Friday, 25 April 2025
File under "well said" CXVII
"My shield is God Most High, who saves the upright in heart."
Psalm ch.7:10 New International Version
GROK on building an ethical android
Ensuring humanoid robots remain ethical as they become more autonomous involves embedding robust frameworks into their design, deployment, and oversight. Here’s a concise breakdown of key strategies:
Ethical Programming: Hardcode foundational ethical principles, like Asimov’s Three Laws or variations, into their core decision-making algorithms. These should prioritize human safety, non-maleficence, and respect for autonomy, while allowing flexibility for context-specific moral reasoning.
Transparent AI Models: Use interpretable AI systems so developers and users can understand how robots make decisions. Black-box models should be avoided to ensure accountability and traceability of ethical choices.
Continuous Oversight: Implement real-time monitoring systems to track robot behavior. Autonomous robots should have "ethical kill switches" or remote intervention capabilities to halt actions that deviate from ethical norms.
Value Alignment: Train robots on diverse, inclusive datasets reflecting global ethical perspectives to avoid cultural biases. Regularly update these datasets to adapt to evolving societal values.
Regulatory Frameworks: Establish international standards and certifications for ethical robot behavior, enforced by independent auditing bodies. These should mandate regular ethical stress-testing of autonomous systems.
Human-in-the-Loop: For high-stakes decisions, require human approval or supervision to ensure robots don’t act unilaterally in morally ambiguous situations.
Public Engagement: Involve ethicists, policymakers, and the public in shaping the moral parameters of robots to ensure broad societal acceptance and trust.
Challenges include balancing autonomy with control, resolving conflicting ethical principles, and preventing malicious reprogramming. Ongoing research, like that from groups such as the IEEE’s Ethically Aligned Design initiative, emphasizes iterative testing and global collaboration to address these issues.
Thursday, 24 April 2025
GROK on the historicity of christians having to fight wild beast in the imperial roman empire.
1Corinthians ch.15:32NIV"If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus with no more than human hopes, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised,
“Let us eat and drink,
for tomorrow we die.”"
Yes, Christians were sometimes forced to fight wild beasts in the arenas of Imperial Rome as a form of execution or public spectacle. This practice, known as damnatio ad bestias ("condemnation to beasts"), was a brutal punishment used by Roman authorities, particularly during periods of persecution under emperors like Nero (54–68 CE) and Diocletian (284–305 CE). Christians, viewed as threats to Roman religious and social order due to their refusal to worship pagan gods or the emperor, were among those subjected to this fate.
Historical accounts, such as those by early Christian writers like Tertullian and Eusebius, describe Christians being thrown to lions, bears, or other wild animals in amphitheaters like the Colosseum. The Acts of the Martyrs, a collection of early Christian texts, also records instances of believers facing beasts as a test of faith. For example, during the persecution under Nero, Christians were reportedly killed in various ways, including being mauled by animals, as described by the Roman historian Tacitus in his Annals (15.44).
Historical accounts, such as those by early Christian writers like Tertullian and Eusebius, describe Christians being thrown to lions, bears, or other wild animals in amphitheaters like the Colosseum. The Acts of the Martyrs, a collection of early Christian texts, also records instances of believers facing beasts as a test of faith. For example, during the persecution under Nero, Christians were reportedly killed in various ways, including being mauled by animals, as described by the Roman historian Tacitus in his Annals (15.44).
However, the frequency of such events may have been exaggerated in later Christian tradition to emphasize martyrdom. Not all Christians faced beasts; some were crucified, burned, or executed by other means. The spectacle of Christians fighting or being killed by animals was partly intended to entertain crowds and deter others from joining the faith.
If you want more details or specific examples, let me know!However, the frequency of such events may have been exaggerated in later Christian tradition to emphasize martyrdom. Not all Christians faced beasts; some were crucified, burned, or executed by other means. The spectacle of Christians fighting or being killed by animals was partly intended to entertain crowds and deter others from joining the faith.
GROK 3 on the league of nations.
The League of Nations was an international organization established on January 10, 1920, following World War I, with the aim of maintaining global peace and preventing future conflicts. Proposed by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson as part of his Fourteen Points, it was formalized through the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. Headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, the League was the first major attempt at a permanent international body to promote cooperation and resolve disputes diplomatically. However, its effectiveness was limited by structural weaknesses, lack of enforcement power, and the absence or withdrawal of key nations.
Origins and Formation (1918–1920)
Context: World War I (1914–1918) caused unprecedented devastation, killing millions and destabilizing economies. The desire to prevent another such war drove the creation of an international body.
Wilson’s Vision: In 1918, Wilson’s Fourteen Points outlined a plan for peace, with the League as a cornerstone to foster collective security and diplomacy.
Treaty of Versailles: Signed in June 1919, it included the Covenant of the League of Nations, outlining its structure and objectives. The League officially began operations in January 1920.
Membership: Initially, 42 countries joined, growing to 58 by the 1930s. Notable absences included the United States, whose Senate rejected the Treaty of Versailles due to concerns over sovereignty and isolationist sentiments.
Structure and Objectives
Main Bodies:
Assembly: All member states had one vote, meeting annually to discuss global issues.
Council: A smaller body with permanent (e.g., Britain, France, Italy, Japan) and rotating members, addressing specific crises.
Secretariat: Administrative arm, led by a Secretary-General.
Permanent Court of International Justice: Established in 1922 to settle legal disputes between nations.
Objectives:
Prevent war through collective security and diplomacy.
Promote disarmament, international cooperation, and humanitarian efforts (e.g., health, labor standards).
Administer former colonial territories through mandates (e.g., Middle East, Africa).The League achieved some successes in its early years, particularly in minor disputes and humanitarian work:
Dispute Resolution:
Aaland Islands (1921): Mediated between Sweden and Finland, granting the islands to Finland with autonomy guarantees.
Upper Silesia (1921): Resolved a German-Polish border dispute through a plebiscite and partition.
