Srecko Sostar

But that same article about how we as Witnesses were safeguarded from the cannibalism of transplants made some curious claims about blood that cannot be restated in the literature, now that transpants are OK.
*** g72 7/8 p. 28 “Keep Abstaining from . . . Blood” ***
Yes, blood is a tissue, just as the heart and the kidneys are tissue. Because it is a “liquid tissue” this fact is not generally appreciated. Immunological forces, placed in the body by the Creator to protect it, oppose any foreign tissue and raise up antibodies to fight against it. That is why the popularity of heart transplants was so short-lived.    
. . . . quoted in previous post . . . . 
‘If blood transfusions also violate the immunological principle, then why do they not prove as lethal as do heart transplants?’ you may ask. The reason is that blood is a temporary tissue. A temporary tissue? Yes, for in every second of time millions of red blood cells die and are replaced. So any ‘foreign’ transfused blood cells do not remain for long in the body.
 
Those arguments stuck with me for a long time, and I still have a bit of trouble accepting the idea of organ transplants because of it. Yet, if the WT was wrong about it --and they say they were wrong about it-- it's the same argument that would make some of us question the arguments about blood itself.

I have a feeling I must have come across in this thread as a promoter of whole blood transfusions. But I'm really looking for clarity myself. I also hate the idea of someone's blood pumped into my veins. There was a time when I would have died rather than allow that. But then I had children and realized that even though I had every right to die for my beliefs, I better be awfully certain of my reasons before imposing a similar death sentence on my children if the situation arose. 
Over the years, however, I have ended up visiting worldly relatives, friends and neighbors while they were hospitalized, and even visiting a hospital where my daughter worked as part of her college work in biochemistry and pre-med stuff. I still had that same sick feeling when seeing those packs of blood. But I realized that some of the JW arguments FOR medical use of blood make sense, and I learned that there were Witnesses taking blood that had required blood from hundreds of blood donors, and it made me wonder why Witnesses could only TAKE blood from worldly donors, and never offer anything back in terms of donated blood. 
Then the change in the WT's view of organ transplants happened the year I got married and started thinking about children, insurance, what to do if my wife had a serious medical issue, what she should do if I had one. 
It was a time I studied the situation hard, and we both (wife and I) came up with the idea that we are both willing to die for Acts 15, even when it comes to fractions, but that we could not impose our conscience on our children. We realized how most of us, as Witnesses, were always anxious to discuss the medical dangers of blood, and leave it at that, as if the dangers of blood alone made us so much better than all those worldly people who were risking their lives for nothing. Focusing on the dangers was supposed to be enough so that we never had to even think about the many more positive outcomes where blood actually saved a life. 
It reminded me of that same time period 10 years earlier, when many types of transplants were in early testing stages and had bad outcomes. The WTBTS focused almost completely on how many failures there were. 
*** g72 7/8 p. 28 “Keep Abstaining from . . . Blood” ***
Life magazine, September 17, 1971, showed a picture on the front cover of six persons who had received heart transplants and who seemed to be well and happy at the time. But within just eight months after the picture was taken all six of these had succumbed to their body’s efforts to reject foreign tissue. The article told how “the rejection drugs triggered bizarre acts,” and that “their ballooning faces haunted one doctor.” The author of the article, who has written a book on the subject, Hearts, also reported that the death rate for heart transplants for the first three years was more than 85 percent. One surgeon, who transplanted twenty-two hearts, had every last one of his patients die. And while he dismissed the entire matter as “a procedure which we tried and—for the time being—discarded,” the patients were not able to be so casual about it. And here again, it might be noted, that the stand of the Christian witnesses of Jehovah—that such transplants are in effect a form of cannibalism—proved a safeguard. How so? In that it spared them much frustration, grief and anxiety, which were experienced not only by the patients and their relatives but even by many of the assisting medical personnel.
 

Yeah. I remembers some of those talks myself. The real whoppers were the talks given as second and third-hand accounts of men who shared what they learned from those talks. Some real eye-rollers there!
There is current research underway looking at tissue memory and what effect tissue-to-brain communication may have in patients the result of organ transplant. There is so much to learn about biological physiology. But suggesting an outcome of any such research before sound conclusions are achieved is a problem.

Emotional Regulation: The vagus nerve is a key component of the parasympathetic nervous system, which helps regulate the body's "rest and digest" response. It counterbalances the sympathetic nervous system's "fight or flight" response, promoting relaxation and emotional regulation. When the vagus nerve's control over the heart and digestive system is altered, it can affect the body's ability to regulate emotions effectively.
Heart-Brain Connection: The vagus nerve is involved in the communication between the heart and the brain, including the transmission of signals related to emotional states. Disruption of this connection may influence the way emotional information is processed and experienced.
Stress Response: The vagus nerve contributes to the body's stress response, and it plays a role in modulating the body's reaction to stressors. Alterations in vagus nerve function may impact how the body responds to stress, potentially affecting emotional responses to stressful situations.
Gut-Brain Axis: The vagus nerve is also part of the gut-brain axis, connecting the digestive system to the brain. This axis plays a role in mood regulation and emotional well-being. Changes in vagal tone (the activity of the vagus nerve) can influence gut-brain communication and may have emotional consequences.
While heart transplantation does disrupt the vagus nerve's direct connections to the heart, the body often adapts over time, and other autonomic mechanisms and neural pathways can partially compensate for this disruption. Additionally, emotional responses involve complex interactions among multiple brain regions and neurotransmitters, so the impact of vagus nerve alterations on emotions can vary from person to person.

