xero

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xtnH0fxDUg

I'm not even sure anyone is clear on the policy any more. All I get is "What should I do bro X?" and I say, read the scriptures, use your conscience and as long as you're settled in your mind and heart, that's all you can do. You can still be wrong, but then again everyone makes mistakes especially when things are ambiguous or they get complicated.

In the end I want non-blood medical management. Single unit transfusions are useless box-checking done to please the legalistic hospital administrators and to rack up line item expenses. Remember the hospitals and doctors are for-profit entities. My avoidance of blood in any form is more due to my ideas that it's not healthy for me physically, but even it if was good for me, like I had my own "blood boy" I would still not do it because of the history religious and otherwise. I suppose I might be likened to a jew who had never eaten pork and for whom doing so was gross. I might acknowledge that it was legal now since the mosaic restrictions aren't in place, but my brain would still be whispering "Yeah, so then why was it forbidden? Huh? Whatcha gotta say about that?"

Luke 8:21

Titus 1:15

2 Samuel 23:13-17,In this passage, David's mighty warriors risked their lives to fetch him water from the well near Bethlehem because David expressed a longing for it. However, when they presented the water to him, David considered it as if it were the blood of his men who had risked their lives to obtain it, and he refused to drink it, instead pouring it out as an offering to Jehovah.

Soul patches and hair donuts should be grounds for immediate disfellowshipping and so should those with man-buns.

The closest thing to a biblical argument I've ever been able to muster is related to the holy anointing oil used by the priests. It was only to be used for spiritual reasons, not because you liked the smell. So whereas the individual elements could be used w/o worry, it wasn't OK to use them in the special combination that they were combined in. “You will speak to the Israelites, saying, ‘This is to continue as a holy anointing oil to me during your generations.+ 32 It is not to be applied to the flesh of mankind, and you must not make anything with a composition like it. It is something holy. It is to continue as something holy for you. 33 Anyone who makes an ointment like it and who puts some of it on an unauthorized person* must be cut off* from his people.’” - Ex. 30:31-33 Based on the quantities given in Exodus 30:22-25, the composition of the holy anointing oil in terms of percentages of each solid ingredient is as follows: Liquid Myrrh: 33.33% Fragrant Cinnamon: 16.67% Fragrant Calamus: 16.67% Cassia: 33.33% These percentages are calculated based on the relative quantities of each ingredient in shekels, excluding the olive oil, which is a liquid base and measured in a different unit (a hin). In ancient recipes like this, the exact method of combining the solid ingredients (measured in weight) with the liquid (measured in volume) is not always clear, so these percentages represent the proportion of each solid ingredient relative to the total solid content. So if we consider "blood" to be a composite in the same manner as the holy anointing oil. Could some imagine it to not be "blood" if it wasn't represented in the same ratios? At what point does a thing stop being that thing, if the thing is a composite?

Exactly.

My point is that when you can take what amounts to everything but the cell wall, just so long as you do it in small enough pieces just sounds to any unindoctrinated observer as pharisaical nit picking.

Is this where someone shows me the scriptural distinction between minor blood fractions and blood? At some points of argumentation it begins to sound a lot like the kinds of arguments abortionists give. "When does life really begin?" "How many clumps of cells does it take before it's considered a human?"

Twiddle, twaddle. The pope is meaningless and so is whatever comes out of his mouth.

Remember back when everyone was in a tizzy about circumcision?