Greece-Bulgaria (1925): Halted a potential conflict after Greek incursions into Bulgaria.
Humanitarian Efforts:
Tackled refugee crises, notably for Russians and Armenians post-war.
Combated global health issues (e.g., typhus epidemics) through the League’s Health Organization.
Addressed human trafficking and opium trade.
Mandates System: Oversaw territories like Palestine (Britain) and South West Africa (South Africa), though criticized as veiled colonialism.
Challenges and Failures (1920s–1930s)
The League’s weaknesses became evident as global tensions rose:
Structural Flaws:
Unanimous voting in the Assembly and Council paralyzed decision-making.
No military force to enforce decisions; relied on economic sanctions or moral pressure.
Key Absences:
The U.S. never joined, weakening the League’s authority.
Germany joined in 1926 but left in 1933; Japan left in 1933; Italy in 1937; the Soviet Union joined late (1934) and was expelled in 1939.
Major Failures:
Manchuria Crisis (1931–1933): Japan invaded Manchuria, and the League’s condemnation (Lytton Report) led to Japan’s withdrawal from the League. No effective action was taken.
Abyssinia Crisis (1935–1936): Italy invaded Ethiopia. The League imposed sanctions, but Britain and France’s reluctance to enforce them (e.g., Suez Canal access) allowed Italy’s conquest.Disarmament Failure: The 1932–1934 Disarmament Conference collapsed as Germany, under Hitler, rearmed and left the League.
Spanish Civil War (1936–1939) and German Aggression: The League was sidelined as Nazi Germany annexed Austria (1938) and Czechoslovakia (1939), and the Spanish conflict raged without League intervention.
Decline and Dissolution (1939–1946)
World War II: The League was irrelevant during the war (1939–1945), as its mechanisms failed to prevent aggression by Germany, Italy, and Japan. It held its last Assembly in 1939.
Soviet-Finnish War (1939): The League expelled the Soviet Union for invading Finland, its only such expulsion, but this had little impact.
Dissolution: In April 1946, the League formally dissolved, transferring its assets and some functions (e.g., mandates) to the newly formed United Nations (UN).Legacy:
The League’s failures highlighted the need for a stronger international body, influencing the UN’s design (e.g., Security Council with veto powers).
Its humanitarian work and technical organizations (e.g., health, labor) laid groundwork for UN agencies like WHO and ILO.
Demonstrated the limits of collective security without universal participation and enforcement.
Google AI on whether it would be coherent for an agnostic to embrace ID
Yes, an agnostic can believe in intelligent design. Agnosticism is the view that the existence or non-existence of God is unknown or unknowable, while intelligent design (ID) is a theory that proposes an intelligent cause for the origin of life rather than natural processes. An agnostic could accept the evidence presented by ID for a designer without necessarily committing to a specific God or religious belief.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
Agnosticism and the Knowability of God:
Agnostics believe that the existence or non-existence of God is not something that can be definitively proven or disproven through scientific or philosophical means. They may hold that the question is ultimately unanswerable or that the answer is beyond human comprehension.
Intelligent Design and the Role of a Designer:
Intelligent design proponents argue that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, rather than purely natural processes like evolution. They often point to complexities like irreducibly complex biological systems as evidence for a designer.
The Agnostic's Position:
An agnostic can agree with the ID argument for a designer without needing to believe in a specific God or religion. They may acknowledge the apparent evidence for design without committing to a particular divine entity.
Examples:
Some individuals who are agnostics on the existence of God might still be open to the idea of an intelligent force behind life, even if they don't believe in a particular deity.
In essence, while agnosticism focuses on the unknowability of ultimate reality, intelligent design focuses on the apparent evidence for a designer in the natural world. An agnostic can accept the ID claim without committing to a specific religious or theological framework.
https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/seeking-god-in-science-an-atheist-defends-intelligent-design/
Wednesday, 23 April 2025
Sea turtles global positioning system for the win.
Sea Turtles and Their Trusty Magnetic Compass
Many different animals use the Earth’s magnetic field to navigate when migrating. Because of their impressive long-distance migration, birds are probably the animals best known for their feats of navigation, including the use of a magnetic compass. Sea turtles also well known for impressive navigation and migration.
The magnetic field has three components — declination (angle relative to true north), inclination (angle relative to horizontal), and intensity (field strength). The inclination angle points straight down at the North Pole, is horizontal at the equator, and points straight up at the South Pole. All of the magnetic field components vary geographically. Unlike latitude, there is no regular variation in the Earth’s magnetic characteristics with longitude, which means there is no simple relationship between the detected field and the actual longitude. A simple compass only detects horizontal direction.
Despite this, as described in my book Animal Algorithms1, research found a mechanism in loggerhead sea turtles that allows them to use the magnetic field to calculate longitude, information the turtles use to navigate on their migration journey in the North Atlantic Ocean. Similarly, it was also previously determined that spiny lobsters can detect longitude as well as latitude, and can orient in the proper direction toward home from a distance of 23 miles. Being able to detect multiple components of the magnetic field, specifically the intensity and inclination, enables animals to form a bicoordinate map. The use of this map sense provides much more accurate navigation capability than is available with just a simple compass.
Magnetic Compass Memory
A recent paper published in the journal Nature examined several aspects related to how sea turtles use the magnetic field. One was their ability to remember specific geomagnetic locations. The other was to attempt to determine which magnetoreception system that sea turtles employ. Regarding the first aspect, one conclusion from the research is that, “The results provide strong evidence that loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) can learn the magnetic signatures of specific geographical areas. Such an ability has, to our knowledge, never before been demonstrated in any animal.”2 The paper explains the findings in more detail, “Our results demonstrate that turtles can remember the magnetic signature of an area over time spans relevant to their migration patterns; turtles continued to recognize the magnetic field in which they had been fed 4 months after the conditioning period, despite having no additional exposure to the learned magnetic field. Results also demonstrate that turtles can learn the magnetic signatures associated with more than one location.” The practical implication of the results could explain how sea turtles can accurately return to their nesting beaches and foraging regions, even after long time periods. Sea turtles can go several years between visits to their home nesting beaches.
