JW Insider

The Bible is the perfect book it should be. But we should discern the spirit of the Christian message and not be distracted with so many lower-priority details that we miss the forest for the trees. As brought up in the post to @Outta Here we need to be alert to what we are being taught. If we understand the "spirit" of the message and the "priorities" we will not be quickly shaken from our reason in believing a message has apostolic authority when it really was just some speculation over less important details: (2 Thessalonians 2:1, 2) . . .we request of YOU 2 not to be quickly shaken from YOUR reason nor to be excited either through an inspired expression or through a verbal message or through a letter as though from us. . . I think most of us would agree that the idea of priority of the objective has been perfectly met in the Bible, and is perfectly encapsulated in 1 Timothy: (1 Timothy 1:5-7) . . .Really, the objective of this instruction is love out of a clean heart and out of a good conscience and out of faith without hypocrisy. 6 By deviating from these things, some have been turned aside to meaningless talk. 7 They want to be teachers of law, but they do not understand either the things they are saying or the things they insist on so strongly.

Yes. Excellent point. I believe it has everything to do with it, and I believe that Paul was well aware of the responsibility and understood very uniquely from his own situation why such a spiritual gift was so important. After all, he was not one who had heard Jesus speak personally during Jesus' earthly life, and Paul at times, had to rebuke the very apostles who had such influence on others. The idea, I think, is even carried in the verse in the context of the idea of making sure of the more important things: (Philippians 1:9-10) 9 And this is what I continue praying, that your love may abound still more and more with accurate knowledge and full discernment; 10 that you may make sure of the more important things, so that you may be flawless and not stumbling others up to the day of Christ; Of course, Paul also made good and purposeful use of extra-Scriptural references which also were "useful for setting things straight and disciplining in righteousness," but in order for future congregations to be built especially upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Paul knew that, not just the Hebrew Scriptures, but also the authority of the apostles would become both the doctrinal and practical foundation of the congregations. He had to set things straight even among the other apostles, and the apostles were able to give Paul counsel, too. (Gal 2:10) Fortunately, we don't need now to question anything that comes through the authority of the apostles. But we still need to follow the same principle of discernment that Paul used when questioning and accepting doctrine. (Hebrews 5:12-14) 12 For although by now you should be teachers, you again need someone to teach you from the beginning the elementary things of the sacred pronouncements of God, and you have gone back to needing milk, not solid food. 13 For everyone who continues to feed on milk is unacquainted with the word of righteousness, for he is a young child. 14 But solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their powers of discernment trained to distinguish both right and wrong. Today, of course, we also need to be reliant upon good scholarship to avoid acceptance of certain statements that do not have "foundational" apostolic authority and yet have crept into our Bible texts. It's a modern form of the same spiritual gift of accurate knowledge (and full discernment.) 1 John 5:7.8 is the best example, The New World Translation committee has accurately removed the non-authoritative parts of 1 John 5:7,8, but there are dozens of full verses removed in lesser-known examples found in some of the older texts (not usually the oldest texts) and found not to be as reliable, based on "textual criticism." Some of these omissions seem innocuous, but they are still without sufficient apostolic authority to keep in the context with the authoritative verses. By calling our Christian Greek Scriptures "apostolic", we acknowledge that some were not written directly by apostles, because most of the apostles were evidently unlettered (illiterate) and required second-hand "secretaries" to record their first-hand experiences and memories. Writings by non-apostles were accepted on the basis that they were understood to have come from those with a direct relationship to the apostles, and who lived at the time of the apostles. The significance given to this idea comes through the statement from Paul that the number of eyewitnesses to Jesus resurrection was known. (Luke 1:1, 2) 1 Whereas many have undertaken to compile a statement of the facts that are given full credence among us, 2 just as those who from [the] beginning became eyewitnesses and attendants of the message delivered these to us, (2 Peter 1:16) 16 No, it was not by following artfully contrived false stories that we acquainted YOU with the power and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ, but it was by having become eyewitnesses of his magnificence. (Acts 1:21-23) . . .It is therefore necessary that of the men who accompanied us during all the time in which the Lord Jesus carried on his activities among us, 22 starting with his baptism by John until the day he was taken up from us, one of these men should become a witness with us of his resurrection.” 23 So they proposed two, Joseph called Barʹsab·bas, who was also called Justus, and Mat·thiʹas. (1 Corinthians 15:5-7) . . .and that he appeared to Ceʹphas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that he appeared to more than 500 brothers at one time, most of whom are still with us, though some have fallen asleep in death. 7 After that he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.

