Anna

The funny thing is I actually have no idea what CC is talking about. It's quite amusing really...

The funny thing is I actually have no idea what CC is talking about. It's quite amusing really...

Musing more....
One of the things I noticed as an outside observer prior to becoming one of Jehovah's Witnesses was the business of disfellowshipping and reinstatement. I saw both of these things as an atheist observing.
It struck me at the time as highly unusual. I'd read of excommunication as a Catholic, however I've never knew anyone who was ever disciplined in this way, though it's supposedly on the books.
It struck me that perhaps this was the reason I felt comfortable around these people as a group and in general. There were actual consequences for misbehavior. One could hardly imagine any consequences as a Catholic. No one even made you go to confession, never mind you never had to do anything except repeat "Hail Mary's" and "Our Fathers" to get forgiven (which had never at all been convincing to me).
No, even now it strikes me as a very important thing, this business of discipline.
I have to admit that I have a hard time w/the business of creating loyalty oaths and pledges and if someone won't burn a pinch of incense to an organization then they are persona non gratis...also engaging in thought-policing - that's also wrong.
Now chronically arguing and pushing ideas and engaging in stirring up contentions in the congregation would certainly merit some attention. Maybe not DF'ing, but certainly addressing these things, but always w/a view to reclaiming people, not forcing people to knuckle under. Ultimately, people who don't want to deal w/the discipline and mental regulating of the Bible will leave. Same reason some people who are obese don't want to hang out at the gym.

Hmmmm.... I wonder if you would have known ANY of this had you not been contacted by Jehovah's Witnesses....

Well, it is not exactly as though 4Jah is hanging on my every word.

Hmmmm.... I wonder if you would have known ANY of this had you not been contacted by Jehovah's Witnesses....

Hmmmm.... I wonder if you would have known ANY of this had you not been contacted by Jehovah's Witnesses....

What rubbish. Paul was directly commissioned by Christ. Jesus Christ appeared to Paul when Paul was Saul. 
Acts 9 :4
4and he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?” 5And he said, “Who are You, Lord?” And He said, “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting, 6but get up and enter the city, and it will be told you what you must do.” 7The men who traveled with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. 8Saul got up from the ground, and though his eyes were open, he could see nothing; and leading him by the hand, they brought him into Damascus. 9And he was three days without sight, and neither ate nor drank.

Life is so much better when you don't let curiosity overtake you by unblocking bad smells you previously blocked.

I know one thing you're not doing. Preaching the good news of God's Kingdom. Opposers are like fat leftist introverts who stare at their shoes and play dungeons and dragons and go to cosplay conventions because they loathe life and the demands it makes on them. Therefore anything excellent, they seek to tear down. They don't create, because to create is to be subject to criticism. Nope. They just like to sit in their fat, unaccomplished obesity in their mother's basement.
 

I shouldn't reply. But hey. Buddy... Unless you are part of a denomination you aren't going to go door to door pushing living by the Bible. If you do w/o being part of a group, then you'll come off like the dangerous kook you likely are.

This might actually be simpler than it sounds. If you look at the style of many standard commentaries, for example, you can see that some weather the ages better than others, such that certain commentaries from 300 years ago,  have much greater, lasting value than many that have been made in the last 30 years. Of course, there will be obsolete sections in almost all works of men.
Take for example, a denomination that sets itself up as a teaching ministry, such as ours which says this about the meaning of the name Jehovah:
*** nwt p. 1735 A4 The Divine Name in the Hebrew Scriptures ***
What is the meaning of the name Jehovah? In Hebrew, the name Jehovah comes from a verb that means “to become,” and a number of scholars feel that it reflects the causative form of that Hebrew verb. Thus, the understanding of the New World Bible Translation Committee is that God’s name means “He Causes to Become.” Scholars hold varying views, so we cannot be dogmatic about this meaning. However, this definition well fits Jehovah’s role as the Creator of all things and the Fulfiller of his purpose. He not only caused the physical universe and intelligent beings to exist, but as events unfold, he continues to cause his will and purpose to be realized.
I don't think any Christian-oriented religious mind would find anything really debatable in that sentence, and it even includes the non-presumptuous statement that we cannot be dogmatic, and that this is our current understanding. So we are prepared for the idea that it is subject to change when and if more is learned.
This is similar to how many commentaries handle almost any Bible reference or teaching that might not be obvious. And there are Christian-oriented people who learn their Bible through and through with this kind of non-presumptuous, non-dogmatic teaching style. Changing a doctrine under this paradigm need not result in any debatable anomalies.

