JW Insider

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.

I thought I would need three hands: one for the bread, one for the nuts, and one for the banana. After deliberating on the process for a few days, I chanced upon a ten-step solution: Find a banana, a container of walnuts, and bread, and place ingredients in front of you. Peel a banana (requires two hands), and set it down. Dip hand into a container of walnuts to grab a small handful (other types of nuts may work well, too). Set them down in a small pile next to the peeled banana. Grab a slice or handful of your favorite bread and keep in your right hand. Take a bite of the bread, but don't begin chewing yet. Take a bite of the banana and set it back down, but don't begin chewing yet. Pick a few nuts from the pile and put them in your mouth, too. Begin chewing. Continue alternating among new bite-size portions of bread, nuts, and banana until all items are depleted.

So true. I remember my mother baking "Date-Walnut Bread" and there was nothing better than tearing a fistful out of a warm, unsliced loaf -- fresh out of the oven. To recreate this, I have my own recipe: First, I buy a container of whole, pitted dates, then I buy a loaf of Walnut Bread from a local bakery. As I begin chewing on a chunk of the bread from one hand, I simultaneously bite off pieces of the date from the other hand and chew them together. If the bakery only sold Date-Walnut Bread instead of just Walnut Bread, I wouldn't have to go through the complex procedure. Next week, I'll share my secret recipe for Banana Bread.

Thanks for pointing that out. So we were also then serving where there was a grater need.

Serving [tacos] where the need is greater. My parents moved our family of 5 from California to Missouri to "serve where the need was greater" in 1964. The first things we missed were the leeks and onions and garlic of Egypt (Num 11:4-6). I mean, of course, the tacos of California. Rather than risk turning into a pillar of sodium chloride by longing for the past, we did just fine with Missouri cuisine. And driving back to California once a year over the summer. Even though in a fairly large University of Missouri township, no local stores within 100 miles sold tortillas in 1964. By 1966, my father went to the town Kroger's and guaranteed the purchase of 2 dozen packs of tortillas if they would just order them. They never heard of them. Finally, he talked some university students into making the same request and they stocked some around '67, I think. My brother and I liked taco nights on Wednesdays and sometimes Saturdays. These were the two nights my mother gave us to cook. I became OK at cooking spaghetti on Saturday and tacos on Wednesday, and nothing else. Still pretty true even today. Back then it was frying the soft tortillas in boiling oil and then laying them out to dry on napkins. When my brother and I shared the work, we could have instant gratification by sharing the chopping of onions, tomatoes, lettuce grading some cheddar, frying the meat with some random peppers and spices that filled in for taco seasoning. Then we topped them off with Louisiana Hot Sauce. Yesterday, also a Wednesday, I fell off my typical vegetarian diet, and had just bought a pound of fresh hamburger, a couple of vine tomatoes, a small jar of salsa, a pound of mild cheddar, salad mix, sprig of cilantro, and a jalapeno pepper, and a crunchy taco kit that has 12 pre-shaped tortillas, some mild sauce and a pack of seasoning for the hamburger. Then the race begins -- this time by myself. I start the hamburger to fry, then rush to get out some bowls, and chop, slice, and grade the ingredients. I no longer use "head lettuce" but just salad mix. By the time the hamburger starts browning, I toss in a half cup of V-8 along with the seasoning mix, because the hamburger is extra lean and doesn't produce enough oil and juice to mix the seasoning. That cools the pan enough to give me a little time to finish the ingredients, and start a cookie plate of tortillas to heat in the oven. By the time the oven reaches a good temperature, the meat is done, and all is finished in less than 15 minutes. My wife eats 3 and I eat 8. This was a bigger event when the kids still lived at home with us. But I had slacked off for a few months on taco Wednesday, and am starting it up again after ditching the vegetable-based cheese and vegetable-based hamburger. Somehow it's a lot better this time. Yesterday. Good times.

Seemed like sarcasm or satire. I have never seen the magazine. But the author may have known our take on neutrality, or thought it was well-known enough to make use of as the key to the satire. If people didn't know that JWs were neutral and didn't hold political offices, then this line would potentially fall flat. To me, then, it showed that the author knew JWs pretty well something beyond no war and no flag salute. Otherwise, I was thinking there might have been something more specific in the article that tied something he said or did to JWs.

