New Light on Beards

[Thinking]

51 minutes ago, xero said:

Is this where someone shows me the scriptural distinction between minor blood fractions and blood?

At some points of argumentation it begins to sound a lot like the kinds of arguments abortionists give.

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

 

Nope I don’t think there is one because it’s the PRINCIPLE behind the abstain from blood.

You eating fractions when you eat the meat..yeah some of it’s washed with pink dye to make it look good but there is still fractions in there.

jehovah knew when you bled an animal you would not get all of the  blood out…but he is teaching us his right over us..the principle of the blood letting …

I’ve seen a number of Roos hung up and bled with their head cut of and skinned..hardly any fat on them …but they had muscle..and the blood in them was  visible …yet they had been correctly bled……...they butchered them cooked and ate them …lots of fractions in that meal….antidotes apparently have fractions in them.   Some medicines do..and people don’t even know it…so stop straining  the Nat and concentrate on the principle of abstaining from blood….anyway that’s how I see it…we are all different on it and going by scripture none of us are wrong. I respect your view but it’s not my view and this is where we get into not judging each other I suppose.

[JW Insider]

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. 

[Srecko Sostar]

31 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

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.

The same with me.

It seems that God has no problem with determining how much blood a person can take into his body. You shouldn't take a lot, but if it's a little it won't be a problem, take it.

[xero]

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. 

 

[Srecko Sostar]

5 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

Srecko:

(2 Samuel 23:2) . . .The spirit of Jehovah spoke through me; His word was on my tongue.

(Mark 12:36) . . .By the holy spirit, David himself said, . . .

(2 Timothy 3:16) . . .All Scripture is inspired of God . . .

(1 Corinthians 7:10) . . .To the married people I give instructions, not I but the Lord, . . .

(1 Corinthians 7:40) . . .and I certainly think I also have God’s spirit.

Well, not only those who wrote, but the apostles speaking of themselves or with reference to the past positively believed that Jehovah directed their writing, at least in part, of what they were writing.

Concerning the modern "doctrinal guardian", nowhere in Scripture do we find support for believing that they are inspired. A separate issue are reckless or pretentious statements by themselves that they are "guided." I would like more humility on your part (their part I meant to say).

From these and other biblical quotes, it is important to note that the people who wrote something in the Bible, said for themselves that they said something under the influence of God. Or others claimed it for one of them. They believed that what they write or speak is under God's influence. There is an anointed class within JWs who believe they are the anointed. And there is also a class of people in JW who believe such a claim, as well as those who do not believe such a claim.

So, the belief/conviction of people in the past in their own role in this process is no more reliable than the belief of people today in their current beliefs in this or that or in themselves. When the GB claims that they are anointed and led by the spirit, it does not have any clear evidence confirmed by God. It actually remains in the vague cloud of their general belief in themselves and the belief of the people around them in their statements and claims.

This whole thing is clouded by the fact that the GB separates the meanings of these two words which actually mean one and the same thing. There is no difference between "being inspired" and "being guided" by someone or something.

[JW Insider]

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.

[JW Insider]

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. 

[Pudgy]

… especially Hanna Barbarians …

[JW Insider]

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.  

[TrueTomHarley]

3 hours ago, Anna said:

I think the beard issue is a perfect example. I am talking about how unclear instructions can be sometimes. In 2016, as we all know, the beard article was written, and it was so ambiguous and unclear that for 7 years it caused problems until finally the GB were "forced" as it were, to make it black and white. 

I think it indicates that people want a ‘king,’ somewhat like in Samual 8. They can’t handle subtle. They want a king.

’Alright, alright, we’ll give you king,’ says the visible org, ‘An entire Update to say ‘We don’t care about beards!’ That means you don’t have to either! Sheesh! We were trying to get away from that.’

Seen from a different standpoint, I think those seeking the downfall of the earthly organization also resemble those Israelites who demanded a king. Those ancients couldn’t handle the seeming vagaries of judges popping up here and there. They wanted a king, with all the trimmings, that they could see strutting around at all times.Similarly, people look real closely into the GB, see it is composed of men who have all the differing idiosyncracies of the first century disciples and they can’t handle it. How can God’s direction come from such a human arrangement? They either want an undisputed miracle-backed single entity (which we all know is not going to happen today) or they want dissolution of the whole model, going back to a ‘Jesus and me’ model. This usually means a ‘Me and Jesus’ model, since it is personal disagreements over this or that policy that motivates the desire to sink the earthly organization. They either imagine the ‘Jesus and Me’ model will continue to safeguard the unity and doctrinal uniqueness of JWs or they think that the unity and doctrinal uniqueness is not worth safeguarding—they are content to let it evolve, just like in the natural world of competitive struggle and how good things supposedly come of that. ‘Guardians of doctrine? Don’t make me laugh!’ they say.

