Srecko Sostar

It is not for me to introduce "order" into the discussion, but I would be more interested in seeing and determining, by the participants in the discussion, what they conclude about the current JW doctrine on blood. That seems to me to be more important than the discussion about meat products. Because there will be blood in the meat one way or another and no one will call you to account if you ate more or less blood in the meat. It is interesting to read various arguments about the diet of people from the past, but .....

I would give answer to the question in the title, "What is our scriptural basis for refusing transfusion of products rendered from blood?" We have seen that the WTJWorg interpretations seem to imply that the taking of animal or human blood is unacceptable because they tend to draw that conclusion based on a few passages of the Bible. Then they subsequently made it clear that blood (and blood products) should not be used for nutritional purposes, but some blood products can be used (allowed) to protect or improve health. They also inserted into that thesis the vague and inconsistent use of the amount of a certain ingredient in the blood as a measure of acceptable or unacceptable. Whatever of their logic they want to use as a "biblical argument", we see that they (GB) have ruined the original commandment with their politicization and assumptions. If it is said that blood is not to be used (let's add a sequel-for any purpose except for a religious act) but must be shed on the ground, then it is clear that WTJWorg and GB along with their followers is a violator of that commandment because they doctrinally and literally allow the use of blood (and its parts) for an illegal (non-religious) purpose. Since GB did not provide a single biblical quote as possible proof that some minor parts (fractions) of blood are allowed to be used by believers, GB falls into the "false teachers" category. Or, in order not to offend some readers, we can say it like this: Teachers who do not know how to use God's Word correctly. ("...rightly dividing the word of truth” KJV), ("...handling the word of the truth aright. NWT) - 2 Timothy 2:15.

So, why is it relevant to mention that the person is a tycoon in the first place? 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

"We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light." - Plato

I think this video can fit into the title theme.

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?

Illustration. When WTJWorg builds KH and residential buildings, under what laws does it do so? Does it have a building internal manual just for JW workers? I guess it adheres to "secular" building regulations. Biblical Law says that lawbreakers, even JW members, are subject to punishment by a "secular court", not a JW court. Why, then, did the WTJWorg Australia branch keep a record of law breakers and not report a single one to the authorities? Similar is in all other countries. Because the manual (Shepherd book) told them to call Bethel, and they told them, "keep it to yourself." The "secular law" was not changed, and neither was the biblical law. Both laws say that "Caesar" should decide about crimes.

Although I can agree with the assumption that some guidelines should exist for those who are required to implement such guidelines, we can hardly consider them "invaluable". The reason, which you yourself confirm my opinion, is found in the continuation of your comment, when you talk again and again about "imperfections, mistakes" that are inherent in human organizations. So, if something is imperfect and with errors, then the "Shepherd" book is not "invaluable" in any sense. Especially, when these same elders, who have to implement the "guidelines of the Organization" (of lawyer's), cannot (should not) rely on their conscience, understanding and logic in some decisions.

This publication is confidential. If an elder is deleted he should turn over this publication to be destroyed, and any electronic copies in his possession should be deleted. The book deals with "legal" matters within the religious community. If a citizen of a country wants to know what the "legal" system/procedure of the country in which he lives looks like, he can easily get information. What reason is there that JWs cannot get information on what the "legal" system/procedure of spiritual Paradise looks like?

In a court of law, it is crucial to acknowledge that the term "blood transfusion" can also refer to fractionated blood. The responsibility of providing clarifications lies with the lawyers, but with the understanding of all parties involved. If an answer is provided without any need for clarification, it implies that no further action was required. To simplify. Joshua David was not at the Court, but spoke in front of the camera answering questions from journalist. He was speaking to listeners, many of whom were ordinary, averagely educated people. But regardless of their education, they would understand if JD explained to them that "freedom of conscience among JWs" is not unlimited, and that they must obey GBs orders or they will be excommunicated.

Your previous comment, which prompted my reaction at the time, reminded me of GB member GJ when he stated before the ARC that JWs are so capable of reading the Bible and seeing the difference whether GB is teaching them correctly or not. It means that ordinary JW people are so spiritually mature and intellectually capable of distinguishing "truth from lies" that they don't really need GB as "channel and source of interpretations" . If the student is able to reason better than the teacher then why all this "theocratic hierarchy" where only a few (elders) are "trained to use the Word correctly"? If, according to GJ, JW members are able to discern some teaching, based on reading the Bible, then that's it. Oh, it's terrible what JW clergy do with followers.

