Thinking

…

Rotherham:
"Some have presented the notion that the Apostolic Decree to “abstain from blood” and the other abstinences mentioned were not commands for Christians to adhere to indefinitely, but were simply concessions made for the sensitivities of the Jewish populace among them. These ones appeal to 1 Corinthians 8 to prove this claim. We will take a closer look at this to determine the truth of the matter.

The topic in Acts 15 specifically addressed what some JEWISH Christians felt the Gentiles had to do to be saved. That WAS the backdrop of the entire conversation as is clearly spelled out in the first verse and the verses to follow. Follow it through and you will see this clearly demonstrated.

Notice the following that is interspersed throughout this chapter 15:
Verse 1: The supporters of the circumcision claim that Gentile Christians must be circumcised AND observe the Law of Moses in order TO BE SAVED.
Verse 2: The dispute escalates and they decide to take it to the Apostles and older men in Jerusalem.
Verse 5: Again the Jewish faction states it is NECESSARY for Gentiles to be circumcised and follow the Law of Moses. In what sense were they using the word NECESSARY? In keeping with the context as established with verse one they were stating that is was necessary for their SALVATION to get circumcised and follow the Law of Moses.
Verse 11: Peter clarifies the Christian position regarding SALVATION which is through the undeserved kindness (grace) of the Lord Jesus.
Verses 23-29: After a decision is made regarding the issues, a letter is drawn up to inform the Gentiles what would be NECESSARY for them to do that had a bearing on the principles found in the Mosaic Law. Again, in keeping with the context, the word NECESSARY is used in regard to SALVATION as that is the entire backdrop to the dispute as is shown from verses 1, 5 and 11. To deny a connection with salvation is to deny the context.

At this point I would like to address further the claim that this is merely a command given out of regard for Jewish sensitivities. There are a number of things which speak against such a conclusion. First, as I have demonstrated, the backdrop of the discussion was SALVATION. How could it not be in regard to Acts 15:1, 5 and 11 in the immediate context?

Secondly, consider this: If such a command to abstain from things sacrificed to idols and things strangled and from blood was merely for the sensitivities of the Jews one could ask why the Apostles and older men did not recommend “circumcision” for Gentile Christians which was a MUCH MORE burning and divisive issue of that day? The circumcision issue was the CAUSE for the conference of the body at Jerusalem and the moving cause for writing the letter! There was strong opposition to the decree about circumcision by those Jews who falsely claimed to be Christian and insisted on staying under the Law. Notice the following passages: Galatians 5:3-6, 11, 12; 6:12-15; Romans 2:25-29; 4:9-12; Philippians 3:2-4. If anything should have been considered in regard to Jewish sensitivities it should have been that one, yet, why would the apostles conciliate them on the point of blood and things sacrificed to idols and raise greater opposition to circumcision, since we know that Paul in the very next chapter was willing to let someone BE CIRCUMCISED out of regard for the JEWISH SENSITIVITIES? (Acts 16:3) Surely, if the list in Acts 15 was merely for their sensitivities, circumcision would have been included since the next chapter shows how they handled circumcision in regard to Jewish sensitivities. With that considered and with the backdrop of the entire council being a connection with salvation, this should dispel the notion in anyone’s mind that it was not binding and lasting MORAL LAW. It WAS binding and lasting moral Law. The sensitivity argument does not fit the context and neither does the claim that the issues did not have to do with salvation.

Furthermore, consider the following information in Insight on the Scriptures under “Blood” (published by Jehovah’s Witnesses):
Noah and his sons were allowed by Jehovah to add animal flesh to their diet after the Flood, but they were strictly commanded not to eat blood. (Ge 9:1, 3, 4) God here set out a regulation that applied, not merely to Noah and his immediate family, but to all mankind from that time on, because all those living since the Flood are descendants of Noah’s family.

