Thinking

6 hours ago, Pudgy said:

I remember the times. If you search “JW Malawi MCP Party Card”, you can get the details. A great testimony of honor in the face of years of evil persecution.

If memory serves, anybody could buy the card for about 25 cents, often a half days pay there … and because there was only one political party in Malawi at the time, was roughly the same as a passport to keep you from being tortured and killed.

 

Yes this wasn’t good was it but I still wish I could hear their side of the story of why they felt that was okay…

On 10/28/2023 at 6:13 AM, Pudgy said:

Yes, that is certainly arguable.

Did Noah kill anyone?

Don’t think so…hope not!

8 hours ago, Pudgy said:

There is NO Biblical injunction or prohibition against cannibalism … but for a moment, let’s assume God said “ABSTAIN FROM CANNIBALISM”, which all rational people would understand as “Don’t eat people”.

OK, got it. But you are a Catholic in a Castle on the coast of Valencia, Spain in 1099, under siege by the Muslim Hoards, and the people and soldiers are starving, seemingly about to be totally overwhelmed by the Moors and slaughtered. The Catholic Bishop is a guy that normally never misses a meal, even in times like these, and for  his entire life has preached “Abstain from cannibalism”, because in times like these, the issue does occasionally come up in real life.

The people are dying of starvation, but can still run HIM through with a sword, so he tells them “Any soldier or citizen killed may be eaten, as long as it does not appear to be people.” No faces, fingers, toes, genitals, etc., but brains, livers, and appendages cut into steaks are ok.

OH, and uh …. the Church leaves it up to your conscience to decide IF THESE FRACTIONAL PEOPLE ARE STILL “PEOPLE”, if the “fractions” are prepared and cooked so they are not recognizable.

The same “problem” exists with blood.

Separated  fractional blood, if it EVER WAS blood, does not ever cease being blood because of fractionalization, any more than a separated arm and a hand is not still a human arm and hand …. even when separated from the whole body.

So you can eat a T Bone or lamb loin chops or liver with out eating fractions of blood cooked along with them….or have I misunderstood you.

On 11/22/2023 at 3:25 AM, Many Miles said:

The protein of erythrocytes (red cells) that release oxygen to tissue is called hemoglobin. Essentially, the erythrocytic cell is a carrier of the hemoglobin protein. This protein is a combination of the heme molecule and globin proteins. The heme molecule in this protein has an affinity for oxygen, which is why it releases carbon dioxide and binds with oxygen in lung tissue. As this oxygen rich molecule circulates through the body, when it encounters tissue with more oxygen affinity than it has, it releases oxygen to that tissue and binds with that tissue's carbon dioxide, which it then circulates back to lung tissue to release the carbon dioxide and acquire oxygen for another trip to transport more oxygen to needy tissue.

But here's the important part. The body is not catabolizing the erythrocytic cell. It's not "eating" the cell. The cell remains intact and functioning as a tissue. Also, though the erythrocyte is rich in protein, its protein is not catabolized as food. Transfused red cells are transport vehicles for oxygen and carbon dioxide. The oxygen and carbon dioxide they exchange, retrieve and deliver is not eating, its inhalation and exhalation; it's catch and release.

Each person must conclude what they will about other persons. That's the way it is, it'll always be that way, and it should be that way.

In my case, I prefer to learn from those around me, whether I like what they say or not. This is because I want to learn, even if that means I find out I'm wrong about something. For me, I could care less about your personality. But I do look to learn from each interaction. Also, sometimes, someone puts information out in public view that the public deserves to know is incorrect. In this case, it's incorrect to assert:

That was said in terms of intravenous administration, and it is just plain false. And, the one who said this did so under auspice of someone who "worked in the medical field". This suggests the notion above is said authoritatively. Yet, the statement that "there is no difference as to eating the blood and being fed the blood via a tube" is patently false.

- If you eat blood the body sees nutritional elements and it metabolizes those elements as food. It's eating.

- If you transfuse blood the body see biological tissue that it uses as tissue. It's a tissue transplant.

Think of my person however you want. But if you're going to say things at least say things that are correct.