Looks like I confused something in googling. Sorry.

Today, for the first time, I saw the true meaning of this passage from Acts. All the time I was a JW I thought that line, probably due to the influence of WTJWorg, meant that God is impartial in the context of accepting people to Christianity regardless of background. However, there was something hidden here that you have brilliantly revealed. Cornelius or any other individual outside of Judaism could have been accepted by God outside of the religio-legal system given through Moses. However, we have one problem regarding Cornelius. WTJWorg refers to him as a "Jewish Proselyte" in its publications. Some other sources say that he was not a proselyte. That detail would be important to more easily determine its/his position with regard to the diet we are talking about.

The use of the "theocratic war" method falls under the INSTRUCTION that comes from the GB. The decision as to whether to use it is not a suggestion left to so called individual "conscience".

GB says to people; read the Bible with the help of our publications and you will see how Jesus trust us.

Glossary Misrepresentation An untrue statement of fact or law made by Party A (or its agent) to Party B, which induces Party B to enter a contract with Party A thereby causing Party B loss. An action for misrepresentation can be brought in respect of a misrepresentation of fact or law. There are three types of misrepresentation: Fraudulent misrepresentation: where a false representation has been made knowingly, or without belief in its truth, or recklessly as to its truth. Negligent misrepresentation: a representation made carelessly and in breach of duty owed by Party A to Party B to take reasonable care that the representation is accurate. If no "special relationship" exists, there may be a misrepresentation under section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 where a statement is made carelessly or without reasonable grounds for believing its truth. Innocent misrepresentation: a representation that is neither fraudulent nor negligent. The remedies for misrepresentation are rescission and/or damages. For fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, the claimant may claim rescission and damages. For innocent misrepresentation, the court has a discretion to award damages in lieu of rescission; the court cannot award both (see section 2(2) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967). For more information, see Practice note, Misrepresentation and Practice note, Damages for misrepresentation: an overview. https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/9-107-6848?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true Public materials that are readily available and visible to any JW or non-JW (WTJWorg's official digital content website) when viewed with prior knowledge of the Organization, exhibit all of these elements listed in the definition of "misrepresentation." Once again briefly. JW brother Joshua clearly used the term "blood transfusion". He should know about all those blood finesse. So, in my opinion, he deliberately omitted to explain in detail what WTJWorg means by the term "blood transfusion", what is blood and what is not blood according to the GB interpretation. He had all the time in the world to explain it to reporters and listeners. Since he did not do it in the clear and only correct way (the bare truth), it means that he DECEIVED (intentionally) the public when he spoke about the freedom of decision of JW members about "blood issue". JW lawyers and JW members do a similar thing in many courts when they give written or oral testimony in which they use "theoretical warfare" methods. About "Shepherd" book. If that book is so "public", conduct a member survey and ask how many have read the book (JW men, women and children).

Excellent point. It turns out that such a prophecy is of importance only to the one who uttered it, when he sees the fruits of its fulfillment.

Good or bad, that's what everyone does.

Unfortunately, this is not possible! The first reason that makes it impossible is the "non-transparency" of the so-called theocratic system as run by WTJWorg. At any level of the hierarchy from how material resources are used, how research papers are done and the selection of material for publication, court cases, out-of-court settlements, etc., it is clear that the individual JW has no insight into all of this. Nor could she/he "understand" it all or most of all, due to the specifics of each of the activities involved in running such a massive organization. Who have enough time for that? The second reason. As far as the doctrines and related events are concerned, not a single JW is familiar with the complete history of the organization. This requires deep knowledge of things, theoretical knowledge and long-term experiential knowledge through the practice of one's own and other people's lives. So how could any JW possibly "warn" a potential new follower about possible/certain risks. The third reason. The organization is not naive to discover its weaknesses, mistakes, dubious practices and disastrous consequences of the policies it implements today or has implemented in the past.

Do you mean to say that every candidate should read, among other things, a secret book for elders eyes only? And read the "small print" at the bottom of the "contract"?

"Love your neighbor as yourself." - by Jesus Yes, first I have to love myself. Yes, first I have to agree with myself. - by ....