Magnetoreception Mechanism
Despite a significant amount of research and discoveries about the use of the magnetic field by animals, as stated in the Nature paper, “The biophysical mechanism or mechanisms underlying the magnetic map and compass senses have not been determined unequivocally in any animal.” Previous research has shown that determination of specific magnetic signatures requires the detection of both inclination and intensity. Several different mechanisms of magnetoreception have been proposed. One of the mechanisms is the so-called “radical pair theory” that light induces the formation of radical pairs, and that the spin state of these electrons is influenced by the magnetic field. This is a chemical process, with the leading hypothesis involving cryptochrome, a photoreceptive protein.
The research documented in the Nature paper included an experiment to determine if radio frequency fields affect turtle’s magnetoreception. If that is the case, it would provide confirmation that detection is based on the radical pair mechanism. The results showed that the map sense was not affected by radio frequency fields, but that the magnetic compass is affected. The results appear to indicate that the magnetic map sense of sea turtles does not rely on chemical magnetoreception. The authors of the paper observe that the results indicate that, “Two different mechanisms of magnetoreception probably exist in sea turtles; a mechanism underlying the compass sense that is disrupted by radiofrequency fields, and a mechanism underlying the map sense that is not.”3
The obvious question is: Why would an animal have two different mechanisms of magnetoreception? The paper’s authors speculate that the turtle migration pattern is achieved, “In part by using their magnetic map sense to identify magnetic signatures encountered along the route and then using their magnetic compass sense to swim in appropriate directions to help them progress along the migratory route.”
Indicating Intelligent Design
The authors speculate on the origin of two different methods of magnetoreception, “In principle, dual mechanisms might arise if the optimal way to detect direction differs from the best way to detect magnetic parameters associated with positional information, resulting in two magnetic senses, each optimized for different tasks.” Of course, just because it makes logical sense from the standpoint of optimal biological design, it does not mean it will occur through the Darwinian process of random variation and natural selection. In addition, there is a significant difference between a relatively simple directional compass and a true map sense. The latter requires several elements: detection of multiple components of the magnetic field; construction of a map; conversion of the magnetic field measurements to map coordinates; storing coordinates of locations in memory; and, relating a destination goal to the map coordinates. All of these elements exhibit specified complexity that is indicative of intelligent design.
Notes
Eric Cassell, Animal Algorithms (Discovery Institute Press: Seattle, 2021).
Goforth, et al., “Learned magnetic map cues and two mechanisms of magnetoreception in turtles,” Nature, Vol. 638, 8052 27 February 2025, 1015-1022.
Goforth, et al., “Learned magnetic map cues and two mechanisms of magnetoreception in turtles.”
Tuesday, 22 April 2025
Monday, 21 April 2025
Even mouse brain for the win?
Even a Mouse Brain Reveals Staggering Complexity
The science media have been ablaze recently with a major achievement: Princeton neuroscientists have mapped the staggering complexity of a cubic millimetre of the visual area of a mouse’s brain — about a poppy seed’s worth. That was a remarkable achievement on account of the complexity of even a mouse’s brain.
Mouse Meets Matrix
PBS tells us that the mouse gave the scientists’ data by watching, among other things, The Matrix: (1999):
Thanks to a mouse watching clips from “The Matrix,” scientists have created the largest functional map of a brain to date — a diagram of the wiring connecting 84,000 neurons as they fire off messages.
Using a piece of that mouse’s brain about the size of a poppy seed, the researchers identified those neurons and traced how they communicated via branch-like fibers through a surprising 500 million junctions called synapses.
The massive dataset, published Wednesday by the journal Nature, marks a step toward unraveling the mystery of how our brains work. The data, assembled in a 3D reconstruction colored to delineate different brain circuitry, is open to scientists worldwide for additional research — and for the simply curious to take a peek.
“HOW A MOUSE WATCHING ‘THE MATRIX’ HELPED SCIENTISTS CREATE THE LARGEST MAP OF A BRAIN TO DATE,” APRIL 9, 2025. THE PAPERS FROM THE PROJECT ARE HERE
At the New York Times, science writer Carl Zimmer provides a bit of perspective.
The human brain is so complex that scientific brains have a hard time making sense of it. A piece of neural tissue the size of a grain of sand might be packed with hundreds of thousands of cells linked together by miles of wiring. In 1979, Francis Crick, the Nobel-prize-winning scientist, concluded that the anatomy and activity in just a cubic millimeter of brain matter would forever exceed our understanding.
“It is no use asking for the impossible,” Dr. Crick wrote.
Forty-six years later, a team of more than 100 scientists has achieved that impossible, by recording the cellular activity and mapping the structure in a cubic millimeter of a mouse’s brain — less than one percent of its full volume. In accomplishing this feat, they amassed 1.6 petabytes of data — the equivalent of 22 years of nonstop high-definition video.
“AN ADVANCE IN BRAIN RESEARCH THAT WAS ONCE CONSIDERED IMPOSSIBLE”, APRIL 9, 2025
At the New York Times, science writer Carl Zimmer provides a bit of perspective:
The human brain is so complex that scientific brains have a hard time making sense of it. A piece of neural tissue the size of a grain of sand might be packed with hundreds of thousands of cells linked together by miles of wiring. In 1979, Francis Crick, the Nobel-prize-winning scientist, concluded that the anatomy and activity in just a cubic millimeter of brain matter would forever exceed our understanding.
“It is no use asking for the impossible,” Dr. Crick wrote.
Forty-six years later, a team of more than 100 scientists has achieved that impossible, by recording the cellular activity and mapping the structure in a cubic millimeter of a mouse’s brain — less than one percent of its full volume. In accomplishing this feat, they amassed 1.6 petabytes of data — the equivalent of 22 years of nonstop high-definition video.
