Thinking

I tend to break Juan’s and even JWI and their writing up in paragraphs at a time..just cannot do it in one hit …but it’s usually worth it even if I don’t understand everything…

yeah …. like that silly requirement the Romans had in the Coliseum that you just put a pinch of incense on the alter to the Roman Emperor and you could go free … OR … you could refuse and you and your family would be torn apart and eaten by lions.
Whadda sense of humor!
When you make a statement “.. so help you God… “ it may be a formality to some civil clerk, but if you take an oath before God and man the presumption is that God will enforce it.
There are times when the sands of the Arena are soaked with the blood of Christians who would not make the simple gesture of putting a pinch of incense on the Alter of the Emporer … and there are times when Church Leaders don’t get to go to Europe.
If Oaths before God are meaningless … you get to go to Europe.
See?

Another thing to consider is that everything we do in life is experimental, and just like Jehovah was surprised when the people rolled their children into the fiery stomachs of Molech, we are often surprised and sucker punched.
It’s not that we “love the Truth”, quite often what we love, we label as “ The Truth”. 
This is true for Saints and Monsters.
If a person is WRONG … but believes himself that what he in good conscience tells you is true …. that is NOT A LIE.
A lie has to be a DELIBERATE lie, and hearing something wrong from a self-deluded person, if you believe it, does NOT mean you have been lied to.
So, I believe that 95% of what we think is correct, that turns out to be wrong, in History, Astronomy, (Astronomer Percival Lowell believed he saw “Canals” on Mars …and for decades everyone on Earth believed it.), Chemistry, Physics … AND THEOLOGY, is not an attempt at deception.
Attempts at deception are lies.
Being cluelessly ignorant and self-delusional may make someone a certified fool … but labeling them as liars may be unfair …. and wrong!

It is well not to describe religous interpretations as ‘lies’ when they cannot immediately be identified as such. With your patience—and you are certainly a patient and tenacious fellow—let me try to develop a point: 
Congregations are lately covering the Book of Job. Here, Job is giving his testimony: “Let God weigh me with accurate scales; Then he will recognize my integrity.” (Job 31:6)
His life course is one of integrity toward God. If it was not, downfall would be justified, he believes, but it has been
“If my footsteps deviate from the way Or my heart has followed after my eyes Or my hands have been defiled, … If my heart has been enticed by a woman And I have lain in wait at my neighbor’s door, … If I denied justice to my male or female servants When they had a complaint against me, … If I refused to give the poor what they desired Or saddened the eyes of the widow; If I ate my portion of food alone Without sharing it with the orphans;… If I saw anyone perishing for lack of clothing Or a poor man with nothing to cover himself; … If I shook my fist against the orphan When he needed my assistance in the city gate; … If I put my confidence in gold Or said to fine gold, ‘You are my security!’ If I found my joy in my great wealth Because of the many possessions I acquired;” (31: 7-25)
All those things would be bad, meriting God’s disfavor, he believes, but he never did any of them!
“Have I ever rejoiced over the destruction of my enemy Or gloated because evil befell him?  I never allowed my mouth to sin. . . Have the men of my tent not said, ‘Who can find anyone who has not been satisfied with his food?’ No stranger had to spend the night outside; I opened my doors to the traveler. Have I ever tried to cover over my transgressions, like other men, By hiding my error in the pocket of my garment?” Have I been in fear of the reaction of the multitude, Or have I been terrified by the contempt of other families, Making me silent and afraid to go outside?”  (29-34) No, his life is not characterized by any of those things.
It is his testimony. He has always been upright. He’s ready to sign it: “I would sign my name to what I have said.” (31:35)
It is all peremptorily denied by his three interrogators: 
Eliphaz: Is [your suffering] not because your own wickedness is so great And there is no end to your errors? For you seize a pledge from your brothers for no reason, And you strip people of their garments, leaving them naked. You do not give the tired one a drink of water, And you hold back food from the hungry. The land belongs to the powerful man, And the favored one dwells in it. But you sent away widows empty-handed, And you crushed the arms of fatherless children. That is why you are surrounded by traps, And sudden terrors frighten you;  (Job 22:5-10)
Why does he reject Job’s testimony, instead charging just the opposite? Because it conflicts with his own ‘theology:’ “What I have seen,” Eliphaz says previously, “is that those who plow what is harmful And those who sow trouble will reap the same. By the breath of God they perish, And through a blast of his anger they come to an end. . . . Even the teeth of strong lions are broken.”  (Job 4:8-10)
His preformed—faulty, as it turns out—theology tells him Job must have been ‘plowing what is harmful’ for him to be suffering now. Job, who otherwise might have agreed with that theology, undergoes the worst of spiritual crises to accompany his crisis on all other fronts, because he knows he has not been ‘plowing what is harmful’—quite the contrary. So he works out his angst by blaming God for being both cruel and unfair. This further inflames Eliphaz and crew, already riled that Job is resisting their ‘correction.’ Now they read  false positive for apostasy and figure they must attack Job for that reason, too. Presently they are all but hurling epithets at the poor fellow.
Before chalking up the above to the oddities of religious people (or applying them to Witness HQ), reflect that all of society is that way. If you have benefited from acupuncture, say, and want to tell the world about it, you will find yourself derided among the materialist crowd for advocating ‘pseudoscience.’ What about your own beneficial experience, you will ask. ‘It will be attributed to ‘anecdotal evidence,’ inherently unreliable. It doesn’t matter how many like testimonies you can gather; it will all be attributed to ‘anecdotal evidence’ by those whose scientific ‘theology’ admits to no other view—they can’t replicate your experience in their test tubes, so they assume you are either deluded or lying. Mechanisms may differ, but the overall pattern is no different than Job’s ‘anecdotal evidence’ rejected by those of a different theology.
You can go along with the airy dismissal of ‘anecdotal evidence.’ Then one day you find it is your evidence they are trying to dismiss and you wonder how people can be so high-handed and stubborn.