I am not trying to sell an item on eBay. This item has been listed up there for quite some time, and the seller is in the UK. I was only wondering if anyone knew why the reference to JWs was on the cover. Did he actually say something like what's on the cover? https://www.ebay.com/itm/155110296118 The description. says: The front cover features Harold Wilson - Wislon Joins Jehovah’s Witnesses. Wilson is saying: “I cannot be a Christian and Prime Minister". Note that they spelled Jehovah's Witnesses correctly, but not Wilson. The Awake! mentions him a couple of times: *** g74 8/8 p. 30 Watching the World *** Church and State ◆ The recently appointed Archbishop of Canterbury, Donald Coggan, now heads the (Episcopalian) Anglican Church of England. Embarrassingly, a Methodist appointed him! Why? That is the religion of England’s prime minister, Harold Wilson, whose duty it is to make such appointments. *** g74 5/8 pp. 11-12 What Hope for Britain’s Economic Recovery? *** The Campaign The Conservatives (Tories), led by Heath, campaigned under the slogan, “Who Rules Britain?” They claimed that militant union extremists were bent on imposing their will on the nation in defiance of Parliament. Heath asked the country’s voters to return him to power with a strong majority in Parliament, to give him authority to deal with the problem of inflation. His Labour Party opponents, led by Harold Wilson, lost no time in calling it a phony election, telling Mr. Heath that, in spite of a working majority in Parliament since 1970, he had signally failed to deal with inflation. They castigated his campaign against union militants as a “Reds under the bed” campaign meant to scare the unwary into line. Throughout the three-week campaign an endless stream of opinion polls consistently put Heath’s Conservatives in the lead, with Labour a few percentage points behind. An unexpected element was the steady resurgence of the Liberal Party, which, after fifty years in the political wilderness, was shown to be gaining substantial support. As an aside, this makes me wonder if the Awake! would ever return to doing long (4-page) articles reporting on various political issues and campaigns.

*** 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.

(Philemon 7, NWT)  For I got much joy and comfort over your love, because the tender affections of the holy ones have been refreshed through you, brother. *** Rbi8 Philemon 7 *** “The tender affections.” Lit[erally], “the bowels.” Imagine if they had translated this literally? (Philemon 7) 7 For I got much joy and comfort over your love, because the bowels of the holy ones have been refreshed through you, brother.

But that same article about how we as Witnesses were safeguarded from the cannibalism of transplants made some curious claims about blood that cannot be restated in the literature, now that transpants are OK. *** g72 7/8 p. 28 “Keep Abstaining from . . . Blood” *** Yes, blood is a tissue, just as the heart and the kidneys are tissue. Because it is a “liquid tissue” this fact is not generally appreciated. Immunological forces, placed in the body by the Creator to protect it, oppose any foreign tissue and raise up antibodies to fight against it. That is why the popularity of heart transplants was so short-lived. . . . . quoted in previous post . . . . ‘If blood transfusions also violate the immunological principle, then why do they not prove as lethal as do heart transplants?’ you may ask. The reason is that blood is a temporary tissue. A temporary tissue? Yes, for in every second of time millions of red blood cells die and are replaced. So any ‘foreign’ transfused blood cells do not remain for long in the body. Those arguments stuck with me for a long time, and I still have a bit of trouble accepting the idea of organ transplants because of it. Yet, if the WT was wrong about it --and they say they were wrong about it-- it's the same argument that would make some of us question the arguments about blood itself.

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.

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

I get confused when I read things out of order.

I'm assuming that these fractions refer to the fraction of the total volume. Is it the fraction after water has been removed?