Concerning the permanence of this prohibition, Joseph Benson noted: “It ought to be observed, that this prohibition of eating blood, given to Noah and all his posterity, and repeated to the Israelites, in a most solemn manner, under the Mosaic dispensation, has never been revoked, but, on the contrary, has been confirmed under the New Testament, Acts xv.; and thereby made of perpetual obligation.”—Benson’s Notes, 1839, Vol. I, p. 43. …
[The Apostolic] decree rests, ultimately, on God’s command not to eat blood, as given to Noah and his sons and, therefore, to all mankind. In this regard, the following is found in The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended, by Sir Isaac Newton (Dublin, 1728, p. 184): “This law [of abstaining from blood] was ancienter [sic] than the days of Moses, being given to Noah and his sons, long before the days of Abraham: and therefore when the Apostles and Elders in the Council at Jerusalem declared that the Gentiles were not obliged to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses, they excepted this law of abstaining from blood, and things strangled, as being an earlier law of God, imposed not on the sons of Abraham only, but on all nations, while they lived together in Shinar under the dominion of Noah: and of the same kind is the law of abstaining from meats offered to Idols or false Gods, and from fornication.”—Italics his.
…The Jerusalem council sent its decision to the Christian congregations to be observed. (Ac 16:4) About seven years after the Jerusalem council issued the decree, Christians continued to comply with the “decision that they should keep themselves from what is sacrificed to idols as well as from blood and what is strangled and from fornication.” (Ac 21:25) And more than a hundred years later, in 177 C.E., in Lyons (now in France), when religious enemies falsely accused Christians of eating children, a woman named Biblis said: “How would such men eat children, when they are not allowed to eat the blood even of irrational animals?”—The Ecclesiastical History, by Eusebius, V, I, 26.
Early Christians abstained from eating any sort of blood. In this regard Tertullian (c. 155-a. 220 C.E.) pointed out in his work Apology (IX, 13, 14): “Let your error blush before the Christians, for we do not include even animals’ blood in our natural diet. We abstain on that account from things strangled or that die of themselves, that we may not in any way be polluted by blood, even if it is buried in the meat. Finally, when you are testing Christians, you offer them sausages full of blood; you are thoroughly well aware, of course, that among them it is forbidden; but you want to make them transgress.” Minucius Felix, a Roman lawyer who lived until about 250 C.E., made the same point, writing: “For us it is not permissible either to see or to hear of human slaughter; we have such a shrinking from human blood that at our meals we avoid the blood of animals used for food.”—Octavius, XXX, 6.

Surely “fornication” was not being forbidden for the sake of Jewish sensitivities. It was forbidden absolutely, and the word “necessary” in verse 28 would certainly mean necessary in the same sense. The word “necessary” is applied equally to each thing in the list.

Fornication in ANY form would not only cause offense, but would be a death-dealing sin against God. Likewise with the rest of the list. The word “necessary” would not apply to one item in the list differently then it would apply to the rest.

Therefore, one of those things in the list is unquestionably a sin that if committed without repentance could cost us our salvation. What about the others though that are in that list? Do we see indication that those things are “sin” as well, or are they simply issues of sensitivity?

Let’s take a look at the very word that others use to establish that what was really spoken of was just a sensitivity issue and not a sin that could cost us our salvation. That word used is “eidolothuton,” generally translated as “things sacrificed to idols.” Also another very pertinent phrase that we must include in this examination is “alisgema eidolon,” generally translated as things “polluted by idols” or “pollution of idols,” found at Acts 15:20.

We will note first that the phrase “pollution” of idols in verse 20 is equated with the phrase “things sacrificed to idols” in verse 29. So, in this context, whatever was meant by the “pollution” of idols was also meant by what was stated in verse 29. It should also be noted that the word “meat” as is found in many translations of verse 29 does not occur there, which is a bit misleading to the overall context. The Greek word there used simply means “things sacrificed to idols.” There is no “meat” specified at all. So what was spoken of in verse 29 was a “pollution” of idols as is stated in verse 20, they being parallel statements.

