Thinking

The reason it is self-condemning is because it is no longer about the sacredness of blood … it’s about the sacredness of money.

That being the case, it saves swaths of time if we can discover what are the glasses another is using.
It has been mentioned before that if one is atheist, it will so heavily influence anything they utter that you simply waste your time addressing them—unless you are speaking specifically of atheism or if you are speaking to those beyond them.  Atheism is for them the force that refreshes, and if you could demonstrate that each and every accusation against human organized worship is false, they still would say, ‘Well, there’s no god anyway.’ So why should you go there with them? What you as a Christian view as commendable delayed gratification they view as a woeful and willful flushing of one’s life down the toilet. When you say, ‘Well, every project needs headship, so I’ll cooperate with these people,’ they say, ‘They’re even more deluded than you! Cult leaders, through and through! The farther you can get from them, the better.’
Within the realm of religion, find out if the other believes we’re in the last days, for it will so heavily influence anything they say as to make any other criticism of theirs irrelevant. There is no sense swatting the water downstream, for it is immediately replaced. Unless you go to the source—are we in the last days or not?—any subsequent conversation, unless it is directed at those lying beyond, is fruitless. The entire ‘life boat’ scenario that so much Witness action and thinking depends upon is absurdity to them. Addressing some controversy about ‘Tight Pants Tony’ as though that was something that really troubled them, is just spitting into the wind. Even if you win, you haven’t gotten anywhere. I’ll wear pants the size of parachutes if it fits in with lifeboat protocol. 
Find out, as soon as possible, how they feel about ‘the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels in a flaming fire, as he brings vengeance on those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus.’ Many people, even those religious, are repelled by the thought—how could God be so mean! they say. Find this out as soon as you can, because it will determine much of what they subsequently say and, again, you can find yourself quibbling with a point so far downstream—critiques over how Witnesses do this or that—as to quibble all day over a comparative nothing.
And, Lord knows, find out whenever you can if the person is ‘Proud to have come out of the closet’ gay, because if he or she is, you don’t stand a chance in discussing anything involving traditional morals as found in the Bible. Whatever you are debating, with you thinking that if you can make the point it may stick will not. Their ‘sexuality’ trumps all else.
All the above are largely matters of the heart, not the head. The heart makes a grab for what it wants, then charges the head to devise a convincing rationale. This leads the unobservant to think the head is calling the shots, but it is the heart all along. This is why one might buck at ‘rationality’ as the be-all and end-all. Rationality offers good insight into the head, but poor insight into the heart.
The best talks and writings are those that, while not ignoring the head, appeal primarily to the heart. Jesus did things that would infuriate any strict devotee of reason. He routinely spun parables that he declined to explain—let the heart figure it out. If it doesn’t, it doesn’t. He answered questions with counter-questions. Try doing that with a modern ‘critical thinker.’ He launched ad hominem attacks. People may say that the ad hominem attacks of Matthew 23 are not really ad hominem attacks because the scribes and Pharisees actually were that way, but this wlll be said by anyone launching such an attack.
Allen Guelzo the historian lectures about how subjective history is, not at all how most of us suppose it. We get a hint he may be right when we recall the expression, ‘History is written by the victors,’ but he greatly expands on the idea by including new trends and waves of thinking among the ‘victors.’ That’s why (he does not make this point, but likely would if his lectures were given today) Americans pull down statues of Columbus and the forefathers that they once put up. History has (once again) flipped. The good guys have become the bad guys.
But doesn’t our modern day critical thinking solve the problem of subjectivity? he asks. No, it only makes the situation worse, he says, because it repackages our dubious biases as laudable critical thinking. “When dealing with people, let us remember we are not dealing with creatures of logic. We are dealing with creatures of emotion, creatures bristling with prejudices and motivated by pride and vanity,” Dale Carnegie said. The trouble with critical thinking is that those who most heavily advocate it too often assume they have a lock on the stuff.
Accordingly, while your remarks must make sense so as not to explode the head, to go exclusively there is to miss where the action is. It is the heart that is the seat of motivation. One may be dubious of a discussion that appears purely intellectual, as though coming across ones fighting a battle that does not matter.
 

