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)
Against litigious XVII
Litigious:Furthermore, when you imply that infallibility is disproven by the existence of scandal or bad clerics, you are repeating the same error as the Donatists of the fourth century. They argued that the Church’s validity depended on the moral purity of her ministers. But this was condemned by the Catholic Church, with the support of St. Augustine, who affirmed that the sacraments and the Church’s teaching authority are valid because of Christ’s institution, not the personal holiness of the minister. Otherwise, no Christian could have certainty of truth, since all men are sinners.
I cited the holy Scriptures as my authority those the scriptures plainly declare that those causing division must be isolated.
1timothy ch.1:19,20NLT"Cling to your faith in Christ, and keep your conscience clear. For some people have deliberately violated their consciences; as a result, their faith has been shipwrecked. 20Hymenaeus and Alexander are two examples. I threw them out and handed them over to Satan so they might learn not to blaspheme God."
Litigious:To suggest that the Catholic Church does not obey Scripture because it does not throw out all its sinful members is to ignore the parable of the wheat and the weeds (Matthew 13:24–30).
Me:It is not a suggestion you manifestly are denying the plainly stated commands of the holy Scriptures, the "field" where the wheat and weeds grow alongside each other in Matthew ch.13:24-30 is the WORLD not the Church.while the brothers can't rid the Church of secret sin. Those who openly defy JEHOVAH'S Law must not be tolerated, certainly they ought not to be permitted to teach from any recognized podium. See Matthew ch.13:38
Litigious:Christ warned that the Church would contain both until the final judgment, and that premature judgment could uproot the good with the bad. This does not mean tolerating error indefinitely but calls for prudence, mercy, and fidelity to God’s timing.
Me:The brothers can't rid the Church of secret sins but open defiance of JEHOVAH’S Law must not be tolerated did you miss the pictures of the pride flags in your sanctuary ,there absolutely no excuse for that tolerating such fragrant blasphemy in what ought to be a holy space is certainly not prudent,or genuinely merciful,the church must convey JEHOVAH'S Rebuke to those who insists on obstinate defiance of JEHOVAH'S Law that is true mercy
Revelation ch.3:19NIV"Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest and repent."
Litigious:The Catholic Church has a long and consistent history of confronting heresy and disciplining those who lead others astray. She does this through the very authority structure that many Protestants and groups like Jehovah’s Witnesses reject—a visible, apostolic, and teaching Church with the authority to bind and loose (Matthew 18:17–18). You cannot reasonably cite verses that support ecclesial discipline while rejecting the very Church through which that discipline has been historically and authoritatively carried out.
Me:The Catholic Church has moved from one extreme to the other and never with the Holy Scripture as a guide preferring to heed charismatic humans, rather than any charisma from JEHOVAH. Hence your history bloodstained hypocrisy, now she speaks out of both corners of her mouth she has a conservative faction that wishes to impose it's values at gunpoint through the state and a left wing Caucus who is also bent on hijacking the state for the purpose of imposing its mores on unbelievers and other believers. And yet she permits open defiance of JEHOVAH'S Law in her ranks,so basically it is the opposite our brother Paul's position.
5ch.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 discipline those on the inside we leave those on the outside to JEHOVAH.
Litihious:Finally, there is a profound irony in appealing to these verses against false teachers while defending an organization like the Watchtower Society, which has changed numerous doctrinal positions over time—from predictions about the end of the world, to teachings about the “generation” that will not pass away, to medical doctrines like organ transplants and vaccinations. Unlike the Catholic Church, which has preserved the core of apostolic teaching for two thousand years, the Jehovah’s Witnesses offer no consistent witness to unchanging truth, and they explicitly deny Christ’s promise to preserve His Church through the Holy Spirit. This self-defeating position leaves your own tradition vulnerable to the very accusations you try to level against Catholicism.