Some in the medical field who are involved in organ transplant admit IV  blood transfusion should always be viewed as a organ transplant..I think we both view Red blood cells as vital for Oxygen maker and carrier. I’m not sure on the rest of your scientific knowledge but I will bow to it as I know nothing of what you say .

Either way you think on it clearly one is not abstaining from it…but I stand corrected on the rest of your post…

18 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Maybe you worked in the medical field, but you don't seem to understand that blood products like packed red cells are of absolutely no value as parenteral nutrition. Though red cells are loaded with protein, if a patient were starving and given red cells by transfusion as their nutrition, the patient would starve to death because given intravenously the body will not catabolize its own red cells for sake of nutrition.

This has been known since the late 19th Century when Dr. William Hunter and his colleagues published very extensive methods and findings of blood physiology and transfusion medicine. Among other things, of transfusion of whole blood they found, "We have seen that transfused blood possesses no nutritive value." Of the transfused blood's physiology they found, "It behaves, not as a mass of nutritive material, but as a tissue." (British Med J, Hunter et al, 1889 Aug 10, p 308; British Med J, Hunter et al, 1889 July 20, p 117)

Transfusion of blood is, essentially, an organ transplant. We can eat a kidney and get nutrition. We can accept a kidney transplant and we get no nutrition. Transfusing blood works essentially the same way.

The findings of Dr. Hunter et. al. were later confirmed beyond any doubt by further experimentation and research conducted by Drs. J. Garrott Allen, Edward Stemmer and Louis R. Head in the 1950s. They proved conclusively that intravenous administration of red cells offered no nutritional benefit whatsoever. None. Nada. (Annals of Surgery, Allen et al, Sept 1956, pp 345-354; see also J of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, Drs. Erik Vinnars and Douglas Wilmore, Vol 27 Numb 23, 2003, p 226)

Oddly enough, though, the same trio of researchers also found that products like cryosupernatant were effective for parenteral nutrition, and this is one of the products rendered from blood the society lets JWs accept transfusion of. This finding was established in the 1930s and conclusive confirmed in the 1950s. (Ibid)

Yes, internal homogenic or xenogenic tissue transplantation should always be weighed carefully. You don't want them if they are not essential to protecting mortality or morbidity. A risk-to-benefit analysis is in order for sure!

The packed red blood cells do provide a protein to help 

OXYGYEN…the oxygen is what it’s all about…go anywhere on line away from the societies writings and you will read that.

i think miles as you may have some interesting stories to tell I think your a stirer  who  at times just want to sound of hearing your own voice and over the dumbest subjects..I’d like to know your other alias names you use on line.

there is something familiar out you…and sadly I don’t think it’s good 

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Not necessary to rethink it. We don't have any reason to think that Eve or Adam drank from Eve's breasts. Only that her children would have, and that was outside the Garden, as I stated previously. So we still have no reason to think that milk was an important part of the diet of Adam and Eve at the time of dietary decree in the garden. Not important enough to mention. They may have drunk milk too, maybe inside the garden, and maybe when they were outside. It should have been common knowledge that humans and other mammals drank milk and water, and they may have inadvertently breathed in a bug or two while sleeping. But the part the Bible included as if the most important points about their diet was about how the fruit of [almost] every tree would serve as food for them. When they were outside the garden we have additional vegetation mentioned as food, e.g. grains/bread. And then the only outstanding difference in the dietary decree to Noah is that it was the first mention of a diet containing meat.  We can make of that whatever we will, and I agree that no position on this is definitive.

 

Not exactly. Having permission to gather the food the animals ate is not necessarily the same as permission for Noah himself to eat those same foods. The Bible's silence on what is forbidden or permitted only means silence on the matter: not necessarily permitted, and not necessarily forbidden.

If you were implying that Cornelius must have been following Noahide requirements only known to readers of the Jewish Bible, then surely Noah might have understood the ideal human diet in a (at least currently) common way of understanding the dietary decree from Adam's time. And, per the Bible's timeline, Noah's had several living relatives who may have spoken to Adam personally, including Noah's own father.   

Well I’m preety sure Eve had mammary glands as she had a womb…but I like the rest of your post.

5 hours ago, Pudgy said:

I think a much BIGGER question needs to be asked.