The thing is, that one thing I go back to, is not so much that the humans behind the organization have been brilliant, or their ideas were literally from Jehovah's mouth to their ears (or even what was imagined w/regard to those who imagine themselves to be anointed) is this: Jehovah uses organizations to accomplish his will and purposes. With all it's defects this particular organization has highlighted and stuck to many important fundamental points. No Trinity, no hellfire, the kingdom is a government, Jesus is the king of that government, the need to personally get on board with preaching personally. It was the only one annoying enough to get my attention back when I was an unhappy atheist. "1914? Are you kidding me? That's pretty specific. How did you get that?" It little matters to me now that certain things I'd expected didn't take place as I'd expected, or even as I was led to believe. The people I was introduced to were really different and different because THEY believed what they were saying. There was a personal cost to the individual to become one of Jehovah's Witnesses. One can't say that about most nominally Christian organizations. Disfellowshipping, as painful as it is and has been is a critical factor as well, though I disagree with it's use as a tool to silence those drawing attention to perceived or real failings. In the end it is and has served in my view, Jehovah's purposes, though I'll admit to believing that it is not the only one in history or even today to be doing so. I think of the dragnet illustration,and the organizations admission to be part of that dragnet, and I believe that this is so, and though I couldn't attach myself to any other organization I still feel that it's up to each individual to work out his own salvation with fear and trembling (all the while I can't admit to so much trembling any more at this stage of my life, recognizing that I'm about as good as I can get right now and that's not so great either, so as the saying goes "so sue me" and "you can't get blood out of a turnip" if someone wants any more out of me. I trust Jehovah will deal with me justly (whatever that might be) and I'm OK with that). If a person feels that some other organization would better suit their spiritual growth, then they have the personal responsibility to go with them. I won't curse them if they choose to go even if that wouldn't be my choice. What comes to mind as I ramble is "Greetings! Consider it all joy, my brothers, when you meet with various trials, 3 knowing as you do that this tested quality of your faith produces endurance. But let endurance complete its work, so that you may be complete and sound in all respects, not lacking in anything..." James 1:2 People and organizations are like art. There's a proper viewing distance. Sometimes I see trees, sometimes I see the forest. Sometimes I see defects, and sometimes I see these as an opportunity. In all this I look for Jehovah and to him and the guidance of his Son, and not to the humans who may or may not be moving in harmony with the Holy Spirit. For some reason that also reminds me of this clip from "Enter the Dragon" "Don't concentrate on the finger"

You sure you weren't a stand-in for one of Jobs' comforters?

This is what Jehovah has said: “Cursed is the able-bodied man who puts his trust in earthling man and actually makes flesh his [chariot]. - Jer. 17:5 "Neither be called leaders, for your Leader is one, the Christ." - Mt. 23:10

One might use the scripture about Timothy getting unnecessarily circumcised "on account of the jews" and take the principle there that you wouldn't wear a head covering, because to do so would make the study all about head covering and why the organization has this on the books, whereas you might/might not agree. So to take the analogy (am I twisting scriptures? I don't think so) it would be like not wearing a head covering "on account of the unbelievers". But of course "let each person be fully convinced in his/her own mind", would always be the principle to apply as well.

If the shoe fits.

What are you babbling about? You sound like a confused, economically ignorant, covetous socialist.

Like I said. Semiotics of various sorts. Some are externally worn, some are evident by the things they worry about. I'd rather worry myself about the Bible, Bible history, Biblical archaeology and various apologetics. On the other hand my wife likes Project Runway and I've seen every episode.

