Anna

No worries. He's right. I love my crickets. They sing me to sleep. Unless one's in the house. That's dog just won't hunt! He's gotta go! But them ones outside, they be fine by me.
Now when the cicadas come out. They drown out my crickets and a soul can hardly sleep with all that noise.
But crickets? They be fine!

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

I’ve taken advantage of my new freedom to wear a skull & crossbones, eyepatch, and cut off my leg for a peg leg.
To hear the crazies on the exJW site, you’d think it might happen any second.

I tend to agree.

Now, now boys, behave!

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.
 

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.
 

Exactly.

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?

I think it indicates that people want a ‘king,’ somewhat like in Samual 8. They can’t handle subtle. They want a king.
’Alright, alright, we’ll give you king,’ says the visible org, ‘An entire Update to say ‘We don’t care about beards!’ That means you don’t have to either! Sheesh! We were trying to get away from that.’
Seen from a different standpoint, I think those seeking the downfall of the earthly organization also resemble those Israelites who demanded a king. Those ancients couldn’t handle the seeming vagaries of judges popping up here and there. They wanted a king, with all the trimmings, that they could see strutting around at all times.Similarly, people look real closely into the GB, see it is composed of men who have all the differing idiosyncracies of the first century disciples and they can’t handle it. How can God’s direction come from such a human arrangement? They either want an undisputed miracle-backed single entity (which we all know is not going to happen today) or they want dissolution of the whole model, going back to a ‘Jesus and me’ model. This usually means a ‘Me and Jesus’ model, since it is personal disagreements over this or that policy that motivates the desire to sink the earthly organization. They either imagine the ‘Jesus and Me’ model will continue to safeguard the unity and doctrinal uniqueness of JWs or they think that the unity and doctrinal uniqueness is not worth safeguarding—they are content to let it evolve, just like in the natural world of competitive struggle and how good things supposedly come of that. ‘Guardians of doctrine? Don’t make me laugh!’ they say.
My Bethel chum told me many years ago that it gets more challenging to see God’s hand as you get tighter with the organization. The friends in general will ooh and ahh over this new direction from God, and you will say, ‘Yeah….it’s only because so-and-so is too stubborn to……’
This is where faith comes in. It is the divine/human interface. Fleshly eyes can only perceive the ‘Indisputable miracle-backed, controlled Prophet’ model or the ‘Jesus and Me’ model for congregation headship. It takes spiritual eyes to see that, if God is really worth his salt, surely he can move dedicated men to adequately serve as his conduit. The GB is screened by being anointed, further screened by a lifetime of full time service, further screened by intensive Bible training on how to work with others by implementing Bible principles.
This training to work according to Bible principles, strive for unity, learn how to defer to one another, resist the temptation to run-over those with whom you disagree, produces good results. In individual congregations, elders periodically gather for such training in ‘elder schools,’ where they learn, among other things, that unity of the body is always the goal. This does indeed perform well, at least in my congregation, so I extrapolate it to others. (It might be different if my congregation was one of those basket-case Revelation 2 and 3 congregations) Though I am reliably informed (I can shake facts out if I want to but I usually refrain from doing it) that there is disagreement amongst our elders, you would never know it by the united front they display. Instead of shaking them down for disputes, I seek occasions to (genuinely) commend them for what they do.
It is not healthy to ‘expose’ present disagreements. (not that I don’t lap it all up if I hear of them here) People thereafter pick their favorite horses, which encourages further division. Of course people are going to disagree. The thing that counts is for them to resolve disagreements and carry on unitedly. That is the evidence of having God’s spirit.
Human traits will never disappear. ‘We have this treasure [of the ministry] in earthen vessels,’ but, being humble, God can work with such men as those comprising the Governing Body. Proud persons He can’t do much with other than squash them in time. ‘God is using imperfect people today because that’s all he has at the present time’ Mark Nourmair (approximately) says, not referring specifically to GB brothers. And, when the younger brothers fall to squabbling, the old-timer smiles, tilts back in his chair, and marvels, ‘It’s amazing what Jehovah accomplishes given what he has to work with.”
 

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) 

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) 

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) 

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) 

…
As is, I read two different kinds of faith being considered.
The first is about the philosophical concept of faith, the idea of faith, and
The second is about how to make that idea and concept transition from a capability to a real thing.….
BECAUSE … If that “leap” is not made … faith without works is dead.
Two entirely different ideas, would be my guess.
Jehovah can DECLARE a man rightous who has faith that never heard of the Law of Moses.  The Scripture is talking about how FAITH transitions from concept to reality.
I may see it differently tomorrow if I get more sleep.
 
 

Each must do what they feel is right…..and I’m sure it was a nightmare for the apostles and the James's of the time to explain what was and wasn’t acceptable in their worship…we just look at those  scriptures differently…I guess I didn’t realise just how different we looked at things …
besides all that…I sincerely hope  you will be okay with your health and I mean that…I really hope things improve for you so you don’t even have to consider the above…..and nobody can judge what another does…and you should know by now I wouldn’t…..🤗
 

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.

ummmm … two dimensional?
 

I would say that Paul, in the aforementioned texts, is alluding to eating meat previously offered to an idol in a pagan temple of worship. Meat that was sold in the temple itself, and the income from the operation financed said place.
Paul says that the Christian with a weak conscience thinks that he is contributing to false worship, but the strong one only thinks that he is paying for a service: receiving food. That is, he does not make a donation to promote something idolatrous.
In other words, I don't find that Paul even remotely addresses the issue of whether or not the meat was bled. That idea was not under consideration in the context we are talking about. I believe that if the Christian suspected that this was the case (that the meat contained blood), his conscience would prevent him from eating it. But that point is not discussed in those verses.
 
(1 Corinthians 10:25-28) 25 Eat whatever is sold in a meat market, making no inquiry because of your conscience, 26 for “to Jehovah belong the earth and everything in it.” 27 If an unbeliever invites you and you want to go, eat whatever is set before you, making no inquiry on account of your conscience. 28 But if anyone says to you, “This is something offered in sacrifice,” do not eat because of the one who told you and because of conscience. 
 
So the question was whether or not the meat was offered in a pagan sacrifice, not the blood it might contain.
I think so, but I may be wrong.

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)
 
 
 
 

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)
 
 
 
 

I get what you are saying but if the society said this then each would have to stand before Jehovah on their decision..and have done the homework……for me…well I will take the same stand as now…and again if they did that..it would come down to legal issues..not spiritual..and they would as they have to now stand before their God…
It would remind me of organ transplants….and the change they had on that…if I had lost my son because of that…..I’d be furious…now you can have a heart transplant and it’s celebrated…without blood….so your thought on it is not out of the possibilities.
Even now with organ transplants I’m on shakey ground….not for myself..as I’m at the end scale of life anyway..but if my son got ill and they offered him heart and lung transplant…I probably would feel relieved and want it….how does one know…I guess that scripture that says if you sin against your own conscience then it’s wrong….im too tired to find it.