If Cornelius was a worshipper of Jehovah God, and his worship was acceptable to God, as stated specifically that it was …and he was a Roman Soldier …. what does that say about “… render unto Caesar …”.?

To me, the conclusion is inescapable and profound, and logical … but even so, I am afraid to even utter the words.

I’ll say it….he would come under the mosaic Law and when Christ died faithful…..he would then become under Christs Law….and as Christ instructed Peter to put away his sword thus he would say to Cornelius….thus he would be just like you and me…completely neutral..and looking for another job.

 I find it so frustrating when something is so simple…seems so complex to such seemingly highly intelligent people…I’m coming to the conclusion that I must be more of the mind of Einstein that I ever realized.

On 11/18/2023 at 2:56 PM, Pudgy said:

Two can play THIS WORD SALAD, Annie.

In the perplexing realm of circular discourse, where words pirouette without purpose and sentences meander aimlessly, we find ourselves trapped in a linguistic labyrinth of unparalleled absurdity. Picture a discourse so circuitous that it makes a dizzying carousel seem like a straight line. As we embark on this linguistic rollercoaster, we must prepare to navigate the convoluted contours of verbosity.

In the grand tapestry of talking in circles, the artistry lies in crafting sentences that orbit meaning without ever daring to land. Words, like mischievous acrobats, perform feats of linguistic gymnastics, contorting themselves into shapes unfamiliar to logic. It's a parade of paradoxes, where coherence is the elusive unicorn and clarity the rarest of gems.

As we delve into the heart of this linguistic carnival, one may be tempted to believe that profundity resides in the obscurity of expression. Alas, it's a masquerade where the emperor wears robes woven from the threads of ambiguity, and the courtiers nod sagely, pretending to decipher the indecipherable. Verbose vortices suck meaning into their whirlpools, leaving behind a vacuum of understanding.

Each sentence, a maze with no exit, beckons the listener to wander in perpetual confusion. It's a dance of diction where the music is composed of vague allusions and the choreography an intricate ballet of equivocation. Attempting to grasp the central theme is akin to chasing shadows, for just when you think you've caught hold of meaning, it slips through your fingers like ethereal mist.

In this topsy-turvy world of circular dialogue, the destination remains elusive, and the journey becomes an endless loop of linguistic acrobatics. It's as if words have donned roller skates, careening wildly through the terrain of syntax, leaving punctuation in disarray and grammar in a state of disrepair. A sentence may start with the promise of lucidity, only to spiral into the abyss of convolution.

To converse in circles is to revel in the absurdity of language, to embrace a carnival of confusion where coherence is sacrilege and simplicity a heretical notion. So, let us celebrate the linguistic mayhem, where words frolic in a field of lexical anarchy, and meaning is but a distant echo in the cacophony of circumlocution.

Wah de do DAH!

Well done……now I have a migraine 

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

After my father died during but not from COVID, my mother moved from their house to a two bedroom apartment then to a one bedroom and now to a smaller one-bedroom. Even THAT won’t always keep your housing costs level, this being California. 
So I am out here in California helping her “keep her eye simple” tossing out stuff she wishes she could keep. There is a stack of electronics magazines in which my dad wrote articles which I already got for her a year ago in PDF and she has never looked at any of them anyway, not even the physical copies. My father also has a couple inventions to his name (via Univ of Missouri) and I was hoping to find prototypes at least. 
I’ll talk about two things I did find. One is shown in a video next. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Looking forward to your next post on this and I’m Terribly sorry about your dad. also feel awfully sorry for your mum..so many losses on all fronts …too sad too sad….

8 hours ago, Many Miles said:

There's that.

And, there's this.

Does this mean I have no need to respond to that?

Had I known you were Aussie, I'd have kept my work here to just a sentence or two at-a-time.

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit….but that’s okay..I know it must be hard to know I licked ya!!

8 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

It seems like if we are going to do overstepping headship, we should criticize Aaron for not going all the way and saying to God, ‘Oh, come on! After all he’s done? It was just a little loss of temper, and goodness knows, they had it coming!’

That is the sentiment most of us have to come to grips with upon reading the account. Aaron was human. Would he not have had to come to grips with it too?

The trouble with overstepping headship is that people don’t have the judgment to know when to do it. For every ‘proper’ time they do it, there are 5 improper times.