“AN ADVANCE IN BRAIN RESEARCH THAT WAS ONCE CONSIDERED IMPOSSIBLE”, APRIL 9, 2025
Materialism’s Last Stop
The underlying message of Zimmer’s article is that the human brain is really the same sort of thing, just more complex, and we will reduce it to a map. And, although no one quite says it, the human mind is to be understood as merely the output of a complex brain. The news release from Princeton made that clear:
“It’s just a beginning,” [team co-lead] Seung said. “But it’s opening the door to a new era of realistic brain simulations. And so the next question becomes — and people will ask — can that ever be done with a human brain? And then the next question is, well, even if you could simulate a human brain, and it was very faithful, would it be conscious?”
When asked what he thought about it, he laughed. “I don’t have any more authority to make a statement on that than you do. But when people say, ‘I don’t believe a simulation of a brain would be conscious,’ then I say, ‘Well, how do you know you’re not a simulation?’”
SCOTT LYON, “SCIENTISTS MAP THE HALF-BILLION CONNECTIONS THAT ALLOW MICE TO SEE,” APRIL 9, 2025
The problem with Seung’s reasoning is, of course, this: If we don’t know that we are not simulations, we also don’t know that anything we think we know is real. Life in The Matrix is a high price to pay in order to maintain a materialist view of the mind.
And if it takes a hundred scientists to map a cubic millimeter of a mouse’s brain, even the material world — never mind the immaterial world of the mind — is not likely to have a simple explanation.
On the triumph of the design heuristic
Plato’s Revenge: Mathematical Biologist Richard Sternberg Foresaw Major Developments in Biology
A week from today, Discovery Institute Press will release David Klinghoffer’s book Plato’s Revenge: The New Science of the Immaterial Genome. It can be pre-ordered here. The book traces the ideas and the intellectual journey of mathematical biologist Richard Sternberg, who offers rigorous scientific evidence that the true control center of life lies not in DNA alone, but in a timeless, non-material mathematical structure. Influenced by the renowned theoretical biologist Robert Rosen, Sternberg carries forward the tradition of relational biology — a framework increasingly recognized by visionary scientists as a foundation for the future of biological understanding. Drawing on its principles, Sternberg anticipated many of the most significant biological discoveries of the past two decades
Demise of Junk DNA
One of the clearest tests of the predictive power of evolutionary theory versus intelligent design concerns the proportion of the human genome that is nonfunctional. Under the evolutionary framework, a substantial amount of “junk DNA” — nonfunctional genetic material — is expected as a byproduct of random mutations ( here, here). In contrast, proponents of intelligent design predicted that most of the genome would have a function, even if not yet fully understood.
In 2002, Richard Sternberg published a paper in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences challenging the assumption that vast portions of the genome are nonfunctional, proposing instead that much of this DNA likely serves important biological roles, such as regulating protein production. Other intelligent design theorists, including Forrest Mims, William Dembski, and Jonathan Wells, also predicted function in junk DNA. Subsequent research by the ENCODE project and other groups has supported this view, demonstrating that most of the genome is biochemically functional and undermining the earlier assumption that “junk DNA” was largely useless (here, here).
Information Beyond DNA
Sternberg also anticipated decades ago that much of the information for life resides outside of DNA. Multiple studies have confirmed this prediction. Jonathan Wells provided several examples in his 2014 review article “Membrane Patterns Carry Ontogenetic Information That Is Specified Independently of DNA.” More recently, Oxford physiologist Denis Noble argued that DNA is not the privileged center of control for organisms, but instead, “organisms control their genomes.” He summarizes his dethroning of DNA as follows:
To think that the genome completely determines the organism is almost as absurd as thinking that the pipes in a large cathedral organ determine what the organist plays. Of course, it was the composer who did that in writing the score, and the organist himself who interprets it. The pipes are his passive instruments until he brings them to life in a pattern that he imposes on them, just as multi-cellular organisms use the same genome to generate all the 200 or so different types of cells in their bodies by activating different expression patterns.
Similarly, developmental and synthetic biologist Michael Levin, at Harvard and Tufts, has argued that an animal’s overall body architecture is not directly determined by DNA but by electric fields generated by the developing embryo. He has also argued (here) for higher levels in the organizational hierarchy controlling lower levels:
A top-down model would specify how the target morphology is represented within tissues, what cellular processes underlie the computations that drive the system from a novel starting condition to that goal state (and stop when it has been achieved), and how those computations about large-scale anatomical metrics become transduced into low-level marching orders for cells and molecular signalling cascades….Patterns of bioelectric signalling have been shown to serve as master regulators (module activators) and prepatterns for complex anatomical structures, coordinating downstream gene expression cascades and single cell behaviours towards specific patterning.
These and other researchers have validated Sternberg’s expectation of an extended genome (i.e., information beyond DNA).
Mind Before Matter
Sternberg’s most striking prediction is that the genome is immaterial, implying that standard algorithms do not govern biological processes. This non-algorithmic view of life is gaining increasing recognition. As I wrote here last week, Garte, Marshall, and Kauffman (2025) recently emphasized emerging research that not only supports the non-algorithmic nature of biology but also argues that life is fundamentally governed by cognition (see, “New Article Calls for a Philosophical Revolution in Biology, Placing Mind Over Matter”). The centrality of cognition is further emphasized in the Vienna Series in Theoretical Biology volume Evolution “On Purpose”: Teleonomy in Living Systems, edited by Peter A. Corning et al., which features multiple chapters defending the foundational role of cognition and advancing the case for goal-directedness and purpose in biological systems.