I'm not even sure exactly where MIles is coming from on this topic. I thought I was more in agreement with @xero and @Pudgy on this point that we aren't really abstaining from blood if we accept almost anything made from blood. I didn't think that this was "judging," because I'm in full agreement with anyone and everyone who accepts these components based on their conscience. I would not judge anyone for taking any component of blood that they deemed life-saving. I would rather err on the side of what Jesus said about how saving a life is more important than keeping the law. And, in a similar vein, I have no problem with anyone who decides that blood is too risky and potentially unhealthy in their situation and they would rather err on the side of "abstaining." And lastly, there will be those who are ready to give up their life even in a definite situation where they are completely aware than some form of blood therapy will extend their earthly life, and they still choose to abstain, even from the tiniest of fractions. For them: R-E-S-P-E-C-T. To be honest, I couldn't quite figure out how not judging others for taking blood therapies or transplants was making me a judge of others. I hope you didn't think that it meant I was judging those who would NOT take blood therapies or transplants. Perhaps it came across as too self-righteous because I invoked the example Jesus used and made it look like others were not listening to Jesus if they didn't accept something that might be life-saving. If that was your point, then I should have, of course, included the flip-side of what Jesus also said: (Matthew 16:25, 26) . . .For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. Really, what good will it do a man if he gains the whole world but loses his life? Or what will a man give in exchange for his life? I hadn't thought it necessary to repeat that part of the equation because that's already the subtext that is baked into all of our discussions about blood.

I think this is true. A lot of people have made the argument that blood is 80% water, or that the major component called plasma is 90% water, and we know there is nothing wrong with water. This is still a bad argument. It reminds me of what David might have said if some of his men said, "David, you said you wanted water, and a lot of men were bleeding, but we found a way to separate the water from their blood. Here! Won't you have this bottle of water we got for you?"

Thanks for your concern. I didn't mean to give the impression that I had any medical ailments that I know about. I'm 66 and my body aches a bit more after a hard day's work, but I have no diseases that I know about. I have been sleeping in very dry air this winter and I have a sore throat that I get about 1 out of 3 winters. My voice gets so low (bass) that I start singing "Old Man River" from Show Boat about 100 times a day. Ironically I also got a nose bleed last night, very rare for me, and even more ironically I could taste and smell the iron when bits of it trickle into the back of my throat and I spit it out. I typed a couple of long posts last night with my head tilted back and a tissue stuffed into my left nostril. I couldn't even see the screen as I typed. Another bit of medical disclosure. I have been a near-vegetarian for almost a year now, still having milk and cheese, and making a once-a-week exception for fish, and about a once-a-month exception for an egg or two. I love the new international flavors I had never tried before. I have nothing against meat, but I'm on this diet because my wife is on a very similar doctor-recommended diet and it seems to be helping her quite a bit.

I agree that it is. But that's if we are trying to claim we can take some fractions (especially the one you just alluded to) and claim we are still abstaining from blood. I'd say that it should be a matter of conscience if one accepts those fractions, but just don't go around claiming that you are still abstaining from blood. You are accepting blood, because your conscience has allowed you to take a risk that such a use of blood, even though technically not abstaining, is potentially life-saving. Also, that it is not the same as eating blood, and is still showing respect for life and the life-giving properties of blood itself. If it is a breaking of God's law, then it's only because one's conscience allows for the higher principles of Jesus about life over law, and the increased freedom of conscience that Paul promoted.

It resonates with me too. Life is too important to put at so much risk, even for soldiers believing they are doing the right thing for the war effort. That same idea can be interpreted to think of the importance of blood as representing life. So those who take that idea seriously, even those who would never drink a drop of blood, might be all the more anxious to use any means possible to save a life, even if it involves the medical use of blood. (e.g., fractions, reintroducing one's own blood into one's body during a surgery instead of pouring it out on the ground, etc) Jesus said that saving a human life was more important than following the law. As an aside, Paul was a kind of Barbarian for a Jew. As a tentmaker he had a very undesired job for a Jew. He was working with the hides of dead animal bodies. It could be a stinky job, too. That's similar to the job that Simon the Tanner from Joppa had. Peter was staying at this tanner's house when he had the dream that he was supposed to slaughter and eat reptiles (et al). Tertullian's father was also a Barbarian of sorts. After Tiberius condemned the practice of sacrificing babies, Tertullian's father helped to crucify priests of Saturn who had been caught openly sacrificing babies. He crucified them on the very trees overlooking the temples of Saturn where their crimes took place. And of course Jesus himself leads a war resulting in the spilling of much blood, even to the point of making his enemies drink blood. (Revelation 14:20) The winepress was trodden outside the city, and blood came out of the winepress as high up as the bridles of the horses for a distance of 1,600 stadia. (Revelation 16:5, 6) . . .I heard the angel over the waters say: “You, the One who is and who was, the loyal One, are righteous, for you have issued these judgments, . . . and you have given them blood to drink; they deserve it.” I'm guessing that not all Barbarians will see what David did and draw the same conclusions.