As I have repeatedly shown you from Scripture JEHOVAH'S Servants have always had an incomplete understanding of prophecy 1Corinthians ch.13:9,Luke ch.24:21
The first century church also had to make adjustments in understanding of the fulfillment of prophecy and other matters, but then as now none of those clarifications were theologically significant, the identity of the most high God as a singular supreme person did not change ,the identity of the only priest as loyal creature whose skinless,faultless loyalty earned him the right to intercede for those putting faith in him and the God who raised him from the dead did not change,the condition of the dead and how it is related to the mechanism of the ransom, nothing of any major theological significance changed
Litigious: In conclusion, the presence of sinful individuals in the Church is not a refutation of her divine institution. Scripture, history, and Christ’s own teaching all bear witness to the reality of a Church that, though composed of fallible men, is led by an infallible God. The Catholic Church exercises correction and discipline according to Scripture, and she does so not through private interpretation, but through
the authority Christ gave to Peter and his successors. Your argument collapses when one recognizes that it is precisely the Magisterium—the Church’s God-given teaching office—that ensures the authentic and continuous application of the very scriptural principles you invoke.
Me while it is impossible to rid the Church of secret sins,the idea that thus is any excuse to tolerate those living in OPEN and obstinate defiance of JEHOVAH’S Law in the churches ranks to say nothing of allowing them teaching authority is frankly blasphemous.
There are no simple beginnings in biology II.
Origin of Life: A “Simple” Worm’s Challenge
Recently, we published a piece by Eric Cassell on the fact that even the tiniest known brain, that of the worm C. elegans, is not simple. These facts he sets out raise some very interesting questions.
The worm’s apparent simplicity makes it a favorite lab animal — for example, it was the first animal whose brain was mapped. Researchers have learned that, with fewer than 400 neurons, it can handle both associative and non-associative learning.
Cassell, author of Animal Algorithms (2021), offered a number of remarkable facts about the worm and I thought I’d summarize a few of them again here, along with some questions:
The worm, 1 millimetre in length, consists of only 900 cells. Thus neurons comprise a large proportion of its total cell count.
The worm actually comes in two forms: males which have 385 neurons and hermaphrodites (both sexes) which have 302 neurons. In both cases, it seems that over one-third of all its cells are neurons. But if we compare the worm to the human, we see a considerable difference: The human body has roughly 30 trillion cells and the human brain only 86 billion. Of course, there are neurons distributed throughout the human body. Even so, the proportion of human neurons to other human cells seems much lower.
Perhaps the worm’s brain has roughly the minimum number of neurons any brain must have for simple bodily functions and learning — irrespective of the size of the rest of the body.
Equipped with those 400 neurons, the worm can feed, fast, mate, lay eggs, swim in liquids and crawl on solids. In fact, the worms’ “social lives” can become, well, quite complex:
Cassell writes,
In addition to basic behaviors, C. elegans is also capable of learning, including associative and non-associative learning. A paper published in the Journal of Neurochemistry documented the learning behaviors, including attraction and aversion to salt, temperature, and other substances. What might be surprising to many is that this learning involves both short-term and long-term memory mechanisms, which include regulation of neurotransmitters.
“Even the tiniest brain,” March 17, 2025
The Origin of Life Question
When even simple life forms are complex, the origin of life question arises: Were there ever life forms that were so simple that they could merely self-assemble, as our official doctrine of the origin of life proposes?
Cassell offers several observations that touch on this question:
… even though the brain is tiny, it does not have a simple structure. One might expect the smallest known brain to have a structure that is either relatively uniform or random. An example of a uniform structure is that found in crystals, which form a symmetrical lattice. A random structure would be expected if the positions of the neurons were not specified, but rather develop through a random process. Contrary to being either uniform or random, the brain does have a complex structure that is specified and repeatable.
“Tiniest brain”
Yes, that’s the problem of specified complexity: In a world where nature, left to itself, produces either uniform order or chaos, we find a level of information-rich order that requires an underlying intelligence. And in this case, that information-rich order is alive.
And just when we think we might have finally got down to the truly simple, basic part:
A second observation is that the brain contains a large number (approximately 100) of different types of neurons, both in terms of design and function. They are not all identical. That also would not be expected for the smallest brain. A third observation is that small neural networks within the brain control various behaviors, such as the touch response network. It is possible that some of these neural networks are irreducibly complex.
“Tiniest brain”
Irreducibly complex means that the current structure cannot have arisen via a gradual buildup from simpler to more complex steps. It’s not that simpler versions could not do the job as efficiently; rather, none of them could do it at all.
Cassell quotes a research paper that attempts to account for C. elegans’s unexpectedly busy little brain:
The mere existence of such structures may actually further underscore the directed evolution to form such clusters, which presumably carry fine functional roles along the neurites. Taken together, local compartmentalized activities, facilitated by the clustered synaptic organizations revealed herein, can enhance computational and memory capacities of a neural network. Such enhancement may be particularly relevant for animals with a compact neural network and with limited computational powers, thereby explaining the evolutionary forces for the emergence of these synaptic organizations.