My Bethel chum told me many years ago that it gets more challenging to see God’s hand as you get tighter with the organization. The friends in general will ooh and ahh over this new direction from God, and you will say, ‘Yeah….it’s only because so-and-so is too stubborn to……’

This is where faith comes in. It is the divine/human interface. Fleshly eyes can only perceive the ‘Indisputable miracle-backed, controlled Prophet’ model or the ‘Jesus and Me’ model for congregation headship. It takes spiritual eyes to see that, if God is really worth his salt, surely he can move dedicated men to adequately serve as his conduit. The GB is screened by being anointed, further screened by a lifetime of full time service, further screened by intensive Bible training on how to work with others by implementing Bible principles.

This training to work according to Bible principles, strive for unity, learn how to defer to one another, resist the temptation to run-over those with whom you disagree, produces good results. In individual congregations, elders periodically gather for such training in ‘elder schools,’ where they learn, among other things, that unity of the body is always the goal. This does indeed perform well, at least in my congregation, so I extrapolate it to others. (It might be different if my congregation was one of those basket-case Revelation 2 and 3 congregations) Though I am reliably informed (I can shake facts out if I want to but I usually refrain from doing it) that there is disagreement amongst our elders, you would never know it by the united front they display. Instead of shaking them down for disputes, I seek occasions to (genuinely) commend them for what they do.

It is not healthy to ‘expose’ present disagreements. (not that I don’t lap it all up if I hear of them here) People thereafter pick their favorite horses, which encourages further division. Of course people are going to disagree. The thing that counts is for them to resolve disagreements and carry on unitedly. That is the evidence of having God’s spirit.

Human traits will never disappear. ‘We have this treasure [of the ministry] in earthen vessels,’ but, being humble, God can work with such men as those comprising the Governing Body. Proud persons He can’t do much with other than squash them in time. ‘God is using imperfect people today because that’s all he has at the present time’ Mark Nourmair (approximately) says, not referring specifically to GB brothers. And, when the younger brothers fall to squabbling, the old-timer smiles, tilts back in his chair, and marvels, ‘It’s amazing what Jehovah accomplishes given what he has to work with.”

 

[xero]

40 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

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. 

Exactly.

[Srecko Sostar]

2 hours ago, Anna said:

I think the beard issue is a perfect example. I am talking about how unclear instructions can be sometimes. In 2016, as we all know, the beard article was written, and it was so ambiguous and unclear that for 7 years it caused problems until finally the GB were "forced" as it were, to make it black and white. 

Similarly, some Bible passages are unclear "from our point of view" (to out modern way of thinking). Sometimes it's as if we have to guess at the correct answer. And sometimes reading other scriptures on the same subject doesn't help. 

I think to understand some things that were written thousands of years ago correctly, we would have to think like  people did when these things were written. And this is not easy. Not only that, but we would have to know the culture too.

So just as a illustration, we can imagine that someone reading the 2016 WT two thousand years from now might get confused by it and not really understand if beards were ok or not. And imagine that they were setting up a new religion and they had to make a decision on beards. 

Maybe it's not a very good example, perhaps someone can think of a better one.

That's why there is a need for "new light" all the time. It's because some passages in the Bible are not easy to interpret and we got it wrong in the past.

A new GB member explained recently that all this is Jehovah's way of working, which is;

-the GB promotes a wrong doctrine,

-the doctrine is implemented and enforced without exception,

-the disobedient are sanctioned,

-after a while the doctrine undergoes a change,

-it is promoted as a "new light",

-obedience is demanded,

-no feeling of disappointment is allowed,

-it does not allow anyone to manifest their feeling how even in the past he/she knew that the abandoned doctrine was wrong, and now he/she is proud of himself for it.

 

All in all, they shift all responsibility for their stupidity to God, because, well, that's God's way, not man's.