Monday, 31 March 2025
Sunday, 30 March 2025
Saturday, 29 March 2025
Friday, 28 March 2025
Junk DNA =Junk science?
Nobelist Thomas Cech on “Junk RNA”
We can add Nobel Prize-winning biochemist Thomas Cech to the ever-growing list of scientists who reject the “junk DNA” paradigm. Or, more pertinently, the junk RNA paradigm. RNA tends to get left as sidenote in most discussions of genetics, much to Cech’s annoyance — Dr. Cech has always been more in interested in RNA than most of his colleagues, which led him to co-win the Nobel Prize in 1989 for discovering RNA’s catalytic powers.
Adventures with RNA
Now Cech as written a book, The Catalyst: RNA and the Quest to Unlock Life’s Deepest Secrets (W. W. Norton), on his adventures in RNA research. Towards the end he discusses his perspective on the idea of genetic junk. Cech writes
The coding regions of all the human genes that specify proteins make up only about 2 percent of our genome. When we add the introns that interrupt those coding regions — the sequences that are spliced out after the DNA is transcribed into the precursors to mRNA — we account for another 24 percent. That leaves about three-quarters of the genome that is “dark matter.” For decades this 75 percent was dismissed as “junk DNA” because whatever function it had, if any, was invisible to us.
But as technologies for sequencing RNA have improved, scientists have discovered that most of this dark-matter DNA is in fact transcribed into RNA. Some portion of this DNA is copied into RNA in the brain, other portions in muscle, or in the heart, or in the sex organs. It’s only when we add up the RNAs made in all the tissues of the body that we see the true diversity of human RNAs. The total number of RNAs made from DNA’s “dark matter” has been estimated to be several hundred thousand. These are not messenger RNAs, but rather noncoding RNAs — the same general category as ribosomal RNA, transfer RNA, telomerase RNA, and microRNAs. But what they’re doing is still, for the most part, a mystery.
The RNAs that emerge from this dark matter are called long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs). While they are particularly numerous in humans, they are also abundant in other mammals, including the laboratory mouse. In a few cases, they clearly have a biological function. For example, a lncRNA called Firre contributes to the normal development of blood cells in mice; an overabundance of Firre prevents mice from fending off bacterial infections, as their innate immune response fails. Another lncRNA, called Tug1, is essential for male mice to be fertile. But such verified functions are few and far between. The function of most lncRNAs remains unknown.
As a result, many scientists do not share my enthusiasm for these RNAs. They think that RNA polymerase, the enzyme that synthesizes RNA from DNA, makes mistakes and sometimes copies junk DNA into junk RNA. A more scholarly description of such RNAs might explain them away as “transcriptional noise” — the idea being, again, that RNA polymerase isn’t perfect. It sometimes sits down on the wrong piece of DNA and copies it into RNA, and that RNA may have no function. I readily admit that some of the lncRNAs may in fact be noise, bereft of function, signifying nothing.
However, I’ll point out that there was a time in the not-too-distant past when telomerase RNA and microRNAs and catalytic RNAs weren’t understood. They hadn’t been assigned any function. They, too, could have been dismissed as “noise” or “junk.” But now hundreds of research scientists go to annual conferences to talk about these RNAs, and biotech companies are trying to use them to develop the next generation of pharmaceuticals. Certainly one lesson we’ve learned from the story of RNA is never to underestimate its power. Thus, these lncRNAs are likely to provide abundant material for future chapters in the book of RNA
Retarding Progress
Notice that the problem for Cech is not merely that he thinks the “junk RNA” hypothesis is false. The problem is that it is a presupposition that could be holding back scientific progress. After all, the scientists who (in Cech’s words) “do not share my enthusiasm for these RNAs” will not likely make discoveries about RNA that they think is junk. It’s scientists like Cech, who come to biology expecting plan and purpose, who will.
The implication of that is pretty significant: Darwinism is not turning out to be a fruitful heuristic for understanding genetics. (Since the lack of function in so-called “genetic dark-matter” is, of course, a prediction of the Darwinian model.) The trouble is, there isn’t another framework to take its place — well, not an acceptable one, anyway.
As far as I can tell, Cech assumes RNA will have function simply from experience, not from any underlying model or paradigm. RNA keeps turning out to have purpose, so he has learned to expect to find purpose. In contrast, other scientists don’t share his assumption because they (like Cech) are working in a paradigm that predicts junk, and (unlike Cech) they form their expectations based on that paradigm, not on the emerging pattern of evidence. Which is fair enough — it’s just a matter of how seriously you take your paradigm.
A New Paradigm
But if not taking a paradigm seriously turns out to be a path to scientific discovery, eventually you should start looking for a new paradigm. I would be interesting in hearing Dr. Cech’s answer to a question… Deep down, why do you really expect that genetic dark-matter has hidden functions? The neo-Darwinian paradigm didn’t predict that — what paradigm does?
Whatever his answer might be, it’s increasingly clear that the junk DNA narrative is over. Of course, some scientists still cling to it, but as they age out of the field it’s unlikely that many new researchers will inherit their assumption. The Darwinian prediction is being falsified. The older generation of scientists may not be ready to confront the implications of that. But the next generation will.
More primeval engineering vs. Darwin
Missiles and Jackhammers: How Plants Spread Themselves Far and Wide
On a new episode of ID the Future, I welcome science reporter David Coppedge to explore some fascinating examples of intelligent design in the plant world. Plants look so helpless tied to the soil, but they and fungi alike have perfected technologies for spreading themselves far and wide. Coppedge describes how various mechanisms, including cavitation and turgor pressure, enable these organisms to launch their spores effectively, turning them into short-range, medium-range, and even long-range missiles that travel great distances relative to their size in order to further life. The conversation also touches on the engineering principles behind plant root systems, and how studying these natural designs can inspire advancements in human technology through biomimetics.
You’ll learn about the fungi Deightoniella, for example, and how they use explosive bubble formation in their stalks to launch spores like tiny rockets as far as 15 times their own length. That might only be a few millimeters, but it’s enough to escape the boundary layer of still air on the leaf surface where they grow. Then there are ferns, which also use cavitation to create a miniature slingshot to shoot spores out at some of the fastest speeds in biology. And let’s not forget the mighty little fungus known as Pilobolus (pictured above), which uses turgor pressure like a mini squirt gun to shoot spores as far as six feet away!
Coppedge also discusses plant root systems, likening root tips to jackhammers and root hairs to stabilizers that allow plants to push through formidable barriers in search of nutrients and water. Coppedge explains how these plant systems exhibit irreducible complexity in their design and function. He also points out that by studying nature’s solutions to engineering problems, we can improve human engineering, an example of intelligent design in action. Download the podcast or listen to it here
Darwinism designs Darwinism?
The Convoluted Concept of Evolving Evolvability
Try to wrap your mind around the concept that evolvability evolves by natural selection. On second thought, don’t. It’s not conducive to mental health.