Paul knew that Timothy was already well acquainted with the inspired Scriptures. So the reference would have been to the Hebrew Scriptures only at this time. This does not mean that Paul didn't recognize the status of at least some of his own letters or some parts of his own letters as "inspired." But it isn't likely Paul was referring to his own letters at this time, just the "Old Testament." Another question is whether Paul would have been thinking of the same set of books that we think of today. Some Jews and therefore some Jewish Christians might not have agreed on which books could be considered inspired (or partially inspired). I say partially, because some books had portions that included stories that were not considered inspired even if the primary portion of the book was considered inspired. (Daniel, Bel and the Dragon, Susannah and the Elders, etc., just as the book of John had a story about the near stoning of a woman caught in adultery, or Mark with both a short and long conclusion. It's merely a tradition that tells us that the writer of 1,2,3 John and Revelation were the same person. Based on the language and grammar, it seems unlikely to many scholars that it was the same John who wrote Revelation. (The gospel of John was apparently written by the same person who wrote 1,2, &3 John.) Also, there is some good external and some internal evidence and tradition that Revelation was written close to 96-100 CE. But there have also been some excellent scholarly books pointing to the possibility that Revelation could have been written prior to 70 CE. (Prior to Jerusalem's destruction by the Romans.) For that matter, there is considerable speculation among scholars that the letters to Titus and Timothy were developed, more likely between 100 CE and 150 CE. This does not mean that they were not "Pauline," but to some scholars they appear to be attempts to turn Paul's counsel into a set of semi-legalistic rules. They are more akin, stylewise, to the style and content one would find in the books of 1 Clement, Ignatius or Polycarp. (Some of the writings and letters by the latter could well have been written prior to 1 & 2 Timothy.) If they are Paul's own direct words, many scholars find some of them at odds with the "spirit" of Paul's words in Thessalonians, Philippians, Romans and Corinthians. Books of Enoch, Jannes and Jambres, The Assumption of Moses, 12 Patriarchs, Epistle of Barnabas, etc., were clearly very popular in some Christian circles likely going all the way back to the first century CE. There were also several gospel accounts that the writer of Luke hoped to replace with the gospel of Luke. This could have been one of the reasons that 1 John 4:1 asks Christians to "test the inspired utterances." Of course, Christians much closer to the time when these books were first known were in a better position to test which of them had real apostolic authority and which came from the actual time period of the apostles. Also, when scholars look at supposed contradictions and assume a late authorship they are often taking the easy way out. Some portions of the Bible were clearly intended so that we would look at things from two different perspectives. The variations in the gospel accounts do not cause any doctrinal problems but they show different perspectives. The difference in James' statement that 'a person is declared righteous by works and not by faith alone,' while Paul says that 'a person is declared righteous by faith and not by works' is clearly intentional. These perspectives actually help us to 'make sure of all things.'

If things were exactly the same now, then yes, this would make them hypocrites. But it's a matter of what was actually "known" even though what we thought we "knew" was really based on assumptions. We assumed that fornication was a huge problem and pedophilia was a nearly non-existent problem. We probably also assumed that "kids" lie and elders tell the truth, because that has been built into the system for decades.

Hardly! Britain very nearly could not even save itself. And the USA made use of a 'get in there as late as possible' tactic which allowed all the other nations of imperialist leanings to lose power by the end of war. The true credit goes to the Russians for holding out so long against the Nazis. To scale, it was more like this:

