A DPA question

[Arauna]

12 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

Can you not decide from your own Bible reading what is right in God's eyes ? 

Unfortunately most Christian denominations still take whole blood - so reading the bible did not help them to apply the scriptures in their lives to "abstain" from blood.

The GB council does help many to see this important principle to respect life.

10 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

All I did was give you a truthful and logical answer. 

I have seen nothing logical coming from you. Only personal deprecating comments and misapplied scriptures.

[Anna]

14 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Question: (serious question open to all)

When something is said to be a “conscience matter”—as the “blood fractions” today is said to be—does that mean that there IS a right and a wrong to it, but Jehovah allows “wiggle room” “on account of our hardheartedness”?

Or

Does it mean that there legitimately are two different ways of looking at a matter, and he really does encourage us to use our conscience in choosing the course that seems the most reasonable to us?

I see the point you are making, but I'm afraid I have no concrete answer as I am thinking it could be a bit of both depending on what is the subject for contemplation. And I can't think of any examples right now as it's really late and I'm about to fall to sleep...

 

 

[TrueTomHarley]

3 hours ago, Anna said:

And I can't think of any examples right now as it's really late and I'm about to fall to sleep...

Nobody sleeps forever. Tomorrow is a new day

[JW Insider]

On 1/2/2020 at 11:49 AM, TrueTomHarley said:

When something is said to be a “conscience matter”—as the “blood fractions” today is said to be—does that mean that there IS a right and a wrong to it, but Jehovah allows “wiggle room” “on account of our hardheartedness”?

I wanted to stay out of this because of the way the answer might sound worse than I hope it sounds. I think the real answer should acknowledge both of your ideas.

Because I think the policy changed on account of a belief by some that the original policy showed "hardheartedness" in the face of "doubts" at the level of a primary policymaker. Not so much F.Rusk/Dr.Dixon, but mostly from the research by G.Smalley (Writing Dept) which had "earned" him a larger say in the policy. Too many people were dying, and because of doubts about the overall policy, these deaths seemed unnecessary. The more that the "hardhearted," older generation, wanted to speak of "martyrs," the more that the soft-hearted younger generation wanted to see the entire blood policy thrown out. I believe that allowing fractions was a compromise between the "old guard" and the new. Even some Witness doctors were called in to HQ to discuss it. And without committing to any changes in policy with them, the direction was clear that some compromises on blood fractions could be potentially justified when one looked at the details of blood fractions and how they were being used to save lives.

I haven't talked to Brother Smalley about this, but was told by a Bethel elder who has known him well, that he was willing to change the entire blood policy (for scriptural reasons, not financial) but that this would be seen as a Catholic "Fish on Friday" "No Fish on Friday" -- the flip flop on fish. It would devastate the Witness families who had lost a child, parent, relative or close friend to the blood policy in the past, and for this reason he was happy to go along with the fractions compromise which could at least reduce the number of deaths greatly. I've heard JTR assume this was a move by lawyers to reduce financial exposure. But I know that even Brother Rusk was aware of both financial exposure and that there were several questions about the scripturalness of the policy as he had dealt with those arguments before. (But as soft and gentle and loving as this brother was to my wife and me, and all persons we knew, he was very much a "hard-liner" on the original blood policy and never gave an inch to those arguments. I don't know that he was ever really OK with the fractions compromise. I think I've mentioned before that he was best friends with my wife, and gave the key portion of our wedding talk.)

BTW, my iPhone identifies a goodly portion (badly portion) of my calls as "Fraud Risk" and I always glance at it with the thought that I just got a call from "Fred Rusk" although he died a few years ago.

On 1/2/2020 at 11:49 AM, TrueTomHarley said:

Does it mean that there legitimately are two different ways of looking at a matter, and he really does encourage us to use our conscience in choosing the course that seems the most reasonable to us?

Yes, there are probably "14 ways from Sunday" to look at the matter "legitimately", not just two. (The term "legitimate" seems out of place when we are comparing law with conscience.) Some of these ways are fully scriptural; some are based on science; some are a mix. I was in full agreement with JTR strictness in my own personal policy (based on conscience) until a couple of years ago, while participating on this forum. I would neither take blood nor fractions, and I would have been willing to die before knowingly accepting a transfusion of any kind. The only difference I had (conscientiously) with the Society's position, however, is that for the last 10 years at least, I would never impose my conscience about either whole blood or blood fractions on any of my own children before they were baptized or 18, whichever came first. I would try to work with doctors as best I could, but if I were convinced that their survival depended on a blood transfusion, I would not impose my conscience, and would accept any consequences. And of course I would give no recommendations for unbaptized youngsters or babies in the congregation either. I felt the issue was too serious to even accidentally impose my own conscience on another. Fortunately, it has never come up.