Valuing charity, I try to approach new evolutionary papers with dispassionate tolerance, seeking understanding before forming an opinion about them one way or another. This one was a particular challenge. It’s like trying to imagine a Mobius strip wrapping a Klein bottle in hyperspace. What on earth is meant by natural selection favoring the evolution of evolvability? Is this even a potentially useful notion for understanding how the world works?
Mentions of “evolvability” here at Evolution News can be found scattered through articles by several contributing authors, but none I searched for have treated it in detail. Now that two papers on evolvability have appeared in separate journals in February 2025, it’s a good time to examine the concept.
The first paper, in PNAS, led by Luis Zaman from the University of Michigan, will not require much analysis, for two reasons: (1) The authors are consumed with Darwinism to the point of absurdity, and (2) Their justification is entirely built on a computer model running Avida. Even the title of the press release mentions evolution five times! “Evolution, evolution, evolution: How evolution got so good at evolving.”
Now, a University of Michigan study shows that perhaps why evolution is so effective is that evolution is itself something that can evolve. The research is published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
“Life is really, really good at solving problems. If you look around, there’s so much diversity in life, and that all these things come from a common ancestor seems really surprising to me,” said Luis Zaman, an evolutionary biologist at U-M and lead author of the study. “Why is evolution so seemingly creative? It seems like maybe that ability is something that evolved itself.”
Forms of the word “evolution” appear 38 times in this short press release, and 214 times in the paper. Such overuse of a word appears pathological, like an addiction. Worse, it contains no biological field work at all. Its conclusions are rationalized entirely by a computer model with imaginary organisms in silico that were designed to evolve or fail by natural selection. Live Science liked the paper, but because the Avida platform that supported this computer game has been debunked extensively by others at Evolution News (here, here, and here), it deserves no further serious consideration other than for the possible entertainment value, like watching clowns in a curved maze looking for a penny in the nonexistent corner.
Much Empiricism About Nothing
The second paper, published in Science, gets more into the weeds. Barnett, Meister, and Rainey titled their work “Experimental evolution of evolvability.” For a synopsis of the paper, see the Perspective by Edo Kussell (“Enabling evolvability to evolve”) in the same issue of Science, or see the press release from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology featuring two of the authors, Michael Barnett and Paul Rainey.
A new study by researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology (MPI-EB) sheds fresh light on one of the most debated concepts in biology: evolvability. The work provides the first experimental evidence showing how natural selection can shape genetic systems to enhance future capacity for evolution, challenging traditional perspectives on evolutionary processes.
Right at the outset, we see them “challenging traditional perspectives on evolutionary processes,” leading one to proceed with caution as if handed a bottle of New Coke. Arguing that mutation and selection interact, they propose a concept called “lineage-level selection.” Here we go; just what the world needs now: not love, sweet love, but another type of natural selection.
A caption to the opening diagram explains:
Central to this is lineage-level selection: bacterial lineages (connected nodes) were required to repeatedly evolve between two phenotypic states. Mutational transitions were initially unreliable, leading to lineage deathand replacement by more successful competitors. Final surviving lineages evolved mutation-prone sequencesin a key gene underpinning the phenotypes, enabling rapid transitions between states.
According to their concept, “natural selection optimises genetic systems for future adaptations.” Lineage selection locates the target of selection in the lineage rather than in the individual or population. In this view, your genealogy determines how natural selection will let you evolve.
Imaginary Foresight by Natural Selection
Dr. Marcos Eberlin wrote about Foresight as a sign of intelligence. In the theory of Barnett et al., however, foresight evolves (believe it or not). It’s not real foresight. It’s just imaginary foresight. They call it “evolutionary foresight.” Selection looks down through the halls of time and muses, “Which of my future lineages might win the competition for fitness?” It decides that the winner will be the most evolvable one. This is where the authors start playing mind games with your sanity. “This is not the selection you are looking for,” they say with a hypnotic gesture of the hands.
Evolution by natural selection is a blind process, but living systems can appear to possess evolutionary foresight. Mechanistically, this is conceivable. Certain configurations of gene regulatory networks, developmental systems, chromosomal architectures, and mutational processes have apparent adaptive utility in future environments. Taking advantage of such future adaptive potential requires not only memory of evolutionary history but often an ability to regenerate previously achieved phenotypic states. In this work, we show how selection on lineages can incorporate prior evolutionary history into the genetic architecture of a single cell, such that mutation appears to anticipate future environmental change.
They lost me on the assertion that “evolutionary foresight” is mechanistically conceivable. That is certainly not your grandpa’s Darwinism. At that point, I looked into their Materials and Methods to see what scientific experiments they did to support this notion. Sure enough, they ran actual lab experiments for three years on real organisms, not just computer models.
Madness in the Methodology
They carefully studied populations of the bacterium Pseudomonas fluorescens (pictured at the top) kept in “glass microcosms” (presumably flasks or test tubes) each with billions of cells. Some of the populations were able to manufacture cellulose (CEL+) and some were not (CEL–). When starved for oxygen, bacteria with the genes to make cellulose created cellulose mats on which individuals could get close to the air/liquid interface for access to oxygen. The presence of cellulose made by CEL+members, therefore, provided a fitness advantage (meaning, the ability to avoid dying).
The team identified “hypermutable” loci with 10,000 times the mutation rate that they describe as similar to “contingency loci” in pathogenic bacteria. Having a contingency plan sounds like design, but they believe the ability for rapid mutation gives the bacterium “foresight” in the form of “evolutionary potential.” The press release explains,
“Our findings show that selection at the level of lineages can drive the evolution of traits that enhance evolutionary potential, offering a fascinating glimpse into how evolution can gain what appears to be ‘foresight’.” Michael Barnett, the study’s first author, added: “By demonstrating the evolution of a hyper-mutable locus, we show that adaptation is not just about surviving in the present but also about refining the ability to adapt in the future.”
The results challenge the long-held view that evolution operates without foresight. Instead, they reveal how natural selection can embed evolutionary history into genetic architecture, enabling organisms to “anticipate” environmental changes and accelerate their adaptation.
Several design words can be seen there: architecture, anticipation, embedding. Are these things that blind selectors do? In a response to the paper, David G. King, emeritus professor from Southern Illinois University, saw something different going on: neither random mutation nor directed mutagenesis:
For example, the insertions and deletions that characterize short tandem repeats (and also enable phenotypic switching in bacterial contingency genes) confer “tuning knob” or “rheostat” functionality on many, perhaps most eukaryotic genes. Without being biased in the direction of adaptation, repeat number mutability helps assure a relatively advantageous distribution [of] mutation effects.
If so, this would indicate a function for such hypermutable loci. They act like “mutational sponges” that diffuse the harmful effects of random mutations. King explains,
This is the domain of “mutation protocols” whereby an abundant supply of unbiased mutations entails a minimal probability of harm. Put simply, mutations produced “according to protocol” are constrained to avoid vast domains of DNA sequence space where deleterious results would be practically guaranteed.
Design is evident in concepts like a “tuning knob” or “rheostat” functionality. Another idea not discussed in the paper is the possibility that the populations of bacteria form “quasispecies” in which members of a population retain functional loci that can be shared by horizontal gene transfer. In both cases, genetic changes would not be random.