I find your inference quite acceptable. However, what I had in mind was the pervasive incivility that existed between the Pharisees and the high priest towards both Jesus and the apostles. The words I can imagine them uttering, oh, how vivid they are!
Nevertheless, there are boundaries to how the concept of burden can be interpreted. It is not applicable in situations where a witness is arrested for pedophilia and expects us to assist them in proving their innocence, despite their guilt. It also does not extend to individuals who lose their jobs and then demand that the community support them in every way.
In such cases, Galatians 6:2 takes on a different significance.
In order for verses 2 and 3 to hold any significance, it is essential to closely and accurately interpret Galatians 6:1. Here, spirituality once again proves its pivotal role.
NAS  Matthew 20:12 saying, 'These last men have worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the scorching heat of the day.' (Matt. 20:12 NAS)
NAS  Revelation 2:24 'But I say to you, the rest who are in Thyatira, who do not hold this teaching, who have not known the deep things of Satan, as they call them-- I place no other burden on you. (Rev. 2:24 NAS)
NAS  2 Corinthians 4:17 For momentary, light affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison, (2 Cor. 4:17 NAS)
NAS  1 Thessalonians 2:7 But we proved to be gentle among you, as a nursing mother tenderly cares for her own children. (1 Thess. 2:7 NAS)
NAS  Acts 15:28 "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: (Acts 15:28 NAS)
By expanding our perspective, we can gain insight into Apostle Paul's motive for writing to the Thessalonians.
NAS  1 Thessalonians 4:11 and to make it your ambition to lead a quiet life and attend to your own business and work with your hands, just as we commanded you; (1 Thess. 4:11 NAS)
NAS  1 Thessalonians 4:12 so that you may behave properly toward outsiders and not be in any need. (1 Thess. 4:12 NAS)
As I mentioned earlier, I do agree in principle.