Loosely speaking, Srecko is my template for the character Vic Vomodog, sort of a Wily E. Coyote figure who lurks in wait of any comment about anything and converts it into yet another attempt to catch the Road Runner. Thus far, Road Runner thwarts him every time, but we do not know what tomorrow will hold. If we did, the gag would have lost its enduring appeal long ago. Vic’s perpetual attacks on the faith are not logically consistent, but I don’t worry about it because neither are Srecko’s. Anything that comes up—how can it be used against the faith? Nevermind if it is consistent with prior criticisms.
It probably never would have occurred to me but for reflection upon the inane, ‘hehehe )))))))’ he used to append to comments, ceasing the practice only after Nana Fofana (who does not appear to be here any more) began imitating the style so mercilessly, even meanly overacting a chopped style that stems from English being a second language, that he could endure it no more.
Oh, yeah: hehehe ))))))). How can one not think of Wily E. Coyote cooking up another scheme with some Acme products?

It seems that Cryosupernatant Plasma is not a "cure all".
In the document bellow it mentions it is not to be used as volume replacement, one of the biggest reasons for blood transfusions, especially during traumatic blood loss. 
wf-lab-apl-form-cryosupernatant-plasma.pdf
And this bit is also quite scary:
https://www.rdm.ox.ac.uk/publications/190785
 
 

Yes. No doubt about that.
"Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, knowing that we will receive heavier judgment."
"But the one who did not understand and yet did things deserving of strokes will be beaten with few. Indeed, everyone to whom much was given, much will be demanded of him, and the one who was put in charge of much will have more than usual demanded of him".
 

Children (… and adults, giraffes and earthworms) die for literally tens of thousands of reasons.
Do you think that a child who dies for sake of rightousness … trying to respect and obey God and Christ … even if wrong … will not be resurrected to eternal life?
BOTH ABRAHAM AND ISAAC SET THE EXAMPLE.
 

I think many people here would agree with the proposition that the Church of Covid for two years became the world’s fastest growing religion.
Instead of a cross or a star of David it was the mask that identified its believers.
My wife and I did not join that Church, did not wear masks except where required to get in a building, and did not take shots or boosters.
The fanaticism was rampant, and my wife was fired from her teaching job as she refused to be part of a school Covid research project.
She was treated like an anti- health dangerous criminal and cried a lot about it. I barely noticed.
We did wear masks to the KH when it opened up again, not because it was reasonable or rational, because it wasn’t … but because it was almost no trouble, and we had gotten used to masks at the Golden Corral, as well as those silly blue plastic gloves on one hand.
Covid is airborne. Covid on your hands is digestable.
So … what if …. what if wearing masks actually INCREASED your risk of infection …. hmmmm?
Do you blame the Governments, the Church of Covid, the School Boards, or … who? for increased unnecessary sicknesses and cripplings, and deaths?
Ya gotta blame SOMEBODY!
Or … you improvise, adapt, and overcome the basic limitation … if you can … that all living things are subject to:
”STUFF HAPPENS”
Sometimes getting sucker punched kills you … sometimes you loose a few teeth … and sometimes it’s a swoosh and a miss.
”STUFF HAPPENS”
That’s the way the real world works. If you are stupid, it tries to kill you. 
This is known as … ”normal”
That’s why I like Indiana Jones Movies …. when the Nazis make their appearance, nobody has to explain the plot to me.
We all take turns standing up for rightous principles, and we all take turns being unbelievably stupid.
I cracked up when i learned the President’s wife, Jill Biden, a card carrying, mask wearing  member of the Church of Covid, with three covid shots snd two booster shots, got covid TWICE!
Like being crushed by a toppled cast iron statue in the lobby, I appreciate irony.
 

It’s not actually …they have to accommodate the many many who have had very little and often no education…..if we need and want more depth well that’s up to us..they can not spoon feed us everything.
we got corrected as apparently a number were complaining about the lack of meat or depth to the studies…and they said..get used to it….but they needed to preach and teach to all sorts of men…..that’s fair enough I reckon.

Leah Remini's investigation into the Watchtower assets revealed a surprising revelation. According to her findings, the Watchtower allegedly had around 1.5 billion dollars invested in 2019. This figure stands in stark contrast to those who assert that the Watchtower's assets amount to a staggering 15 billion dollars. Quite a discrepancy, wouldn't you agree?
Why is it essential? It is crucial for individuals to realize that what others bring to the table may not always be the absolute truth, but rather their own interpretation of what they believe to be true.
 