Did Jehovah think it just a little loss of temper..or Aaron’s failure to be strong in his faith . Jehovah was goi g to strike him dead except for Moses begging for his life.

Do I feel sorry for either of them…absolutely..more for Moses than Aaron….as there for the grace of god go I…….I ponder on both of them…and I think,,,….Thinking … your dead...

23 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Cornelius was new to Christianity. But Cornelius was not a new worshiper of God.

There is an untenable misconception that once Judaism came to exist there were no worshipers of God otherwise, until Christianity came along. That was never the case. This was a revelation for Peter too. "At this Peter began to speak, and he said: 'Now I truly understand that God is not partial, but in every nation the man who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.'". (Ref Acts 10)

A person that was not a Jew did not have to convert to Judaism in order to worship God, unless they opted to do so.

Cornelius was not an adherent to Judaism (he was a true Gentile) yet he was a worshiper of God, and God recognized his worship aside from Judaism. God also recognized Cornelius' worship aside from Christianity. God acknowledged the acceptability of his worship even prior to baptism. (Acts 19)

All worshipers of God since the flood (which would include men like Cornelius) would have been obligated to keep the decree issued to Noah regarding blood. Yet, other than Jews, God did not require anyone to abstain from eating the unbled dead carcass of an animal found dead, such as is depicted at Deut 14:21. Non-Jewish worshipers could have literally purchased such meat from Jews, and specifically to eat it. Cornelius likely used such flesh as food at one point or another during his life. Whether he did or didn't does not even matter. What matters is that he could have if he wanted to because he was never prohibited from it. Such flesh is as edible as any other flesh or vegetation, so long as it's not become too contaminated with dangerous pathogens.

Okay I get that bit now..thanks for the correction and over look any remarks concerning this….and I absolutely respect you and all the work you did within the org for Gods people …..as a side note we always call it a organization…I have never liked that  and I just call us Jehovahs people or family ….

23 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Let's start simple, beginning with the text you quoted:

- Where in that text does it say anything whatsoever about carcasses of animals that had died of natural cause?

- For that matter, even prior to this, when had anything been said about carcasses of animals that had died of natural cause? (This could be a tricky one since prior to this the biblical record does say something about dead carcasses)

Then ask yourself these questions:

- Prior to the flood had God issued a prohibition against more than one edible?

- Was permission given in Eden to eat vegetation a prohibition against eating minerals of the earth, like salt?

- What is a body made of but minerals of the earth?

- If you have a lifeless body (non-soulical) what is that if not just formed elements of earth?

Then ask yourself what you can learn from the natural created world (Ps 19; Rom 1:20):

- In  the natural order of things we see around us in creation, what is the the process by which dead carcasses are made one with the earth again? Who or what does this?

Finally, from a logical perspective:

- Is the absence of permission evidence of a prohibition when there is no presence of a need for permission?

Get back with me after you think through these as base underpinnings for discussion. If you can think of additional base underpinnings please include those too.

 

It doesn’t say anything about carcass already dead… because you will be eating them with blood..I don’t understand  how you don’t get  this ,…..but…I know they eventually did this…..but it wasn’t Jehovahs instructions to do so.

you are reading into it something that isn’t there….

Jehovah gave them all the trees and seed bearing vegetation to eat….I’m happy to be corrected on that……. good to look at and they could eat to their satisfaction..he also had rivers with water which no doubt gave them the minerals they needed..gold and onyx…was mention in the land when talking of the rivers in Eden ….

look if you want to eat carcass..go ahead but I dont see Jehovah condoning that anywhere in Eden……Jehovah gave good healthy living food…….a carcass  starts to rot and purify right at death…but I’m sure this was acceptable quickly after they left eden…as was every other detestable sin that Jehovah never spoke of specifically at the time.

But your argument( which is windy and windy for me )  on this doesn’t hold up for me…..and I cannot say more than I have.

But I enjoy many of your other posts….and I like you

19 hours ago, Many Miles said:

20 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

 

Job was outside the Judaic system, and potentially his life overlapped with Moses.

Elihu is another potential example.

But the most clear-cut example of this is Cornelius.