I think that hits the point exactly. The elders, especially during previous years, were directly taught at KM school (Elder Training) that the first time that there is suspicion of two persons of the opposite sex spending hours of time alone together, that there should be some kind of very strong counsel and even sanction due to the appearance alone, even if the elders were convinced that they were innocent of loose conduct. It was the same at Bethel, because there was a rule against being alone with a sister in your room unless the door was open, this meant that as soon as the door was closed, there should be strong counsel and even sanction. I knew that the rule was often broken, and I think that very few would turn someone else in, yet multiple infractions of the rule could mean dismissal. If a couple of the opposite sex ever were seen to have contrived to be alone together, it was simply assumed that they went too far in their conduct with one another. The elder training gave examples of appropriate questions to ask, even if it was not overnight, and these questions assumed the worst, and would try to draw out a confession of "loose conduct." There would be a probation or loss of privileges of some kind, even if both vehemently denied any misconduct. If the time spent together appeared contrived, and was overnight, especially if reported by a third party who saw a car parked overnight in front of the other person's house, then the assumption was always that fornication had occurred and that any denial means the two are lying. The types of questions to be asked gave away the assumption of immorality and dishonesty. If they had previously been counseled, this could immediately escalate to disfellowshipping. Having been raised in the truth, and having gone to school in Missouri, I didn't realize until I went to college that many of our assumptions were similar to many of the fundamentalists around us. It wasn't just JWs but most old-time religionists, assuming that leaving two persons of the opposite sex alone together was always an instant recipe for fornication and/or adultery. If you listened to radio preachers you'd hear the same assumptions. Witnesses were also assuming that there was nothing else that young people could possibly be interested in. It wasn't until after Bethel when I went to college that I realized that many persons were immoral, but also that many had morals likely superior to ours. And most surprisingly that many persons of the opposite sex actually lived together as roommates and still didn't ever worry about the topic of sex/fornication ever coming up. Now, I have seen statistics that show that teenage pregnancies were always much higher in the "Bible Belt." Perhaps part of the problem was in the assumption that young people have nothing better to do.

translate.google.com: To calm down, it is also very important not to forget your relationship with the Creator. Jehovah does not look favorably upon those who rejoice over the misfortune of their enemies, for such an attitude reflects an avenging spirit. Now, in Proverbs 24:17, 18, we find this warning: "When your enemy falls, do not rejoice; and when it stumbles, let not your heart be joyful, that Jehovah may not see it, and that it shall not be evil in his sight."

Amazing that China, for example, generally builds robots to focus on building things, and the United States builds robots to keep the status quo. These particular robots make a good metaphor for the silicon valley economy. They are kept so that rich people can't be bothered or disturbed after exploiting properties through gentrification processes. SF is notorious for extremely low new building projects to keep real estate prices high, where most adjacent counties in California have much more unimproved and untouched acreage than acreage that has been built upon. In fact, even where SF will begin to expand is not into newly zoned areas for new building, except by encroaching upon Oakland so that additional gentrification processes can be used to remove the majority black and latino populations to rebuild Oakland as a playground for the rich. Silicon Valley has even been finding ways to aid this specific type of gentrification, even through social media, military and law enforcement support -- and Oakland was one of the first targets.

At least most of those cars finally got cleared off the lot. "Urban Explorers" must still be a problem, though. I read somewhere that they keep breaking locks and cutting fences just to take a selfie at a place like this. Right? Looks like quite a project. Perhaps someday it could become a "Wyndham" hotel. Seriously, however, especially if permission to add the two 70 foot towers and botanical gardens works out, it would be a great place for corporate events, weddings, etc. In the US, we often made use of these out of the way locations for corporate events. Attendance was always low when events were held in Las Vegas, Atlanta, etc., and much higher at captive locations. With those planned hiking trails it would remind me of the last three I went to: Mohonk House in New Paltz, New York and another one in Amish/Mennonite country in rural Ohio, and another one in Asheville, North Carolina, The [Vander]Biltmore). I don't know how popular this idea is in the UK, but a French company I worked for would send us to a Bordeaux winery (that they owned) and then a "Club Med" in Normandy that was not a typical water-sports oriented Club Med. It was designed with a lot of garden-like pools and little bridges based on Monet/Manet paintings.

I programmed mine to fool TrueTomHarley into thinking it was his wife.

Which means, when translated, something like: Hello, the Bible should be read in context and one should not try to understand it by taking a verse out of context.

And I made it look like I was blaming you. Sorry. As I recall, you had already defended yourself very well a few hundred posts back in this thread. They even talked about threaded replies. And I knew it wasn't your fault from the start. I've been asked to split off several threads myself, and I always have trouble with the fact that the initial post is the oldest relevant post that can be added to the thread so it looks like that person started the new thread. It gives the impression that some innocent person had deemed a side-track topic to be important enough for its own thread.