But when I learned of Brother Smalley's policy-making issues, even though I didn't confirm them with him personally, the brother who told me about it gave me another contact who might confirm. This was another one of Smalley's friends who was close enough to him even recently to know if he had said anything of the sort to him. This contact was reluctant, because I had never contacted him before, but after I told him of my concern based on the information from the Bethel elder whom he knew, he understood how important an issue I thought it was. This new contact gave me some additional information I have already included above. To be fair, I should also mention that I very recently talked to another friend who had worked with Smalley in the Writing Department back in the 70s and 80s, and he sounded incredulous about all of this.

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

@JW Insider  I am seriously concerned about your above comment. It all seems to be based around a few MEN making decisions for the lives of 8.5 million other people.  BUT those few MEN are NOT INSPIRED BY GOD'S HOLY SPIRIT.  It is only THEIR personal viewpoint. And it can take the lives of millions of people. 

What then did Jesus mean at Matthew 12 v 9 through 12. ? 

After departing from that place, he went into their synagogue, ¹⁰  and look! there was a man with a withered* hand!k So they asked him, “Is it lawful to cure on the Sabbath?” so that they might accuse him.l ¹¹  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?m ¹²  How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful to do a fine thing on the Sabbath.” 

Doing any work on that Sabbath could be punished by death. It was that serious in God's eyes. 

Yet here was Jesus telling them that it was 'lawful' to do a fine thing on the Sabbath. 

@Anna tells me that we should all read our Bible and have our own conscience. 

@Arauna tells me that all i do is misquote scripture.

BUT, I listen to neither men (GB / Elders) nor women. My conscience tells me that Jesus was saying that there is a time, when what appears to others to be God's way, is in fact not God's way at all. 

How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful to do a fine thing on the Sabbath.” 

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

To clarify my reasoning on this matter ... I know that the Bible says "abstain from blood".

I know that there are MANY examples in the Bible that show God considers blood his own personal property, and should be respected as such. 

I know that the only acceptable use for the Blood Jehovah is jealous about being his alone, is to be poured out on the ground, or offered in sacrifice to him, as David exemplified in pouring out water that REPRESENTED the blood of his soldiers, and the example of Jesus, who did both.

That being said, I have comprehensive blood tests all the time, having the reasonable assurance that after it is tested and studied, it will be discarded in some manner.  I also realize that it is the RESPECT that is important ... the deeply held respect for Jehovah's blood, not getting upset because a properly drained air-breathing animal leaks blood from tissues after having been properly drained to a reasonable degree.

That being said, I do not impose my conscience in that or MANY other matters on others, as there is a considerable difference between the viewpoints I hold on MANY matters, that differ from "Brother Watchtower's".  An example of this, should I have a home invasion, or assassins  enter the Kingdom Hall to harm the Brotherhood, I have no qualms at all about killing them, if I am able to do so.

Their blood is on THEIR hands by their criminal actions.  Every living thing that walks, crawls, swims or flies on this planet has the NATURAL right to defend itself, if it decides to do so, and if it can manage a defense.  Their blodguilt belongs to them alone.

.... but I digress.

It is my carefully considered belief that the WTB&TS had it right the FIRST time, and changed it because they were being sued by people who had lost relatives for HAVING THE TAKING OF BLOOD BEING A DISFELLOWSHIPPING OFFENSE.

I appreciate the Societies work in educating us in the past, and I believe it is an important life and death issue, spiritually, but not every soldier can be Sgt York, Audie Murphy, or the fictional John Rambo.

No one has asked me, and I certainly DO NOT want to "drive the train", but years of observing the operational habits of the Watchtower legal staff in "legal dirty tricks" to subvert Justice to save their client, the WTB&TS  from financial bankruptcy, has led me to believe that the Society STILL knows that they got it right the FIRST time, but they screwed up in not making it a personal matter of conscience IN THE BEGINNING ... and now they are trapped in a no win situation that FINANCIALLY, they cannot admit they were wrong about Congregational sanctions.

So, they make up stuff out of thin air, having NO Biblical support, about the acceptability of blood fractions.  To me this shows a COMPLETE lack of institutional integrity, and any personal integrity .... FOR MONEY!

I will not accept blood or blood fractions because of the things I learned in the Truth, from the 1960's, but after trying to engender respect for God's blood, Ieave the sanctioning and punishment up to God.

After all, it's POSSIBLE that this ONLY applies to ONLY food, and/or the issue of deep respect for the things that belong to God .... and that God does not care at all about medical technology uses of blood. 

