On Norway's crossover to the dark side re:religious liberty

 

 Jehovah’s Witnesses in Norway: Why the Oslo District Court Decision Is Wrong

It claims that the practice of shunning illegally prevents adults and minors from leaving the religious organization. This claim is false.

By Massimo Introvigne

On March 4, 2024, the Oslo District Court ruled against the Jehovah’s Witnesses and upheld the decisions of the government and the State Administrator of Oslo and Viken who denied the Jehovah’s Witnesses the state subsidies they had peacefully received for thirty years based on Section 16 of the Norwegian Constitution (“All religious and philosophical communities must be supported on an equal footing”). Registration as a religious organization of the Norwegian Jehovah’s Witnesses under Law No. 31 of April 24, 2020, was also denied.

           The District Court is aware that this was a difficult decision with serious consequences. It observes that at least, under Law No. 31 the lack of registration would not prevent the Norwegian Jehovah’s Witnesses to continue their activities and to teach what they teach everywhere in the world (except in a few totalitarian countries that have banned them, including Russia). The consequences of the non-registration are that they will not be eligible for state subsidies, nor will they be able to celebrate legally valid marriages.

             State subsidies in Norway are not a gift. Since the Church of Norway, a Lutheran denomination, is a state church supported by the government with transfers of money proportional to the number of its members, the Constitution mandates that to respect the principle of equality other religions should receive the same proportional subsidies. The judge himself acknowledges that not being able to celebrate legal marriages within one’s religious community may be perceived as discriminatory. He also agrees that the decision may have a broader “stigmatizing effect.”

           Yet, the judge believes that all these admittedly important factors “are not weighty enough” when compared to the fact that the Jehovah’s Witnesses, by practicing shunning, violate in his opinion their members’ freedom to change their religion. Shunning is the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ teaching recommending that members do not associate with those who have been disassociated as unrepentant of serious sins or have publicly disassociated themselves from the organization (as opposed to simply becoming inactive). Cohabiting relatives are not shunned, although they are excluded from the family’s religious activities.

          Here, I find the decision slightly confusing. At times, it seems that the judge regards the shunning both of adult and minor ex-members as grounds for his decision. In other passages, however, he seems to acknowledge that Law no. 31 includes a note that “if adult members of their own free will follow rules that restrict their rights and freedoms, they cannot be considered violations… Essentially, this also applies even if the obligations can be considered harmful.” In its conclusion, the decision cautiously focuses on the alleged violation of the “right to opt out” of children.

                      The decision notes that the European Convention on Human Rights also guarantees the right to leave a religious organization. The judge is persuaded that Jehovah’s Witnesses in practice are prevented from leaving since they know that, if they leave, they will be shunned.

                       As mentioned earlier, it is at times unclear whether in the end the objection only concerns the shunning of minors or also extends to adults. In the second case, the decision is patently absurd and runs counter to dozens of decisions on shunning by jurisdictions in other countries, including supreme courts. They have noted that religious organizations have the right to self-organize themselves as they deem fit. Christian groups also have the right to interpret the Bible in their own way. The interpretation by the Jehovah’s Witnesses in this case is not even particularly original. Clearly, something similar to the shunning they practice today is taught in 1 Corinthians 5:13 (“Expel the wicked person from among you”) and 5:11 (“Do not even eat with such people”), and 2 John 10–11 (“Do not take them into your house or welcome them. Anyone who welcomes them shares in their wicked work”). Others may suggest a non-literal interpretation of these passages, but it is not for secular courts of law to second-guess religious organizations on their interpretation of the Bible.

                            The main objection is, however, another. All human organizations have what sociologists call exit costs. By leaving a demanding but well-paid job I may gain more freedom but lose a good salary. The loss of the salary is my exit cost. Shunning is a typical exit cost. A spouse that decides unilaterally to divorce and to marry a different partner may be shunned by the abandoned ex-spouse, perhaps even by children. Members of a political party who quit and join a political organization with the opposite ideology may be shunned as traitors by their former comrades. Several religions, including Islam and branches of ultra-orthodox Judaism, treat “apostates” in a less charitable way than the Jehovah’s Witnesses

                     The Norwegian judge’s argument is that to avoid the exit costs we are compelled to remain in a religious organization we may no longer believe in and are thus denied our right to leave it that is enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. But by applying the same argument, one can argue that marriage or political parties are also institutions that violate the rights of those who want to divorce or change political affiliation, since the exit costs may make them reluctant to leave.