Conceptual Flaws
But since the authors wish to argue that natural selection (NS), which they admit is “a blind process,” somehow had foresight to “enhance evolutionary potential” (i.e., evolvability), their convoluted concept is subject to the critical scrutiny of NS by illustrious writers including John West (“a corrosive impact on society”), Neil Thomas (“a conceptually incoherent term”), Jonathan Wells (“cannot explain the arrival of the fittest”), and others. Have Barnett et al. twisted NS into a creative force beyond its means by its very nature as an unguided process? Here are a few considerations to keep in mind:
No origin of species: They started with one species and ended with the same species.
Artificial selection: They acted like breeders, which is intelligent design, the opposite of NS.
Investigator interference: They forced the organisms to “evolve or perish” according to criteria they had set up in advance.
Unnatural assistance: When a population went “extinct” they transferred cells from a living population to keep it going (see the diagram in Kussell’s Perspective article).
Limited options: They forced the organisms to exhibit only one of two phenotypic states.
Personification: They applied terms like foresight, anticipation, and future adaptive potential to blind, mindless processes.
Magical thinking: Only in Darwin’s Fantasyland can NS be deemed capable of “refining the ability to adapt in the future.”
Obfuscation: Inventing concepts like “the evolution of evolvability” is no more conducive to understanding than speaking of “the phlogistification of phlogiston"
Conclusion: Keep Your Investment on Design
Try as they might to resurrect NS from the dead, Barnett et al. and Zaman et al. are stuck with blind, unguided processes with no foresight or desire to adapt. Scientists in Darwin’s day saw through his flawed attempt to present natural selection as analogous to artificial selection, as Robert Shedinger has exposed in Darwin’s Bluff.
Design scientists, by contrast, have the tools in their toolkit to explain adaptation. It takes foresight (real foresight by a designing intelligence, not imaginary “evolutionary” foresight) to engineer a machine for robustness against potential risks. More and more, scientists are finding that life comes equipped with built-in capabilities for adapting to environmental changes. This has been the focus of lively conferences on biological engineering over the past few years. The next Conference on Engineering in Living Systems (CELS), sponsored by Discovery Institute, is coming this summer in Seattle and promises to be a fertile occasion for enlightening discussions in Adventureland and Tomorrowland instead of Fantasyland.
Norway backs away from the brink(for now)
Court of Appeal Unanimously Overturns Unconstitutional Ruling in Norway
On March 14, 2025, the Borgarting Court of Appeal unanimously overturned the Oslo District Court’s decision to revoke the legal registration of JEHOVAH’S Witnesses in Norway. The Borgarting Court of Appeal also awarded our brothers 8,500,000 kroner ($806,833 U.S.) in compensation for legal costs incurred during both trials.
In 2022, the County Governor of Oslo and Viken revoked our registration, thereby blocking us from receiving State subsidies that more than 700 registered religious communities in Norway benefit from. The State based its decision on the assertion that we should change our Scriptural practice of removing unrepentant wrongdoers from the congregation. After the Oslo District Court upheld the government’s decision in March 2024, JEHOVAH’S Witnesses in Norway appealed. This latest decision overturns the lower court’s unconstitutional rulings. The State may still appeal this decision to the country’s Supreme Court.
During the appeal process, a panel of three judges thoroughly examined our religious practices and Bible-based teachings. In direct contradiction to the State’s claims, the Court of Appeal determined that limiting contact with an unrepentant wrongdoer who has been removed from the congregation is not a violation of his rights. In situations where an unrepentant baptized minor is removed from the congregation, the court ruled that it “does not constitute psychological violence.”
The court concluded that “JEHOVAH’S ’s Witnesses have been fully vindicated in that the decisions to deny grants and registration are invalid.”
We are pleased by the Court of Appeal’s decision in Norway, for which we give all thanks and praise to JEHOVAH.
How does JEHOVAH separate sinner from Sinner.
1John ch.5:16,17NLT"If you see a fellow believerd sinning in a way that does not lead to death, you should pray, and God will give that person life. But there is a sin that leads to death, and I am not saying you should pray for those who commit it. 17All wicked actions are sin, but not every sin leads to death."
The danger with the so called minor sins is that they are corrosive to the kind of character sincere Christians are attempting to cultivate,so the question is not whether this or that particular thought or act is disqualifying or not but whether this or that pattern of thinking and conduct causes me to more closely resemble my Savior and his God JEHOVAH or not. Every time we surrender to the flesh we become slightly weaker and every time we accept JEHOVAH'S Help and prevail over the flesh we become stronger and closer to our heavenly Father the Lord JEHOVAH,
But there is a class of sin that can't be tolerated by JEHOVAH or his true church, John says don't pray for those sinning in this way,
John ch.5:16"...But there is a sin that leads to death, and I am not saying you should pray for those who commit it."
Before there can be forgiveness there must come repentance and genuine repentance is not something that even JEHOVAH can impose on a sinner,
1Samuel Ch.16:1NLT"Now the LORD said to Samuel, “You have mourned long enough for Saul. I have rejected him as king of Israel, so fill your flask with olive oil and go to Bethlehem. Find a man named Jesse who lives there, for I have selected one of his sons to be my king.”"
It is always a cause for sadness when one who made a fine start turns away from his vow and starts living in obstinate and open defiance of JEHOVAH'S Law but JEHOVAH is telling us that barring some evidence of genuine repentance the time will come when we Must harden our hearts, JEHOVAH'S Cause will not suffer regardless of how many choose to abandon it,they will be replaced by determined loyalists who will bring glory to JEHOVAH
JEHOVAH'S true church is identified by a determination keep itself free of community guilt by not tolerating gross sin in its ranks and definitely not among its teachers.
1corinthians ch.5:12,13NIV"What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.” d"
We are not sacralist who feel we have some mission to save the nation from itself through the installing of a Christian prince to impose God's law on the people.
We are the diplomatic mission of JEHOVAH'S Kingdom ,and we are eager to represent our sovereign in a worthy way,so we continually seek his unfailing help in remaining Holy individually and collectively
Thursday, 27 March 2025
GROK on why genuine scholars dislike the term "cults"
GROK:
Religious scholars often dislike the term "cults" because it’s loaded with negative connotations and lacks precision in academic study. The word originally comes from the Latin "cultus," meaning worship or devotion, but over time—especially since the 20th century—it’s been hijacked by popular culture to describe fringe groups, often with implications of brainwashing, danger, or fanaticism. Think Jonestown or Heaven’s Gate. This baggage makes it a sloppy fit for serious analysis.
Scholars prefer terms like "new religious movements" (NRMs) because they’re neutral and descriptive. NRMs focus on groups that emerge outside established traditions, without instantly branding them as deviant or manipulative. "Cult" gets thrown around too loosely—sometimes it’s just a lazy jab at any belief system someone finds weird or threatening. That subjectivity muddies the water when you’re trying to understand what a group actually believes or does.