I hear you, there is a fundamental difference between that for which a person is culpable before Jehovah, and that by which we (humans) may judge another human. I don’t think anyone here would claim that apart from the guidance of the Congregation, people cannot read and understand Scripture to some degree, a degree that allows them to have a conscious saving faith in Jehovah and Christ. Thankfully, they can. Knowing Jehovah and Christ is a matter of degree (not all or nothing). Jehovah and Christ can be known in various ways through different means, Scripture, worship, prayer, tradition, community, service. Jehovah can even be known (in some degree) through incorrect interpretations of Scripture. Hearing His voice does not necessarily mean perfectly hearing his voice correctly about every truth within the content of our faith. So a person can truly come to know and love Jehovah, without yet knowing that the Congregation is what Jehovah established and into which all Christians should be incorporated.
Even the notion that they must be either good guys or bad guys already makes it a loaded answer, because the truth may be more complicated. There is also the matter of motives, and of actions. Actions can be good in one respect, but deficient in another, all while motives may be very good. And so forth, so it is not so black and white. It is good, all other things being equal, for persons to be told about Jehovah and Christ and His love for us, and that He died for our salvation. It is not good for persons to be in schism, to be deprived of true worship, to be taught false doctrine (to be taught that they can never lose their salvation), to be deprived of the fulness of the truth, and all the other aids to our salvation available within the Congregation.
So far as I know, people like that prostitute you encountered, or James White, TD Jakes, Billy Graham, Greg Stafford, Raymond Franz, or Rolf Furuli were doing the best they could with what they knew, and bringing a message of Jehovah and Christ to many people. And in that way, they are good guys. But it is not for me (or any other JW) to judge the hearts of our fellow man and determine that this one or that one has placed himself in a state of sin by such a choice. We cannot read hearts, only Jehovah can. The principle of love calls us to believe the best about someone, all other things being equal, and to pray for those we see in error, rather than judge them. Not presuming that there is some intellectual dishonesty in their heart at the level of the will regarding this question, and not presuming that they are violating their conscience, but instead with the assumption that they are following their conscience as best as they can, and desire to know the truth, and will in fact sacrifice all to find and follow the truth no matter what it is. 
But such persons are in a gravely deficient condition, especially and to the degree that their understanding of Jehovah is incorrect. It is much more difficult to be saved without the fullness of the Good News and the means of help available in the Congregation which are the ordinary means by which we are to grow up into the fullness of conformity to Christ.
I know that because the holy spirit is at work in the hearts of all men, and because Jehovah is omnipotent, the Congregation does not rule out the possibility that persons in a condition of ignorance concerning the fullness of the Good News and the Congregation, can be saved. And the testimony of Scripture supports that teaching, which is not universalism but rather a recognition of the power and mercy of Jehovah who desires all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4). Paul wasn’t being redundant there. Knowledge of the truth about Jehovah is very important, but it is not the essence of salvation, we’re not saved fundamentally by gnosis, but by love and faith.
Correct doctrine allows us more perfectly to know Jehovah, and thus more perfectly to love Him. The more one knows the truth about Him, the more one is able to love Him, because we cannot love what we do not know. Similarly, the more one knows the truth about Jehovah, the more reason one has to love him. Moreover, not all theological error is equal, and not all theological error completely eliminates the possibility of loving Jehovah. It is possible for our beliefs to be imperfect and believe some falsehoods about Him, and still love Him. Yet the more distorted one’s understanding, the more difficult it is to love Him. 
What I have argued is that if Jehovah and Christ want us to be united in faith and love, then He would have provided the necessary means by which to preserve that unity. And in the Governing Body of the Congregation He has provided just that, a means by which our unity of faith, unity of worship, and unity of government are maintained. Even though Scripture is clear enough for a person to come to saving faith by reading it, it is not clear enough to preserve the unity of the Congregation without an authorized governing body. So for me a Governing Body it’s not just extremely valuable and convenient, which would amount to a pragmatic ad hoc way of thinking, but rather organic and intrinsic to the Christian faith.