I for one, thank you for sticking around for this discussion. Yes, I remember how unfair it seemed that someone started a thread with your name in it, just to make it clear that they didn't trust your own stated reasons. But, of course, forums are full of opinions sprinkled with a few facts sometimes, but just to bolster opinions. People rightly treat most of this like YouTube comments, or some other "worst" example of the way people's opinions can cloud out anything useful. But I stll think that what you have provided here is a first hand experience (prior to JW association) and a subsequent reaction to WTS policies that is very important for most of us to reflect on, even if it's different from the way most of think we would react.

Oddly enough, Brother Jackson came very close to implying it, but still didn't say elders themselves would always comply even if it the state produced a consistent mandatory reporting law. Brother Jackson danced around the actual response expected from elders. You can see this on page 36 to 40 of the official transcript: https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/sites/default/files/file-list/Case Study 29 - Transcript - Jehovahs Witnesses - Day 155 - 14082015.pdf For example, Bro. Jackson said it would make it easier, but that the elder would still have to consider whether he got the information confidentially and quoted Proverbs 25:8 (importance of confidentiality) in the same breath in which he suggested consistent mandatory reporting laws. He said that none of these principles necessarily takes precedence, but that the elders need to consider it. (p.37) Then Jackson went on to quote 1 Peter 5:3 to show that the elder himself could be lording it over the flock if he took it upon himself to report something when it could be seen as the responsibility of a family head to report it. And he again repeated that the decision will be "easier for us" but did not make a statement that the elder himself should be the one who complies with a mandatory reporting law. He repeated again that, for the elder, there would still be no "clear cut or quick decision on the matter" even if it were obvious that other children in the same family were still at risk. (p.38) As seen at the top of page 39, these "dances" were seen by Stewart as reasons for potentially "overriding mandatory reporting" even if and where it did exist. And Jackson was very accepting of the idea that this was, indeed, his goal by clarifying that he, Jackson, still prefers that the elders only be required to "encourage the guardian of the child, or whoever is in that family arrangement who is not the perpetrator, to notify the authorities." (p.40). . Also, I didn't follow how the Australian Parliament might have responded to any such recommendations for consistent mandatory reporting. Can you point me to a place that shows exactly what they rejected?

The vast majority of Witnesses have the expectation that the WTS will always try to do what is right, no matter what the topic. But like all institutions, reputation is paramount. The WTS is full of people who want to enhance the reputation of the WTS. This is a problem, but also natural --almost expected-- if we are also sure that we have the most life-saving message, and that this message will likely be rejected if our reputation is sullied. A college or sports organization will be just as guilty of protecting their reputation through maneuvering, or even more so, when the motive is as mundane as staying in business. We've been through these ideas before, but it's quite possible that TTH is correct in assuming that the WTS/JWs have made great strides in protecting young ones from abuse. I notice that the media has tended to move from "Catholics only" to "Catholics and Jehovah's Witnesses." But part of that perception is the fact that we Witnesses have our ears "tuned" to listen to anything the media says about JWs. We will sometimes think we are being bashed when we are actually being treated fairly, just because we perceive we are being ganged up on. It could just as easily be true that only a small percent of our own sexual abuse issues make the news, but the exposure of Catholic clergy and institutions has made Catholics might be highly overexposed by the media. I was Googling, "Barbara Anderson" and also picked up a short booklet on Amazon that she had written (or it looks like someone wrote for her). But I noticed that she has also said that the problem is not something for which the media should focus on just Catholics and JWs. I found a quote where she said that Billy Graham's son, a well-known Protestant preacher, said that the problem of child sexual abuse is greater in the Protestant religions, especially the mega-churches. I noticed that some Catholics in Australia had no problem finding numbers from the "Commission" (ARC) that proved that the problem among JWs and another set of religions was shown to be much bigger among these non-Catholic religions. But another couple quotes from Barbara Anderson also said something about seeing a court document, not shared publicly, that could explain why the "GB should keep so much info . . . all to themselves." For one thing she says that many of these cases involve incest and an exposure of the names of either victims or perpetrators when combined with the crime could bring another level of public hurt upon the victim. Also I saw a quote from her that said that it really was true that quite a number of persons for which the WTS admitted that their pedophile status was known was through our prison outreach program. When persons locked up for child sexual abuse are baptized and then released, or released and then baptized, this inflates the number of persons listed in the WTS records even if they have not ever been known to commit a sexual abuse crime after leaving becoming a JW. Another point that I sensed from combining a few ideas she wrote about is this. The WTS lists contain a wide range of abuse crimes, and some of them truly are those from which a sensible person would not think right to expose to the court and law enforcement (risking also the leaks to the media). A 17 year old, for example, might have done things in high school that have truly not been a problem for the last 40 years. Of course these same lists have been shown now to have contained heinous crimes that were covered up and should obviously be exposed to law enforcement. But starting this process creates a slippery slope to a decision-making process where the WTS can't trust itself to always "redact" correctly, and the WTS has never trusted the world to handle anything correctly, especially where it relates to protecting their own reputation. So, it's the old dilemmas: "between a rock and a hard place" / "between the Devil and the deep blue sea" / "between the Pharoah and the deep Red Sea." This is probably true. Even here no system is without potential loopholes in justice. But it's back to the idea that the WTS would potentially give up control of its reputation to "the world." In these cases its something that should absolutely be done. It's not perfect, but it's much better, and a culture in which this is expected will result in a much better sense among all of us that it should have been done this way all along. I referenced a website which TTH has quoted from, and noticed that the general point of this entire website is that reporting ALL accusations is a culture change that all institutions need to begin, religious and non-religious.