Plus, the term’s history in sociology and theology has shifted. Early 20th-century thinkers like Ernst Troeltsch used "cult" to describe small, mystical offshoots of bigger religions, distinct from "sects" or "churches." But that technical meaning got drowned out by sensational headlines. Today, slapping "cult" on a group can shut down discussion—it’s more a judgment than a tool for insight. Scholars want to dissect belief systems, not dunk on them.
The sacralists are coming?! II
The mouth breathing moral panic from anti JW bigots is a distraction.
Wednesday, 26 March 2025
Revelation ch.15 Peshitta Holy Bible
Revelation Ch.15 PHB
And I saw another great and wonderful sign in Heaven: Angels which had the seven last plagues with them, for in them the anger of God is finished.
2And I saw as a sea of glass mingled with fire, and those who were victorious over The Beast and over its Image and over the number of its name, and they stood over the sea of glass and had with them the stringed instruments of God.
3And they sang the song of Moses the Servant of God and the song of The Lamb. They were saying: “Great and marvelous are your works, LORD JEHOVAH God Almighty. Just and true are your works, King of the universe.”
4Who will not reverence you, LORD JEHOVAH, and glorify your name? For you alone are holy. Therefore, all the nations will come and will worship before you, because you are true.”
5But after these things, I looked, and the Temple of the Tabernacle of the Testimony was opened in Heaven. 6And the seven Angels went out from the Temple, who had with them the seven plagues, while wearing pure and bright linen and bound around their chests with a golden wrap. 7And one of The Four Beasts gave to the seven Angels seven vessels full of the passion of God, who is The Life for the eternity of eternities. Amen. 8And The Temple was full of the smoke of the glory of God and of his power, and no one was able to enter the Temple until the seven plagues of the seven Angels would be finished.
The sacralists are coming?!
Sacralism is the confluence of church and state wherein one is called upon to change the other. It also denotes a perspective that views church and state as tied together instead of separate entities so that people within a geographical and political region are considered members of the dominant ecclesiastical institution.[1]
Tuesday, 25 March 2025
Monday, 24 March 2025
GROK on the meaning of "stauros" in first century greek literature
n first-century Greek non-Christian literature, the term stauros (σταυρός) primarily referred to an upright stake or pole. Its usage was rooted in its basic meaning: a wooden object driven into the ground, often for practical or punitive purposes. The word itself derives from the verb histemi (ἵστημι), meaning "to stand" or "to set up," reflecting its function as something erected vertically.
Outside of Christian contexts, stauros appears in various Greek texts with a consistent focus on its physical form rather than any symbolic or religious connotation. For example, in historical accounts or descriptions of punishment, it denoted an instrument of execution or torture, typically a single upright beam on which a person could be impaled, tied, or otherwise affixed. This aligns with its use in the ancient world, where such devices were employed by Greeks, Persians, and later Romans (who adapted it into the more familiar cross shape, crux, in Latin).
In the works of authors like Herodotus (fifth century BCE, but influential in later Greek usage), stauros is used to describe executions involving stakes or impalement, as seen in his Histories (e.g., Book 3.159, where a Persian official is executed on a pole). By the first century CE, writers like Diodorus Siculus (e.g., Bibliotheca Historica 2.18) and Plutarch occasionally reference stauros in the context of punishments, though the term remained broad enough to encompass variations in execution methods—sometimes a simple stake, sometimes a structure with a crossbeam, depending on cultural practices.
Importantly, in non-Christian Greek literature of this period, stauros carried no inherent theological meaning. It was a utilitarian term, tied to construction, boundary marking, or, most commonly, execution. The Roman influence on Greek-speaking regions by the first century likely began associating stauros more frequently with crucifixion (a practice Rome standardized), but the word itself retained its original, simpler sense of an upright pole in many contexts.
So, in summary, stauros in first-century Greek non-Christian literature was a practical term for an upright wooden stake, often linked to execution or punishment, without the symbolic weight it later gained in Christian writings.
GROK on Joseph's use of stauros:In The Jewish War 5.11.1 (5.449–451), during the siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE, Titus crucifies Jewish captives to demoralize the defenders: "τοὺς δὲ αἰχμαλώτους οἱ στρατιῶται...ἀνεσταύρουν...ἐπὶ σταυρῶν" ("the soldiers crucified the prisoners...on stauroi"). Josephus notes the scale—hundreds daily—highlighting stauros as the instrument of execution, likely a vertical stake with or without a crossbeam (the exact shape isn’t specified).
The Roman war machine was known for its ruthless efficiency, it would certainly be a waste of resources to use more when less would work at least as well and likely better than more.
Against Litigious XVIII
Litigious:You condemn the Catholic Church for “tolerating” scandal while defending the Watchtower
Me:It is not my place to condemn or exonerate anyone: Like my Lord and Savior I let JEHOVAH'S Word do the condemning or exonerating.
John ch.5:45NIV"But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set."
Litigious:an organization with a long list of failed predictions (1914, 1925, 1975), doctrinal reversals, and disfellowshippings over teachings that were later changed. You appeal to 1 Corinthians 13:9 to justify this (“we know in part”), but then claim that none of the changes were doctrinally significant. That’s simply not true:
What I actually said was that they had no theological significance,that is no impact on the proper identifying and worship of JEHOVAH God the first century church and your own church has also made adjustments to its beliefs so having an incomplete understanding of certain matters does not disqualify one from sacred service,tolerating mass murder esp. of fellow believers and open rebellion of JEHOVAH'S Law especially by teachers/by those taking the lead is clearly disqualifying.
Revelation ch.2:5NIV"Consider how far you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place."
•Litigious: You once forbade organ transplants as cannibalism. Now they’re allowed.
Me this is a lie it was a conscience issue both then and now,
https://aservantofjehovah.blogspot.com/2025/03/an-oversimplification-examined.html
• litigious:You once condemned vaccinations. Now you require them.
More lies it was a conscience issue and vaccines aren't a religious requirement we are required to obey the law.
•litigious; You once taught that millions alive in 1914 would never die. Now that generation has passed.
And Jesus disciples expected a restoration of the kingdom of David in there lifetime see luke ch.24:21,
Your governing body has reversed itself on major life-altering teachings. These are not small “clarifications,” but authoritative doctrines you claim were taught by Jehovah’s spirit-directed organization. If your organization can be “spirit-led” while teaching error, then your accusation against the Catholic Church collapses. You can’t demand perfection from the Catholic Church while excusing continual revision and contradiction in your own group.
Our major doctrines deal with the correct identity of the one true God and his only priest not interpreting prophesy which the brothers have ALWAYS understood to be a gradual pitfalls ridden process Daniel ch.12:8,,9, the idea that our having the same incomplete understanding of recorded prophecy that ALL of JEHOVAH'S Servants have had throughout sacred issue is disqualifying and that Christendom's bloodstained history and tolerance for open not secret mind you but open and obstinate defiance of JEHOVAH'S Law is laughable.