Early Christians also spoke out against abortion, the "Didache" for example. I liked what Tertullian said about abortion and I included it above: . . . it is not permitted to break up even what has been conceived in the womb, while as yet the blood is being drawn (from the parent body) for a human life. Prevention of birth is premature murder, and it makes no difference whether it is a life already born that one snatches away, or a life in the act of being born that one destroys; that which is to be a human-being is also human; the whole fruit is already actually present in the seed. Curiously, however, Tertullian also thought abortion was wrong because one would be breaking up a 9-month-long blood transfusion that the baby was in the process of getting from its mother. This is, in effect, correct although not technically accurate medically. But it's curious that Tertullian picked up on this idea.

The fact that we as Christians are not under law does not mean that we would break just any law or advocate that anyone else would break just any law. I think we all have a proper aversion to eating or drinking blood and for me this includes avoiding any meat that hasn't been properly drained of its blood. Of course, when we say "properly drained" there are probably a variety of methods and I don't care to look into them too closely. Whenever I do, I end up being vegetarian for a few months. But I can look at meat and pretty much tell if it seems reasonably bloodless to me. I can't imagine that any meat eating Christians or Jews had methods that were so much better at squeezing out anything more. I suspect that Paul thought Christians would use their best judgment (visually) and wasn't concerned that anyone should try to make rules about how best to butcher animals. For the most part, even among gentiles, there was a lot of natural aversion to eating/drinking blood, except for certain pagan rituals which, as Christians, they would already be avoiding. I've always thought this was important testimony, too. For those who haven't seen it, I'll include it here: CHAP. IX. . . . . But to us, to whom homicide has been once for all forbidden, it is not permitted to break up even what has been conceived in the womb, while as yet the blood is being drawn (from the parent body) for a human life. Prevention of birth is premature murder, and it makes no difference whether it is a life already born that one snatches away, or a life in the act of being born that one destroys; that which is to be a human-being is also human; the whole fruit is already actually present in the seed. With regard to banquets of blood and such like tragic dishes, you may read whether it is not somewhere stated (it is in Herodotus, I think) that certain tribes had arranged the tasting of blood drawn from the arms of both sides to signify ratification of a treaty. Something of the same kind was tasted also under Catiline. They say that among certain tribesmen of the Scythians also each dead person becomes food for his own relations. But I am wandering too far. On this very day, in this very country, blood from a wounded thigh, caught in a palm of the hand and given to her worshippers to drink, marks the votaries of Bellona. Again, what of those who, by way of healing epilepsy, at the gladiatorial show, drain with eager thirst the blood of slaughtered criminals, while it is still fresh and flowing down from the throat? Or what of those, who dine on bits of wild-beast from the arena, who seek a slice of boar or stag ? That boar in the struggle wiped off the blood from him whom he had first stained with gore; that stag wallowed in a gladiator's blood. The paunches of the very bears are eagerly sought, while they are yet gorged with undigested human flesh; thus flesh that has been fed on man is forthwith vomited by man. You that eat such things, how far removed you are from the feasts of the Christians! . . . Your crimes ought to blush before us Christians, who do not reckon the blood even of animals among articles of food, who abstain even from things strangled and from such as die of themselves, lest we should in any way be polluted even by blood which is buried within the body. Again, among the trials of the Christians you offer them sausages actually filled with blood, being of course perfectly aware that the means you wish to employ to get them to abandon their principles is in their eyes impermissible. Further, how absurd it is for you to believe that they, who you are assured, abhor the blood of beasts, are panting for the blood of man, unless perchance you have found the former more palatable! . . .