We don't really care, or shouldn't care as much what God had in mind in Genesis, Exodus, or Leviticus. But we should care what James and Peter had in mind when they gave an edict "abstain from blood" to Paul and Barnabas to spread among the Gentile believers. Even so, I think you are right -- assuming that we truly believe that the intent of the edict "abstain from blood" referred to any means of taking it into the body. And this is exactly what we believe, whether by medical procedure or by consumption through the mouth. I always imagined it like this: Let's say Adam and Eve had been told to abstain from eating from a certain tree of the garden and let's say that this tree had been, for example, a banana tree, and there was only one of these trees in the whole garden. So they proceed to pick the fruit and find ways to make food products from it: banana puree, banana wine, banana sugar, banana jam, dried banana chips, banana powder, banana oil, including products from banana peels, banana leaves, banana tree bark, and banana tree roots. Satan appears in the form of a tarantula spider and tells them that all these products are just fine because they aren't really eating from the tree, they are eating byproducts from the tree. Satan says that as long as you process and smash and dry and mix and powder and recombine with other products, it's not really the same as eating from the banana tree. Just don't eat the whole banana fruit at once, or the whole leaf, or the whole root, or the whole peel. Otherwise, it's just a matter of conscience. I should add, however, that in the last couple of years, I've changed my mind on just how far one could apply this specific illustration. And now --based on something very specific and clear that the apostle Paul wrote-- I think that the whole blood issue is entirely a matter of conscience. Due to conscience, I might personally view the matter more strongly than another believer, or less strongly. But I would not wish to impose my own conscientious view on others.

Sort of. I was referring to both. And our steers were only stunned with the head shot, not killed outright, so the heart was still beating. I was just saying there was a time when I was more interested in the various processes, so as to compare them, partly because of the blood issue, and partly because we had raised our steers from calves (along with a heifer and a milk cow). I therefore had a concern about their suffering. Naming them was a bad idea. I was interested in the process then, because a true kosher slaughter, at least at the time, required that the animal be readied for stringing up and then the throat cut as soon as the animal was strung up. There was no stunning or bolt gun with the kosher method, with the idea that the heart (and fear of the process) would help the heart beat stronger, and pump out more blood. How much more, I don't know. I might not have even been given completely correct info. The bolt-shot (stunned) unconscious animal might be in a kind of shock, lowering the heart rate I would assume, but I suppose the amount of blood drained could be similar, but might take longer, when compared with an animal that is fully alert, and the throat is slit with a fully beating heart. I think it's interesting that our slaughterhouse told us that the kosher method is faster because the animal is so afraid of dying that the blood is pumping more strongly and the heart rate is off the charts. But more recently, when more people are interested in whether the animal experiences fear and suffering, the kosher method is sometimes touted as "instant death" -- which it definitely is not. That might be. And I might have been given wrong information about how the kosher method supposedly drains more blood, by throat slitting without ever knocking out or stunning the animal.