But biblical text, though following the Abrahamic line, does show God recognize conduct of all peoples, individuals or nations, as to whether these 'feared him and worked righteousness'. For example, God saw what was happening in Nineveh. He always knew who were the men like Noah, Job, Elihu or Cornelius. It didn't matter to him what nation they belonged to. What God looked for were men and woman who feared him and worked righteousness. Of course, he made a special case out of the sons of Israel for something greater to come, which was Jesu

Yep I agree with this 

20 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Thinking, I didn't want you to think I overlooked this conclusion you shared. It's obvious we disagree. Just to be clear, I'm not offended by that, not that that should matter to you. If I'm wrong, as you suggest, I want to know it. But I want to know it for sure. This is why I pursued the discussion as I did in my post above. Insofar as I can read, there are some underpinnings of this subject I'm not convinced you've thought through. But, should you opt to pursue the discussion, we'll find out. Either way, thanks for the discussion.

I hope I didnt offend..I tend to write short and to the point….you and Tom and Juan tend to write long flowing posts with many intellectual words….we Australians just dont see the point in all of that.( I think we are wrong but that’s the truth as I see it ) 

I have tried hard to change but…what the heck….too tired and late to change now.

Brother Splane   was at our 2019 assembly ( the best ever ) and he made a long comment saying….you Australians need to watch how you speak, you come over as blunt and sarcastic…he said more but that’s all I remember ..I wondered what had been said to him by the branch.

I will go over your reply but I dont get your Cornealius point ….as I understand it he was Roman..and never under the Jewish system…therefore a follower of Christ .

14 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Since you asked...

The first article (https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1983290 ) conflated several topics, but the primary ones of interest here are the subjects of 1) unbled meat of an animal that died of natural cause and 2) donor blood from live humans. 

Whoever sent in the question was drawing a circle around the text of Deut 14:21 because that text was God giving Jews express permission to sell unbled carcasses of animals dead of natural cause to non-Jewish descendants of Noah specifically for them to eat, and all of Noah's descendants were bound to abide by what God told Noah after the flood about blood.

This would lead a person to believe if God felt it was appropriate for non-Jewish descendants of Noah to eat unbled animal flesh dead of natural cause then it must mean that what God said to Noah explicitly of living animals (soulical) was never to be understood to speak to animal carcasses dead of natural cause (non-soulical). Furthermore, a literal reading of Gen 9 also discloses that nowhere does it address the subject of donor blood given by a human to help save the life or health of a fellow human. The society's response says, "Such reasoning might sound valid". But then it goes on to offer commentary on why the society believes that reasoning is not valid. And, therein is found the rub. Here's why:

1) The commentary about why that reasoning would be wrong is constructed entirely on other biblical requirements stated to Jews under Mosaic Law. 

2) The second article (https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101983099?q="confirming+of+standards+recognized+prior+to+Moses"&p=par ) is very succinct pointing out that the decree issued by the apostles for Christians was "a confirming of standards recognized prior to Moses". That means, appropriately the response in that Questions from Readers article should have focused on standards recognized prior to Moses, but that's not what they did. Their entire case was constructed on stipulations of Mosaic Law, which law never applied to worshipers like Noah, Job, Elihu or Cornelius.

The rub? As a basis for answering the question the society plied the Law of Moses rather than standards recognized prior to Moses. In its response to the question asked, the society plied premises it admits didn't apply to the issue inquired of.

So the question is, what happens when we try to answer the question asked based on standards recognized prior to Moses?

The answer becomes pretty evident because, according to Deut 14:21 God had no problem whatsoever with non-Jewish descendants of Noah eating unbled animal flesh dead of natural cause. To the contrary, the text of Deut 14:21 has God telling Jews they could sell this sort of flesh to non-Jewish descendants of Noah specifically for the purpose of eating it.

So those two sources are providing a quite different view on how to view the decree from the apostles to abstain from blood and things strangled. The first article (the Questions From Readers article) would have us look at the question asked purely through the lens of Mosaic Law. The second article tells us we should look at things purely through standards recognized prior to Moses.