Therefore, we are not just speaking of “things” sacrificed to idols but the “pollution” that those things would create, which seems a clear reference to the fact this is speaking of “idolatry,” and not just items that might serve as idols to the pagan mind. Do we have any other biblical evidence to help us appreciate that even the phrase “things sacrificed to idols” could be understood in a “forbidden” sense to ALL Christians? Not just for sake of sensitivity issues but because of direct idolatrous connection? Yes we do. In fact, one of those occurrences is in the very chapter that most refer to as the passage that supposedly waters down the Apostolic Decree to a mere sensitivity issue. But first, before coming to 1 Corinthians 8, let’s look at another passage which clearly equates the phrase “things sacrificed to idols” with “sin,” not just an issue of sensitivity.

In Revelation 2:14 and 2:20, it states in regard to the Pergamum congregation and the Thyatiran congregation that they were tolerating that woman Jezebel (obviously a symbolism for a Jezebel-like woman) and holding fast to the teaching of Balaam who leads them to “commit fornication” and to “eat things sacrificed to idols.” Both times the “eating of things sacrificed to idols” is listed with the undeniably deadly sin of fornication. Clearly, in these passages, the “eating of things sacrificed to idols” was the sin of “idolatry” that brought God’s condemnation to those congregations. This is undeniable when one looks up what happened in the incidents that are referred to in Revelation in connection with the teaching of Balaam. (Numbers 25:1-3, 31:15,16)
With it established that the phrase “things sacrificed to idols” and “eating things sacrificed to idols” can be a clear reference to “idolatrous practices”, it would be no wonder then that Acts 15:20 parallels “pollution” of idols with “things sacrificed to idols,” which both could clearly refer to idolatrous practices, especially the phrase involving the word “pollution.”
TrueTheology.net • View topic - Christianity and the Use of Blood

Of course they can, otherwise we wouldn’t be able to find exactly that all throughout the New Testament.
@Many Miles
You can do as you like. You can keep psychoanalyzing and doing apologetics, while making assertions that will get you nowhere. Or you can engage in good faith dialogue and actually show how they both can’t be true. 
I understand the Blood teaching is a life and death issue. I take it so serious even to the point of white martyrdom (disfellowshipped, insult, derision) and death. But I’m not going to take your word for it on how to go about seeking reform. The stakes are far too high. Especially with someone anonymous, who doesn’t attend public meetings, who hides his identity and can’t take responsibility for his words by allowing them to be connected with his personal identity.The sins of Heresy and Division are errors too serious to risk on the basis of a private judgment or a hermeneutical toss up between the Congregation’s doctrine and your interpretation of the Bible. 
One does not slice up the Body of Christ on a maybe. One would have to be absolutely certain that one is right, that the Congregation is wrong, and that schism from the Congregation is justified, because one will have to stand before the Bridegroom and give an account for having carved up His Bride into pieces, and for having influenced others to do so as well by one's actions and example, and because one's eternal salvation is at stake. I would not want to have to stand before the throne and answer for having perpetuated schism on the basis of mere uncertain speculation.
You can give up on your fellow Brothers like Bro. Hal Flemings and treat us with contempt. Or you can roll up your sleeves, and serve the Congregation, and help clean up the mess. Leaving the Congregation sets an example for others, that separating is permissible. In other words, separating only adds to the mess to be cleaned up, by creating a separation from the Congregation, and by creating a scandalous example to others, that division is ok when the going gets tough. In our fast food era, we want everything to be better, right now. But have to be prepared to live our whole lives, serving the Congregation in faithfulness, seeking reform, without seeing the changes we’d like to see. That’s because ultimately, it is not about us, or what we want, or what fulfills us.
 