I don't believe anyone would claim that this red liquid in the package is blood. But as you say, it contains blood, whole blood cells. So does the meat itself. But it looks like your argument boils down to something like this: No one can actually get rid of all the whole blood cells that will be found in meat by any practical process. And the Bible's laws never technically meant that absolute full drainage was required anyway, as the idea of "lifeblood" was intended, not blood, per se. Therefore, if we were not supposed to worry about small amounts of whole blood, we should not necessarily worry our conscience about fractions or particles of blood, either. I agree with this, that it's a "question of what Biblical standard we are willing to subject our thoughts to," but it doesn't really seem to address the question of why certain fractions are prohibited from the perspective of the Watchtower's guidelines, and certain fractions are considered to be a matter of individual conscience.

I agree that you could make such an argument. But the heart stops beating before all the blood is drained. That was my point. The animal can have a lot of blood still remaining and yet dies while being drained. The heart stops and there is plenty of blood to be drained. (We had 3 of our bulls slaughtered when I was about 15. Technically they were "steers.") I was interested in the process due to the blood issue, because in this case, the animals were shot in the head first (bolt gun), then strung up to drain. Technically, we were supposed to ask the butcher not to save the blood for fertilizer or feed or any other purpose, and we would pay him a bit more for disposal. (In those days the Watchtower told us that we should not even let our dogs and cats eat unbled meat.)

No. The red liquid is not technically referred to as cow bovine. It is bovine in the same way that a cow's hide is bovine, or a baseball glove is bovine, or a leather chair, or a kind of saliva, or a certain type of sound, or a kind of meat, or a specific kind of hoofprint in the mud, or a certain kind of "mudpie"/"patty"/"buffalo chip"/etc. In other words, the milk I drank this morning was bovine, but it did not contain any bovine. The meat I ate last week was bovine, but it did not contain any bovine. There is no such phrase as "cow bovine" as far as I know.

I finally saw Hitchens' documentary. When I first tried to watch it, the local Blockbuster video store kept saying they had 5 copies, and I put one on hold, until they realized they had all been stolen, or checked out by fake ID's, never to be returned. I think we should be fair with the old man. He should not be executed until after a trial. He is guilty of war crimes, but that's also true of almost every U.S. president since Eisenhower.

If Iraq is asked to pay only $15 Billion from Germany and could choose to pay, say, $20 Billion to the U.S. for the equivalent work, they would almost surely have to waste the extra $5 Billion on the U.S. But this will be nothing new to Iraq. The US was behind the sanctions (mostly under B.Clinton) that literally killed about ONE MILLION PEOPLE (mostly women and children) by intentionally bombing and sabotaging Iraq's clean water, agricultural and power infrastructure long before the US invasion of Iraq. And recall too that the US invaded Iraq due to the actions of a man that the US had supported, Saddam Hussein. So, in a perfect world, you might think that the US owed the Iraqi people billions of dollars in war reparations, rather than worry about whether a US company gets a lucrative contract. It reminds me of how even during the intentionally murderous sanctions, a large US corporation (military contractor) continued to "secretly" make hundreds of millions of dollars by doing oil related work in Iraq. They paid less than 10 million dollars in fines over their intentional breaking of US law, but were then quickly awarded 1.2 billion in contracts in Iraq, even though these contracts were supposed to go to the lowest bidder. That was Halliburton, of course. But the same thing happens with many US companies with respect to controversial defense contracts. Some of these companies, like G.E., Google, etc., are not even typically thought of as defense contractors, and many have been awarded contracts for work for which they have little to no experience.