I have made the statement MANY times that our current theologies are being formed by the accountants and lawyers in the employ of the WTB&TS.

------------------------------------------------------------

The Bible does condemn know-it-all busybodies, who try to control every aspect of other people's lives.

It's like eating fish .... each person has to decide for himself ... what is good, and what needs to be thrown away.

RONCO BASS-O-MATIC 76 .wmv

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:

I am seriously concerned about your above comment. It all seems to be based around a few MEN making decisions for the lives of 8.5 million other people.  BUT those few MEN are NOT INSPIRED BY GOD'S HOLY SPIRIT.  It is only THEIR personal viewpoint. And it can take the lives of millions of people. 

You still seem to have the idea that persons who are truly anointed will be inspired by God's holy spirit and not let personal viewpoints get in the way. Look again at Acts 15:

(Acts 15:2) . . .But after quite a bit of dissension and disputing by Paul and Barʹna·bas with them,. . .

(Acts 15:6, 7) 6 So the apostles and the elders gathered together to look into this matter. 7 After much intense discussion had taken place,. . .

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

.... and all of this was before the invention of boxing gloves ...

[JW Insider]

45 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

And it can take the lives of millions of people. 

What then did Jesus mean at Matthew 12 v 9 through 12. ? 

It's already a serious matter, so you don't have to exaggerate with "millions" of people, if it probably is on the order of only a few hundred at most, worldwide.

Jesus meant for us to think about the more important things. A law should never get in the way of showing love or saving a life. Even laws should be prioritized, so that we know that the law about showing Love of God and Love of Neighbor are even more important than Do Not Murder. Of course, the reason for this priority is that a person who truly loves God and Neighbor will never murder, and will not even be saying or thinking the kinds of things that lead to murder. Therefore those laws already cover nearly every other one of the commandments.

The law on blood need not be difficult. I have, for a long time, been under the impression that Christians don't need to get into the details of science or chronology or archaeology to understand the Bible's requirements. Therefore, if the Bible says "Abstain from blood" ("New Testament" not OT), then we need not dive too deeply into any science to understand the meaning. We merely abstain from blood. We don't get all involved in counting the fractions to see if we have really met the requirements of the law, because by prioritizing the weightier matters of law, we can go beyond the requirements:

(Matthew 23:23, 24) . . .Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you give the tenth of the mint and the dill and the cumin, but you have disregarded the weightier matters of the Law, namely, justice and mercy and faithfulness. These things it was necessary to do, yet not to disregard the other things. 24 Blind guides, who strain out the gnat but gulp down the camel!

That said, there is ample reason to look at the Scriptures carefully to make sure that another person's conscience has not been imposed on our own. Even the apostle Paul did not wish to impose his own conscience on others, and one of the topics he spoke about where he differed from the "Jerusalem Council" was on the matter of eating items that had been sacrificed to idols.

Yet that item had been included along with abstain from blood as an item that had been considered settled by "the holy spirit and we ourselves." So which part was holy spirit and which part was "we ourselves"?

I think this is where "conscience" can and should still do its work.

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:

It is only THEIR personal viewpoint. And it can take the lives of millions of people. 

More like hundreds, as JWI states. 

This gets so old, as do the other “dangers” posed by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

The fact that they abstain from smoking—to take just one of several examples—far offsets all of them. 

There is NO course that does not include some “danger” as is evidenced by the fact that people die and when they do, it is not always due to “natural causes,” and even when it is, most of those natural causes could have been forestalled by living as Witnesses do.

[Witness]

47 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:

I am seriously concerned about your above comment. It all seems to be based around a few MEN making decisions for the lives of 8.5 million other people.  BUT those few MEN are NOT INSPIRED BY GOD'S HOLY SPIRIT.  It is only THEIR personal viewpoint. And it can take the lives of millions of people. 

You still seem to have the idea that persons who are truly anointed will be inspired by Gods holy spirit and not let personal viewpoints get in the way. Look again at Acts 15:

 

The truth in Christ is always true and can unite those who "remain" in him. Men's doctrine is based on supposition,on opinion, and unites those who choose to remain ignorant to truth. Matt 15:8,9; John 7:16,17; John 6:35; John 15:4; 1 Cor 10:17   

 "For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. 19 For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you."  1 Cor 11:18,19

 

[Srecko Sostar]

On 1/2/2020 at 5:49 PM, TrueTomHarley said:

Does it mean that there legitimately are two different ways of looking at a matter

Yes, two ways. You can tell a lie, half-truth, truth without some important elements ... etc. ... if that is helping God' and Jesus' and Kingdom' interests here on Earth. But when you have to tell about same things to elders you are not entitled to use "theocratic warfare". :)))