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.
Litigious:Claim: “Bloodless medicine is safe, and we obey the law” — but it’s still doctrinally imposed
ReplyDeleteYou are required to refuse blood transfusions even if it will cost your life. You claim it’s a conscience matter, but members who accept blood are disfellowshipped. That’s not “conscience”—that’s coercion.
Me:The churches of christendom use their political lackeys to force their preferences on unbelievers and other believers at gunpoint ,not only that, their three headed God is not content to have his princes tyrannize in this life he threatens you with eternal torture in the next ,I'm sorry but you lack standing to talk down to anyone re:coercion,we do not practice infant baptism,so every single baptized member is in effect a convert,you're expected to willingly adopt out beliefs and lifestyle BEFORE Baptism if some belief or practice doesn't seem to conform to JEHOVAH'S Word and thus belief or practice is fundamental to a relationship with the deity then don't get baptized,it's that simple,but whether you get baptized or nit you will never have to worry about the state coming after you or eternal conscious torment.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2004448#h=1:0-34:0
ReplyDeleteJust as blood plasma can be a source of various fractions, the other primary components (red cells, white cells, platelets) can be processed to isolate smaller parts. For example, white blood cells may be a source of interferons and interleukins, used to treat some viral infections and cancers. Platelets can be processed to extract a wound-healing factor. And other medicines are coming along that involve (at least initially) extracts from blood components. Such therapies are not transfusions of those primary components; they usually involve parts or fractions thereof. Should Christians accept these fractions in medical treatment? We cannot say. The Bible does not give details, so a Christian must make his own conscientious decision before God.
Some would refuse anything derived from blood (even fractions intended to provide temporary passive immunity). That is how they understand God’s command to ‘abstain from blood.’ They reason that his law to Israel required that blood removed from a creature be ‘poured out on the ground.’ (Deuteronomy 12:22-24) Why is that relevant? Well, to prepare gamma globulin, blood-based clotting factors, and so on, requires that blood be collected and processed. Hence, some Christians reject such products, just as they reject transfusions of whole blood or of its four primary components. Their sincere, conscientious stand should be respected.
Other Christians decide differently. They too refuse transfusions of whole blood, red cells, white cells, platelets, or plasma. Yet, they might allow a physician to treat them with a fraction extracted from the primary components. Even here there may be differences. One Christian may accept a gamma globulin injection, but he may or may not agree to an injection containing something extracted from red or white cells. Overall, though, what might lead some Christians to conclude that they could accept blood fractions?
Litigious:Claim: “Vaccinations and transplants were always conscience issues” — false revisionism
ReplyDeleteThis is a historical distortion. The Watchtower explicitly forbade organ transplants in the 1960s, referring to them as “a form of cannibalism” (see Watchtower, Nov. 15, 1967, p. 702).
Produce one quote from anywhere that states that you can be disfellowshipped for taking a organ transplant one from any publication,the 1931golden age article was written by a non witness the official voice of the slave is the Watchtower there is NO Watchtower article condemning vaccines.
The passage referring to organ transplants as a form of cannibalism is actually a quote from another publication.
https://aservantofjehovah.blogspot.com/2025/03/an-oversimplification-examined.html
https://aservantofjehovah.blogspot.com/2025/03/against-litigious-xviii.htmlEven 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.
ReplyDeleteTo 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.
Litigious:The Watchtower seeks to deflect criticism by pointing to the past theological hesitations of other religions—particularly the Catholic Church—on matters like transplants or vaccines. But this comparison falls apart under closer inspection.
ReplyDeleteThe Catholic Church has never taught that receiving a medically necessary vaccine or organ transplant is morally sinful or grounds for excommunication.
Me:why do you keep repeating this LIE ? You people are utterly shameless,vaccinations and transplants were never grounds for expulsion either retract this lie or produce a quote supporting this claim,or that is the end of any discussion.