New Light on Beards

[Many Miles]

14 hours 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..

At one time I held a similar view. But, unlike you, when pressed to defend my position I found it impossible without invoking provisions of Mosaic law, which was a law that never applied to anyone other than either natural born Jews or individuals who for their own reasons decided to convert to Judaism. But aside from natural born Jews, God never required anyone else to submit to provisions of that law and, to the contrary, the whole time He was accepting worship of persons outside Judaism who feared him and worked righteousness. Hence what James presents I can see only through the lens of standards predating Mosaic law that would have applied to everyone. There is no standard predating Mosaic law remotely suggesting the substance of blood should be treated as a sacred substance. Just think about that carefully, especially in regard to what was said to Noah. There is, for instance, no pre-Mosaic law standard suggesting it would have been wrong to transplant blood for medicinal purposes to either treat or prevent a health condition, and even in ancient times blood was useful for both and was used for both.

[TrueTomHarley]

46 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

but just don't go around claiming that you are still abstaining from blood

I’m not sure why not. As much belly-aching as there is about GB being ‘pharisaical,’ here we seem to want them to be Pharisees.

Three things govern my thinking on fractions: 1) you shouldn’t have to be a microbiologist to serve God, 2) you can’t serve God when you’re dead, and 3) if they can’t figure it out, neither can I.

I’m been surprised to find I am apparently in the minority in my position. This is why I queried about a breakdown of Bethelites regarding fractions but nobody seemed to know. ‘It’s not a cake until you mix the (minute) ingredients’ works for me but it is apparently the minority view.

I was especially amazed that people could spin fractions as a money thing. It just made so much sense to me that blood is blood, yet fractions can be so minute as to liken them to those traces remaining when you drain an animal, that I never thought to go beyond that obvious comparison. ‘Eyeball it’ is what you said previously. To insist people go beyond that seems to me pharisaical.

Beyond the dilemma to booze it up or not booze it up before the teetotalers (or alcoholics), this matter of fractions is the other ‘approved, (in the sense of being publicized,) use of conscience. We kind of gravitate to rules, even though we know rules quickly get out of hand. I think of the brother who quipped about the ‘Letters from Readers’ feature in those old Watchtowers:

“I just read the question,” he said, “then skip to the bottom to see if I can do it or not.”

He did quip. Honestly and truly, it was a quip. But there is also some truth in it.

 

[Many Miles]

3 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I’m been surprised to find I am apparently in the minority in my position. This is why I queried about a breakdown of Bethelites regarding fractions but nobody seemed to know. ‘It’s not a cake until you mix the (minute) ingredients’ works for me but it is apparently the minority view.

The society holds disparate teachings when it comes to parts versus a whole. (Flour, milk, etc versus cake)

Regarding soul (life), it's said to have two major components; a body and breathe of life.

Together a body and breathe of life IS "soul".

Apart NEITHER a body nor breathe of life IS "soul".

Regarding blood, it's said to have four major components; red cells, white cells, platelets and plasma.

Together red cells, white cells, platelets and plasma IS "blood".

Apart red cells, white cells, platelets and plasma EACH IS "blood".

The irony of these two disparate treatments of parts versus whole is that the society also teaches that blood is considered to be equivalent to life (soul). Yet it treats what makes up the two disparately.

There is no person inside the big house who's ever even attempted to answer for the contradictory bit of teaching.

[TrueTomHarley]

31 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

The irony of these two disparate treatments of parts versus whole is that the society also teaches that blood is considered to be equivalent to life (soul). Yet it treats what makes up the two disparately.

Most people can see that denominator makes a difference. Thus, while 1/4 and 1/100 are both fractions, most people can appreciate a difference.

For that matter, whole blood is technically a fraction; 1/1 

[Srecko Sostar]

48 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

‘It’s not a cake until you mix the (minute) ingredients’ works for me

Do all cake ingredients have the same importance (in general and for you)?

 

[TrueTomHarley]

3 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Do all cake ingredients have the same importance (in general and for you)?

Do you believe there is a God so that your interrogations would have any relevance here?

[Many Miles]

40 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Most people can see that denominator makes a difference. Thus, while 1/4 and 1/100 are both fractions, most people can appreciate a difference.

I/2 is a fraction. Right? Is 1/2 the parts that constitute "soul" soul?

Oh, and cryosupernatant is, as a fraction, MORE than 1/2 the circulating blood in your veins this very moment. Is cryosupernatant "blood"?

