Anna

I'm kind of split in half......I can't make my mind up. The thought of having someone's blood pumped into my veins, that dark red bag hanging from the IV stand, makes me feel physically sick. But that may be because of years of "indoctrination". (I don't mean that in a bad way....just that this is what we have been taught and believe). The main thing is how does Jehovah feel about it of course. The admonition to abstain from blood seems pretty clear, I don't know how else one could interpret that....I mean I know this whole thread has attempted that, but then some of the arguments get too ridiculous and again, remind me of the cat parody....

I had those too....and then I lived a little longer and began to understand more

What about man boobs?

I like crickets and cicadas

By the way, since this is a beard thread I thought I would mention that so far we have one elder and two MS with a full beard, one elder with a soul patch, as of the midweek meeting.

I tend to agree.

We don't need to worry about that. Each person will render an account to God for what they did or didn't do, or say or didn't say. Romans 14:12.

Now, now boys, behave!

That is why I think some of JWI's tongue in cheek* predictions are not too far fetched. *(Or maybe he was being completely serious, not sure this time)

I think the beard issue is a perfect example. I am talking about how unclear instructions can be sometimes. In 2016, as we all know, the beard article was written, and it was so ambiguous and unclear that for 7 years it caused problems until finally the GB were "forced" as it were, to make it black and white. Similarly, some Bible passages are unclear "from our point of view" (to out modern way of thinking). Sometimes it's as if we have to guess at the correct answer. And sometimes reading other scriptures on the same subject doesn't help. I think to understand some things that were written thousands of years ago correctly, we would have to think like people did when these things were written. And this is not easy. Not only that, but we would have to know the culture too. So just as a illustration, we can imagine that someone reading the 2016 WT two thousand years from now might get confused by it and not really understand if beards were ok or not. And imagine that they were setting up a new religion and they had to make a decision on beards. Maybe it's not a very good example, perhaps someone can think of a better one. That's why there is a need for "new light" all the time. It's because some passages in the Bible are not easy to interpret and we got it wrong in the past.

I have heard (from a reliable source) that Ramapo has hit another hiccup. The brother who moved there so he could help has been reassigned to a project on Long Island, NY where a new assembly hall is being built. (JWI might know something about that).

As it should be. So, then, each of us will render an account for himself to God. (Ro 14:12)

Perfect! 😂 And all duly noted!

I hope this will become a future trend. If anyone has read the satirical piece about why Jehovah’s Witnesses should not own cats will know what I mean, and understand.

A lot of talk here about some possible ulterior motive to the lifting of the beard ban (although it hasn't been a "ban" for some years now, but still, WT illustrations kept using the no beard as a sign of spirituality). It really was a little hard to fathom whether the GB were for or against beards and were just trying to be subtle knowing there is no Biblicaly sound reason to outright ban them, but they didn't like them and wished no one really wore them. Sometimes WT's subtlety forces one to read between the lines, but often it can give those in responsible positions (elders) too much power because those bits between the lines can be individually interpreted. And this is evidently what happened. Finally the GB's hand was "forced" to speak clearly so that every Tom, Dick and Harry understood. After all, wouldn't it be silly if the brotherhood fell apart over a beard misunderstanding! But has anyone wondered about all these pretty big changes (hour requirements, pulling two disfelliwshiping videos, another chance during the GT and beards) coming shortly after the rearrangement of the members of the GB?

You are looking at it wrongly

That wasn't the point (I know that 😂)

A lot of speculation there. I think this is about unity. I always say there is strength in numbers. It's apparent that HQ received many "complaints" (they said so) from people who were arguing the "beard issue" . The organization probably realized that in 2016 they had left the question too ambiguous and this resulted in unnecessary "divisions" in the congregations. It was basically left up to the BOE. So consequently, in the same building the English congregation had three elders with beards, one of them the COBE, and in the hall literally across the foyer the congregation (not English) wouldn't alow a young brother to operate the microphones unless he shaved his beard off. One elder in another congregation in the same city grew a beard (his wife liked it, it suited him) but the other elders were against it. Obviously no harmony there. So he and his family moved to the English congregation where beards were allowed. In the same city. The message was clear: give us a black and white answer, because this policy, that it was up to the elders, was causing divisions. Over what? Over beards! So the logical conclusion was to remove any "supposed" cultural barriers which caused the beard issues and let everyone know that to beard or not to beard is ok world wide for every male and in all responsible positions. My only complaint was the use of the chariot and the keeping up with the heavely organization mantra which I personally feel could have been omitted because in my opinion it created the word salad and was a little confusing, and open to interpretation because it suggested what JWI said, and that didn't make much sense. It's almost like sometimes the earthly organization paints itself into a corner. Unnecessarily. Jehovah's heavenly organization was obviously never against beards because all the angels had them, including Jesus.

Yes, that was really weirdly worded. Makes no logical sense. What did they mean? It's one of those mind games/word salads that makes you scratch your head.

I wonder if head coverings will be next....Out in service this morning I asked the car group (of six) who wants to come with me (on a study), they can't be male though because I haven't got anything to put on my head...

I just found the remark about keeping up with Jehovah's chariot a little strange, and not quite sure what was meant by that. "All of us need to remember that the earthly part of Jehovah's organization is always striving to reflect the heavenly part-to keep up with it, as it were. Remember how fast the chariot in Ezekiel's vision moved? Like flashes of lightning! (Ezek. 1:14) Any who seek to run ahead of that chariot, trying to force change prematurely,.." It is obvious that the no wearing beards policy was never from Jehovah in the first place,, obviously not as he created men with the DNA to grow one. But somehow we have now compared this new decision to the issue of circumcision in the 1st Century. Jehovah also created men with foreskins, but he was also the one to give the law about circumcision. But he never gave a law about needing to be clean shaven. That was a purely a man made law. So how was that trying to keep up with Jehovah's chariot and striving to reflect the heavenly part? Are they saying they failed in this regard? I think I would have probably left that part out....

Obviously because he was 6'5!

I don't know Pudgy, isn't that being a little over dramatic?

My mum and I were trying to imagine some GB members with a beard, and we decided, nah, brother Lett wouldn't suit one, and here, this proved us wrong, it actually really suits him!

This is what happens when a thread gets worn out. Everyone starts mucking about, with no more meaningful contributions to add. It's a sign. Tacos anyone?