            Sociologists know that eliminating exit costs is not possible. They are an unavoidable feature of organized social life. Sometimes, one has the impression that the enemies of the Jehovah’s Witnesses are precisely asking courts of law to compel those who do not want to communicate with their former co-religionists to do it, which is not only unfair but impossible. More often, opponents argue that what they want is that judges would prevent the organization of the Jehovah’s Witnesses from teaching shunning. But that would put the judges in the strange position of interpreting 1 Corinthians and 2 John and substitute their opinion to the one of a religious organization in determining what these venerable Biblical texts “really” mean.

             In the end, the Oslo judge found it safer to focus on minors who are first baptized and then, if they become unrepentant sinners, shunned. One can measure the cultural distance of the judge’s own feelings from those of any conservative religious group, not only the Jehovah’s Witnesses, when he wrote that he finds it “reasonable to expect” that most minors would engage in “sexual relations with their boyfriends or girlfriends.” Apart from the cultural problems of the judge in understanding conservative religion, he accepts the opinion of an “apostate” ex-member that minors are baptized and become Jehovah’s Witnesses when they are not mature enough to understand their obligations. But surely this is a drastic conclusion one cannot arrive at on the basis of one witness or a few anecdotical examples. What would be required is a quantitative study of those baptized as minors. Nothing similar is quoted in the decision. Although Norway has introduced a system of “youth punishment” with more lenient penalties for them, minors can be tried from criminal offenses from age 15. If they are mature enough in Norway to stand a trial before a criminal court, perhaps they are also mature enough to make informed religious decisions.

                    Once they have been baptized, minors run the risk of being shunned. Again, some opponents may have told the judge that this is not rare but among his numerous witnesses he found only one woman, now 40, who was disfellowshipped for a sexual offense and shunned as a minor, when she was 14, thus 26 years ago. She testifies that after a “short time” she was allowed to return to the fold by writing a “letter of regret” and attending a “short meeting.” There is simply no evidence that disfellowshipping minors, with the consequence that they are shunned (but not by cohabiting relatives), is more than a rare occurrence.

                      It may be objected that a rare injustice would be an injustice, nonetheless. The answer is that, as the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) stated in cases about the dissolution of organizations of the Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia in 2010 (Jehovah’s Witnesses of Moscow and Others v. Russia) and 2022 (Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia), denial or cancellation of registration of a religious organization is a serious measure with dramatic consequences for its members that states can adopt only in case of frequent and obvious crimes or misdemeanors. Shunning minors is not frequent, and the “principle of proportionality” between the fact and the sanction mentioned by the ECHR in its decisions about Russia would not be respected even if this was a crime.

                    But is it a crime? The judge himself admits that Jehovah’s Witnesses, in good faith, perceive shunning as a “loving and meaningful arrangement,” a painful medicine (painful, it should be added, for those who shun and not only for those who are shunned) that in many cases helps restoring family harmony and morality, as those shunned end up understanding their mistakes and repenting.

                  According to the decision, the violation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child would be in the fact that to minors, just as to adults, would be denied the freedom to “opt out” of the organization. Afraid of being shunned, minors who would want to quit in the end are dissuaded from leaving the Jehovah’s Witnesses, which the judge thinks violates their right to change their religious affiliations. However, if the minors are mature enough to understand their obligations when they are baptized—and no evidence has been offered that this is not the case—they are aware of the exit costs just as the adults are. It is also false that a young boy or girl does not have experience of exit costs: he may decide to break a relation with a boyfriend or a girlfriend, quit a group of friends, leave a sport club, in extreme cases even leave the family and go live elsewhere. All these experiences have painful exit costs.