Litigious;You quote Revelation 3:19—“Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline.” That’s true. But WHO has the authority to rebuke and discipline in the name of Christ? The Watchtower? A committee of men claiming to speak for Jehovah? Christ gave that authority to Peter and the apostles (Matthew 16:18–19, Luke 22:32, John 21:15–17). He promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church, and that the Holy Spirit would lead her into all truth (John 16:13). The Catholic Church, through apostolic succession and the Magisterium, has preserved that authority for 2,000 years. You have no priesthood, no sacraments, and no succession. And your governing body, unlike the apostles, makes anonymous, reversible decisions, often with deadly consequences (such as the blood transfusion ban or medical doctrine errors). How is that consistent with Christ’s promise?
Your mass murdering thuggery clearly exposes you as a tool of Satan and not the prince of peace we are the only global Christian community enjoying the peace JEHOVAH Promised at Isaiah ch.2:1-4.
There is no statistical evidence at all that shows that people are more likely to die if they opt for bloodless surgeries,far more have been killed by christendom violence and the deaths here are malicious.
The Bible is my guide respecting all my beliefs, the murderous hypocrisy of christendom and her tolerance for open moral corruption among her teachers plainly disqualifies her as any counselor from JEHOVAH.
In conclusion, you’ve judged the Catholic Church based on the sins of her members while ignoring the doctrinal instability, historical scandals, and contradictions of your own organization. You’ve quoted Scripture selectively and interpreted it apart from the very Church through which Christ intended it to be understood. If anything, your arguments prove the need for an authoritative, Spirit-led Church—not a decentralized group of self-appointed interpreters. The Catholic Church acknowledges sin, calls for repentance, and has the historical, biblical, and theological grounding to correct error without contradicting the truth entrusted to her by Christ.
No the Bible plainly disqualifies you for your tolerating of defiant,obstinate rebellion against JEHOVAH'S Law makes the Church guilty,if the sinning were happening in secret it would be one thing but your teachers are advocating for sin and moral corruption openly and your church refuses to act my brothers and I are united by JEHOVAH'S Spirit in our determination to keep JEHOVAH's TRUE CHURCH as pure as his humanly possible,we certainly aren't going to be tolerating open defiance of JEHOVAH'S Law,or involvement in the wars and corrupt politics, we are one just as JEHOVAH promised through our Lord.
John ch.17:22NIV" have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one—"
You do not protect truth by abandoning the Church Christ founded. You protect it by remaining faithful to her, even when her members fall.
That cabal of mass murdering thugs called christendom is Satan's horde not JEHOVAH'S Church.
The unchristian cross II
Did Jesus die on a cross?
Good Morning America reported this week on a thesis by Swedish theologian Gunnar Samuelsson http://www.exegetics.org/ in which he claims there is no historical support for the notion that Jesus died on a cross. If this is true, what effect should it have on Christians?
"There is no distinct punishment called 'crucifixion,' no distinct punishment device called a 'crucifix' anywhere mentioned in any of the ancient texts including the Gospels," he told ABCNews.com.
For his thesis, Crucifixion in Antiquity: An Inquiry into the Background of the New Testament Terminology of Crucifixion, Samuelson analyzed thousands of ancient texts to compare their wording with the wording of the gospel accounts and what he found is that there is simply no proof that Jesus was nailed to a cross.
There are two Greek words in question: stauros (stow-rose or stav-rose) and xylon (ksee-lon). Peter seems to favor xylon. For example, in his speech recorded at Acts 5:30 Peter says, "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you slew and hanged on a [xylon]." Some bibles translate that as "cross" and some as "tree." Which is correct?
Genesis 40:19 talks about the execution of an Egyptian, his body being 'hung on a tree.' When the passage was translated into the Greek Septuagint version, the translators used a form of the word xylon. Jerome's Latin Vulgate says the baker was to be hanged on a cruce, a form of the word crux. In English, some bibles say the baker was hanged on a cross, but the primary definition of crux is tree, not cross. Further, there is no historical evidence that the Egyptians crucified people, There is, however, historical evidence that they displayed the dead bodies of people with whom they were displeased by hanging them on trees or impaling them on poles.
Joshua 10:24 relates an account of Joshua winning a victory over 5 kings, and says he put their dead bodies on display. Again, the translators of the Greek Septuagint used the word xylon. Jerome translated it stipites - posts or poles - in his latin Vulgate. Are we to believe Joshua hung the bodies of the 5 kings on crosses, 1500 years before Jesus was executed? Or is it more likely he followed an Egyptian practice with which he was familiar?
Esther 5:14 refers to Haman preparing a stake 75 feet high on which to hang Mordecai. The Greek translates it xylon, the Latin trabem (beam). What purpose would have been served by a crossbeam 75 feet in the air?
What about stauros?
The gospel accounts, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, use stauros about 10 times with reference to Jesus' executional implement. The remainder of the Bible uses it another dozen times. Several reputable Greek dictionaries advise that the definition of stauros is 'a stake or pole.' For example, Vine's Expository Dictionary of Greek Words says of stauros: "Primarily, an upright pale or stake. On such malefactors were nailed for execution." Paul Schmidt's The History of Jesus says stauros "means every upright standing pale or tree trunk.” The Greek-English Lexicon of Liddell and Scott gives the first definition of stauros as "an upright stake or pole."
In spite of this, you would be hard pressed to find an English bible that doesn't translate stauros as "cross" when referring to Jesus' execution. (I looked at over a dozen online, and the only one that didn't translate stauros as "cross" was the Jehovah's Witnesses New World Translation.) http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/index.htm
One of the most telling points in Samuelsson's research is this: he points out that in the ancient literature, the word stauros is used with reference to hanging fruit or animal carcasses up to dry. It's rather silly to think of fruit being crucified.
The fact of Jesus' execution is far more important than the implement on which he died. The fact that translators allowed their preconceptions to sway them to translate stauros as cross instead of stake or pole has to make one wonder about the accuracy of the rest of their translations.
And a serious Christian should also wonder where the "cross" idea came from. If, as Alexander Hislop suggested, it originated as the symbol for the god Tammuz, it is certainly inappropriate for Christians. Even if it didn't, isn't wearing a little gold copy of someone's murder weapon on a chain around your neck a little gruesome? -Phoenix Signs of the Times Examiner
Sunday, 23 March 2025
An oversimplification examined.
The Position on Organ Transplants
"Agreeing to an organ transplant or organ donation is a personal decision." http://jw-media.org/aboutjw/article02.htm#organ
In an effort to discredit Jehovah's Witnesses and portray them negatively, some religious opposers advance an accusation regarding the position of Jehovah's Witnesses on organ transplants between the years 1967 and 1980.
Did Jehovah's Witnesses zigzag on the acceptability of organ transplant therapy during 1961, 1967 and 1980? As we shall see after an honest examination, the choice was always ultimately left to the conscience. Also, there was never a danger of being disfellowshipped, and while this case became similar to the case of blood transfusions, it falls far short of being equivalent.
Included also is a consideration of what other faiths believed at the time, and how and when organ transplantation improved into the relatively safe therapy that it is today.
What was the position over time?