More musing...
Conscience seems very "gustatory" in the mouths of many. Taste and see. But when you don't like what you've tasted, maybe you tasted the wrong thing. Maybe you didn't cook it right. Maybe eating healthy is an acquired taste.
Even looking at organizations requires a certain artistic viewing distance.
A lot of complaints about chronology and other expectations. I get it.
On the other hand, I suspect w/o the expectations related to the imminence of the kingdom's arrival, this organization known as JW's wouldn't exist.
Who's to say Jehovah isn't behind allowing a little "operation of error" go to his servants so they do what they need to do?
If you were living in the 1st century, and Jesus said. "Come follow me. Of course you'll end up getting persecuted and you'll die before the end comes, but you'll eventually be happy you did and BTW that's thousands of years off from now." Just how enthusiastic would you really be?
People don't have the stamina to be on the bleeding edge of enthusiasm in perpetuity.

Musing more on conscience.
To listen to some, you'd imagine they'd suggest that to promote adherence to the Bible or any particular denomination one would have to first find one which currently had zero debatable anomalies in official statements from any imaginable scriptural, historical, archaeological or scientific "truths" perspective w/regard to belief otherwise to these, you're committing some kind or moral crime unless you in detail provide an exhaustive analysis of defects along w/the appendices of apologias on each side of the arguments.
 

You're going to have me racking my brain all day now!

Those were exactly my thoughts! 😂
I would obviously die without Google!
P.s. I'm thinking it's one of these very obvious things that you can't get if you think too hard. And then when you hear the answer you have a face palm moment.

You are able to come up with some logical reasoning, but then you let go of reason and start assuming things that aren't true. JW do not worship the org. because all know that worship belongs to God only.
You pull out the Roman scripture (subjection to superior authorities) as proof that the org. is bad. You expect the annointed never to draw the wrong conclusion. You expect them to be either perfect, and sinless or led by holy spirit to the point where they do not have their own thoughts but are more like robots. 
Then you pull out the CSA as proof that the org. is bad, again insinuating that every JW should be perfect and without sin. 
Well I hate to break it to you again but that's not what the Bible says about Christians. Time and time again examples of faithful men and women who made mistakes were pointed out to you, but you ignore it...and then of course there are some that were bad and had to be thrown out.
 

You are able to come up with some logical reasoning, but then you let go of reason and start assuming things that aren't true. JW do not worship the org. because all know that worship belongs to God only.
You pull out the Roman scripture (subjection to superior authorities) as proof that the org. is bad. You expect the annointed never to draw the wrong conclusion. You expect them to be either perfect, and sinless or led by holy spirit to the point where they do not have their own thoughts but are more like robots. 
Then you pull out the CSA as proof that the org. is bad, again insinuating that every JW should be perfect and without sin. 
Well I hate to break it to you again but that's not what the Bible says about Christians. Time and time again examples of faithful men and women who made mistakes were pointed out to you, but you ignore it...and then of course there are some that were bad and had to be thrown out.
 

You are able to come up with some logical reasoning, but then you let go of reason and start assuming things that aren't true. JW do not worship the org. because all know that worship belongs to God only.
You pull out the Roman scripture (subjection to superior authorities) as proof that the org. is bad. You expect the annointed never to draw the wrong conclusion. You expect them to be either perfect, and sinless or led by holy spirit to the point where they do not have their own thoughts but are more like robots. 
Then you pull out the CSA as proof that the org. is bad, again insinuating that every JW should be perfect and without sin. 
Well I hate to break it to you again but that's not what the Bible says about Christians. Time and time again examples of faithful men and women who made mistakes were pointed out to you, but you ignore it...and then of course there are some that were bad and had to be thrown out.
 

