the entire temple arrangement had become fulfilled for Jewish Christians. There were no more sacrifices and the city of Jerusalem was not a city that remains, so Jewish Christians (Hebrews) needed to now go OUTSIDE the camp, once and for all time:

(Hebrews 13) Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings. It is good for our hearts to be strengthened by grace, not by eating ceremonial foods, which is of no benefit to those who do so.  We have an altar from which those who minister at the tabernacle have no right to eat. The high priest carries the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place as a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp. And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood.  Let us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore.  For here we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the city that is to come. Through Jesus, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise—the fruit of lips that openly profess his name. And do not forget to do good and to share with others, for with such sacrifices God is pleased.

2 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

It’ somehow has to be motivated by money.

I think that's a logical stretch, but I have heard similar ideas about the recent change to allow publishers to be counted even without any hourly goal to report. In an instant, it could bring up the number of publishers to include those who are just attending and rarely report. If membership now reflects attendance rather than regular service reports, then the numbers go up. This can have the effect of making more Witnesses more enthusiastic about the organization. Remember how we used to hear announcements of increases in country after country at conventions and we'd clap and cheer. This year the only place they pointed to, so far, was the Philippines.

If anyone feels like a full member who didn't before, they might feel more inclined to contribute. It also can make for easier converts who might have previously been taken aback at this "salesmen's approach" to making converts. (If you don't know what I mean, look at some of the older publications referring to sales goals and book-selling campaigns, and compare it to any sales meetings from those days when it was popular for people to go door-to-door selling encyclopedias, vitamins, Amway, magazine subscriptions, Fuller Brush, vacuums, Mary Kay, snake oil, etc.)

There is also the more cynical view that there are a couple of countries that give the JWs a monetary "reward" based on the number of JWs in those countries. This is based on the idea that the religions tend to take some of the burden away from the government for charity, social events, child education, elderly care, weddings, funerals, etc.  

Therefore if a religion increases the number of members, they increase their government "reimbursement." Using a membership number closer to the Memorial attendance could be a financial boon in those countries.

A change in beard policy doesn't seem to fit very well. At best it might make a very few persons feel like "full members" when they didn't feel that way before. It could potentially allow more persons to more easily convert, and therefore more likely to contribute. 

I think we've all heard the rumors that the Organization is losing money, and this has driven the reduction in KH's all over the world. We have even heard it stated in videos on jw.org (not just leaked ones). I suspect a connection to lawsuits and potential lawsuits over sexual abuse, blood, and now shunning. But losing money could also just be based on over-optimism about video projects, and building projects, not the lawsuits. And I have seen no evidence that even that cynicism about number of members, and additional converts is true. 

I prefer to think that the Society just wanted to finally "get out of our hair" on this matter. Nit-picking over such details could stubble someone.  

1 hour ago, George88 said:

If Jesus had proposed to a Rabbi, he would have likely chosen the first option: for the people to see a well-groomed person promoting respect rather than a scruffy Pharisee demanding it.

If Jesus had proposed to a rabbi?

I think I missed the point at first when I heard Brother Lett say this: Others might feel disappointed, saying, in effect, ‘I supported the policy about grooming for all those years. Now I feel let down!’ But is either reaction appropriate?

My first thought was the brother(s) who had to dismiss a brother at Bethel in 1979. The young brother was a Bethel elder, loved by everyone because he always seemed humble and ready to help in any way. He was counted on for a lot of accounting tasks, and Bethelite vacation days, and he was also in charge of requisitions for the purchase of non-Society books that Bethelites would order for their own personal libraries. (I got Josephus and Matthew Henry and Barnes' Notes and a few other books through him.) He came to breakfast one day with well-groomed but obvious weekend-length whiskers, not just "5 o'clock shadow." I remember thinking that he better go back to his room after breakfast to shave before going to work. He didn't, and he must have been called to ask what he was doing, because he was dismissed from Bethel immediately.

I imagined the disappointment and pain of the elders or committees that had to dismiss such a well-loved brother. I think it was Dean Songer who dismissed him, and Songer was probably the cleanest cut man at Bethel with a short 1960's NASA/FBI crewcut. He might have dismissed him with pleasure, but I thought of him anyway as someone who might have been disappointed in losing such a great asset to the Society.

Of course, if you were a brother, usually black, who could show medical or visible evidence of skin bumps and bleeding after each shave, you already had a reprieve. They had "skin in the game," but they would more typically suffer the loss of it, and surreptitiously touch up their wounds with bloody tissues at breakfast so that the scabs would be dry throughout the day.    

2 hours ago, Anna said:

I just found the remark about keeping up with Jehovah's chariot a little strange, and not quite sure what was meant by that.

It was clearly a call for loyalty, obedience, humility and unity. Those aren't bad things.

But the logic did seem a bit strained when they hitched it to the chariot.

What came across as odd to me was the logic that Jehovah's organization moves so fast that the earthly part of the organization can't keep up; it can only try. But we shouldn't try to keep up with Jehovah's organization because that would mean we will be "running ahead" of the earthly organization. In that case, keeping up with Jehovah's organization (the chariot) will cause division and show a bad attitude. It's always better to humbly stay behind Jehovah's organization, but keep up only with the earthly part of that organization. 

And that's the primary focus of the announcement letter, shown below:

[Note how, between points 5 and 6, the announcement letter blurs the line between the earthly and heavenly part of Jehovah's organization.)