In the 1950's there was no mention of any transplant procedures in Jehovah's Witnesses' publications, as transplant procedures were still in their infancy. It was in 1961 however, that brief mention of the subject was first made in their doctrinal magazine The Watchtower of August 1, in its Questions From Readers section. The question was:
Did Jehovah's Witnesses zigzag on the acceptability of organ transplant therapy during 1961, 1967 and 1980? As we shall see after an honest examination, the choice was always ultimately left to the conscience. Also, there was never a danger of being disfellowshipped, and while this case became similar to the case of blood transfusions, it falls far short of being equivalent.
Included also is a consideration of what other faiths believed at the time, and how and when organ transplantation improved into the relatively safe therapy that it is today.
What was the position over time?
In the 1950's there was no mention of any transplant procedures in Jehovah's Witnesses' publications, as transplant procedures were still in their infancy. It was in 1961 however, that brief mention of the subject was first made in their doctrinal magazine The Watchtower of August 1, in its Questions From Readers section. The question was:
"Is there anything in the Bible against giving one's eyes (after death) to be transplanted to some living person?"
The answer, being a single paragraph, was:
"The question of placing one's body or parts of one's body at the disposal of men of science or doctors at one's death for purposes of scientific experimentation or replacement in others is frowned upon by certain religious bodies. However, it does not seem that any Scriptural principle or law is involved. It therefore is something that each individual must decide for himself. If he is satisfied in his own mind and conscience that this is a proper thing to do, then he can make such provision, and no one else should criticize him for doing so. On the other hand, no one should be criticized for refusing to enter into any such agreement." (italics added)
As we can see, no objection to organ transplants is presented here, and the decision is left to the person's conscience to accept or refuse.
During the 1960's, the subject for debate was the question of giving transplants to living persons for experimental purposes. In fact, the University Professor of Anesthesiology at Harvard's Medical Faculty published his famous June 16, 1966 article denouncing an extensive series of ethically-questionable medical experiments (Henry K. Beecher, "Ethics and Clinical Research." New England Journal of Medicine, 1966; 274: 1354-60). Soon after, in 1967 there appeared another famous work in the same vein: Human Guinea Pigs, by the British doctor M. H. Pappworth.
It was at this time that The Watchtower of November 15, 1967 commented on organ donation in its Questions From Readers section, in response to the following:
During the 1960's, the subject for debate was the question of giving transplants to living persons for experimental purposes. In fact, the University Professor of Anesthesiology at Harvard's Medical Faculty published his famous June 16, 1966 article denouncing an extensive series of ethically-questionable medical experiments (Henry K. Beecher, "Ethics and Clinical Research." New England Journal of Medicine, 1966; 274: 1354-60). Soon after, in 1967 there appeared another famous work in the same vein: Human Guinea Pigs, by the British doctor M. H. Pappworth.
It was at this time that The Watchtower of November 15, 1967 commented on organ donation in its Questions From Readers section, in response to the following:
"Is there any Scriptural objection to donating one's body for use in medical research or to accepting organs for transplant from such a source?"
Rather than present a single paragraph leaving the matter to the conscience, commendably the article attempted to ascertain God's view of the matter by considering scriptures and principles. However, it also compared accepting a transplanted organ to cannibalism. On that it stated:
"Those who submit to such operations are thus living off the flesh of another human. That is cannibalistic. However, in allowing man to eat animal flesh Jehovah God did not grant permission for humans to try to perpetuate their lives by cannibalistically taking into their bodies human flesh, whether chewed or in the form of whole organs or body parts taken from others."
Granted, this opinion was taken from the article "Medical cannibalism" appearing in the Encyclopœdia of Religion and Ethics, edited by James Hastings (Volume 3, page 199), which it referred to and quoted from in its next paragraph. While the response included this comparison in an attempt to be balanced and informative, it also had the potential to offend and distract from the deciding power of the conscience also presented in the same Questions From Readers. Therefore the comparison to cannibalism proved to be unfortunate.
However, even with the unfortunate caution expressed above, the same Questions From Readers article did in fact leave the decision up to the person, as it later stated:
However, even with the unfortunate caution expressed above, the same Questions From Readers article did in fact leave the decision up to the person, as it later stated:
"Baptized Christians have dedicated their lives, bodies included, to do the will of Jehovah their Creator. In view of this, can such a person donate his body or part of it for unrestricted use by doctors or others? Does a human have a God-given right to dedicate his body organs to scientific experimentation? Is it proper for him to allow such to be done with the body of a loved one? These are questions worthy of serious consideration."
Further highlighting the role of the individual's conscience, it closed with these comments:
"[T]he Christian can decide in such a way as to avoid unnecessary mutilation and any possible misuse of the body. Thus he will be able to have a clear conscience before God.—1 Pet. 3:16.
It should be evident from this discussion that Christians who have been enlightened by God's Word do not need to make these decisions simply on the basis of personal whim or emotion. They can consider the divine principles recorded in the Scriptures and use these in making personal decisions as they look to God for direction, trusting him and putting their confidence in the future that he has in store for those who love him.—Prov. 3:5, 6; Ps. 119:105."
Thus, it is important to note that the same article also left much to the person's conscience.
Shortly thereafter in the medical world, in December 1967, the first successful human-to-human heart transplant was performed by Professor Christiaan Barnard at Groote Schuur Hospital in South Africa (the patient lived 18 days, which was considered successful for a high-risk experimental surgery, as such transplants were at the time).ftn1
During the following years from 1968 to 1975, there were some occasional and brief mentioning of organ transplants in Jehovah's Witnesses' magazines, The Watchtower and Awake!, all of them expressing medical concerns like inherent transplant risks and the side effects of immunosuppressive drugs, and generally referenced non-Witness works and authors (the last of such appeared in the September 1, 1975 issue of The Watchtower, page 519 under "Insight on the News" which noted documented cases of post-operation emotional trauma and upheaval).
Around the same time, the immunosuppressive effect of a substance called cyclosporin (alternatively spelled cyclosporine and ciclosporin) was discovered at the earliest in 1972 and at the latest in 1976. This was followed by a series of experiments attempting to overcome the primary practical problem organ transplants were facing: tissue rejection. These experiments went well and this substance was officially approved for medical use in 1983.ftn2 It was also during the late 1970's and early 1980's that a satisfactory answer had been reached on the exact moment of death. It is no coincidence that the laws and regulations for transplants began to appear around 1980 (for example, the Spanish law on organ extraction and transplant of 1979 and the corresponding 1984 law in the United States). Thus, it was in the early 1980's, and especially from 1983, that organ transplants stopped being experimental procedures and became accepted medical therapy.ftn3 In fact, from that year and even into the 1990's, many churches of Christendom and other religions began releasing official resolutions in favor of organ transplantation.
Today it is an accepted medical treatment.