… just as an aside :
Every day globally thousands of lives are saved through the use of atomic energy comprehension and use. I am one of them.
Since 1945 perhaps 2 billion people.

So, you're saying that you're only open to what aligns with your beliefs. But let me tell you, the progress of science, which even involves exploring fragmented blood, represents a groundbreaking innovation that challenges traditional norms. It's time to break free from that mindset and embrace the potential that goes beyond the limitations set by old-fashioned dogmas.
Why? Because you are the one setting that standard, not God. Another false equivalence lies with a patient who is bleeding profusely. You claim that the patient can be saved by giving them a transfusion. That assumption cannot be definitively proven by science, as there have been numerous cases of patients dying even after receiving blood during surgery. Even if someone is receiving a large amount of blood to compensate for the loss, it may not make any difference. Doctors cannot perform miracles, and they cannot guarantee a patient's survival when they are experiencing severe bleeding.
The Governing Body did not establish a definitive standard for the implied meaning in scripture. Rather, they provided a guiding principle for individuals to conscientiously consider when making personal decisions. This principle is not intended to protect them from legal liability in secular courts, but rather to showcase that scientific progress now allows individuals to make conscientious choices that can profoundly impact their own lives.
 

Are you sure that your banjo-strumming, ‘I’m just here to learn, to help, certainly not to settle any disputes’ persona is not just a ruse? It sure seems like you are trying to settle one here:
You might take into consideration that the teaching has, in all probability, saved far more lives than it has cost. This is because, here and there, courageous doctors have worked to accomomdate it. In doing so, they have both discovered and remedied previously unknown risks of transfusion. These remedies in turn have spread into the overall population, a thousand times more numerous than that of the Witnesses themselves. Seen in this light, it almost becomes a ‘no greater love’ situation—a small number die, many times more are saved.
It is hard to come to any other conclusion upon consideration of a 2008 New Scientist article, ‘An Act of Faith in the Operating Room,’ which reviews study after study and finds that, for all but the most catastrophic of cases, blood transfusions harm more than they help. The referenced ‘act of faith’ is not refusing a transfusion. It is giving one. I reviewed the article here:
https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2008/05/new-scientist-a.html
See how it criticizes common practices less than 20 years ago, such as giving patients a bit of blood after operation to ‘perk them up a little.’ It is not only unnecessary, but dangerous. Having learned from this, progressive hospitals tighten the standards for transfusion, often simply by lowering the hematocrit level which once triggered one, often by making use when appropriate of safer blood substitutes, often by not simply ‘topping off the tank’ after operation, recognizing such a practice is both unnecessary and dangerous. They owe it all to Jehovah’s Witnesses. 
The above does not negate that some have died due to holding fast to their understanding of ‘abstain from blood.’ However, it could be argued that the overall world owes a great debt of gratitude to Jehovah’s Witnesses for putting them on the right track. Should not the Governing Body receive a Nobel Prize in medicine for the reform they have triggered?

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.

Yes. I heard that. Loud and clear. Couldn't help but wonder the same as you did. Only you had even more personal reason for feeling what you felt than I.