Oh, and white cells are, as a fraction, about 1/100 of the circulating blood in your veins this very moment. Is white cells "blood"?

[Srecko Sostar]

24 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Do you believe there is a God so that your interrogations would have any relevance here?

Do you want to say that God doesn't like cookies?

[TrueTomHarley]

2 hours ago, xero said:

hours ago, JW Insider said:

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.

This reminds me of a TV show the GC philosophy professor cited. ‘You couldn’t be more wrong!’ one character insisted, which prompted the reply, ‘What do you mean, more wrong? Wrong is wrong! How can you be more wrong?’ But then he went on to reason that you probably could. You could be wrong about something for a fundamental reason. Or you could be wrong for a picayune reason.

He then cited some survey indicating most people are satisfied with being ‘mostly right’ as opposed to ‘absolutely right.’ This seemed to disturb him, as his conception of philosophy is that it searches for ‘absolute’ truth. It sinks his entire endeavor, for I don’t think humans are capable of knowing ‘absolute truth.’ ‘Mostly truth’ will probably have to suffice. I am suspicious of those who insist upon more. As a hobby, it is okay, but as a discipline upon which consequences hang, no.

There are too many things like ‘the sum of all positive natural numbers is -1/12.’ Sounds crazy, no? Yet it is deduced from human reasoning on concepts of infinities, specifically ‘divergent series of infinities.’ Because they can yield such weird results, they have tongue-in-cheek been called ‘of the devil.’

You needn’t get overly technical on most things.

A favorite line of mine is, “You don’t have to know everything.” It is not original. I read it in a context involving today’s failing schools. (Ours was a homeschooling family) But it packs a lot of punch. You don’t have to know everything. Yet most of contemporary society carries on as though you do.

The Chesterton quote applies: 

The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head that splits.”

[Many Miles]

15 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

How can you be more wrong?

A teaching could be wrong because it's unsound.

A teaching could be wrong because it's false.

Though both are wrong, the latter would be more wrong than the former.

[TrueTomHarley]

58 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

I/2 is a fraction. Right? Is 1/2 the parts that constitute "soul" soul?

It is only you that has fractionalized soul this way. This is why when you first gave your convoluted breakdown of ‘soul,’ I countered, ‘You wanna say that in English?’

I learned, as first explained in the Truth book, that ‘your soul is you.’ Yes, of course it has prerequisites. When you start qualifying any noun you utter as the sum of many fractions, then I’ll acknowledge you have a point.

Meanwhile, there is a timeline we operate on. We are finite beings and must take things as they come. We don’t have the luxury of overseeing the past, present, and future as though they are equally plain. Occasionally, to be sure, we get around that inconvenience by condemning yesterday’s things in the light of today’s standards, but most fair people recognize that as a cheap shot. Go back to the philosophy professor, the great donkey, who speaks of ‘temporal omniscience,’ how we can view all events as real, even those that haven’t happened yet—and God knows the idiot surmises his fellows draw from that. 

Originally, blood was blood. Then, doctors began to separate it into ‘main components’ that might individually be transfused, and we said, ‘Who are you trying to kid? It’s still blood.’

Then they said, ‘You ain’t seen nothing yet,’ whereupon they came up with so many additional components, most quite tiny, that the HQ brothers threw up their hands and said, ‘We can’t figure it out. Leave it for every individual to hash it out best they can.’

You have already indicated the probable resolution with that form you cited several days ago. Things are settling down. It is only the hypercritical or vengeful who seek to keep them stirred up. Sure, it would be great to correct any missteps of the past. But that is the nature of the past: it is not the past when it first occurs, but is the present, and as such it is not so easily corrected. Best that is to be done in the overall world is to throw every such possible error into the laps of the lawyers, who will extract 1/3 of the involved wealth for their inconvenience in sorting it out.

[Many Miles]

7 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Originally, blood was blood. Then, doctors began to separate it into ‘main components’ that might individually be transfused, and we said, ‘Who are you trying to kid? It’s still blood.’

Blood is so easy to fraction. Modern medicine did not start that. Modern medicine just found ways to artificially fractionate blood, ways that don't exist in nature.

Otherwise what you wrote is not so much as an artful attempt to respond to the questions posed to you. More like a Kamala word salad.

You wrote:

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Most people can see that denominator makes a difference. Thus, while 1/4 and 1/100 are both fractions, most people can appreciate a difference.

So, I brought up a 1/100 fraction (white cells of your circulating blood) and asked you about it. Suddenly crickets.