Ruach, et al., “The synaptic organization in the Caenorhabditis elegans neural network suggests significant local compartmentalized computations,” PNAS, 2023, Vol. 120, No. 3.
So Here We Are
Looking at the very simplest brain known, we find both specified and irreducible complexity. It is all very far removed from the organic elements that are the building blocks of life. And yet we aren’t yet anywhere near the types of brains that think, in the sense that a dog thinks.
However evolution happens, it is beginning to sound far more complex than the sort of theory that made Richard Dawkins feel intellectually fulfilled as an atheist.
Saturday, 22 March 2025
God as mind vs. God as machine
Does Cosmic Fine-Tuning Suggest Theism or Deism?
On a classic episode of ID the Future, host and geologist Casey Luskin continues his conversation with astrobiologist Guillermo Gonzalez about the many ways Earth’s place in the cosmos is finely tuned for life. In this second half of their conversation, Gonzalez zooms out to discuss the galactic habitable zone and the cosmic habitable age. Luskin says that the combination of exquisite cosmic and local fine-tuning strongly suggests intelligent design, but he asks Gonzalez whether he thinks these telltale clues favor theism over deism? That is, does any of the evidence suggest a cosmic designer who is more than just the clock-maker God of the deists who, in the words of Stephen Dedalus, “remains within or behind or beyond or above his handiwork, invisible, refined out of existence, indifferent, paring his fingernails”? Gonzalez answers in the affirmative, but the reasons he offers for this conclusion may surprise you. Download the podcast or listen to it here.
As cloak and dagger as it gets?
Operation Underworld: Strikes and labor disputes in the eastern shipping ports
During the early days of World War II, the U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence suspected that Italian and German agents were entering the United States through New York, and that these facilities were susceptible to sabotage. The loss of SS Normandie in February 1942, especially, raised fears and suspicions in the Navy about possible sabotage in the Eastern ports. A Navy Intelligence Unit, B3, assigned more than a hundred agents to investigate possible Benito Mussolini supporters within the predominantly Italian-American fisherman and dockworker population on the waterfront. Their efforts were fruitless, as the dockworkers and fishermen in the Italian Mafia-controlled waterfront were tight-lipped and distant to strangers.[1] The Navy contacted Meyer Lansky, a known associate of Salvatore C. Luciano and one of the top non-Italian associates of the Mafia,[2] about a deal with the Mafia boss Luciano. Luciano, also known as Lucky Luciano, was one of the highest-ranking Mafia both in Italy and the US and was serving a 30 to 50 years sentence for compulsory prostitution in the Clinton Prison.[3] To facilitate the negotiations, the State of New York moved Luciano from the Clinton prison to Great Meadow Correctional Facility, which is much closer to New York City.[4][5]
The State of New York, Luciano and the Navy struck a deal in which Luciano guaranteed full assistance of his organization in providing intelligence to the Navy. In addition, Luciano associate Albert Anastasia—who controlled the docks and ran Murder, Inc.—allegedly guaranteed no dockworker strikes throughout the war. In return, the State of New York agreed to commute Luciano's sentence.[6] Luciano's actual influence is uncertain, but the authorities did note that the dockworker strikes stopped after the deal was reached with Luciano.[7]
In the summer of 1945, Luciano petitioned the State of New York for executive clemency, citing his assistance to the Navy. Naval authorities, embarrassed that they had to recruit organized-crime to help in their war effort, declined to confirm Luciano's claim. However, the Manhattan District Attorney's office validated the facts and the state parole board unanimously agreed to recommend to the governor that Luciano be released and deported immediately.[8] On January 4, 1946, Governor Thomas E. Dewey, the former prosecutor who placed Luciano into prison, commuted Lucky Luciano's sentence on the condition that he did not resist deportation to Italy.[9] Dewey stated, “Upon the entry of the United States into the war, Luciano’s aid was sought by the Armed Services in inducing others to provide information concerning possible enemy attack. It appears that he cooperated in such effort, although the actual value of the information procured is not clear.”[10][7] Luciano was deported to his homeland Italy on February 9, 1946.[11] There was a media hype of Luciano's role after his deportation. The syndicated columnist and radio broadcaster Walter Winchell even reported in 1947 that Luciano would receive the Medal of Honor for his secret services.[12]
Friday, 21 March 2025
Thursday, 20 March 2025
Catholic style new light.