Two things. (on the blood issue)
1. No one can speak to all JW's and what they might or might not do in any given situation. As a group, you CAN crunch the numbers.
2. The doctrine is biblical in the sense that it is derived from the bible, as are pretty much every attempt at concretizing a biblical principle by any individual. The question is nuanced w/regard to the application of the underlying principle.
Some have little to no capacity for nuance. (some may suggest that "nuance=loophole")

Mostly all, perhaps. To me it really is a matter of conscience. While my wife and I have been willing to die over the no-blood doctrine, we both agreed when our children were young that we would not be willing to impose our conscience(s) upon our young children before they were baptized. This still doesn't mean that we would simply allow them to take blood or blood-based medical treatments, but it would be a medical decision depending on risks to their physical life. It turns out there are only few limited circumstances where one could say that blood is absolutely required to offer the optimal chance of saving a physical life. But, contrary to the beliefs of many Witnesses, those circumstances do exist. The principle, for my own conscience, is built from this:
(Matthew 12:10-12) . . .So they asked him, “Is it lawful to cure on the Sabbath?” so that they might accuse him. 11 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! . . .
Fortunately, the issue has not come up for any of us.

There are three of us, so it can't be wrong. Every testimony that is said by two or three witnesses is "the truth". :))) 

I appreciate the feedback, and I suppose anything not obvious has an element of controversy about it. What I see is (and now I'm addressing my personal fascinations w/various brain-body states and ways of interacting w/the world and why the differences and how to find common ground w/o giving important ground and how to help if possible anyone else who may be wrestling w/the same issues)...I've run into many people w/Aspergers or variously high-functioning Autistic people. The latter, one I know quite well - has a phenomenal memory, always knows the time w/o looking at a watch, always knows the amount in their bank account, always is on time, never misses an appointment. This one has issues with nuance in people and differences in conscience. She'll say "If they didn't mean what they wrote, then why did they write what they wrote?". Quite bleedingly literal. It seems that w/people like this, the black and white is stark. When the organization says something these autistic types have like Rain-Man a memory on everything they've said "exactly what they said", but of course w/o the biosphere of emotional content, social circumstances, allowances for error and the like they get critical and have really difficult times dealing w/changes. Of course this is the one type of person leaning out more towards individual conscience that I have more sympathy for because they almost seem pathologically limited in dealing w/change.
https://www.integrityinc.org/signs-symptoms-of-high-functioning-autism/
(On the other hand I must be betraying myself in my own OCD fascinations. Reminds me of before I became a JW. I had a roommate who's GF was bipolar. I'd been studying the process of active listening and so when she was on a rather manic verbal episode I decided to engage w/her on her thoughts using active listening. About 8 hours later I was still going and the thought occurred to me "Who's manic now?")

That example (Paul's ministry) was an excellent example, because we consider both Paul and some of the elders and apostles at Jerusalem to be analogous to a 'governing body' which Paul sometimes good direction from -- but we also consider Paul himself to be a part of that same body, which covers the potential problem of Paul making statements that were not immediately acceptable to the Jerusalem body.
Of course, one of the more obvious examples is the one that Paul spoke of directly as a matter of conscience: the eating of meats that had been sacrificed to idols. The Jerusalem body evidently said no, and Paul said that it was or had become a matter of conscience. (Also a possibility of timing at play here.) It seems probable that he still wouldn't eat meats in front of Jerusalem's body of elders to avoid stumbling their weak consciences.
That interpretation is likely controversial to some, and I might not have it right, but we do know that Paul said conscience was directly related to this issue.

Exactly! And if we feel our conscience is weak, or has made us react too strongly or strictly, we can improve our conscience through association with a collective group (congregation/brotherhood) of serious persons who continually train their conscience with Bible principles.