I remember having to tell a young woman that her dreadlocks weren't in keeping with the field ministry, that it was associated with Rastafarians and all that related to the same. She wanted to get baptized and the body left it up to me to explain to her the whole thing. I was annoyed at having to deal with being the congregation fashion coordinator on two counts: 1st that people couldn't read the room and conform to somewhere in the middle and 2nd that I had to enforce something that was a personal choice people were making. I did it thinking to myself that these kinds of people would likely have argued with Moses about circumcision, when there is zero explanation in scripture as to the reasons for it being a requirement other than Jehovah saying "because I told you to". I see both sides of these things. On the one hand, it's nice to have an external sign of people who could be troublemakers, on the other hand "Really? I have to deal with beards, and other fashion concerns? Don't we have bigger fish to fry?" Then I see it all as some kind of useful social exercise. It forces me to think about the benefits and hazards of conformity, and what standards to use, and balancing the differences. When we choose to look different from those we have social bonds with, we are sending messages. There's a whole social science dealing with these "semiotics". Are we Jehovah's Christian Witnesses? Then what does that look like? How does it act? Does it look like seeking it's own personal advantage? Does it look like lording it over the brothers and sisters in telling them what to do with regard to personal matters? Nature identifies juveniles by the way that they look when they are young, vs when they become mature. What do mature people look like? Do they wear themselves out over fashion? I remember one elder before my appointment asking me whether I wondered why I wasn't appointed as an elder yet seeing as how I'd been a regular pioneer and servant for almost ten years then and was regularly giving talks outside the congregation. My response was "I imagined it was because Jehovah decided it wasn't the right time". I never asked, because I cared, but I didn't care either if you know what I mean, it's not like I didn't have things to do. The only things I didn't have to do looked more like the annoying things like judicial committees with people who can't take hints from the Bible about how to behave themselves. His reaction was a bit surprised, but then I could see that he needed to give me some counsel so I relented and he went on. It turned out my answers in the meeting suggested I relied on "Worldly Wisdom", my shoes weren't shiny enough and I walked funny when I went up to the podium. So I thought to myself that I want this elder to feel good about this counseling session so I asked him to watch me at the meetings and let me know if I was slipping in these areas. I told him that when conversing w/the friends I would mention where in the Societies pubs I read whatever it was I was commenting on, so they wouldn't get the idea I was pushing some novel idea unique to me as well. He seemed pleased with my responses. My thoughts were that as an elder you can do some damage, so if I make this elder happy about giving counsel he'll do a better job with the next publisher. Anyway, I'm rambling now....

My mother used to say whenever anyone would say "Small things for small minds", "Small pants fit small behinds"

When I asked about the behavior, it responded in this manner: " The behavior you described, characterized by the need to bloviate (talk at length, often in a pompous or boastful manner) and then stifle the responses of others who are present, may be associated with several psychological and personality traits or conditions. However, it's essential to recognize that such behavior can vary widely among individuals, and not everyone who engages in long-winded speech necessarily has a psychological disorder. Here are some potential factors and conditions that may be related: Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD): Individuals with NPD often exhibit a grandiose sense of self-importance and a need for excessive admiration. They may engage in lengthy, self-centered monologues and may not be receptive to others' input or feedback. Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD): People with ASPD may demonstrate manipulative and controlling behavior, including talking over others or stifling their responses. They may disregard social norms and the feelings of others. Histrionic Personality Disorder: Histrionic individuals seek attention and may use dramatic or excessively emotional language to captivate their audience. They may become uncomfortable or dismissive when others try to interject or redirect the conversation. Authoritarian Personality Traits: Some individuals with authoritarian personality traits may display a need to dominate conversations and suppress dissenting opinions. They may have a rigid and controlling communication style. Ego-Centrism: Ego-centric individuals may struggle to consider others' viewpoints and may prioritize their own ideas and narratives during conversations. This behavior may not always be indicative of a specific personality disorder. It's important to note that the presence of these traits or behaviors doesn't necessarily indicate a formal diagnosis of a psychological disorder. Personality traits and communication styles exist on a spectrum, and an individual's behavior may be influenced by a combination of factors, including their personality, upbringing, and social context."

"The post you provided appears to be a question or statement from someone expressing confusion or frustration about why people would go to extreme lengths to falsify theories or make false claims, especially when they have locked posts. They also mention the biblical reference 1 Peter 3:16, which could potentially be related to their point, but it's not entirely clear how it connects. The subsequent response you provided offers insights into why some people might engage in such behavior and outlines potential advantages for readers in critically analyzing false claims. However, it's unclear whether the response directly addresses the poster's point or question. Without more context or information about the specific discussion or conversation in which this post was made, it can be challenging to determine the poster's precise point or intent. They may be expressing frustration with the prevalence of false information or seeking an explanation for why people engage in such behavior. If you have more context or specific questions about this post, please provide them, and I'll do my best to assist you further."

dropping a deuce in a public stall, not flushing it, and crawling out from under the locked stall?