Don't know. But the explanation for the differences in this particular example could easily be that the Acts 15 decree was right for the time and place, just as letting prophets speak up in the first century congregation was right for the time and place. Peter's "killing" of two members of the congregation for lying about the extent of a financial contribution might have been right for the time and place. Certain types of healing, use of oil, speaking in tongues, etc., might also have right for the time and place. The holy spirit may well have been "leading" through difficult periods in ways that were not going to be right for another time, or even for other congregations with different situations.

Just a quick recap. I flippantly predicted that all medical blood products become a matter of conscience in 2026 and you said then that means you could argue that fornication and idol worship would also be a matter of conscience: 2026…so I could argue that means fornication and idol worship was a matter of conscience I wanted to acknowledge that idea by saying that a Christian like James would react similarly if he knew Paul was now saying it was OK for gentiles to eat meat sacrificed to an idol, after James had written that gentile Christians should abstain from meat sacrificed to an idol. Thus: To that, you said: So I first wanted to point out that James was also a scriptural Christian and he would also have drawn his conclusions about blood (and meat sacrificed to idols) from the way Jehovah viewed blood (and sacrifice and idolatry) all the way throughout the scriptures. So I think that in this regard all of us should want to be Jamesian Christians. If anything, James was looking for a good scriptural compromise that would help Christian Jews and Christian Gentiles be able to associate more closely. After all, Christian association involved feasts and eating together. So much so that some were even using the Memorial celebration as another time for a feast. (Galatians 2:11, 12) . . .However, when Ceʹphas came to Antioch, I resisted him face-to-face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12  For before certain men from James arrived, he used to eat with people of the nations; but when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself, . . . (Jude 12) . . .at your love feasts while they feast with you, shepherds who feed themselves. . . (2 Peter 2:13) . . .while feasting together with you. (1 Corinthians 11:20, 21, 33, 34) . . .When you come together in one place, it is not really to eat the Lord’s Evening Meal. 21  For when you eat it, each one takes his own evening meal beforehand, so that one is hungry but another is intoxicated. . . . Consequently, my brothers, when you come together to eat it, wait for one another. 34  If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that when you come together it is not for judgment (Matthew 9:11) . . .“Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” (1 Corinthians 10:27) If an unbeliever invites you and you want to go, eat whatever is set before you. . . Without putting words in your mouth, or twisting them, like I did before, I'm going to try to guess what you probably mean. I think you are saying that Paul may have had a point in contradicting James on the "food sacrificed to idols" part of the decree, but that the blood part of the decree was too important, and there could be no rationale against such a longstanding decree that seems to go all through the entire Bible. If that's what you mean, then I'd say that personally I agree. The Bible remains clear on the blood issue, and I can't think of eating blood without finding it repulsive. I find the same thing goes on in my mind with medical uses of blood, even though I am aware that this isn't really the same as eating blood. Making use of whole blood or fractions of blood for medical purposes is more like a partial organ/tissue transplant. And it can be just as dangerous as other organ/tissue transplants. But I think that the central body of elders for modern day congregations of Witnesses have done something similar to what James was doing. They have looked for a scriptural compromise in allowing once-forbidden organ transplants and once-forbidden tissue transplants, but have still tried to show a respect for the idea of abstaining from blood, even in medical procedures that have nothing to do with eating blood. So although I am still a bit revulsed at the idea of using blood for medical purposes, I remember that I had the same revulsion for heart, kidney and liver transplants. To a smaller extent I still do. What you said before about heart transplants resonated with me. And what Pudgy said about David's refusal to even drink water representing blood resonated with me too. But the more we understand about medical procedures, and the more we can make our own decisions about safety risks, we can start to be less revulsed by the medical use of fractions, and less revulsed by other tissue/organ transplants. In fact, I long ago decided that I wouldn't impose my own conservative conscience upon my children. Then more recently I decided that some of these medical options might even become viable for me if a situation ever called for it. On David's choice, it seems that Jesus made a point that it actually would have been OK for David not just to drink that water, perfectly legal, but to actually break God's law and even eat the shewbread that only the priests could eat upon penalty of death for anyone else: (Matthew 12:2-7) . . .the Pharisees said to him: “Look! Your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” 3 He said to them: “Have you not read what David did when he and the men with him were hungry? 4 How he entered into the house of God and they ate the loaves of presentation, something that it was not lawful for him or those with him to eat, but for the priests only? . . . 7  However, if you had understood what this means, ‘I want mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless ones. (Matthew 12:11, 12)  He said to them: “If you have one sheep and that sheep falls into a pit on the Sabbath, is there a man among you who will not grab hold of it and lift it out? 12  How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! . . . (Matthew 15:6-11) . . .’ So you have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition.. . .11  It is not what enters into a man’s mouth that defiles him, but it is what comes out of his mouth that defiles him.” Perhaps we are just not ready for what may well have been Paul's outlook for gentiles on blood, things strangled, and meat sacrificed to idols. But we are slowly moving in the right direction. Previously, I think I made too much of a point about James going for the Noahide decree as opposed to the Mosaic decree when making a burden for gentiles. Now, I am looking at Paul's view which is apparently against ALL LAW, no matter how good those laws appear. Under Christ, we are no longer under law at all. We don't need to be. There will always be those who will fight the idea and say that if we don't put Christians under at least some law, they are going to go "hog-wild" as a friend of mine at Bethel used to put it. They'll say we can't trust the brothers to do what's right unless we give them rules and goals and quotas. But Paul would have been against the Noahide laws, too. Christians are under "undeserved kindness" not law. I like the way Colossians puts it. (Colossians 2:8-3:5) . . .Look out that no one takes you captive by means of the philosophy and empty deception according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ; because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily.  . . . God made you alive together with him. He kindly forgave us all our trespasses and erased the handwritten document that consisted of decrees and was in opposition to us. . . . Therefore, do not let anyone judge you about what you eat and drink or about the observance of a festival or of the new moon or of a sabbath. . . . Let no man deprive you of the prize who takes delight in a false humility and a form of worship of the angels, “taking his stand on” the things he has seen. . . .  If you died together with Christ with respect to the elementary things of the world, why do you live as if still part of the world by further subjecting yourselves to the decrees: “Do not handle, nor taste, nor touch,”  referring to things that all perish with their use, according to the commands and teachings of men?  Although those things have an appearance of wisdom in a self-imposed form of worship . . . they are of no value in combating the satisfying of the flesh. . . .  Deaden, therefore, your body members that are on the earth as respects sexual immorality, uncleanness, uncontrolled sexual passion, hurtful desire, and greediness, which is idolatry.