             The decision argues that, because youth are especially fragile, the experience of shunning is more traumatic for them. This is possible, but youths also have greater flexibility in socialization than adults. Young Jehovah’s Witnesses attend public schools, where after disfellowshipping they can continue to attend or newly enter into circles of friends who are not part of their former religion. The judge insists on the pain of not being able to communicate with grandparents who are Jehovah’s Witnesses. However, grandparents may cut ties with their children and grandchildren for a variety of reasons, none of which courts of law can really correct. And even outside the Jehovah’s Witnesses, minors who do something that is perceived by their relatives as a betrayal of the family or an expression of moral corruption may find themselves, for all practical purposes, “shunned.”

                       It is difficult to disagree with professor of religious history, Dag Øistein Endsjø, who told the leading Norwegian Christian daily newspaper “Vårt Land” that the verdict is against numerous decisions rendered in other countries, as well as against the case law of the European Court of Human Rights where it would have limited chances to survive. It is also against simple logic. Perhaps a higher Norwegian court will acknowledge it even before the court in Strasbourg.

                

                            

                      

Grok's take on bloodless medicine.

 

Bloodless medicine

15 web pages

4 posts

Bloodless medicine refers to medical practices and surgical procedures that aim to minimize or completely avoid the use of blood transfusions. This approach has gained traction due to several reasons:

Religious Beliefs: Some patients, notably Jehovah's Witnesses, refuse blood transfusions based on their religious beliefs. Bloodless medicine provides a way to treat these patients while respecting their convictions.

Health and Safety: There are also medical reasons for avoiding transfusions, including reducing the risk of transfusion-related infections, allergic reactions, or other complications like transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI).

Technological Advances: Developments in medical technology have made bloodless medicine more feasible. Techniques include:

Preoperative Blood Management: Using medications like erythropoietin to boost red blood cell production, and iron therapy to prevent or treat anemia before surgery.

Intraoperative Techniques: Employing minimally invasive surgery, precise surgical tools like lasers or sonic scalpels to minimize blood loss, and using cell salvage systems to recycle the patient's own blood lost during surgery.

Postoperative Care: Strategies to promote blood conservation post-surgery, including careful monitoring of blood loss and the use of medications to enhance blood clotting.

Economic Considerations: In some cases, bloodless medicine can be more cost-effective by reducing the need for expensive blood products and the associated costs of transfusion, though this varies by healthcare system.

Patient Outcomes: Studies suggest that patients undergoing bloodless surgery might experience benefits such as fewer postoperative infections, reduced hospital stays, and potentially lower rates of complications like strokes or heart attacks.

Institutions and Programs: Several hospitals and medical centers have established dedicated programs for bloodless medicine:

UPMC (University of Pittsburgh Medical Center) has a comprehensive program for bloodless medicine and surgery, focusing on patient blood management.

Tampa General Hospital offers a Center for Bloodless Medicine and Surgery, providing state-of-the-art care for patients who refuse blood products.

Johns Hopkins Medicine has a team dedicated to bloodless medicine, understanding the needs of patients who cannot or will not accept blood transfusions.

Current Sentiment: Posts on X (formerly Twitter) reflect both educational content on the subject and news about significant milestones or events in the field of bloodless surgery, like commemorating the first bloodless heart surgery by Dr. Denton Cooley.

Bloodless medicine represents a growing field in healthcare, emphasizing personalized treatment plans that respect patient autonomy while leveraging modern medical science to achieve successful outcomes without traditional blood transfusions

Finally the electric jet?

 

Yet even more disruption from Tesla?

 

The hybrid engine is back?

 

The relationship between atheism and logic is not as axiomatic as some would wish?

 Standing O for Jerry Coyne

David Klinghoffer

Ladies and gentlemen, shall we all give a standing ovation to atheist evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne? The Wall Street Journal platformed the University of Chicago emeritus prof today as a champion of free speech and common sense about gender — the existence of ladies and gentlemen as categories jointly exhausting the possibilities with human beings. The platforming comes in the form of an op-ed by Coyne about how he and fellow atheist scientists Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker quit the board of the Freedom From Religion Foundation over issues of censorship and woke overreach. 