@Many Miles @JW Insider @TrueTomHarley @Anna
Perhaps I should write this under the Galatians thread. Here’s anyways😅 
I’m beginning to think that the idea that we can approach the bible without an inherent bias or rose tinted glasses is an illusory ideal. This abstract view from nowhere seems to be more effective when we think we have obtained pure objectivity, all while unknowingly presupposing contemporary ideas and assumptions. Everyone uses glasses of some sort when they come to Scripture. No one can interpret Scripture from a completely clean slate. The question is not whether one will have glasses through which to interpret Scripture, but rather which glasses are the correct ones?
@Many Miles I understand that that our Congregation (Jehovah's Witnesses) takes pride in not articulating/ categorizing or claiming of having any explicit background philosophy (like Thomism, Scotism or Platonism) or theology per se. And that we Witnesses say that no background philosophy is needed, but prefer to base our beliefs on the Bible without philosophizing. But even though our Congregation says that no explicit philosophy drives our understanding of Scripture. I think we all agree that no belief developed in a vacuum and the Watchtower movement grew from different roots (In my opinion, from rationalist ideas from the enlightenment, humanism, democratic individualism and was influenced by different traditions according to at least one study -Rachel de Vienne and B. W. Schulz: Volumen I & II Separate Identity: Organizational Identity Among Readers of Zion's Watch Tower: 1870-1887.)
When we read (and interpret) scripture we are not starting from a clean slate. There is no traditionless theological vacuum, abstract view from nowhere from which to read or interpret Scripture, we come to it with some sort of glasses (tradition). There is no initial space where the reader brings nothing to the text, and where his interpretation is not contingent on what he brings to the text. Even biblical studies cannot be carried out in a philosophical vacuum (that is, their tools, techniques, principles and methods, all presuppose a framework). Theology and religion always start from certain hermeneutical principles whether explicitly or implicitly. And if we do not realize that we are even bringing philosophical presuppositions to the interpretive process, I don't think we will not be getting to the fundamental causes of our interpretive disagreements. Only then I think we'll realize that we need some way of evaluating these assumptions. Claiming to evaluate them by way of Scripture simply ignores the fact that we would be using these assumptions to interpret Scripture, so the evaluation would be question begging, and thus worthless.
When each person is deciding for himself what is the correct interpretation of Scripture, Scripture is no longer functioning as the final authority. Rather, each individual's own reason and judgment becomes, as it were, the highest authority, supplanting in effect Scripture' unique and rightful place. I believe the discussion hinges on whether there is an authoritative interpretive authority and how that authority is determined. This is why I'm starting to believe that our attempts to resolve our disagreements by way of proof texting or exegesis is futile. The root of the disagreement is not fundamentally in an exegetical error, but instead within philosophical and theological assumptions we bring to the text. So this idea of approaching scriptures only thru hermeneutics presupposes that kind of rationalism and that hermeneutics and exegesis would solve interpretative problems. But there is more than exegesis that is at work in interpretation and it's not just exegetical tools but underlying philosophical and theological assumptions we bring to the text even if unaware.
Here's what a friend and philosophy professor (who won an award for excellence in the field of Biblical exegesis) challenged me on.
Let's test this claim Juan (that exegesis alone, without any reliance on philosophy or theology can first determine the meaning of Scripture, to which we can then subject our philosophical and theological assumptions). Lay out any exegetical argument you think resolves a substantive doctrinal disagreement that presently divides us, and I'll show you the hidden (or not so hidden) theological/philosophical assumption in that argument, an assumption either immediately brought to the text or built on an interpretation that is itself based on a prior theological/philosophical assumption brought to the text.