Then we have this from Insight:

"At Deuteronomy 14:21 allowance was made for selling to an alien resident or a foreigner an animal that had died of itself or that had been torn by a beast. Thus a distinction was made between the blood of such animals and that of animals that a person slaughtered for food. (Compare Le 17:14-16.) The Israelites, as well as alien residents who took up true worship and came under the Law covenant, were obligated to live up to the lofty requirements of that Law. People of all nations were bound by the requirement at Genesis 9:3, 4, but those under the Law were held by God to a higher standard in adhering to that requirement than were foreigners and alien residents who had not become worshipers of Jehovah." (Ref https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000774?q="higher+standard"&p=par )  

Note when this paragraph initially speaks to worshipers is says "who took up true worship and came under the Law covenant". These are the same worshipers spoken of in the last sentence too. What this takes into account is that there were worshipers of God who never came under the Law covenant. Hence, men like Job, Elihu, Noah and Cornelius were never bound to the "higher standard" in respect to blood within Mosaic Law, though they were always bound by the standard recognized prior to Moses.

As it turns out, there is nothing in the provision of Deut 14:21 that conflicts with any standard recognized prior to Moses. Noah was free to eat unbled flesh of animals found dead of natural cause. He always was.

We also learn that no standard recognized prior to Moses remotely suggests that it is wrong to accept transfusion of donor blood, which is blood that another human has willingly donated for purposes of helping preserve the health and/or life of a fellow human.

  Jerusalem bible…Instructions given to Noah

Genesis 9:2-4 [2]Be the terror and the dread of all the animals on land and all the birds of heaven, of everything that moves on land and all the fish of the sea; they are placed in your hands. [3]Every living thing that moves will be yours to eat, no less than the foliage of the plants. I give you everything, [4]with this exception: you must not eat flesh with life, that is to say blood, in it.

Noah was NOT allowed to eat unbled meat..and to my knowledge you cannot bleed a dead animal….needless to say his descendants forgot their God and this law very quickly and I have no doubt drank blood and ate unbled meat.

1) why do you include Cornelius along with ones like Job…he was a new Christian thus come under the abstain and not eating the 

2) Not all aliens took up true worship therefore were not under the law..foreigners travelled amongst Gods people..so you have resident aliens ( under the law) and foreigners excepted from the law ( usually traders there for commercial intent so there for not considered to be under the law nor had any desire to be ) So you e got two laws going for two sets of differ t people amongst Gods one peoples….so it gets confusing for some,

Sorry I still don’t get what you are trying to say….I think there is plenty to suggest that Jehovah holds the blood as something that belongs to him and him alone .

I think that with knowledge comes a lot of confusion over something that once was simple to understand,,,,,makes me realize one of the reasons why Jehovah didn’t want Eve to eat that fruit because she DID received certain knowledge that she was not ready for and stuffed everything up.

Genesis 3:6

when the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and DESIRABLE FOR GAINING WISDOM …..and both of their eyes were opened. ( knowing good from evil ) 

I see this amongst ex JWs…mainly those who have web sites and pages…they are extremely knowledgeable about scriptures…..they taught me some good things….but eventually become proud and ever so slowly develop their own teaching thinking their inspired……I guess Eve felt that.

This blood issue just shows me satan still uses the same slimey crafty ways 

Genesis 3:1 

Now the serpent was more crafty than all the wild animals the Lord God had made and he said …Did God really say you must not eat from any tree in the garden…………..you will surely not die.

Hes doing the same thing amongst Gods people now over the blood issue…

Satan : Is it really so…take the blood and it will give you life….

Same  story different time period.

aaaah Miles..I really like you..but your dangerously wrong on this one..

7 hours ago, George88 said:

Do you believe, If people in Jesus' time had read the ancient scrolls, they would have undoubtedly realized that the Pharisees were engaging in dishonest practices, regardless of their literacy levels.

Imagine the future. Despite the overwhelming evidence that demonstrates Trump's racism, dishonesty, deceit, and manipulative nature, do you think there will come a point when MAGA supporters will open their eyes and see the truth about him as it is consistently revealed to them in the media?

Why do apostates refer to the Shepard book as a "secret book" when it is simply a manual for Elders? What is the basis of their belief? If the instructional manual is based on scripture, then it would be appropriate to refer students to the Bible when they have questions. It becomes the responsibility of the "teacher" to guide the students in comprehending and applying scripture to their everyday lives.

Yes just like I just said.