Please, it's nonsense. GB says they proves own teachings, supposedly, on the basis of the Bible and verse/s in the Bible or so called "biblical context". After some time, thye refutes these teachings on the basis of the same or some other biblical passages. What is the statement even supposed to mean - that someone is against what is "biblical"? GB lives in contradictions. Joshua David, JW PR in India, stated that JWs are guided by their conscience whether or not they want to accept a blood transfusion, but the Shepard book outlines the procedure that JW elders should take if someone has received a blood transfusion. Deceiving the public. There is no freedom of choice because members are sanctioned if they take blood. "Biblical"? haha

The Bible Students were not completely sure what would happen. They were convinced that it would not result in a burning up of the earth and a blotting out of human life. Rather, they knew it would mark a significant point in regard to divine rulership. At first, they thought that by that date the Kingdom of God would have obtained full, universal control. When that did not occur, their confidence in the Bible prophecies that marked the date did not waver. They concluded that, instead, the date had marked only a starting point as to Kingdom rule. Similarly, they also first thought that global troubles culminating in anarchy (which they understood would be associated with the war of “the great day of God the Almighty”) would precede that date. (Rev. 16:14) But then, ten years before 1914, the Watch Tower suggested that worldwide turmoil that would result in the annihilating of human institutions would come right after the end of the Gentile Times. https://www.jw.org/en/library/books/Jehovahs-Witnesses-Proclaimers-of-Gods-Kingdom/Gaining-Accurate-Knowledge-of-Gods-Word-and-Applying-It/Growing-in-Accurate-Knowledge-of-the-Truth/

Quote from Proclaimers book: The Bible Students were not completely sure what would happen. They were convinced that it would not result in a burning up of the earth and a blotting out of human life. Rather, they knew it would mark a significant point in regard to divine rulership. At first, they thought that by that date the Kingdom of God would have obtained full, universal control. When that did not occur, their confidence in the Bible prophecies that marked the date did not waver. They concluded that, instead, the date had marked only a starting point as to Kingdom rule. Similarly, they also first thought that global troubles culminating in anarchy (which they understood would be associated with the war of “the great day of God the Almighty”) would precede that date. (Rev. 16:14) But then, ten years before 1914, the Watch Tower suggested that worldwide turmoil that would result in the annihilating of human institutions would come right after the end of the Gentile Times. They expected the year 1914 to mark a significant turning point for Jerusalem, since the prophecy had said that ‘Jerusalem would be trodden down’ until the Gentile Times were fulfilled. When they saw 1914 drawing close and yet they had not died as humans and been ‘caught up in the clouds’ to meet the Lord—in harmony with earlier expectations—they earnestly hoped that their change might take place at the end of the Gentile Times.—1 Thess. 4:17. As the years passed and they examined and reexamined the Scriptures, their faith in the prophecies remained strong, and they did not hold back from stating what they expected to occur. With varying degrees of success, they endeavored to avoid being dogmatic about details not directly stated in the Scriptures. Did the “Alarm Clock” Go Off Too Soon? Great turmoil certainly burst forth upon the world in 1914 with the outbreak of World War I, which for many years was called simply the Great War, but it did not immediately lead to an overthrow of all existing human rulerships. As events in connection with Palestine developed following 1914, the Bible Students thought they saw evidence of significant changes for Israel. But months and then years passed, and the Bible Students did not receive their heavenly reward as they had anticipated. How did they react to that? The Watch Tower of February 1, 1916, specifically drew attention to October 1, 1914, and then said: “This was the last point of time that Bible chronology pointed out to us as relating to the Church’s experiences. Did the Lord tell us that we would be taken [to heaven] there? No. What did He say? His Word and the fulfil[l]ments of prophecy seemed to point unmistakably that this date marked the end of the Gentile Times. We inferred from this that the Church’s ‘change’ would take place on or before that date. But God did not tell us that it would be so. He permitted us to draw that inference; and we believe that it has proven to be a necessary test upon God’s dear saints everywhere.” But did these developments prove that their glorious hope had been in vain? No. It simply meant that not everything was taking place as soon as they had expected. Several years before 1914, Russell had written: “Chronology (time prophecies in general) was evidently not intended to give God’s people accurate chronological information all the way down the path of the centuries. Evidently it is intended more to serve as an alarm clock to awaken and energize the Lord’s people at the proper time. . . . https://www.jw.org/en/library/books/Jehovahs-Witnesses-Proclaimers-of-Gods-Kingdom/Gaining-Accurate-Knowledge-of-Gods-Word-and-Applying-It/Growing-in-Accurate-Knowledge-of-the-Truth/ The same principle used by Russell was continued by JW. Expectations and proving that expectations are based on the Bible and then changing doctrine. The same pattern of behavior. Each new JW generation lives in a state of denial of what their predecessors did and believed and said.