Professor Michael Levin, mentioned earlier, coincides still more strikingly with Sternberg by arguing (here) that biology is governed by Platonic forms:
Here, I discuss an unconventional research program into the origin of these patterns. I argue that genetics and environment are not sufficient to explain or make use of the remarkable intelligence of the agential material of life. I argue that the current reliance on emergence is a mysterian approach that limits progress, and instead propose a systematic investigation of the patterns of life and mind that ingress into both biological and synthetic embodiments. In short, I make the metaphysical hypothesis that the emergent patterns we observe are not random but are part of an ordered Platonic space of forms which have a causal influence on the outcomes of evolution and engineering.
He even argues that some of the Platonic forms correspond to minds:
I have argued for a Pythagorean or radical Platonist view in which some of the causal input into mind and life originates outside the physical world. A number of mathematicians, computer scientists, and even physicists, including Heisenberg, Tegmark, Deutsch, Ellis, and Penrose have expressed variants of this stance. But this position is unpopular with philosophers of mind because it is fundamentally a dualist theory (by emphasizing causes that are not to be found in physical events), and implies panpsychism (because a very wide range of physical objects could be interfaces to varieties of minds). I have argued that a kind of panpsychism is unavoidable, and it seems that by taking what mathematicians do seriously, we have already abandoned the physicalist worldview; all that remains is to notice that evolution (not just human mathematicians) is exploring the same space of patterns and embrace the idea that since we are patterns too, patterns can be agential (and thus, Platonic space can include minds, not just passive truths)
Sternberg may well have predicted and laid the groundwork for the next great scientific revolution. Only time will tell.
What's in a name?VII
Find article here.
4. There is strong evidence that Matthew (and possibly other NT writers) wrote his Gospel in Hebrew (Aramaic). If this is so, the inspired Bible writer would surely have used the personal name of God! The Hebrew manuscripts at that time (and for many hundreds of years thereafter) contained the Name nearly 7000 times. Whenever Matthew (and the Hebrew-speaking Jesus and his Apostles) quoted from the Hebrew scriptures, he would have used the Name just as it is found in the Hebrew scriptures.
The WT Society also believes Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew (Aramaic):
"In the fourth century, Jerome, who translated the Latin Vulgate, reported: `Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language.... Who translated it after that in Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Moreover, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea.' Since Matthew wrote in Hebrew, it is inconceivable that he did not use God's name, especially when quoting from parts of the `Old Testament' that contained the name." - p. 24, The Divine Name That Will Endure Forever, WTBTS, 1984.
Noted trinitarian scholar F. F. Bruce agrees that the Gospel of Matthew (at least) was originally written in Hebrew (Aramaic) and cites another source as evidence:
"Aramaic is known to have been the common language of Palestine, and especially of Galilee, in the time of Christ, and was in all probability the language which He and his Apostles habitually spoke. The New Testament writers usually call it `Hebrew,' thus not distinguishing between it and its sister language in which most of the Old Testament was written. Now, we have evidence of an early Aramaic document in another fragment of Papias [c. 60-130 A. D.]: `Matthew compiled the Logia [literally, "the collection" - Thayer] in the `Hebrew' speech [i.e. Aramaic], and everyone translated them [into Greek] as best he could.' " - p. 38, The New Testament Documents, Eerdmans Publ., 1992 printing.
So, whether originally written in Greek or "Hebrew," the writings of the New Testament should have used the Name of God, especially in quotes from the Old Testament.
And when we restore the name of God to the NT, we eliminate the confusing contradiction of Matt. 22:43-45 and its parallels (Mk 12:36-37; Lk. 20:42-44) where Jesus quoted Ps. 110:1.
"How does David in the Spirit call him `Lord,' [kurios] saying, `The LORD [kurios] said to my Lord [kurios], "sit at my right hand, until I put thine enemies beneath thy feet." ' If David then calls him `Lord,' [kurios] how is he his son?" - Matt. 22:43-45, NASB.
Literally this says in the NT Greek:
"How therefore David in spirit is calling him Lord [kurios] saying Said `Lord [kurios] to the Lord [kurios] of me Be sitting out of right hand of me until likely I should put the enemies of you beneath the feet of you'? If therefore David is calling him Lord [kurios], how son of him is he?"- The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, WTB&TS, 1985.
First, of course, it doesn't say "The LORD said..."; it actually says "LORD said..." because the original was "JEHOVAH" (without "the," of course) and "Lord" was substituted for this name later (still without "the").
Second, in this version there are two uses of "Lord" [kurios], but Jesus speaks as though there is only one (because there really was only one "Lord" [kurios in the Greek here] at the time he spoke it! The other word that later copyists changed to kurios was originally "JEHOVAH" as can be seen by actually looking at the OT manuscripts that have the scripture Jesus was quoting!).
Third, not only is it confusing to have two uses of kurios here, but, if we insist on this version, it would be grammatically much more accurate to select the first use of this word (the substitute for "JEHOVAH") as the one Jesus was referring to. Since he said, "If David calls him `Lord'..." but not "David calls him `the Lord' (or `my Lord')...", it would be proper to say that Jesus was referring to the first `LORD' (which is without the word "the") in that quote from the OT. In reality, of course, he was actually referring to the "second" use of kurios as found in modern texts! All this would be smoothed out if the name were simply restored to the NT where it obviously was originally: "JEHOVAH said to my Lord" as found in the original Hebrew Old Testament Scripture at Ps. 110:1 which Jesus was quoting - ASV.
"Since confession of Jesus as Lord was the mark of the Christian and since for Christians there was no other Lord, it was natural for Paul to speak of `the Lord' when he wished to refer to Jesus. It is true that the same title was used to refer to God the Father, and that this can lead to a certain ambiguity as to whether God or Jesus is meant (this is especially the case in Acts; ...); generally, however, `LORD' is used for God by Paul almost exclusively in quotations from the OT" - p. 590, New Bible Dictionary, Tyndale House Publ., 1982.
Again, if the name of God were restored, there would not be so much "ambiguity" because these uses of `Lord' in quotations from the OT were originally `JEHOVAH' and hence there was no ambiguity or risk of confusion at all until later copyists changed that divine name in the NT manuscripts to kurios!