One of the important features that members of the GB took into account for "clarification about wearing a beard" includes imitating the trends that prevail in the world of politics and business. This is clearly stated in Update by Steven Lett. (starts at minute 10:00)
Quote: "Furthermore, as time has passed, we have noted that in many countries it is acceptable for men who hold responsible positions in business and government to wear beards..."
That same Governing Body (consisting of elders) wrote this: "If an elder establishes a rule based on culture, he is not acting according to the Scriptures. Younger men must be evaluated, not by personal or cultural viewpoints, but by the measuring stick of God's Word. - 2 Tim. 3:16, 17." - https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-study-august-2018/do-not-judge-outward-appearance/
Another in a series of contradictions of this "Theocratic Government" in WTJWorg. 
Double talk. Imitation of "the world". Adapting to "world trends". Disregarding one's own standards. "Lowering" own standards.
In the world of WTJWorg, certain patterns of behavior change depending on the current circumstances in the environment (especially in the USA). We have the opportunity to see two ways in which the GB applies the so-called "Biblical Principles".
In one model, the GB tries to "force" the government of a country to respect the JW's right to freedom of thought, speech and worship as implemented and practiced by WTJWorg, usually through court cases or mass letters campaigns.
In the second model, they find reasons to adapt the so-called "biblical principles" to the social and cultural changes of "worldly people and their institutions".
 

They carried a donkey full of scrolls I presume….

One of the important features that members of the GB took into account for "clarification about wearing a beard" includes imitating the trends that prevail in the world of politics and business. This is clearly stated in Update by Steven Lett. (starts at minute 10:00)
Quote: "Furthermore, as time has passed, we have noted that in many countries it is acceptable for men who hold responsible positions in business and government to wear beards..."
That same Governing Body (consisting of elders) wrote this: "If an elder establishes a rule based on culture, he is not acting according to the Scriptures. Younger men must be evaluated, not by personal or cultural viewpoints, but by the measuring stick of God's Word. - 2 Tim. 3:16, 17." - https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-study-august-2018/do-not-judge-outward-appearance/
Another in a series of contradictions of this "Theocratic Government" in WTJWorg. 
Double talk. Imitation of "the world". Adapting to "world trends". Disregarding one's own standards. "Lowering" own standards.
In the world of WTJWorg, certain patterns of behavior change depending on the current circumstances in the environment (especially in the USA). We have the opportunity to see two ways in which the GB applies the so-called "Biblical Principles".
In one model, the GB tries to "force" the government of a country to respect the JW's right to freedom of thought, speech and worship as implemented and practiced by WTJWorg, usually through court cases or mass letters campaigns.
In the second model, they find reasons to adapt the so-called "biblical principles" to the social and cultural changes of "worldly people and their institutions".
 

Honestly it saddens me to see men following men. Just plain petty. Which version of "the organization" are folks supposed to follow? Folks treat men like God, who decides for them what is supposed to be good or bad. The GB shows over and over again it can flip its teachings upside down. What are honest people trying to live right supposed to do? Just prostrate themselves before mortals like themselves and say, "Please! Tell us how today what we should do today to worship our Creator, and tell us tomorrow if YOU want us to do the opposite and we will." Put that in your next work of fiction. Or, maybe its a reality in someone's mind? Go ahead. Write it. It should be that way.
Men who follow men are victims of a dominion never granted to mankind. Mankind was granted dominion over animals, vegetation and the earth. But not dominion of men. Men who dominate men do so to the injury of those whom are dominated by men.
Worship God by living decently. Treat your fellow man as you would want to be treated yourself. Be willing to give your life for those whom you love. Fear God. Do your best to learn yourself what He expects of you. If this is done sincerely it is enough. There is no more to give than your best. Anything beyond that and God will step in to help. And, why not. According to the biblical account, all God ever wanted from Adam was to live in harmony with the natural world provided, and to have enough respect to abide by a single prohibition beyond that.
But that doesn't seem to be enough for some folks. No. Some folks need us to worship "the organization".

There's a difference between judging someone's personal choice and what they say. If you say something in a public forum then expect it to be challenged. If you're not looking for response then why are you sharing? I don't care what choices you make. Your life is yours. I do hope you have a good life though. I do care about people.
When I share it is to share. If someone challenges what I share it gives everyone watching an opportunity to learn and grow, and me in particular.

The society teaches of Adam: There was a body formed of dust from the ground. There was breath of life. But only when breath of life was breathed into the body formed from dust of the ground was there man. That man was Adam. The moment breath of life left that body "the man" ceased.
That is what the society teaches of man, and of animal.
But not with blood. With blood suddenly we have pieces that can be artificially isolated remaining "the thing" they were once associated with. I have news for everyone. If all we had in your circulatory system was red cells we'd all be dead because we would not have blood. Blood is a composition of many things, none of which by themselves are blood.
Red cells are no more blood than hydrogen is water.

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

 

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.

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"?

We don't need to worry about that.
Each person will render an account to God for what they did or didn't do, or say or didn't say. Romans 14:12.
 

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.

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.

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:
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: 
To that, you said: 
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. 

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.  

ummmm … two dimensional?
 

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?

What does a person have to be, to want to be photographed with cardboard and papers. lol

He is not the only religious leader who supports nonsense.

Quote from article:
In response to concerns over the scope of the project, the applicant has proposed building heights up to 75 feet in exchange for designating half the acreage as open space. The proposed MU3 district allows for building heights up to 45 feet. The applicant said that because of the topography, 75 feet buildings would appear smaller than the 45-foot buildings.
Indeed this building on the right looks lower than the one on the left.
 
 

Yes. Every religious institution is guilty of something.