After the above mentioned September 1, 1975 issue of The Watchtower, there was no reference to the practice of transplants in Jehovah's Witnesses' publications. It was not until The Watchtower of March 15, 1980 that a Questions From Readers article was again published on transplants, which had this exchange:
Shortly thereafter in the medical world, in December 1967, the first successful human-to-human heart transplant was performed by Professor Christiaan Barnard at Groote Schuur Hospital in South Africa (the patient lived 18 days, which was considered successful for a high-risk experimental surgery, as such transplants were at the time).ftn1
During the following years from 1968 to 1975, there were some occasional and brief mentioning of organ transplants in Jehovah's Witnesses' magazines, The Watchtower and Awake!, all of them expressing medical concerns like inherent transplant risks and the side effects of immunosuppressive drugs, and generally referenced non-Witness works and authors (the last of such appeared in the September 1, 1975 issue of The Watchtower, page 519 under "Insight on the News" which noted documented cases of post-operation emotional trauma and upheaval).
Around the same time, the immunosuppressive effect of a substance called cyclosporin (alternatively spelled cyclosporine and ciclosporin) was discovered at the earliest in 1972 and at the latest in 1976. This was followed by a series of experiments attempting to overcome the primary practical problem organ transplants were facing: tissue rejection. These experiments went well and this substance was officially approved for medical use in 1983.ftn2 It was also during the late 1970's and early 1980's that a satisfactory answer had been reached on the exact moment of death. It is no coincidence that the laws and regulations for transplants began to appear around 1980 (for example, the Spanish law on organ extraction and transplant of 1979 and the corresponding 1984 law in the United States). Thus, it was in the early 1980's, and especially from 1983, that organ transplants stopped being experimental procedures and became accepted medical therapy.ftn3 In fact, from that year and even into the 1990's, many churches of Christendom and other religions began releasing official resolutions in favor of organ transplantation.
Today it is an accepted medical treatment.
After the above mentioned September 1, 1975 issue of The Watchtower, there was no reference to the practice of transplants in Jehovah's Witnesses' publications. It was not until The Watchtower of March 15, 1980 that a Questions From Readers article was again published on transplants, which had this exchange:
"Should congregation action be taken if a baptized Christian accepts a human organ transplant, such as of a cornea or a kidney?"
The answer began with:
"Regarding the transplantation of human tissue or bone from one human to another, this is a matter for conscientious decision by each one of Jehovah's Witnesses."
This article is clearly more focused on the role of the Christian conscience, specifying that each one must make a personal decision. Some Christians, it stated, may view transplants as cannibalistic and unacceptable, while others may view them as acceptable. This position continues to be the one that Jehovah's Witnesses have today. The same article concluded:
Besides, the candidates for baptism then, as today, examine the fundamental Biblical doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses before accepting them, for which they had the books Your Word Is a Lamp to My Foot (1967) and Organization for Kingdom-Preaching and Disciple-Making (1972). Among these questions on the moral norms of Jehovah's Witnesses were covered, included the position on blood transfusions. Nevertheless, nothing in those books mentioned anything about organ transplants.
Therefore, despite what was expressed in the 1967 Questions From Readers and the medical concerns expressed in the Witnesses' magazines on organ transplants from 1968 to 1975, it itself was not grounds for disfellowshipping and therefore no one was disfellowshipped over it.
Contemporary Religious Views
On the other hand, were Jehovah's Witnesses an exception by expressing a negative viewpoint on organ transplants? Leaving aside some medical opinions against transplants since religion deals with ethical issues and frequently questions scientific advances (a current example is the case of utilizing stem-cells or not), the experiments on transplants provoked great controversy, especially at the end of the 1960's, and the religious sector played a noticeable role.
The Catholic Church, for example, presented serious objections in the past to homotransplant, or transplants among creatures of the same species (E. Chiavacci, Morale della vita fisica, EDB, Bologna. 1976: 64-81). In the Catholic book Problems of Sanitary Ethics (Problemi Di Etica Sanitaria, 1992; Ancora, Milano: 189), the Jesuit Giacomo Perico recognized that not too long ago transplants still presented "serious reservations of moral character" for Catholics. (italics original) The same thing can be said of other religions. For example, it was not until 1987-88 that Judaism had officially expressed a favorable opinion regarding transplants (see, for example, Alfredo Mordechai Rabello, "Donazione di organi. Comunicato dell'Assemblea dei Rabbini d'Italia," Ha Keillah, June 2000: 12-13; Riccardo Di Segni, "Il punto di vista dell'ebraismo," in "La donazione e il trapianto di organi e di tessuti," Punto Omega, December 2000 [anno II, n. 4]: 34).
The Muslim Religious Counsel rejected organ donation as late as 1983, although it later completely changed its position and now accepts the procedure, with some conditions.
The Gypsy community does not have its own religion, but its traditional beliefs tend to be opposed to organ donation, for they think that the body should remain intact during a year after death.
In Shintoism, the traditional religion of Japan, it used to be considered a serious crime to mutilate a dead body, according to E. Narnihira in his article "Shinto Concept Concerning the Dead Human Body." Additionally, he reports that: "To this day it is difficult to obtain consent from bereaved families for donation or dissection for medical education or pathological anatomy . . . the Japanese regard them all in the sense of injuring a dead body." Families are concerned that they not injure the itai, the relationship between the dead and the bereaved.ftn5
Therefore, a number of religious groups have opposed organ transplants at some time, and a number with time have changed their viewpoint. Similarly, while Jehovah's Witnesses always believed the conscience was the ultimate determining factor, the concerns about cannibalism were first presented in 1967 and were later reduced in significance in 1980. Although, as we have also seen, Jehovah's Witnesses were never forced to accept that opinion on cannibalism under threat of expulsion. The main concern was always about having "a clear conscience before God."
The Difference between Organ Transplants and Blood Transfusions
Highlighting this is a case of a youth whose experience was published in The Watchtower of November 15, 1969, "Appreciating Jehovah's Protection," pages 700-2. This is not a case of someone passing away, but of someone relating an experience after recovering from surgery. The question this person was faced with was not one of organ transplants but of blood transfusions, although at one point his doctor asked him if he would be willing to donate a kidney. Pointedly, his reaction is a good example of the difference between the position of Jehovah's Witnesses regarding blood transfusions and that regarding organ transplants. When his doctor offered him two possible procedures, one that included blood transfusions and another that did not include them, he chose the later. But when asked if he would give his consent to donate a kidney, this was his reaction:
"Clearly, personal views and conscientious feelings vary on this issue of transplantation. ... While the Bible specifically forbids consuming blood, there is no Biblical command pointedly forbidding the taking in of other human tissue. For this reason, each individual faced with making a decision on this matter should carefully and prayerfully weigh matters and then decide conscientiously what he or she could or could not do before God. It is a matter for personal decision. (Gal. 6:5) The congregation judicial committee would not take disciplinary action if someone accepted an organ transplant."
Thus, after considering what was said in 1961, 1967 and 1980, it can be seen that the conscience played the ultimate deciding factor. It was up to the individual to decide, with no disciplinary sword of Damocles dangling above. Interestingly, as pointed out above, organ transplant therapy experienced a turning point shortly thereafter in 1983, when cyclosporin was approved for medical use.
No threat of expulsion
Even though the 1967 Questions From Readers included the unfortunate comparison to cannibalism, it specified that transplants are a matter of personal decision, with no mention of disciplinary measures.