Thank you Juan and I definitely got the gist of your words, I’m sort of getting used to the way you write…and I sure hope when I speak in short bursts you get my awkward gists 

Thank you Juan and I definitely got the gist of your words, I’m sort of getting used to the way you write…and I sure hope when I speak in short bursts you get my awkward gists 

I don't doubt the overall point you are making that ultimately we must stand "ourselves alone" before the judgment seat of God. And you are right, too, about "examining our past actions and behavior to ensure they were not influenced by our own flawed understanding and judgment." I like that. It's very clear, and its scriptural:
(Galatians 6:3-5) For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he is deceiving himself. 4  But let each one examine his own actions, and then he will have cause for rejoicing in regard to himself alone, and not in comparison with the other person. 5  For each one will carry his own load.
 
The only thing I see a bit differently is not so important, but I hope you'll excuse me for pointing it out. The phrase "Am I my brother's keeper?" is not really meant to be a guide for our spiritual growth. More likely, in my opinion, it's a reminder that we SHOULD be our brother's keeper during the time of our spiritual growth.  Ultimately, we stand alone and carry our own load, but penultimately, during our spiritual growth, we SHOULD be our brother's keeper. We have a brotherhood, because Christianity is a social religion that works best when we mutually support one another. (Hebrews 10:24,25) The very point Paul made in Galatians, above, was preceded by a verse that sounded, at first, like just the opposite:
(Galatians 6:2) .Go on carrying the burdens of one another, and in this way you will fulfill the law of the Christ. 
I wouldn't have pointed it out, but it just sounded a bit jarring to think that Cain's words were some kind of spiritual guidance, when these were the words Cain used as he was trying to deflect and deceive Jehovah. He had just killed his own brother after harboring animosity and jealousy, and wanted to hide his crime. 

In the end God will look at our life and answer the question of whether we fear (respect) Him and work righteousness to the best of our knowledge and honestly. I think we must both agree on that.
 

Chinese society is its own special crossroad of dictatorial governance, wealth, societal development, information access and technology. Not too long ago a group I was with were laughing out loud because huge billboard sized photos of us were broadcasted near the intersection we had just j-walked. It was an instance of trying to shame us into using crosswalks. Later that day a hotel staffer approached us about the violation. Facial recognition had IDed us and authorities located our accommodation and instructed staff to straighten us out. Real 1984ish stuff! 

I love Russell but I don’t understand what he is saying here,.
 

I seen many years ago on another site which I think is redundant now….i was never sure what to make of it…..this oath must have had many brothers and sisters who travelled overseas compromise themselves.

As a side note, perhaps (?) forms were printed locally?
This is a “typo” currently worth about $1.6 million dollars. (!)

From the Awake! magazine, relegating the curiosity to a minor curiosity:
 

I have never held one, and don't recall the exact wording, although I vaguely recall seeing a picture.  I recall finding some material in a University Library on Malawi, from a huge UN-sourced publication, in the very late 1970s and it tried to give a completely different impression of what had happened in Malawi and why. I chalked it up to governmental propaganda. Banda propaganda.
I never thought about it much until I saw it brought up again in RF CoC. Then it struck me as something I should have looked into, because as a Southern Californian, we used to visit Mexican congregations as a child, and their meetings still stuck out as something that needed more explanation, which my parents tried to explain to me as best they could.
Do you have a copy to share? Or a link to a picture of one? 

LOL! Simply put, what is the difference between (P) and (PPF) that a witness should be able to understand? While one can be considered invalid, the word fraction comes up again for a person to make a decision on. 

Certain witnesses gave proof somewhere. Abel, Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, Job, Elihu, Cornelius. All, names of men who feared (respected) God and worked righteousness, and whose worship was accepted by God. They honestly just wanted to do right by God. Really, when we read the Genesis account, that's all God ever looked for in Adam, and then Eve. Both, His creative work. Now we are where we are. The aforementioned names all testify to the points you make. Each knew and understood the ultimate authority, and their personal responsibility. Respectively, it was God, and themselves. Between themselves and the Creator, they squarely placed their loyalty to Him, regardless of personal consequence. It's scriptural.