I think that some brothers feel they can do a lot more good for both the organization and the congregations overall by not declaring themselves apostates, even if they hold beliefs different from the accepted doctrinal party line. For example, I recall very clearly when I did research for Brother Bert Schroeder (1977-1982) that he often hinted at different beliefs and sometimes even got in trouble for promoting them as "trial balloons" when giving talks during his travels. In those days, the accepted doctrinal party line, even among members of the Governing Body, was that it had to be whatever was already approved (or would be approved) by Brother Fred Franz. This kept other GB members from even attempting to propose alternatives to prophetic interpretations. 
In 1974 there were only 9 active members of the GB, and that number suddenly doubled almost exactly at the time when there was talk about changing the nature of the GB from a "non-governing" governing body into a GOVERNING  Body. Along with the already declined health of Groh and Sullivan, it became known that Knorr might soon die and leave the non-governing GB with only 8. So 8 additional GB members were added in late 1974 to double that active number to 17 (although Brother Fekel wasn't very active).
Until then, many of these same GB members, and even a lot of long-time Bethel "heavies" as they were called, were willing to talk about a pet doctrine that differed in some way from the party line. In fact, they appeared to take some pride in the fact that they could think independently of Fred Franz on a certain topic. When I started in 1976, there was still talk among various table heads (Bethel elders and "heavies") that up until 1974, it was easy to get Brother "so-and-so" to tell you his alternative explanation of this or that doctrine (or policy) [the mediator, the tribulation, parable of leaven, mustard tree, dragnet, etc]-- "but now he's on the Governing Body." As one example, I had questions about 1918 and 1919 and was told that Brother Sydlik had an alternative explanation. It took some doing, but I finally got Brother Sydlik to share what I was told he had shared freely before his appointment to the GB in late 1974. Also, when I worked for Brother Schroeder, he had alternative explanations to the "generation," to the various "type" and "anti-type" classes, to the meaning of "house-to-house," to the physicality rather than just the symbolism of the "heart," and several other ideas. He even asked me to research supposed health differences among people who were left-handed, right-handed and those who were forced to change from left to right at a young age. [He wanted me to "prove" that people who were forced to change had more blood sugar problems. It was the only research assignment that seemed to have nothing to do with the Bible.]
Should Schroeder and Sydlik and all those Bethel "heavies" and other Bethel Elders have declared themselves apostate? They were among at least 5 GB members who, at least around 1978-81 didn't even fully accept our 1914 doctrine. 
Now I don't agree with most of the novel ideas that Schroeder had, but I think it there was some good in the freedom of thought and expression that allowed some to stand up against the "old guard" thinking of Fred Franz on some issues. Fred Franz fought back right in front of the Bethel family sometimes. I was there the morning he railed loudly against those who thought Jesus was "the mediator of every Tom, Dick, and Harry." My own table head at the time was one of those persons, as were probably many others. Fred Franz thought it was apostasy to even harbor a doubt in your mind about 1914, 1918 and 1919. 
But when Brother Splane gave the first major announcement about finally dropping the unsupported "type" & "antitype" classes, who did he credit with promoting this very idea from decades earlier? Listen to his talk and note that he specifically credited Brother Bert Schroeder, who had died about a decade before this change was finally implemented. 
So I would agree that "apostate" ideas are not good to promote as a certainty. But Schroeder was apparently more careful promoting them under Fred Franz tenure, but then more openly when Fred Franz died. And what was apostasy has now become something he is credited for promoting.

This is why I'm a firm believer that people who want to conduct academic debates about theology, study philosophy before they study theology. Some of those concepts are metaphysical. But even more necessary are the epistemological ones, especially those in logic and critical thinking. (I’ll admit I’m an epistemological tyro). Without a proper study of philosophy, there is a lot of frustrating going-round-in-circles.
 

Nowadays kids don’t know what stamps are…I made my grandkids write a thank you letter  to their great pop.
They didn’t know about stamps or writing a real letter and buying a stamp and walking to a post box and posting it….they thought it all tedious and a waste of time…and as we trudged back home they said……‘I dont see why we couldn’t have just rang him it doesn’t make sense…aaaah those bygone days…when getting a telegram was so exciting….we’ll sort of as it usually meant someone had died….

Why do a re write….its good and truthful….it would help others who have been hurt…..

I’ve been there and experienced such pain that lead to a death….you are speaking with a sister that was engulfed with a huge amount of anger and resentment and righteous indignation which led to my two ears of inactivity…….its a long story but eventually I had to reason out that I came into the truth knowing all these things existed within the org….why do you think we have the Judas types….the haughty…the cruel even amongst us.
Unfortunately they tend to have a lot of power within congregations.
Jehovahs people are no different to his people of old times….once I got a grip on that..and working on my feelings .( which I might add they caused ) …I guess I was and still am being refined by fire….and I am NOT going to let those sorts of men push me out where I know Jehovah led me.
 
