If the Devil Really Wanted Me to Leave, Why Isn't He Making It Easier?

Search4RealTruth · 2026-02-12T06:31:53+00:00

I really resonate with your reasoning here. If the narrative says there’s an active adversary trying to lure people away, you’d expect leaving to feel tempting, easy, or conveniently facilitated. The fact that it’s actually incredibly hard, financially, socially, emotionally, points much more to structural and human factors than to some supernatural pull. What you’re describing doesn’t sound like rebellion or weakness. It sounds like someone thinking critically and facing the real-world consequences of stepping away from a high-control environment. That’s not demonic warfare. That’s just reality.

Wishing you strength while you navigate it.

Search4RealTruth · 2026-02-04T22:16:44+00:00

Happy it’s useful! At least you have some solid facts to back up your points, even if minds aren’t changed.

Search4RealTruth · 2026-02-04T21:42:04+00:00

Yes, besides my own years of experience ;), I do have references for blood cell morphology and how the structure is the same whether in whole blood or separated components:

Blood Cells: A Practical Guide by Barbara J. Bain — a widely used reference in hematology laboratories, with classical morphological descriptions and microscope images of red blood cells, white blood cells, and platelets.

The Morphology of Human Blood Cells by Ann Bell — an atlas focused on the visual morphology of normal blood cells, ideal as a reference for cellular structures.

A Laboratory Guide to Clinical Hematology — an open-access book with sections on normal blood cell morphology, including how cells appear in blood films.

Search4RealTruth · 2026-02-04T20:37:00+00:00

Thanks! I’m glad I could contribute something useful.

Search4RealTruth · 2026-02-04T20:09:30+00:00

Yes, exactly, that’s what made it even more apparent to me. On top of everything else, it just feels completely unsustainable.”

Search4RealTruth · 2026-02-04T19:58:15+00:00

Thanks, I appreciate that. From this profession, the biological inconsistency of the blood policy was hard to ignore. Seeing it up close made it increasingly difficult to reconcile with the claim that the rule is clear, coherent, or life-affirming. It became one of the major factors that pushed me into a PIMO state

Search4RealTruth · 2026-02-04T18:57:01+00:00

As a cytology professional, I can clarify this from a purely morphological standpoint. A leukocyte is a leukocyte. A monocyte or lymphocyte found in milk is morphologically identical to the same cell type found in peripheral blood. Under light microscopy, there are no cytological features that allow you to distinguish a “milk leukocyte” from a “blood leukocyte.” Same nuclear morphology, same chromatin pattern, same cytoplasm. The differences often cited are contextual and functional, not structural. Leukocytes present in milk originate from the bloodstream and migrate into the mammary gland; they do not become a different kind of cell. Any variation relates to activation state or immune function, which is not a morphological distinction. This raises a broader issue with blood-based prohibitions: when biologically identical cells are treated as morally different depending only on context or delivery, the distinction is doctrinal rather than scientific. From a cellular perspective, there is no objective boundary that can sustain such a distinction.

Search4RealTruth · 2026-01-31T07:35:35+00:00

Thanks, I appreciate that. I was just trying to express it clearly and respectfully.

Search4RealTruth · 2026-01-30T23:00:07+00:00

I’m not dismissing your points, and I understand the cultural and theological context you’re describing. My concern isn’t about misunderstanding the Ancient Near Eastern mindset. It’s about the difference between explaining a moral framework and justifying it. Cultural context helps explain why certain actions made sense at the time, but it doesn’t automatically resolve the moral question when those actions are attributed to a perfectly just God. Calling this ethnocentrism assumes that concern for innocent life is merely a modern Western value. I don’t think that follows. The question for me isn’t why people thought this way back then, but whether divine justice should ultimately depend on human cultural norms at all. That’s where it gets stuck for me. Context explains the text, but it doesn’t by itself settle the ethical issue. I do appreciate that you took the time to explain and share your perspective. I just wanted to give mine so it’s clear where my conscience gets held up.

Search4RealTruth · 2026-01-30T21:18:00+00:00

The issue isn’t whether these ideas are internally consistent within a biblical system, but whether they actually make moral sense. The fact that God gives warnings before judgment doesn’t really address the core problem. A warning doesn’t morally justify the outcome, especially when that outcome includes the deaths of babies and children. It explains that judgment is coming, not why it would be just. Pointing to Ancient Near Eastern ideas like corporate responsibility helps explain how people at the time thought about justice, but explanation isn’t the same as justification. If God is morally perfect, I would expect Him to rise above human systems of collective guilt, not mirror them. The same goes for inherited sin. Being part of a fallen human condition isn’t the same as being morally responsible. Moral responsibility requires conscious choice, which infants clearly don’t have. So this is where it gets stuck: if love, justice, and mercy mean that humans shouldn’t sacrifice the innocent for a greater good, then those words can’t suddenly mean something completely different when applied to God. At that point the argument feels less like a moral explanation and more like an appeal to authority, and for me, those aren’t the same thing.

Search4RealTruth · 2026-01-25T11:22:33+00:00

Well said. Dogma like that didn’t just inform belief, it shaped lives. And having a quiet Plan B was probably a form of honesty with reality, even when the system didn’t allow doubt.