The same follower of Jesus that took time to put Jesus' prayer to paper also took time later on to comment about the unity of which you inquire.
At the very end of his first epistle, John wrote "But we know that the Son of God has come, and he has given us intellectual capacity that we may gain the knowledge of the true one. And we are in union with the true one, by means of his Son Jesus Christ."
God gave us His written word. Today we call it "the Bible". This is God's inspired written testimony. God created the natural world we see all around us. God's creative work is His inspired testimony in the form of object lessons. Both of these inspired testimonies are equally of God. His testimony is truth.
Jesus' prayer included this, "Sanctify them by means of the truth; your word is truth."
So, we have God's testimony, which is truth. We have that word in two forms. Inspired words are God's truth, and inspired creation is God's truth. And, getting back to the closing words of his first epistle, we have what John said of Jesus, that "he has given us intellectual capacity that we may gain the knowledge of the true one."
This is what I've said in more concise terms on several occasions. God gave us His testimony, and He gave us brains, and He expects us to use them both. What it looks like is this:
1) Things that are present in creation or presented in express terms in the Bible, we accept for what they are, for what they say. Each of these serve as propositions useful to use our brains to deduce sound conclusions of what those express propositions imply.
2) Deductions we form of those propositions must conform to conventions of logical construction. That is called using our brain. This is called forming logical (sound) conclusions.
3) We assert express terms for whatever each proposition says.
4) We assert what is deduced from those propositions to the extent we can prove those deductions. Deductions of logical conclusions can vary in veracity, based on the strength of premises (propositions) applied.
5) Things we cannot soundly reason we leave people to decide for themselves, which is as it should be.
6) Aside from express propositions found in either the Bible or creation, every deduction we form must be falsifiable. This is part of logical conclusions.
Then is when and that is how we have the unity Jesus spoke of that relies on the truth of God and the intellectual capacity given by Jesus. We then have a community where all of us as friends are encouraging one another to use our brains, and where we find we are wrong we embrace the moment and rejoice that we've learned and grown as Christian men and women. But we do not ostracize (or otherwise beat!) those who ask that we prove something true and then fail to prove that thing true on the bases of solid testimony from scripture (or creation) or sound conclusions thereof.
 
 

@Many Miles @JW Insider I'm hesitant with any explanation that uses or is very close to some type of deconstruction by way of psychological analysis (fear of schism). I think we can simply observe the factors or reasons(theological) the Congregation has already given/offers/claims to be the cause. I lean in this case towards a philosophical error of judgment.🙏
I'm just going to use the same term (uniformity) with a different definition. I agree that the unity to which Christ calls us in John 17 is not an all encompassing unity that includes or conflates within itself evil and sin. Rather, is a unity in faith, worship and hierarchy. 
I'm sure you would agree that uniformity is not bad when it's uniformity in the one faith. In that case it's actually something beautiful (Ephesians 4:5, 1 Corinthians 1:10) It seems your concern is with the extreme of absolute uniformity. I'm concerned about the other extreme, which is the absence of a shared faith. So, we are both interested in reaching a middle position (diversity within unity), where the teachings of the organization set the boundaries for our unity, providing a framework within which we can respectfully explore different understandings of our faith. In other words, that what the Congregation requires be only uniformity of truth. 
You reminded me of one of Pope's Francis Homily's in 2014: 
"It is true that the Holy Spirit brings forth different charisms in the Church, which at first glance, may seem to create disorder. Under his guidance, however, they constitute an immense richness, because the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of unity, which is not the same thing as uniformity. Only the Holy Spirit is able to kindle diversity, multiplicity and, at the same time, bring about unity. When we try to create diversity, but are closed within our own particular and exclusive ways of seeing things, we create division. When we try to create unity through our own human designs, we end up with uniformity and homogenization. If we let ourselves be led by the Spirit, however, richness, variety and diversity will never create conflict, because the Spirit spurs us to experience variety in the communion of the Church."
I am wondering what you think the sort of unity Christ prays (in John 17) His followers would have, would look like? I mean, what is the nature of that unity Christ wants His Congregation to have? Is it doctrinal agreement? Only on essentials? How are those determined?  Does it include institutional unity? That's the first set of questions. How is that first set of questions even to be answered? By consensus? Majority vote? Who gets to participate and vote? Who gets to supervise and moderate and make the rules? What would be necessary even for there to be an agreement about how to answer that first set of questions? And if by long and knock down public debate we finally did somehow manage to come to an agreement regarding the answers to those questions, how would we possibly go about achieving that unity (whatever the sort of unity is that we agreed that Christ wants His Congregation to have)? Reading through this whole discussion, it seems to me that if Christ intended His Congregation to be one (so unified that it would testify to the world that the Father sent the Son), then He would not have left us in a kind of each man does what is right in his own eyes situation. He would not have left the unity of His Bride up to the power of combox arguments to bring unity out of the chaos of sheep without a shepherd. The whole discussion above is evidence of the impotence of such arguments. Without a unified ecclesial authority established by Christ, the prospects for even getting some sort of robust visible unity off the ground, let alone preserving it till Christ returns, look extremely bleak! So either there is no point striving for robust visible unity (and we can gloss John 17 in some watered-down way), or the question is not, is it morally wrong to associate oneself with a Christian body that teaches anything whatsoever that is doctrinally false?  but rather, where is the Congregation that Christ established, and what does it have to say about all these questions?