5. Of course Jesus used the name "JEHOVAH" in such places. He was a speaker of Hebrew who was quoting (or reading) scripture to other speakers of Hebrew. Of course he would use the Hebrew scriptures rather than the Greek Septuagint scriptures when quoting to these people. It would have been ludicrous for Jesus to have quoted from the Septuagint to these people when most of them would not have understood the Greek language of the Septuagint in the first place.
The native-born Jews in Israel spoke, of course, Hebrew. The Roman conquerors and administrators of the Empire spoke Latin. And the many businessmen and commercial travelers who visited and resided in Israel understood, in addition to their own languages, the common language of commerce in the Mediterranean world: Greek.
Of course there were some Jews who could speak Latin and/or Greek. There were some Romans who could speak Greek (and probably even a very few who could speak Hebrew also). And there were undoubtedly some foreigners there who could speak Latin (and probably a very few who could speak Hebrew also). But, by and large, if you wished to communicate with the majority of the Jews, you would have to do it in Hebrew (or the closely-related Aramaic). And if you wished to communicate with the Romans, you would have to do it in Latin, and so on.
So when Jesus was teaching the Jews from the holy scriptures, he was doing so in Hebrew.
If we should doubt such an obvious conclusion that the majority of Jews did not understand Greek (and therefore Jesus would not have taught them by quoting or reading from the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint), we only need to look at John 19:19, 20.
"And Pilate wrote an inscription also .... Therefore this inscription many of the Jews read, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Latin, and in Greek." - NASB
Obviously the Latin was so the Romans could read the information about Jesus, and the Greek was so the foreign merchants and travelers could read about Jesus. But Pilate certainly would not have gone to the trouble of writing 1/3 of the sign in Hebrew if most of the Jews could already read one of the other two languages on that sign! It is obvious from this passage alone that many of them could not understand Greek and needed to read Hebrew to understand what Pilate wanted them to know!
Therefore, Jesus must have quoted from the Hebrew Bible when reading to the Jews. And the Hebrew Bible which he quoted at
Mt 21:42 actually says: "This is JEHOVAH'S doing; it is marvelous in our eyes" (Ps. 118:23)
Mt 22:37 - "And you shall love JEHOVAH your God with all your heart..." (Deut. 6:5)
Mt 22:44 - "JEHOVAH said to my Lord: `Sit at my right hand...'" (Ps. 110:1)
Jn 12:38 - "... to whom has the arm of JEHOVAH been revealed?" (Is. 53:1)
6.
"Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Meir [`Second century rabbi who prepared a systematic edition of traditional Jewish law and doctrine, which paved the way for the final edition of the Mishnah' - p. 479, An Encyclopedia of Religion] are said to have made unfriendly puns on the word Euangelion [`the Greek word for "Gospel"' - p. 102] by altering its vowels to make it read 'Awen-gillayon or `Awon-gillayon, meaning [in Hebrew/Aramaic] something like `Iniquity of the Margin' ...." - p. 102, The New Testament Documents - Are they Reliable?, F. F. Bruce, Eerdmans Publ., 1992 printing.
So the word `margin' (gillayon) was used in a derogatory way for a Gospel ("most probably ... the Gospel according to Matthew" as first written in Hebrew or Aramaic - p. 102) of the Christians by these two very early Rabbis.
And when this word is made plural (`margins') it becomes gillayonim (or gilyohnim). Therefore, it is probable that this word was used derogatorily to denote copies of a Christian Gospel written in Hebrew (or Aramaic).
7. "From the middle of the 2nd century AD [around 150 AD] Christians who had some training in Greek philosophy began to feel the need to express their faith in its terms [instead of the original traditional Jewish terms]" – The New Encyclopaedia Britannica.
8. We can see that the source of Halleluia in existing copies of the Septuagint is really two words in the original Hebrew. For example the Hahlayloo Yah of Psalm 146:1 is obviously two separate Hebrew words: Hahlayloo [`praise ye'] and Yah [`Jehovah']. And yet, our oldest existing copies of the ancient Septuagint show these two words combined into one `new' word in Greek: Halleluia. And the same Greek word, Halleluia [ JAllhlouia], which was found in the earliest copies of John's Revelation, was likewise treated by copyists of the 2nd century. Whether John himself had combined the two words into one for the benefit of those Hellenic Jews to whom he wrote (who were familiar with the term as it was found in the Septuagint) or whether early copyists had done it to conform with the Septuagint is not the point here.
9. And, of course, it was passed along from its Septuagint use to other early Christian writings:
"The more diligent in prayer are wont to subjoin in their prayers the `Hallelujah,' and such kind of psalms, in the closes of which the company respond. And, of course, every institution is excellent which, for the extolling and honoring of God, aims unitedly to bring Him enriched prayer as a choice victim." - Tertullian (3rd cent. A.D.), ch. 27, `On Prayer,' The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3, Eerdmans Publ., 1993 printing.
"And afterwards the deacon holding the mingled cup of the oblation shall say the Psalm from those in which is written `Hallelujah' [in the Septuagint].... And afterwards the bishop having offered the cup as is proper for the cup, he shall say the Psalm `Hallelujah.' And all of them as he recites the Psalms shall say `Hallelujah,' which is to say: We praise Him who is God most high" - Hippolytus (c. 160-235 A.D.), `The Apostolic Tradition,' 26:29-30 as quoted from The Treatise on the Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus of Rome, The Alban Press, London, 1992 ed.
10. Dr. F. F. Bruce correctly points out that, strictly speaking, the LXX deals only with the Law and not the whole Old Testament. Bruce writes, "The Jews might have gone on at a later time to authorize a standard text of the rest of the Septuagint, but . . . lost interest in the Septuagint altogether. With but few exceptions, every manuscript of the Septuagint which has come down to our day was copied and preserved in Christian, not Jewish, circles." (The Books and the Parchments, p.150). This is important to note because the manuscripts which consist of our LXX today date to the third century AD. Although there are fragments which pre-date Christianity and some of the Hebrew DSS agree with the LXX, the majority of manuscripts we have of the LXX date well into the Christian era. And, not all of these agree. - http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/septuag.htm - RDB.