Censored on Gender

He recounts being censored by the group about the gender binary:

The trouble began in November, when the organization published an essay on its website denying the basic biological fact that all animals, including humans, have only two sexes. The FFRF piece, titled “What is a woman?,” concluded by begging the question: “A woman is whoever she says she is.”

I wrote a rebuttal, “Biology is not bigotry,” which FFRF published in late December. But the woke care more about “progressive” ideology than scientific facts, and within a day the FFRF took down my article and issued a statement asserting the publication of my piece was an “error of judgment,” that it “does not reflect our values or principles,” that it had caused “distress,” and that the FFRF stands “firmly with the LGBTQIA-plus community.”

He criticizes “transgender ideology,” saying that it 

makes anathema of heresy and blasphemy (tarring of dissenters as “transphobes”), attempts to silence critics who raise valid counter arguments, seeks to proselytize children in schools and excommunicates critics (J.K. Rowling is the best-known example).

The Criticisms Are Valid

But hold the applause a moment as Coyne has left out two relevant points. First, he has himself been an enthusiastic censor, seeking, if I may borrow his own words, to “silence critics who raise valid counter arguments.” In fact, he won the Censor of the Year Award from the Center for Science in Culture back in 2014 for his efforts to silence a Ball State University astrophysicist, Eric Hedin, for teaching a course on “The Boundaries of Science.” The course pointed students to, among other things, some literature on intelligent design.

In his war on Dr. Hedin — a younger, less powerful, and untenured scientist — Dr. Coyne joined forces with none other than his good buddies at the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRP). They went over Hedin’s head and succeeded in getting the course canceled. Hedin tells the story in his book Canceled Science.

Has Coyne come to regret any of this, now that he’s winning plaudits as a defender of free speech? As recently as 2022, nine years after the fact, he was still mocking Hedin at Coyne’s blog, Why Evolution Is True (“Eric Hedin beefs about being ‘canceled’ at Ball State by the FFRF and me”). Using his power and the prestige brand of his university to bully someone like Hedin was nothing less than loathsome. Coyne was a pioneer of “cancel culture” well before the term came into vogue.

Mistakes Were Made

And second, what about the gender binary position that Coyne also champions? If it’s mistaken to believe a man can become a woman, fairly competing against women in women’s sports, using women’s locker rooms and restrooms, demanding to be housed in women’s prisons, and all the rest, how did this mistaken way of thinking arise? What forces in the culture help us understand where it came from? In his op-ed, Coyne blames existentialism, postmodernism, and critical theory. He complains that “some forms of feminism” hold that “sex is a social construct.” Coyne harrumphs, “This is a denial of evolution.”

Hold on there. In the paradigm of intelligent design, it makes total sense to uphold the concept of there being only two genders, established by biology and not capable of being breached or amended by surgery or other methods. A male will always be a male no matter what medical interventions he seeks out to change that. Being male is his design, reflecting the intention of a purposeful designer. 

Nothing Sacred or Ordained

But in the paradigm of Darwinian evolution, there’s nothing sacred or ordained about gender. There couldn’t be, because in the atheist evolutionary view, nothing in the world is sacred or ordained. Trying to amend one’s gender is not a “denial of evolution” but, if anything, an affirmation of it. Evolutionary processes may have resulted in an individual being born with male genitalia, but the “fact” of evolution means there’s nothing to object to if he wishes to change his anatomy in keeping with strong feelings about identity. 

And if he now says he’s a woman, well, so he is! I mean, why not? The surgical results may seem a little rough at the moment, but that’s only because medical science hasn’t perfected them yet. After all, the science of organ transplantation has come a long way since its own pioneering days. In explaining the rise of what Coyne calls “transgender ideology,” evolutionism with its denial of design should not be skipped over.

Silencing Science

Coyne is not the only atheist scientist to fail to realize the contradictions in his own advocacy, either for gender realism or for free speech. Physicist Lawrence Krauss is another one. Dr. Krauss wanted to hide from school students in Ohio the fact that Darwinism is the subject of scientific controversy. Instead, evolution should be presented, propagandistically, as an unquestioned fact. What was that about, in Coyne’s words, “proselytiz[ing] children in schools”? Now Krauss is all in for academic free speech, supposedly (“Lawrence Krauss Exposes the Censorship Crisis Gripping Academia”). 