3 hours ago, Pudgy said:

what program do you use?

canva and media.io

One of the two pictures of Brother Lett above is not real. I just told an AI program to add a beard. It might be what Brother Lett would look like if he led by example, as in:  "As you see how their conduct turns out, imitate their face." 

https://www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/mediaitems/StudioFeatured/docid-702023024_1_VIDEO

2 hours ago, Many Miles said:

You didn't like that correction saying it was "a distinction without a necessary distinction." (Underlining added)

It's because I believe that if a non-Jewish person could eat an unbled animal that died naturally, then they could also trap or hunt or net an animal (mammal/fish/bird/etc) and eat it unbled. But even if it were only animals that died naturally, which might have been ideal, then it was still OK for people of the nations to eat unbled animals. Narrowing it down to distinguish which kinds were OK doesn't change that overall fact.

With the Jews, they had Moses read in their synagogues week after week so they would know the Mosaic Law. Did all the nations have Noah (Gen 6-9) read to them every week, so they would know the Noahide Law?

(Acts 15:20, 21) . . .but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from what is strangled, and from blood. ²¹  For from ancient times Moses has had those who preach him in city after city, because he is read aloud in the synagogues on every sabbath.”
 

Also, the lines can get blurred. If I create a grazing path for bison at a precarious edge of a cliff, is it NATURAL that one might slip and fall to its death now and then? If a dog is trained to bring back a duck that I didn't quite kill when I hit it with a slingshot, but the dog kills it by holding it by the neck, did it die naturally? What if the dog brings me one that it caught on its own? What about the chipmunk the cat brought to my doorstep that dies after several hours of torture by the cat? If I take an animal from the mouth of a lion that just killed it by chasing away the lion, did it die naturally? 

2 hours ago, Many Miles said:

On the other hand, an animal found dead of natural cause was not alive. It was just formed dust of the earth without breath of life. I don't particularly like the taboo that leads to, but there it is.

I don't know the taboo you mean, but the above could just as well mean that Noah could NOT eat carrion. He could not eat an animal found dead of natural causes. And he couldn't eat an animal that still had blood (or breath) flowing in it. So he could only eat meat he purposely killed. He just couldn't eat it with the blood.

Blood made it taboo, and therefore blood WAS considered a sacred substance by decree of God himself. 

3 hours ago, Pudgy said:

Jehovah never accepted a sacrifice “as food”. He didn’t eat it AT ALL, for nourishment. Fat on the alter had to be prepared “as food” …. not incinerated like medical waste.

Maybe. Maybe not. The Jews of the Hebrew Bible did not necessarily consider Jehovah to be an invisible Spirit the way we do. They considered Jehovah to have a body that could see and hear and EAT and SMELL. (FWIW, ancient Jewish rabbis had no trouble agreeing that Jehovah was circumcised!!!) The idea that smoke from "incinerated" meat created a kind of smoky incense that ascended upwards toward heaven was likely an indication of this consumption by God, leaving only a few ashes. And this idea was spelled out even more clearly in other nearby cultures.

When the Jews would be scattered, they would have to serve gods that were not real and therefore could NOT eat and smell.

(Deuteronomy 4:27, 28) 27 Jehovah will scatter you among the peoples, and just a few of you will survive among the nations to which Jehovah will have driven you. ²⁸ There you will have to serve gods of wood and stone made by human hands, gods that cannot see or hear or eat or smell.

(Leviticus 26:31) . . .I will give your cities to the sword and make your sanctuaries desolate, and I will not smell the pleasing aromas of your sacrifices.
 

I agree that the intent of Leviticus 3 and similar passages was probably to identify ALL the major fatty places for sacrificed animals. It can also be read as: "Don't eat any of the fat, sacrifice all of it, and this INCLUDES the fatty pieces of the inner organs and intestines." That's why I quoted the passage about animala that died naturally or were killed by another animal. In that case, it was NOT about a sacrifice or a priest's portion. 

2 hours ago, Pudgy said:

I can understand the scripture that says eat no fat at all…. if thats the only thing on the plate. 

That's one way around it, I guess. I take it that fat, like blood, is never going to be completely removed from the meat. And several of the Jewish priestly sacrifices paid special attention to the liver, kidneys, and intestines where large chunks of fat could be cut away and made to smoke on the fire or with the 'fatty ashes.' 

But this was not the whole story. First of all the two verses I quoted separately before actually go together:

(Leviticus 3:16, 17) . . .The priest will make them smoke on the altar as food, an offering made by fire for a pleasing aroma. All the fat belongs to Jehovah. ¹⁷  “‘It is a lasting statute for your generations, in all your dwelling places: You must not eat any fat or any blood at all.’”

It wasn't just the major organs containing fat, and it wasn't just in relation to priestly sacrifices:

(Leviticus 7:22-27) Jehovah continued to speak to Moses, saying: ²³ “Tell the Israelites, ‘You must not eat any fat of a bull or a young ram or a goat. ²⁴ The fat of an animal found dead and the fat of an animal killed by another animal may be used for any other purpose, but you must never eat it. ²⁵ For whoever eats fat from an animal that he presents as an offering made by fire to Jehovah must be cut off from his people. ²⁶ “‘You must not eat any blood in any of your dwelling places, whether that of birds or that of animals. ²⁷ Anyone who eats any blood must be cut off from his people.’”