@Many Miles No. In very simple terms the Congregation cannot teach whatever she wants. And certainly cannot teach that the Old Covenant is somehow still valid or that we can be saved by it.
We already said that she cannot contradict the faith that has been handed down.
Cannot contradict the Good News that were once and for all established.
Cannot contradict the primary teachings: Hebrews 6:1,2.
Cannot contradict the core teachings.
Cannot command us to violate our conscience.
There are numerous explicit statements and teachings within the Bible.Such as: Jesus Christ is the Son of God. God is Almighty. God is the Creator. Jesus Christ died and was resurrected. Jesus Christ provided the ransom for the salvation of mankind. If the Governing Body came out and stated that the scriptures are no longer considered inspired of God or that Jesus Christ was not resurrected, that would be clear and defined stand against what the scriptures teach. That would be apostasy, and naturally any Bible believing Christian would walk away from an organization that would promote such and idea, and rightfully so. To do so would immediately disqualify them from any claim of being the body of Christ for that could not be the result of God’s spirit upon them, but rather the opposite.

I hear you. Here's where I'm coming from. In 1 Corinthians 9:9, for example, Paul says, “For it is written in the Law of Moses: “You must not muzzle a bull when it is threshing out the grain.” Obviously, Paul is not saying that the Mosaic law concerning oxen still has legal force, rather, Paul is merely extracting the Mosaic principle of providing for the needs of the worker, in this case, the preacher of the Good News. Likewise, I'm saying that whatever law is cited or practiced today in Christianity, whether it is natural law, Mosaic law, etc., it is only because the Congregation, under its own legal authority, decided to incorporate those particular principles into the New Covenant.  At the present time, the Old Covenant’s purpose is to serve as a model, a precedent, a teacher, for the divine principles that will be needed to allow the New Covenant to function as efficiently as it possibly can. But there is only one covenant that has legal force, that can save and condemn and that Jehovah recognizes today.

There is only one covenant that has legal force, that can save and condemn. There's a difference between obeying the law within the system of undeserved kindness and system of law (Judaic Law). As a Witness I assume you believe and hold to the official position of the Congregation's understanding about faith and works and the Good News, Justification and Salvation. Do you? If not, I fail to see how you identify as a Jehovah's Witness.
I think I said that whatever law is utilized, it will be legalized and controlled by the New Covenant, not the Old. Unless I'm misunderstanding your point, I fail to see based on what I have said how it stands condemned? Can you restate your point?

I found it super interesting to see the unearthed walls of Nineveh.... 
I remember seeing the Assyrian burnt walls in the Louvre as well years ago.
Agape!
p.s. - I'll try to link this up to Jonah chapter 1 one of these days somehow.

It's 1:30 AM and I just got back from NYC and realized what I had done. My apologies for starting this post outside the JW Closed Club. I was in that club and clicked "start a new topic" although I now vaguely recall that I probably had to start the new topic a second time because I had accidentally clicked off the page, due to an oversensitive trackpad that sometimes thinks I am clicking something just because my thumb gets too close to it.
Anyway, I will be restarting this topic under the JW Closed Club. Sorry about that BillyTheKid59 and your doppelganger, Alphonse. 

- I personally would also love to hear from some brothers/sisters and their daily struggles in other lands.... and how they are overcoming them.  Sharing practical ideas might help us all. 
- Thx for sharing your post / ideas @JW Insider as always.