39 minutes ago, Anna said:

And this is why we have the closed club, so we don't have to put up with many Allen Smiths with many problems, and his buddy George. Oh why, oh why, did I even start commenting here I ask myself.

I’m surprised I did too…but Miles was an attraction…..and others had left….

34 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

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.

This is a good thing,,no?

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

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"?

That means everyone who studies with someone MUST MUST make them aware of ALL of this…and if that means showing them the elders book…yes,,,be up front about every thing and every possibility that may lay ahead 

11 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

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

That’s why each one must make sure before baptism..and yes..that was double speak…

On 11/7/2023 at 9:14 AM, Many Miles said:

I thought long about that comment. My story is no more and no less a story about a boy who was raised to respect truth.

Many generations of my family have been associated with JWs, even before JWs were a thing. My paternal side goes back to Russell.

I was raised to trust the society. So that's what I did. And, that was my mistake. 'Do not put your trust in nobles, nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs.' I should have listened to that with more care than I did.

When it came to the society's blood position, when I was baptized I trusted that someone higher up and smarter than me understood the details, and I trusted them.

Way, way later down the road, I found out the society could not and would not answer for important underpinnings of its position on blood. This was the case regarding physiological aspects of blood as a substance, and medical aspects of transfusion medicine. This was also true of biblical statements regarding blood, and particularly as it relates to Noah. Ultimately, what lit me up to take a closer look at this whole thing were things I read in our own publications. I realized the scriptural truth of the whole thing was already spelled out in our literature! So I showed it to the society. Crickets.

Compare these two articles:

Here: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1983290

Here: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101983099

In the second article, pay careful attention to paragraphs 7 and 8. Very close attention, as you look back over the first article linked above. This material was all published in the same year. None of it is the result of "new light" that changed. Remember there are biblical characters who worshiped the only true God who were never under Mosaic Law. Men like Noah, Job, Elihu and Cornelius. These latter had to obey the decree issued to Noah. But not to the different standard issued to Jews under Mosaic Law.

Those internal articles are just the tip. 

People are still dying over something that should be left for each person to decide on their own, without religious coercion of being potentially shunned.

In the end, my story doesn't and shouldn't matter. What matters is truth.

 

 

Well I dont know ..I read those articles and I don’t see a problem….I think I’ve got the grasp of them but I’m asking others here to comment as you seem so strong in this..understanding you have….so your going to have to spell it out for me

Also you seem to have a few irons in the fire and I get a bit confused ..so I’m just speaking on the blood issue here .

The me…thinks one shouldn’t be disfellowshipped for taking blood but going by all those scriptures in the articles…it would amount to a death sentence by Jehovah himself…before and after Noah’s time and it was of such importance out of three things from the Law …blood was one of them for the new Christian’s.

We are talking about blood here..Frank blood.

Im guessing someone like you wrote in and explained how fractions of blood were in vaccines and certain injections…( which was good )..so then the fractions had to be explained.

As to some of the treatments you have explained and as to why one would get disfellowshipped and not for the other…I wouldn’t have a clue.

I read in one of our articles some one felt okay to transfuse cows blood…..( I remember thinking,,,,what the heck,,,and why would they even publish that)

I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree …..for me..it’s like taking the fruit…..but I would never look down on or judge anyone if they took it or disagreed with me,

You go back a long time and it’s a shame in those days there seemed to be blind obedience with children and youths of your time…no internet…some had not even a library to compare things. In a way you could say you were a victim of your era

I on the other hand come from the 70s and questioned everything….I could see a number of worrying things….wrong things…but I was like one of those no good Egyptians grabbing hold of the hem of that Jew…. .not sure where he was taking me nor not really wanting to go…but I knew he was heading in the right direction.

You’re expecting too much Miles….lives have been lost because of wrongful beliefs pushed on us ( organ transplants)…just as King David lost tens of thousand of lives …for his error…so it happens today as then….and will until Michael comes and finishes it.