 
 

He was playing with words when he said this…because the question was addressed to the GB specifically….he could say such a statement because he knew within the org there were many others who claimed to be anointed and the great crowed who were speaking on behalf of jehovah/ bible ….at this time the witness followed the GBs understanding that you had to be baptised witness to survive.
That has now changed,,,,as it should be.
nearly everything he said was nullified later by the rest of the GB.
he was caught on the hop….he didn’t expect to be part of the commission.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say he was lying..more like acting like Abraham when he claimed Sarah’s as his sister….technically he wasn’t lying as they were actually closely related ( cannot remember how close ) .
I think when he got back to HQs he got into hot water over some of his statements.
But  I also think the GB acted cowardly and it was an embarrassment to us that one of them didn’t willingly take part in that to back their brothers up.
We have a great shortage of brothers to take the lead over here ..they literally begged them to step up to the mark…..I cannot but think….it was fear as to what the courts could do to them.
 

Ha! I remember that exchange between you and pudgy…I found it amazing that pudgy could do that…IT and those who know how to really work it are fascinating…all these young kids and anyone around forty is young to me but the younger ones just whip out their phones and like Jack Flash organize my whole world in a few minutes…..amazing !,

Not at all. But if find that when my writing takes me into a tunnel, by continuing to write I eventually come out the other end..

As I recall, you had already listened to that particular Great Courses professor and it raised your curiosity about the history of this particular teaching. I thought that our version was similar to Ellen G White's (Seventh Day Adventist) 1858 doctrine that comes under the heading of "The Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan." It is summarized here as:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Controversy_theme
One of the 28 fundamental beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists states:
8. Great Controversy: All humanity is now involved in a great controversy between Christ and Satan regarding the character of God, His law, and His sovereignty over the universe. This conflict originated in heaven when a created being, endowed with freedom of choice, in self-exaltation became Satan, God’s adversary, and led into rebellion a portion of the angels. He introduced the spirit of rebellion into this world when he led Adam and Eve into sin. This human sin resulted in the distortion of the image of God in humanity, the disordering of the created world, and its eventual devastation at the time of the global flood, as presented in the historical account of Genesis 1-11. Observed by the whole creation, this world became the arena of the universal conflict, out of which the God of love will ultimately be vindicated. To assist His people in this controversy, Christ sends the Holy Spirit and the loyal angels to guide, protect, and sustain them in the way of salvation. (Gen. 3; 6-8; Job 1:6-12; Isa. 14:12-14; Ezek. 28:12-18; Rom. 1:19-32; 3:4; 5:12-21; 8:19-22; 1 Cor. 4:9; Heb. 1:14; 1 Peter 5:8; 2 Peter 3:6; Rev. 12:4-9.)[4]

Rutherford had given talks and written booklets that I thought attempted to rework this doctrine into a kind of court case. (He sometimes had a theme of God's Plan as seen through the eyes of an attorney.) I think this is related to his repeated use of Isaiah 43:9.10 which finally became the very motto for the name Jehovah's witnesses in this universal court case.
Let all the nations assemble in one place,
And let the peoples be gathered together.
Who among them can tell this?
Or can they cause us to hear the first things?
Let them present their witnesses to prove themselves right,
Or let them hear and say, ‘It is the truth!’”
10 “You are my witnesses,” declares Jehovah,
“Yes, my servant whom I have chosen,
So that you may know and have faith in me
And understand that I am the same One.
Before me no God was formed,
 

He truly exemplified the essence of comprehension. It was reminiscent of "Clement's recognitions" and the logical reasoning he presented in his fourth book.
Chapter 24 - Why God Permits Evil
"But you will meet me by saying, Even if it has come to this through freedom of will, was the Creator ignorant that those whom He created would fall away into evil? He ought therefore not to have created those who, He foresaw, would deviate from the path of righteousness. Now we tell those who ask such questions, that the purpose of assertions of the sort made by us is to show why the wickedness of those who as yet were not, did not prevail over the goodness of the Creator.  For if, wishing to fill up the number and measure of His creation, He had been afraid of the wickedness of those who were to be, and like one who could find no other way of remedy and cure, except only this, that He should refrain from His purpose of creating, lest the wickedness of those who were to be should be ascribed to Him; what else would this show but unworthy suffering and unseemly feebleness on the part of the Creator, who should so fear the actings of those who as yet were not, that He refrained from His purposed creation?
Could it have been so easy to vanquish Satan after the Garden? What would the other creations of God, including the angels, have said about it?
It is no surprise that God's wisdom surpasses that of man. At times, man fails to extend their thoughts far enough to have a meaningful impact on what truly matters to God.