I'd like to ramble a bit about the Watchtower Study linked here:
https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-study-november-2023/You-Can-Remain-Confident-During-Uncertain-Times/
I'm often too critical, but I thought this one was excellent. I'll try to include a balance of some things I thought about and some things I questioned along with the reasons I thought it was excellent.
It's a great way to introduce a past example from the Bible by tying it to our own experiences today, and they managed to include everyone with the opening:
DO YOU at times worry about the future? Perhaps you have lost your job and you worry about providing for your family. You may be concerned about your family’s safety because of unstable political conditions, persecution, or opposition to the preaching work. Are you facing any of these issues?
One thing I thought about first was how Babylonian Exile was presented as a punishment, just as the destruction of the Temple and removal from their land was a punishment. Still it was better than death, and Jeremiah had warned his countrymen that they should put themselves under the Babylonian yoke for safety because this destruction/devastation/desolation was coming no matter what.
Yet, historically, it turned out pretty well for a lot (most?) of the Jews who were taken captive. They did well for themselves. Started businesses, etc. And when it came time to leave, they didn't want to go, mostly because (evidently) they were doing fine economically and the move would be an economic hardship:
It took faith on the part of the Jews who had lived in Babylon all their lives to leave behind a comfortable lifestyle and travel to a country that most of them knew very little about.
You don't often think of captivity and exile as "comfort." 
Clearly, the importance of going back was to re-establish a center for pure worship of Jehovah. That was the priority of the prophets, Ezra and Nehemiah and later the scribe, Ezra. 
When they arrived, it was not long before they were affected by unstable economic and political conditions as well as opposition. Some therefore found it hard to focus on rebuilding Jehovah’s temple.
With the focus on "Remaining Confident" one might have thought this would be another article on showing confidence in Jehovah's Organization and the FDS. Not that we don't need some reminders in that regard now and then, but this did NOT focus on the leaders, it focused on the "people" the "rank and file" as it were. When the leaders are mentioned it's mostly about their encouragement and example -- and the people's response. Not about the importance of obedience. 
the encouragement given by these prophets proved to be very effective. Nearly 50 years later, however, the returning Jews again reached a low point. Ezra, a skilled copyist of the Law, then came from Babylon to Jerusalem to encourage God’s people to give priority to true worship.
More to follow.... later. . . . I just discovered I have to go somewhere.

It was stated by a bethel brother at an assembly…we were quiet relieved to hear it..it was when they were asking us if we had kept up with the changes…that was one of them….2006 is old news now.
Also brother Luchiani ( however you spell it )  gave a very recent talk on …only Jesus knows who will be saved…it was a excellent talk…you could tell he was reminding us…it wasn’t as blatant as the talk at the assembly and that talk was well after 2006 
Yes I still hear some talks given saying our life will depend on our loyalty to the org…..but I have never heard them equate the org with the ark since that assembly talk..
just on a side note I know it’s an organization but personally I prefer Gods people to organization…..the Israelites were GODS PEOPLE….the Jews were GODS PEOPLE…..The Christian’s were GODS PEOPLE….perhaps it’s something that’s just me…a little bit of a quirky thing,

Hopefully, the publishing of Governing Body Update 2023-8 on December 15, 2023 about beards will help heal some great injustices that have taken place over the last 80 plus years in the Congregations, and usher in an era of much needed and long overdue reforms. 
I am glad to have lived long enough to see it happen, where Liberty is proclaimed throughout the Earth.
In his second inaugural address, delivered on March 4, 1865, during the final stages of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln emphasized unity and reconciliation. He famously stated, "With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds." The address reflected Lincoln's commitment to healing the nation and rebuilding after a divisive conflict.
May we do the same.
When I saw the picture of Bro. Jackson with the goatee, I did not think it was fake.  I thought it looked good, and set a good example that Update No. 8 greatly needed to overcome 80 plus years of, as was admitted, unscriptural policy.

I was thinking how (I mean I don't know because I'm not privy to the GB's private thoughts, but I can imagine them being frustrated at) some who have the desire to worship the organization.
Reminds me of this scripture:
"...But when the apostles Barʹna·bas and Paul heard of it, they ripped their outer garments and leaped out into the crowd, crying out and saying: 'Men, why are you doing these things? We too are humans having the same infirmities as you have. " Acts 14:8-18

In France it could be known as the Day the Beardstile fell.
 
Maybe if they are doused with water they will melt away like the wicked witch, leaving the rest of us frrreeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!! 
Then you would not be so sad and could instead be happy.
Next thing you know, my spiritual life will have come round full circle, back to ‘Be good so you can go to heaven when you die and meet the Man Upstairs.’