Your an interesting man with a lot of fascinating experiences…I hope we hear more of them…you sure write really well….now I wonder where you learnt to do that hey 😉

On 11/7/2023 at 2:51 PM, George88 said:

Many, Anna and Pudgy, I fail to comprehend what aspects of these articles you all fail to grasp in regard to the application of the Mosaic laws. Before and after, there were instances where certain requirements of the law were unnecessary for Gentile Christians. This is due to the fact that the Jewish High Court extended the laws and considered themselves the ultimate authority. Regarding the matter of transfused blood, there shouldn't have been any issue since it didn't exist back then and wouldn't have been applicable based on that understanding. The only scenario where it would have been a concern is if someone chose to consume an animal without properly draining its blood or if they indulged in the gruesome practice of drinking the blood, as done by certain Roman nobility who would consume the blood of fallen gladiators.

So, let me ask you all, what part of the transition do you fail to understand when a person repents? We have been presented with the following questions in those articles. Based on scripture, what biblical foundations do you oppose, under the conditions outlined in the understanding of the Word, not your personal interpretation?

Nevertheless, it will undoubtedly result in an intriguing book, much like the works of Carl Olof Jonsson.

Carl was very very wordy and hard to read 

4 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Yes. But the "extraordinary prophecy" cited by the society from The World Magazine specifically references Russell's prophecy and not any predecessors. And, as it turns out, The World Magazine was wrong because Russell's prediction that 1914 would see Armageddon was false. It didn't happen.

Do you deny that Russell taught that 1914 would see Armageddon? THAT is what The World Magazine credited Russell with correctly prophesying. 

Yes. He was.

"Be not surprised, then, when in subsequent chapters we present proofs that the setting up of the Kingdom of God is already begun, that it is pointed out in prophecy as due to begin the exercise of power in A. D. 1878, and that the ''battle of the great day of God Almighty " (Rev. 16:14.), which will end in A. D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership, is already commenced. The gathering of the armies is plainly visible from the standpoint of God's Word."—(The Time is at Hand, Chapter IV, The Times of the Gentiles, 1902, p 101, underlining added for emphsis)

Russell came right out and predicted that Armageddon would end in 1914. He was wrong. The World Magazine was wrong. But that didn't stop the society from using the positive press coverage.

What Russell said about 1914 prior to 1914 is not subjective. It's conveniently written down.

 

 

 

He also admitted he was wrong and it seemed there was a bigger work that lay ahead that someone else other than he would address .

he never forced anyone to beleive his chronology…they could beleive or not beleive…he didn’t think any less of them…and he still considered them his spiritual brothers.

3 hours ago, Many Miles said:

I hear you. Now if only a lot of folks could regain the best years of their lives by not taking the society as seriously as they told them to but weren't doing themselves.

For your information, cryosupernatant is not a small part of blood. Cryosupernatant is more than 50 percent of the blood circulating in your veins this very moment. It's no wonder the society does not list it on its charts and graphs of what we can accept as a personal conscience matter. I mean, what message would that send in terms of a "minor fraction"?

For me, this is not medical word play. As an elder I helped parents make decisions about their babies, and some of them died when they could have been saved. it makes me cry to this day just to think about it. Keyboarding this makes me grieve for those babies, and their families.

I do respect you too, either way. Real unity is folks holding common cause despite differences. Unity is not to be confused with uniformity.

The dead babies won't let my eyes glaze over. They keep me up at night.

Many Miles I am genuinely with hand on my heart so sorry for your pain. no words will extinguish the guilt you feel….personally I do not see that you should think you have any..

I dont know how many babies you lost in this way..or why this happened.

in my books the blood issue needs to be respected…and you helped some parents when they needed that.You were a pillar of strength. It’s a massive emotional and spiritual burden to take on and you did it in good faith at the time.

I dont know your story thus why you no longer have the same belief as us anymore concerning it.

I sighed loudly when I read your post and thought…what has he been thru.

I have been on line for..oh well…ever so long …and heard many sad stories and I can honestly say…my story has been the saddest of all I have read…..I too wish I could turn back the clock and avoid what lay ahead…but alas..it has only been the internet that uncovered many things for me……………..and Franz’s book made me stronger….NOT weaker in our faith.

Dont let the King Sauls and Korah’s or the JUDAS LIKE brothers force you out.

I hope you find a little scrap of peace brother. I’m barely hanging on but soon this will all be over with and I don’t want to be known by Jehovah for hurting my brothers and sisters……….I write this with much grief xx