1.Yes, during the Iconoclast Controversy in the 8th century, some popes, including Gregory III and the Lateran Council, condemned the iconoclastic emperors who banned the veneration of images, while others, like Leo III, supported the ban.
Archbishop Justifies LGBT Flags on Coffins in Mexican Cathedral ...
Here's a more detailed explanation:
The Iconoclast Controversy:
In the 8th century, the Byzantine emperors Leo III and Constantine V, along with some bishops, opposed the veneration of religious images (icons), arguing it was a form of idolatry.
Pope Gregory III's Response:
Pope Gregory III, in 731, convened a local synod in Rome to affirm the veneration of icons and excommunicated those who opposed them.
Constantine V's Council:
Constantine V, seeking formal church endorsement for the ban on icons, convened a council at Hieria near Constantinople in 754, which supported the iconoclastic position.
The Lateran Council:
The West, however, did not support the iconoclastic emperors. The Lateran Council in 767 condemned the Council of Hieria and reaffirmed the teaching of the earlier Synod of Rome.
Pope John VIII:
Pope John VIII later sent a better translation of the Acts of the council, which helped to remove misunderstandings.
The Second Council of Nicaea:
In 787, Empress Irene called the Second Council of Nicaea to address the image controversy, which affirmed the veneration of images.
Later Iconoclast Ideas:
Even after the Second Council of Nicaea, there were isolated cases of iconoclasm in the West, such as Bishop Claudius of Turin in 824, who destroyed images and crosses in his diocese.
Pope Alexander II:
As late as the eleventh century, Bishop Jocelin of Bordeaux still held iconoclast ideas for which he was severely reprimanded by Pope Alexander II.
2.The controversy surrounding the Latin Mass, specifically the Tridentine or Traditional Latin Mass (TLM), stems from differing views on its role and significance within the Catholic Church, with some viewing it as a vital link to tradition and others as a source of division and resistance to Vatican II reforms.
Here's a breakdown of the key aspects of the controversy:
The TLM:
This is the older form of the Roman Rite liturgy, celebrated in Latin, and differs from the Ordinary Form (Novus Ordo) introduced after the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965).
Vatican II and its Reforms:
The council aimed to modernize the church, including the liturgy, leading to the use of vernacular languages and a more active role for the congregation in Mass.
The Rise of the TLM:
After Vatican II, some Catholics, particularly those who were resistant to the reforms, embraced the TLM, viewing it as a more authentic and traditional form of worship.
Pope Francis's Restrictions:
In 2021, Pope Francis issued Traditionis Custodes, a document that placed restrictions on the celebration of the TLM, requiring bishops to seek Vatican approval for its celebration and forbidding the establishment of new TLM communities.
Arguments for the TLM:
Supporters of the TLM argue that it provides a sense of continuity with the Church's past, fosters reverence and a deeper connection to tradition, and offers a more spiritual experience.
Arguments Against the TLM:
Critics argue that the TLM can foster division within the Church, is associated with resistance to Vatican II reforms, and can lead to a passive role for the congregation in worship.
Pope Francis's Justification:
Pope Francis has stated that his restrictions are intended to preserve church unity and prevent the TLM from being used as a tool for division and opposition to the Church's reforms.
Ongoing Debate:
The controversy continues, with proponents of the TLM pushing for greater access and freedom to celebrate the liturgy, while those who oppose it seek to ensure that the Church's focus remains on the reforms of Vatican II.
Examples of opposition:
Some Catholics have criticized Pope Francis's decision, with some arguing that the revival of the Latin Mass in recent years has been key to rejuvenating the faith of younger Catholics.
Examples of support:
Some Catholics have welcomed the news, with some arguing that the new restrictions are necessary to preserve church unity.
3.The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, affirming Mary's freedom from original sin from the moment of her conception, evolved through centuries of theological debate and devotion, culminating in its formal declaration as a dogma by Pope Pius IX in 1854.
Here's a more detailed look at its development:
Early Christian Thought:
While not explicitly defined, the belief in Mary's holiness and special grace was present in early Christian thought.