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.
 

I figured that George88 was coming at this from the verses he quoted. Still, It reminds me of an old teaching once promoted by a GB member at Bethel: that it's the natural, physical heart that is the seat of motivations. In a talk I heard him give at our Assembly Hall he would say that persons who have  been given heart transplants from a criminal have reported that they themselves now have criminal tendencies. It was common to see things like this in the "Watching the World" pages of the Awake! too. Later, when I worked for this brother, he had already been asked to stop giving that talk that promoted the physical heart as the actual seat of human motivation, but he asked me to always be on the lookout for any new information that might support the theory.
*** g71 11/22 p. 31 Watching the World ***
Disenchantment with Heart Transplants
◆ Since 1967 doctors have performed 166 heart transplants, but the initial enthusiasm is gone. Too many patients have died—more than 85 percent thus far. There were also bad side effects. There were depression, brief periods of being psychotic, memory lapses, sleeplessness and marked changes in personality. According to Life magazine, immunologists have concluded that “the heart is a peculiar, particular organ, not only a pump, but a creature of some internal, unknown majesty.”
*** w81 9/15 p. 15 Insight on the News ***
“Heart Overrides Everything”
● Heart specialists now believe that about one third of heart patients have emotional problems after surgery. This often begins about the second day following the operation and may last about a week. Some patients become delirious; some suffer from weird dreams and hallucinations; others have severe bouts with anxiety and depression. To deal with the emotional problems that some patients have after surgery, heart surgeons and psychiatrists around the world recently formed an international consortium. The consortium would like doctors and nurses to pay as much careful attention to a patient’s emotional state after heart surgery as they do to heartbeats.
The specialists speak of the psychological significance of the heart. For example, psychiatrist Richard S. Blacher of Tufts–New England Medical Center in Boston says of the heart: “It’s a very special organ. People commonly think of it as the seat of emotions. In our minds, the heart overrides everything.”—“Newsweek,” May 25, 1981, p. 63.
How true it is that the heart tends to overrule the head, the seat of intellect! In view of this, the heart, above all else, must be disciplined and trained to respond to Bible guidance. It must be taught to appreciate spiritual qualities. These qualities spring from God. “More than all else that is to be guarded,” says God’s Word, “safeguard your heart, for out of it are the sources of life.”—Prov. 4:23; compare Matthew 15:19.
 
*** g70 10/22 p. 29 Watching the World ***
Personality Change
◆ According to a report that appeared on United Press International of August 18, 1970, the daughter of Philip Blaiberg said that he had experienced a complete personality change after undergoing a heart-transplant operation. 
Awake! 8/22 p. 29:

*** w75 9/1 p. 519 Insight on the News ***
It has long been known that heart-transplant patients have a higher-than-average amount of postoperative psychiatric problems. But it seems that the same is true with regard to some other vital organ transplants, such as kidney transplants. U.C.L.A. psychiatry professor Dr. Pietro Castelnuovo-Tedesco is quoted as saying: “An outstanding finding following transplantation is the not infrequent occurrence of serious emotional disturbance.” One study of 292 kidney-transplant patients showed that nearly 20 percent experienced severe depression after the operation, a few even attempting suicide. By contrast, only about one out of every 1,500 general-surgery patients develops a severe emotional disturbance.
A peculiar factor sometimes noted is a so-called ‘personality transplant.’ That is, the recipient in some cases has seemed to adopt certain personality factors of the person from whom the organ came. One young promiscuous woman who received a kidney from her older, conservative, well-behaved sister, at first seemed very upset. Then she began imitating her sister in much of her conduct. Another patient claimed to receive a changed outlook on life after his kidney transplant. Following a transplant, one mild-tempered man became aggressive like the donor. The problem may be largely or wholly mental. But it is of interest, at least, that the Bible links the kidneys closely with human emotions.—Compare Jeremiah 17:10 and Revelation 2:23.
 