Sunday, 20 April 2025
Now the Czech republic is seduced by the dark side
Czech Republic in the Footsteps of Russia? Jehovah’s Witnesses Threatened with Liquidation
The Ministry of Culture is about to start proceedings whose consequences would be draconian.
When Petr Pavel was inaugurated as the new President of the Czech Republic in March 2023, he vowed to align the country with European Union human rights standards. He also emerged as a staunch critic of the human rights violations in Russia. Some developments with respect to small minority religions were in fact regarded by local human rights activists as hopeful.
However, these hopes have now been shattered by an unprecedented move by the Czech Ministry of Culture. It appears that the Czech Republic still maintains among its laws a statute on “religious freedom” dated January 7, 2002, which includes some draconian Russian-style, or perhaps Soviet-style, provisions on the “liquidation” of religious organizations. According to this law, “a church is formed as a legal entity by registration” (article 6.1). Registration can be denied and, once obtained, can be lost, including if the church’s activity are deemed to be “in violation of the law” (article 22.1.c).This is a vague provision, but the consequences are not vague at all. If it believes that a “violation of the law” has occurred, “the Ministry shall, prior to initiating de-registration proceedings, instruct the registered church or association of churches to cease and desist from engaging in such unauthorized activities. Should the registered church or association of churches continue to engage in said activities, the Ministry [of Culture] shall initiate its procedure for de-registration” (article 22.2).“The registration of a church or an association of churches is terminated when the Ministry’s decision to de-register becomes effective” (article 24.1). “Upon the de-registration of a church, the church and all of its recorded church legal entities shall be liquidated” (article 24.2). Liquidators will be appointed and they “shall notify the Ministry of the conclusion of liquidation proceedings within five business days of said conclusion” (article 24.5). Unless the liquidated church had previously indicated another church to which the proceeds of the liquidation should be transferred, “the net proceeds shall accrue to the State, which shall use the net proceeds for the benefit of other registered churches” (article 24.6).Happily, these draconian provisions are rarely applied. However, on September 5, 2024, the Ministry of Culture sent to the Czech Religious Association of the Jehovah’s Witnesses (RAJW) the cease and desist letter mentioned in article 22.2. The Ministry gave to the RAJW three months for ceasing and desisting from certain “activities,” warning them that if they do not comply within the term the de-registration proceedings will be initiated. Various meetings between representatives of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Ministry failed to resolve the issue. On November 26, the Jehovah’s Witnesses received confirmation that the cease and desist letter stands. Since on December 5, the three-month period ended, they are currently waiting for an official communication from the Ministry about the initiation of the deregistration proceedings.In 2023, the Jehovah’s Witnesses celebrated 100 years of publication of “The Watchtower” in Czech language. Source: JW.org.The “activities” the Ministry regards as illegal are all features of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ teachings and lifestyles that have been examined by courts of law throughout the world and regarded as lawful and protected by domestic and international principles of freedom of religion or belief, with the exception of Russia and partially of Norway. In the latter country, however, a court decision is under appeal and does not threaten the Jehovah’s Witnesses with liquidation but “only” (between brackets, because these are serious limitations of their religious liberty) with the loss of state subsidies and certain other faculties, including the possibly of celebrating legally valid marriages.The first and second objections of the Czech Ministry deal with the same matter being litigated in Norway. It is alleged that by teaching the practice of counseling members not to associate with ex-members (except cohabiting relatives) who have been expelled as guilty and unrepentant of serious sins or have publicly disassociated themselves from the organization, the Jehovah’s Witnesses violate the right of their members to change their religious beliefs. The fear, it is argued, compels members who would like to leave to remain in the organization.The second objection adds that this is even more dangerous when “children” (meaning minors) are expelled, or they remain within the Jehovah’s Witnesses but are prevented from associating with friends and relatives who have been expelled or have publicly left the organization. The Czech Ministry’s letter does not clarify whether any minor was expelled in the Czech Republic. Cases of expulsion of minors are indeed extremely rare.This matter has been litigated in a good dozen of countries, resulting in decisions unanimously favorable to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, except (as mentioned earlier) in Russia and in a non-final decision in Norway. Courts have observed that in fact nobody can be compelled to associate with persons, including relatives, they no longer want to associate with, and that suspending relationships is a common fact in our societies as a consequence of all sorts of quarrels. Former spouses and other relatives often cease relationships with divorced ex-spouses. In fact, opponents do not ask courts to compel Jehovah’s Witnesses to associate with expelled or apostate ex-members, which would be practically impossible, but to prohibit the Jehovah’s Witnesses from teaching that relationships should be suspended.However, in some form, that relationships should cease is clearly taught in the Bible 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”: all quotes from the New International Version). How to read these passages is a matter of Biblical interpretation that cannot be adjudicated by secular courts without a gross violation of freedom of religion.The third charge is that the Jehovah’s Witnesses use “psychological coercion to create dependency, which leads to psychological harm to individuals or their family members or damage to their social relationships.” By reading the explanatory part of the cease and desist letter, it seems that “psychological coercion” is allegedly practiced by avoiding relationships with expelled or apostate ex-members, which would make the third charge a duplicate of the first. On the other hand, the charge itself uses the language of the discredited theory of “brainwashing” or “psychological subjection” allegedly used by religious movements, debunked since the past century by mainline academic scholars of religion and rejected by courts of law in most democratic countries (with the exception of France, whose campaigns against “cults” have received widespread international criticism).The fourth charge relates to the question of blood transfusions to minors, including in cases when they are “necessary to save the child’s life.” Again, the letter does not mention whether specific incidents happened in the Czech Republic.The Czech Ministry failed to consider that in most democratic and medically advanced countries the issue is becoming moot as hospitals can provide appropriate care that does not involve a blood transfusion. On their official website, Jehovah’s Witnesses refer to various medical studies showing that “patients, including children, who do not receive transfusions usually fare as well as or better than those who do accept transfusions.” When Jehovah’s Witnesses wish to receive assistance in finding doctors who can provide bloodless treatment, they can seek the help of Hospital Liaison Committees, which have been established for this purpose.In most democratic countries, courts—including the European Court of Human Rights in 2010 (“Jehovah’s Witnesses of Moscow and Others v. Russia,” June 10) and 2022 (“Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia,” November 22), and the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation in 2020 (3rd Civil Session, decision of 4–23 December 2020, no. 29469)—have ruled that adult patients have a right to refuse any medical treatment and protected the right of the Jehovah’s Witnesses to refuse blood transfusions. In several jurisdictions, this also applies to “mature minors.”