That seems likely that there are two different contexts. But the two contexts of faith and works are very understandable because they are so intrinsically tied and therefore relatable. If you had first heard only James' "motto" you would understand why Paul was transforming it to make a point, and if you had first heard only Paul's "motto" you would understand why James was transforming it to make a point. A relatable "synthesis" is possible. But in terms of what we can and can't eat we have two extremes that are not relatable. The differences are so extreme that a Jamesian Christian would react much like @Thinking just reacted before. Something like: "Well, if Paul says we can eat meat sacrificed to an idol, then that's like Paul saying fornication is now OK." So, right or wrong, I'm just thinking that a different perspective --which has already been posited by several Bible commentators in the past -- is the most likely one that the WT would consider if the blood doctrine were to be given a complete adjustment. And, to be clear, that perspective is the one that says the directive against "blood" and "things strangled" was important for Jewish acceptance of Gentile believers during a specific time when Jewish-Mosaic norms were still extremely strong among MOST of the original Christians. Jewish Christians didn't trust Gentiles to be truly ready for Christianity. Here are some of those more obvious reasons: At the time, Gentile pagan rituals included direct forms of polytheistic idolatry. And Gentile Christians had therefore come from cultures where multiple gods were accepted at once, so that a Gentile Christian might think it was OK to accept Jehovah as God and Jesus as Lord, but still think it was OK to continue the rituals for other so-called gods. Gentile idolatry and the religious temples themselves were often associated with immorality. Some pagan festivals highlighted drunkenness (Bacchus) and fornication (Emperor cults, etc) and other obscenities related to fertility, phalluses, etc. Greek and Roman pagan feasts and rituals included eating bloody meat, drinking blood, and might even allow someone to bathe in the dripping blood of a freshly sacrificed bull (Mithraic). Greek and Roman mystery cults did not announce their secret rituals which allowed Jews and Christians to become suspicious of even more grotesque practices.