This is a good concept to remember, but it produces some questions. If the blood referred to was the LIFEBLOOD then one could discontinue draining as soon as the animal was lifeless. If a live animal, heart beating, was hung upside-down, and then its throat slit, its "LIFEBLOOD" would already be gone even when only half the blood is drained. If the animal was already killed by lethal weapon, blunt force, or from another animal, or even had just died on its own, the amount of blood that could be drained by hanging it upside-down and slitting its throat would be much less than if it died during the draining process. In any case, the Jewish law required that the draining take place, and blood be poured onto the ground, as a kind of ritual of respect. We assume then that the animal was drained at least until the pouring stopped and the pouring turned into a drip. Since it was a ritual of respect before Jehovah, I would assume that it might be kept in position until the dripping had also stopped. Of course, Christians of most stripes, should be informed by Acts 15 and 21 on this matter, more so than Genesis through Leviticus. Otherwise we would have to treat the fat with the same amount of respect, and the fat has exactly the same problem, not draining out completely when cooking. (Leviticus 3:17) 17 “‘It is a lasting statute for your generations, in all your dwelling places: You must not eat any fat or any blood at all.’” Why was fat put on the same level as blood here? Perhaps we get a hint from the very first use of the word "smell" in the Bible: (Genesis 8:20, 21) . . .Then Noah built an altar to Jehovah and took some of all the clean animals and of all the clean flying creatures and offered burnt offerings on the altar. 21 And Jehovah began to smell a pleasing aroma.. . . When meat-eaters enjoy a juicy steak, much of the intrinsic flavor is from left-over blood and fat. The "pleasing aroma" of cooked meat comes more from the fat. The blood is poured downward to the ground, and the fat smokes upward "toward heaven." To me, this says that this Mosaic law was based on a ritual of respect, the same as we see in many cultures who understood the grave seriousness of taking another life, killing a soul. Some Native American cultures were well-known for this, whenever an animal was killed for its meat. Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sacrifice . Part of the idea is that man shouldn't take another life for pleasure. And enjoying the savory meat as food is taking pleasure from killing another life. Should note that some cultures preferred to sacrifice by strangling their meat, boiling it whole, etc. (See Scythians in the Wikipedia article above.) Homer and Hesiod wrote of sacrificing/cooking meat on their altars and how their god ("God the Father," Zeus) loved the savory aroma from the fat that rose high into the heavens. (Interesting discussion here: http://www.moyak.com/papers/hesiod-theogony.html ) Of course, turning to the Greek Scriptures, again, we know that Jehovah no longer accepts any animal or human sacrifices after Jesus himself. And, as Jesus' body was never burned, the aroma is obviously figurative, not literal, of course: (Ephesians 5:2) . . ., just as the Christ also loved us and gave himself for us as an offering and a sacrifice, a sweet fragrance to God. Extrapolating from the concept of comparing LIFEBLOOD with "fractionated blood" is a bit too dependent on one particular facet of Hebrew Scripture definitions, without considering other aspects of sacrificial ritual. (It might even imply that less care be taken with blood drainage, when measuring the threshold of blood necessary for life-sustenance compared to the original amount of blood.) And of course, the continuation of the idea in Acts 15, might also be primarily about abstaining from idolatry-related rituals, especially now that Christians realized that sacrificial rituals had no more place in the true worship of God.

Technically, what the meat contains is leftover blood, not "blood by-product." By-product would be the blood that was separated or drained, not the blood still in the meat. Just read a rather disturbing article about the many ways in which animal by-products, including whole blood, and blood plasma, are used around the world. Some of the data comes from the USDA. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3614052/ Your write-up, btw, was excellent imo, fwiw.

I am not saying that the GB tell lies. It's very easy to get caught up in a style of speaking and writing as if we know we must be right and that only our current explanation is correct. Doctrines are NOT promoted because a member of the GB (or Writing Dept) is thinking about whether a certain doctrine might be right or wrong, it's just that they have already accepted that it MUST be right because people before them presented it as if it must be right. If we are "puppets" that follow along without questioning, then so have been most members of the GB. They follow the persons who came before because they never saw a reason not to. If our doctrines are obviously correct about Trinity, Hellfire, Neutrality, New Earth, Preaching, God's Name, etc., then our more questionable doctrines (Blood, Chronology, Higher Education, etc) must also be absolutely right by default. The GB would have no more reason to question them than we would. What makes some doctrines finally get questioned and corrected is almost always the inability to answer a specific question about that doctrine that gets sent to the Society. But sometimes such questions are TOO disturbing and will not be dealt with, except by looking for reasons to punish the person who asked, and I would have to admit that this reaction is very wrong. Unfortunately, this is how some humans have always reacted to those who would question established traditions. On the other hand, it takes a lot of humility to make changes to long-established ("deeply entrenched") doctrines. It doesn't mean that we or they (GB) were lying when we accepted and promoted the former doctrines. We just weren't "making sure of all things." More and more changes of this nature have been made in the last 10 to 20 years, and they are tending to clear up many of the doctrinal inconsistencies.