To see this matter more clearly, contrast it with the question of blood transfusion. The idea was expressed for the first time in 1945 that blood transfusions violated divine law on the sanctity of blood; nevertheless, it was not until 1961 that it was specified that the matter was of sufficient gravity so as to disfellowship from the congregations any who disregarded this divine requirement and displayed an unrepentant attitude.ftn4
Has the same thing happened with organ transplants? After the 1967 article, did a subsequent publication state that to accept a transplant was a matter of sufficient gravity to disfellowship unrepentant members?
In 1968 the book The Truth that Leads to Eternal Life was published which was a study guide that explained the fundamental teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses to interested ones. This book considered the sanctity of blood in depth, but did not even mention the matter of organ transplants.
No threat of expulsion
Even though the 1967 Questions From Readers included the unfortunate comparison to cannibalism, it specified that transplants are a matter of personal decision, with no mention of disciplinary measures.
To see this matter more clearly, contrast it with the question of blood transfusion. The idea was expressed for the first time in 1945 that blood transfusions violated divine law on the sanctity of blood; nevertheless, it was not until 1961 that it was specified that the matter was of sufficient gravity so as to disfellowship from the congregations any who disregarded this divine requirement and displayed an unrepentant attitude.ftn4
Has the same thing happened with organ transplants? After the 1967 article, did a subsequent publication state that to accept a transplant was a matter of sufficient gravity to disfellowship unrepentant members?
In 1968 the book The Truth that Leads to Eternal Life was published which was a study guide that explained the fundamental teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses to interested ones. This book considered the sanctity of blood in depth, but did not even mention the matter of organ transplants.
Besides, the candidates for baptism then, as today, examine the fundamental Biblical doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses before accepting them, for which they had the books Your Word Is a Lamp to My Foot (1967) and Organization for Kingdom-Preaching and Disciple-Making (1972). Among these questions on the moral norms of Jehovah's Witnesses were covered, included the position on blood transfusions. Nevertheless, nothing in those books mentioned anything about organ transplants.
Therefore, despite what was expressed in the 1967 Questions From Readers and the medical concerns expressed in the Witnesses' magazines on organ transplants from 1968 to 1975, it itself was not grounds for disfellowshipping and therefore no one was disfellowshipped over it.
Contemporary Religious Views
On the other hand, were Jehovah's Witnesses an exception by expressing a negative viewpoint on organ transplants? Leaving aside some medical opinions against transplants since religion deals with ethical issues and frequently questions scientific advances (a current example is the case of utilizing stem-cells or not), the experiments on transplants provoked great controversy, especially at the end of the 1960's, and the religious sector played a noticeable role.
The Catholic Church, for example, presented serious objections in the past to homotransplant, or transplants among creatures of the same species (E. Chiavacci, Morale della vita fisica, EDB, Bologna. 1976: 64-81). In the Catholic book Problems of Sanitary Ethics (Problemi Di Etica Sanitaria, 1992; Ancora, Milano: 189), the Jesuit Giacomo Perico recognized that not too long ago transplants still presented "serious reservations of moral character" for Catholics. (italics original) The same thing can be said of other religions. For example, it was not until 1987-88 that Judaism had officially expressed a favorable opinion regarding transplants (see, for example, Alfredo Mordechai Rabello, "Donazione di organi. Comunicato dell'Assemblea dei Rabbini d'Italia," Ha Keillah, June 2000: 12-13; Riccardo Di Segni, "Il punto di vista dell'ebraismo," in "La donazione e il trapianto di organi e di tessuti," Punto Omega, December 2000 [anno II, n. 4]: 34).
The Muslim Religious Counsel rejected organ donation as late as 1983, although it later completely changed its position and now accepts the procedure, with some conditions.
The Gypsy community does not have its own religion, but its traditional beliefs tend to be opposed to organ donation, for they think that the body should remain intact during a year after death.
In Shintoism, the traditional religion of Japan, it used to be considered a serious crime to mutilate a dead body, according to E. Narnihira in his article "Shinto Concept Concerning the Dead Human Body." Additionally, he reports that: "To this day it is difficult to obtain consent from bereaved families for donation or dissection for medical education or pathological anatomy . . . the Japanese regard them all in the sense of injuring a dead body." Families are concerned that they not injure the itai, the relationship between the dead and the bereaved.ftn5
Therefore, a number of religious groups have opposed organ transplants at some time, and a number with time have changed their viewpoint. Similarly, while Jehovah's Witnesses always believed the conscience was the ultimate determining factor, the concerns about cannibalism were first presented in 1967 and were later reduced in significance in 1980. Although, as we have also seen, Jehovah's Witnesses were never forced to accept that opinion on cannibalism under threat of expulsion. The main concern was always about having "a clear conscience before God."
The Difference between Organ Transplants and Blood Transfusions
Highlighting this is a case of a youth whose experience was published in The Watchtower of November 15, 1969, "Appreciating Jehovah's Protection," pages 700-2. This is not a case of someone passing away, but of someone relating an experience after recovering from surgery. The question this person was faced with was not one of organ transplants but of blood transfusions, although at one point his doctor asked him if he would be willing to donate a kidney. Pointedly, his reaction is a good example of the difference between the position of Jehovah's Witnesses regarding blood transfusions and that regarding organ transplants. When his doctor offered him two possible procedures, one that included blood transfusions and another that did not include them, he chose the later. But when asked if he would give his consent to donate a kidney, this was his reaction:
"I told him he would get a frank and thorough answer to his inquiry after we had had a family discussion of God's Word on the issue." (page 701)
It was not until the following day that he gave his response, which was negative. This clearly illustrates that the question of organ transplants was not comparable to that of blood transfusions for this reason: The donation option was not categorically prohibited (like the blood transfusion option), but one left to personal decision (or consulting with one's family, as in the case of this youth).
In Summary
The role of the individual's conscience has always been held as the deciding factor on the acceptability of organ transplants. Unlike with blood transfusions, there was never a disfellowshipping or disciplinary consequence for accepting them. While orally ingesting blood as well as blood transfusion is unacceptable, it is not so with organs.
Thus, critics should be careful not to use this issue to promote hysteria, misunderstanding, or intolerance.Footnotes1. "Heart transplantation." Wikipedia.(September 10, 2008) ( back)
In Summary
The role of the individual's conscience has always been held as the deciding factor on the acceptability of organ transplants. Unlike with blood transfusions, there was never a disfellowshipping or disciplinary consequence for accepting them. While orally ingesting blood as well as blood transfusion is unacceptable, it is not so with organs.
Thus, critics should be careful not to use this issue to promote hysteria, misunderstanding, or intolerance.Footnotes1. "Heart transplantation." Wikipedia.
2. Upton, Harriet. "Origin of drugs in current use: the cyclosporin story." 2001. The Mostly Medical Part of the World of Fungi. (September 8, 2008). "Ciclosporin." Wikipedia. (September 8, 2008) ( back)
4. "Immovable For The Right Worship." July 1, 1945: 199-201. "Questions From Readers." January 15, 1961: 63-4. (back)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)