Medieval Debates:
The idea of Mary's immaculate conception gained traction during the medieval period, with prominent theologians like John Duns Scotus defending it.
Franciscan Influence:
The Franciscan order played a key role in promoting the doctrine, with figures like Duns Scotus arguing that Mary's immaculate conception was a result of her special role in salvation history.
Opposition and Counterarguments:
Not everyone embraced the idea. Saint Thomas Aquinas, for example, initially opposed it, arguing that Mary needed to be redeemed by Christ, just like everyone else.
Rise of Devotion:
Despite the theological debates, devotion to Mary as the "Immaculate Conception" grew, leading to the widespread celebration of the feast of the Immaculate Conception.
Formal Dogmatic Definition:
In 1854, Pope Pius IX, responding to a widespread desire within the Church, formally defined the Immaculate Conception as a dogma in the papal bull "Ineffabilis Deus," declaring it a revealed truth to be believed by all Catholics.
Significance of the Definition:
The definition of the Immaculate Conception was prompted by the desire to inspire devotion to the Blessed Virgin and to clarify a belief that was already widely held.
Lourdes Apparition:
The apparition of Mary to Bernadette Soubirous at Lourdes in 1858, where Mary identified herself as "the Immaculate Conception," further strengthened the belief in the doctrine.
4. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_clergy_in_the_Catholic_Church#:~:text=While%20a%20Los%20Angeles%20Times,run%20as%20high%20as%2050%25.
Studies find it difficult to quantify specific percentages of Roman Catholic priests who have a homosexual orientation (either openly gay or closeted) in the United States.[4] Nevertheless, several studies suggest that the incidence of homosexuality in the Roman Catholic priesthood is much higher than in the general population as a whole.[20][21] While a Los Angeles Times survey of US priests find that 15% say they are completely or mostly homosexual, estimates of homosexual priests run as high as 50%.[4][22]
Studies by James Wolf and by Richard Sipe from the early 1990s suggest that the percentage of priests in the Catholic Church who admitted to being gay or were in homosexual relationships was well above the national average for the country.[23] Elizabeth Stuart, a former convener of the Catholic Caucus of the Lesbian and Gay Christian movement claimed, "It has been estimated that at least 33 percent of all priests in the RC Church in the United States are homosexual."[24]
The John Jay Report published in 2004 suggested that "homosexual men entered the seminaries in noticeable numbers from the late 1970s through the 1980s".[25]
Another report suggested that from the mid-1980s onwards, Catholic priests in the US were dying from AIDS-related illnesses at a rate four times higher than that of the general population, with most of the cases contracted through gay sex, and the cause often concealed on their death certificates.[citation needed] A follow-up study the next year[as of?] by the Kansas City Star found the AIDS-related death rate among priests was "more than six times" the rate among the general population in the 14 states studied. The report gained widespread coverage in the media, but the study was criticized as being unrepresentative and having "little, if any, real value".[26] Bishop Thomas Gumbleton of the Archdiocese of Detroit, has suggested that this was because, "Gay priests and heterosexual priests didn't know how to handle their sexuality, their sexual drive. And so they would handle it in ways that were not healthy." Additionally, the report suggested that some priests and behavioral experts believed the Church had "scared priests into silence by treating homosexual acts as an abomination and the breaking of celibacy vows as shameful".[27] Gumbleton has gone on to argue that the Church should openly ordain gay men.[28]
A 2002 Los Angeles Times nationwide poll of 1,854 priests (responding) reported that:
9% of priests identified themselves as gay, and
6% identified themselves as "somewhere in between but more on the homosexual side".
Asked if a "homosexual subculture" (defined as a "definite group of persons that has its own friendships, social gatherings and vocabulary") existed in their diocese or religious order:
17% of the priests said "definitely", and
27% said "probably";
53% of the priests who were ordained in the years 1982–2002 affirmed such a subculture existed in the seminary when they attended.[22]
Shortly after the poll was published, the Vatican ordered an Apostolic visitor to examine American seminaries. The visitation began in 2005, and the final report issued in 2008. The report spoke about "difficulties in the area of morality [...] Usually, but not exclusively, this meant homosexual behavior." Steps were subsequently taken to deal with the issue, including correcting a "laxity of discipline".[29]
Archbishop Justifies LGBT Flags on Coffins in Mexican Cathedral ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)