In the Awake! 10/221969, I noticed the attempt to make sure ALL transplant statistics showed more people dying than living. So much so that with kidney transplants they wouldn't give the actual survival rate, which had been above 50%, but instead Awake! found a segment of kidney transplant recipients (donor unrelated) where the survival rate was still below 50%. 


The point of most organ transplants is often not based on the idea of long-term survival. Most transplanted organs "wear out" often even kidneys after just a decade or so. No transplant offers any guarantee of long-term survival, they are merely procedures that often provide a temporary extension. In that sense they are like other potentially life-saving medical procedures. But a more complex decision than most other procedures.   

Yeah, I think my vagus nerve when haywire for a time. Call it a nervous breakdown, of which the best way to describe it is to being stuck in that ‘fight or flight’ moment of unease for 4 straight years, during which there was not a night I slept more than 4 hours. During that time, my blog disappeared; you know I am ill if my blog disappears. I credit the truth for overcoming this breakdown—not the truth in itself or I would not have succumbed in the first place, but for providing the solid foundation upon which to recover. The disorder runs in the family, and my mother and grandmother both fared worse than me, having never recovered once struck.
Now why go public with this, which I have not done yet in anything more than hints?
[Almost] no man has ever had greater love than this: that he should bear his soul for his buddy @George88. Several times in the past, George has said things like:
“While I do not feel the need to disclose the specifics, as there may be individuals here who lack empathy and would make light of my experiences while showing sympathy towards others like a coward would, the impact of these experiences has nonetheless been truly traumatic.”
I suggest you come out with them. You do not lesson yourself when you do that. You gain the upper hand. Just like how Paul came to say that he would not lead off with his strengths; he would rather lead off with his weaknesses, because in serving through those the Lord was glorified. People may be more magnanimous than you suppose. If anyone makes light of your experiences, they reveal more about themselves than about you.
This is because, apart from Alphonse, who does seem to like you, you give nothing of yourself. Worse, there is usually a tone of ‘rebuke from superiority’ in your comments, which brings out the best in no one. Giving of oneself is necessary to establish the human connection so that ones may feel inclined to bond with you. You don’t do it. You should. It would aid you to get past this problem you perceive, like Rodney Dangerfield, of getting no respect.
So I am showing you the way. Got any specifics more debilitating than mine? Out with them. It may help smooth relations with your fellows online, and possibly everywhere else. Moreover, in so baring my previous woes, I am expressing the confidence that you will not try to use such against me. If I am wrong in that, then I will offer you another lesson in how to cope with ill talk. But I am confident the need for this will not arise. You may feel as privileged, George, as the woman at the well—excepting only that she learned for the first time that her companion was the Messiah, whereas you have learned for the first time that your companion is a fellow yo-yo with prior issues.
When you return from enormous personal trial, it is a little like being raised from the dead. You know a little of how Job felt. It only benefits you going forward.

FACT: While some recipients have claimed to notice personality changes or changes in their likes and dislikes post-transplant, there is no medical evidence to support that these changes are due to the donor organ. Some medications taken after a transplant may affect your taste buds which could affect your food preferences. https://connect.mayoclinic.org/blog/transplant/newsfeed-post/transplant-myths-and-facts/#:~:text=FACT%3A While some recipients have claimed to notice,taste buds which could affect your food preferences.
 

It’s an old teaching..may or not be true ..I have see even studies  from the world concerning this 

They carried a donkey full of scrolls I presume….

I dunno. This looks a lot like Vic Vomodog who, years after he left the faith, would continue to show up at hospitals, bare his arm, and order, ‘Fill ‘er up!’ just to show Jehovah’s Witnesses what he thought of them. Doctors invariably tried to shoo him away, but he would always return.

They carried a donkey full of scrolls I presume….

They carried a donkey full of scrolls I presume….

You may be missing something here.