I think you alluded to the diversity without divisions point,  on this post:
I'm familiar with the old principle/quote "In essentials unity, in non-essentials freedom, in all things love". The problem arises once we get to what is the basis/criteria for distinguishing between schisms and heresies. If there is no ground for distinction, this type of unity collapses into individualism and/or arbitrarily sets up a standard of unity (agreement on a indeterminate set of doctrinal propositions) and with finding a lowest common denominator minimalism like the Mere Christianity position or (like Greg Stafford's three fundamentals of the faith) as the ground for unity.
Either way, the result is a unity/uniformity, but it is only a uniformity of like minded individuals, which is not a criterion that establishes that what is believed by the like minded individuals is, in fact, the truth. Uniformity of belief could mean nothing more than a bunch of like minded individuals confess what is false teachings.
You reminded me of previous comment by @TrueTomHarley which made me consider the difference between the unity of a political party, and the unity of a family. The political party is united by a shared set of beliefs, planks in a platform. When the party’s position shifts sufficiently, or the individual voter shifts positions, the voter just shifts parties because the unity is that of shared beliefs. It is not a material unity like family (united by blood) but more like a formal unity.
Let me follow up tonight with the first comment of this thread below:

My argument against  Synthetic Human Blood is two fold:
1.) it’s REALLY COWS’  BLOOD.
2.) It’s NOT synthetic human blood, it really REALLY  is …. REAL BLOOD.
Filtering it and adding supplements does not magically eliminated that fact..
——————————————-/—————-
Somebody, somewhere, at some time may have occasionally eaten carrion … partially decayed meat … but as a staple, it is a statistical impossibility.
When in the news, someone eats roadkill … IT’S NEWS!

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…

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...

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…

Hopefully I'm not outside acceptable boundaries by citing the source I'm about to cite. If I am, please just let me know.
Today I was shown a recent article published by Rolf Furuli. His article addresses the biblical account of Noah and the great flood. Specifically he cites Genesis 6:21 and then he says, "Neither Noah nor the animals ate meat, so only plants were taken into the Ark as food."
- So we have this: No meat.
- More stringently, we have this: Only plants.
So, what about milk? What about water? What about natural earth elements such as mineral deposits (e.g., salt licks).
Because the Genesis account said humans could use plants as food, is that supposed to mean that was the only thing humans could consume as food?

Do you think of "witness" and "pearl doxsey"? When someone makes a deliberate effort to sound intelligent, it often results in nothing more than mere noise lacking scholarly backing. Particularly when this person spreads absurdities, such as the notion that the "Mosaic Law has never required anyone to treat blood as a sacred substance" since God does hold people and animals accountable for the spelling of blood that is included in the Noahide code and the Mosaic Law.
The fact and the law given to Moses about killing remain unchanged, regardless of the wordplay with selected words and phrases. Leviticus 17:14, Deuteronomy 12:23, Ezekiel 3:18, Genesis 9:6, Exodus 12:13. Yet, whose blood ended up being the most sacred?