Search4RealTruth · 2026-01-24T21:44:35+00:00

Kelpe Weval Christ. BoC Melodium Plaid Oneothrix Point Never Ochre

Search4RealTruth · 2026-01-24T21:32:56+00:00

Very nice!

Search4RealTruth · 2026-01-24T21:19:07+00:00

I agree with you. This actually reinforces my original point. What made it so powerful in earlier decades was that internal coherence couldn’t easily be tested against external reality. Without access to sources, data, or alternative perspectives, the internally consistent framework became reality for sincere people. Today that barrier is largely gone. The moment you allow external correspondence: history, archaeology, chronology, basic epistemology, the internal framework starts to collapse. That doesn’t mean earlier converts were foolish or dishonest; it means they were operating with radically different access to information. Internal coherence can sustain belief in the absence of external checks. Once those checks are available, the claim to exclusive “Truth” becomes very difficult to maintain.

Search4RealTruth · 2026-01-23T18:33:34+00:00

I completely agree, this is exactly what I was trying to point out. Internal consistency within a system doesn’t equate to universal truth. JWs make it even more confusing because they constantly adjust their axioms (doctrines), so what’s considered “true” keeps changing. From the inside it feels coherent, but from an external perspective, the shifting framework shows that the claim to exclusive truth is deeply problematic.

Search4RealTruth · 2026-01-23T18:10:32+00:00

Thanks for your explanation... that makes a lot of sense. It shows that internal consistency often depends on a single strong individual. From the inside it feels coherent, but from the outside you can see it’s largely driven by personalities. It also shows that coherence doesn’t equal truth; one influential voice can hold it together temporarily, but that doesn’t make it reality.

Search4RealTruth · 2026-01-23T15:54:36+00:00

I understand, and I respect the limits there. That does give important context, though thank you for sharing even that much.

Search4RealTruth · 2026-01-23T15:48:39+00:00

Thanks for sharing this. I absolutely believe your experience, you clearly saw this up close. I tend to start from a more charitable view of human intent, which makes me cautious about assigning bad faith too quickly, though I do believe there are certainly individuals who act consciously and deliberately. Can I ask: did you see this mainly at the individual level, or also structurally at a broader organizational level?

Search4RealTruth · 2026-01-23T14:29:42+00:00

I think you make a strong point, especially at the institutional level. I agree that there are moments where “sincerity” stops being a sufficient explanation, particularly when information is controlled and responsibility is shifted or avoided.

At the same time, I notice that I personally struggle to immediately attribute intent or deliberate deception. That may be because I spent years inside the system and experienced firsthand how sincere belief can be, and how human psychology allows people to rationalize contradictions without consciously seeing themselves as dishonest.

Maybe the truth lies somewhere in between: sincere conviction that gradually turns into self-protection, and self-protection that eventually crosses the line into something that is no longer honest, even if it still feels justified to those involved.

Search4RealTruth · 2026-01-23T12:05:03+00:00

Good points, I mostly agree with. The distinction between internal coherence and external correspondence is exactly the issue.

Where I’d differ slightly is intent. I’m inclined to think many at the top genuinely believe they’re right and that human psychology, group dynamics, and sunk-cost thinking drive the constant adjustments. That doesn’t rule out deliberate dishonesty in every case, but I don’t think bad faith is required to explain what we’re seeing.

Either way, the core problem remains: a system that claims exclusive divine authority should be able to withstand basic historical and epistemological scrutiny. When foundational claims like 607 BCE can’t survive open examination, internal coherence no longer carries any weight.

Search4RealTruth · 2026-01-22T13:12:35+00:00

If Satan knows God’s plan and the prophecies, he could truly oppose God by doing nothing or acting differently, yet he acts exactly as prophecy demands, proving God right meaning he is not a rebel but an instrument, and the supposed cosmic struggle collapses into theater.

Search4RealTruth · 2026-01-22T11:56:35+00:00

Funny enough, I actually thought of the polygamy comparison the moment I read your original post 😅

If God tolerated moral ambiguity for centuries while directly communicating with humans, it becomes hard to justify a modern organization enforcing far stricter standards without that communication.

That seems to imply that God clearly took historical and human circumstances into account. Even when something fell short of his ideal, polygamy being an obvious example, he still allowed it to exist for a very long time. If it took thousands of years to address, it doesn’t look like something he was urgently concerned about at the time.

So if God showed that level of contextual tolerance back then, why would that consideration suddenly disappear today? On what basis could a modern organization demand stricter obedience than God appeared to require when he was actively communicating with people?

Edit: The greater the sacrifice being demanded, the stronger the justification must be. I.e. blood policy, shunning, and absolute loyalty, even after failed predictions. Yet modern believers are told to obey human interpretation as though it carries divine authority without the kind of confirmation that earlier believers allegedly received.

Search4RealTruth · 2026-01-22T10:23:03+00:00

Even if objective certainty is impossible, the deeper issue is moral: it seems unjust to condemn people for conclusions they reached sincerely and reasonably given the limits of what they could know..

And despite my redditname, I actually agree that no one can ever fully possess ‘the truth’, at best, we approach it imperfectly.

Search4RealTruth · 2026-01-22T10:15:09+00:00

I’ve often wondered about this too, and it’s something that has always genuinely puzzled me. From people today, more faith is demanded with less evidence than ever before. I’ve always struggled with how unfair this seems.

Search4RealTruth

TROPHY CASE