Richard Dawkins, as Coyne says, and Colin Wright are two other atheist evolutionary biologists who have argued for the reality of gender and have been subjected to woke outrage for it. But do they recognize that intelligent design, which they reject, supports their view while evolutionism undercuts it? Not that I’m aware.

Of course, I’m not saying you can’t change your mind about big issues. You certainly can, and admitting you were wrong is a mark of character. If Coyne and these others have performed such a public reassessment of their past positions, again, I’ve not heard about it.

Design as heuristic?

 Emily Reeves: How to Study Biology with Systems Engineering Principles

Andrew McDiarmid

Traditional methods in biology have proven insufficient for understanding and accurately predicting complex biological systems. Why? The great majority of biologists are trained to study life from the bottom up, as the result of unguided evolutionary processes. It turns out there are better ways to observe, question, hypothesize, experiment, and analyze a complex system. On a new episode of ID the Future, I welcome biochemist and metabolic nutritionist Dr. Emily Reeves to the podcast to discuss her co-authored paper on how biologists can apply principles from systems engineering to biology to better approach the study of complex living systems. 

As Dr. Reeves explains, the need for a new methodology in biology is motivated by two key observations. First, biological systems appear to be designed. Zoom into any complex system in biology, such as the bacterial flagellar motor, the light harvesting complex of Photosystem I, or ATP synthase, and you’ll find exquisite nanotechnology that is better engineered than its human-engineered counterpart. Second, biological systems have already been demonstrated to have much in common with human engineered systems. Biological systems are hierarchical, integrated, modular, optimized, and robust. These are all characteristics of top-down designed systems. “Therefore,” explains Dr. Reeves, “the tools that engineers use to makes these systems can be adapted to better understand biology.”

In addition to explaining how the new methodology operates, Dr. Reeves shows how it can be applied to various systems and phenomena to produce fruitful scientific research. As a case study, she describes how to use the methodology to better understand the commonly studied process of glycolysis. She also highlights the implications of this approach for understanding phenomena such as the Warburg effect, a proposal that seeks to explain the metabolic requirements of cell proliferation in many types of cancer. Dr. Reeves notes that a systems engineering approach to the Warburg effect suggests a different reason, one that has not yet been widely studied or reported in the scientific literature. Download the podcast or listen to it here.

Commercialising the final frontier?

 

Among titans the uprising rolls on.

 

Titan is a better fit for humanity's second home?

 

The king of Titans holds court (yet again)

 

On becoming a real life Tony Stark.

 

Titans lead insurgent holds court II

 

Endgame is the game III

 

Yet more on the rise of the machines.

 

More disruptive than ever?

 

On china inc.'s EV juggernaut III

 

The space race gets a reboot.

 

An interlude XXV

 

As cloak and dagger as it gets II

 

Endgame is the game. II

The skilled trades are not a consolation prize.

 

Titans' crown prince?

 

King of titans vs. Public enemy no.1

 

The Titans' lead insurgent's latest shenanigans

 

Junk DNA =Junk science?

 Nobelist Thomas Cech on “Junk RNA” 

Daniel Witt

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

Andrew McDiarmid

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

David Coppedge

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

JW.org

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

The endgame is the game.

 

Learning from the darkness.

 

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.

Our AI overlords Kryptonite? II

 

Catching sunlight?

 

Our present overlords?

 

The sacralists are coming?! II

 The mouth breathing moral panic from anti JW bigots is a distraction.

Our AI overlords' Kryptonite?

 

The written word is brain food?

 

The battery for the EV of tomorrow?

 

The King of Titans continues his counterinsurgency.

 

A brief history of a pair of question begging terms.

 

The Titans' ace insurgent is at it again?

 

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:

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]

Preparing for the rise of the machines?

 

Our AI overlords now have bodies?

 

Yet more on china inc.'s EV juggernaut.

 

The titans' leader of the opposition holds court.

 

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