BITTER WINTER
HOME
ABOUT CHINA▼
FROM THE WORLD▼
INTERVIEWS
DOCUMENTS AND TRANSLATIONS▼
ABOUT
EDITORIAL BOARD
TOPICS
Search
Skip to main content
Skip to footer
BITTER WINTER
Home / From the World / News Global
Czech Republic in the Footsteps of Russia? Jehovah’s Witnesses Threatened with Liquidation
01/02/2025MASSIMO INTROVIGNEA+ | A-
The Ministry of Culture is about to start proceedings whose consequences would be draconian.
by Massimo Introvigne
The Czech Ministry of Culture, Prague. Credits.
The Czech Ministry of Culture, Prague. Credits.
When Petr Pavel was inaugurated as the new President of the Czech Republic in March 2023, he vowed to align the country with European Union human rights standards. He also emerged as a staunch critic of the human rights violations in Russia. Some developments with respect to small minority religions were in fact regarded by local human rights activists as hopeful.
However, these hopes have now been shattered by an unprecedented move by the Czech Ministry of Culture. It appears that the Czech Republic still maintains among its laws a statute on “religious freedom” dated January 7, 2002, which includes some draconian Russian-style, or perhaps Soviet-style, provisions on the “liquidation” of religious organizations. According to this law, “a church is formed as a legal entity by registration” (article 6.1). Registration can be denied and, once obtained, can be lost, including if the church’s activity are deemed to be “in violation of the law” (article 22.1.c).
This is a vague provision, but the consequences are not vague at all. If it believes that a “violation of the law” has occurred, “the Ministry shall, prior to initiating de-registration proceedings, instruct the registered church or association of churches to cease and desist from engaging in such unauthorized activities. Should the registered church or association of churches continue to engage in said activities, the Ministry [of Culture] shall initiate its procedure for de-registration” (article 22.2).
“The registration of a church or an association of churches is terminated when the Ministry’s decision to de-register becomes effective” (article 24.1). “Upon the de-registration of a church, the church and all of its recorded church legal entities shall be liquidated” (article 24.2). Liquidators will be appointed and they “shall notify the Ministry of the conclusion of liquidation proceedings within five business days of said conclusion” (article 24.5). Unless the liquidated church had previously indicated another church to which the proceeds of the liquidation should be transferred, “the net proceeds shall accrue to the State, which shall use the net proceeds for the benefit of other registered churches” (article 24.6).
Happily, these draconian provisions are rarely applied. However, on September 5, 2024, the Ministry of Culture sent to the Czech Religious Association of the Jehovah’s Witnesses (RAJW) the cease and desist letter mentioned in article 22.2. The Ministry gave to the RAJW three months for ceasing and desisting from certain “activities,” warning them that if they do not comply within the term the de-registration proceedings will be initiated. Various meetings between representatives of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Ministry failed to resolve the issue. On November 26, the Jehovah’s Witnesses received confirmation that the cease and desist letter stands. Since on December 5, the three-month period ended, they are currently waiting for an official communication from the Ministry about the initiation of the deregistration proceedings.
In 2023, the Jehovah’s Witnesses celebrated 100 years of publication of “The Watchtower” in Czech language. Source: JW.org.
In 2023, the Jehovah’s Witnesses celebrated 100 years of publication of “The Watchtower” in Czech language. Source: JW.org.
The “activities” the Ministry regards as illegal are all features of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ teachings and lifestyles that have been examined by courts of law throughout the world and regarded as lawful and protected by domestic and international principles of freedom of religion or belief, with the exception of Russia and partially of Norway. In the latter country, however, a court decision is under appeal and does not threaten the Jehovah’s Witnesses with liquidation but “only” (between brackets, because these are serious limitations of their religious liberty) with the loss of state subsidies and certain other faculties, including the possibly of celebrating legally valid marriages.
The first and second objections of the Czech Ministry deal with the same matter being litigated in Norway. It is alleged that by teaching the practice of counseling members not to associate with ex-members (except cohabiting relatives) who have been expelled as guilty and unrepentant of serious sins or have publicly disassociated themselves from the organization, the Jehovah’s Witnesses violate the right of their members to change their religious beliefs. The fear, it is argued, compels members who would like to leave to remain in the organization.
The second objection adds that this is even more dangerous when “children” (meaning minors) are expelled, or they remain within the Jehovah’s Witnesses but are prevented from associating with friends and relatives who have been expelled or have publicly left the organization. The Czech Ministry’s letter does not clarify whether any minor was expelled in the Czech Republic. Cases of expulsion of minors are indeed extremely rare.
This matter has been litigated in a good dozen of countries, resulting in decisions unanimously favorable to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, except (as mentioned earlier) in Russia and in a non-final decision in Norway. Courts have observed that in fact nobody can be compelled to associate with persons, including relatives, they no longer want to associate with, and that suspending relationships is a common fact in our societies as a consequence of all sorts of quarrels. Former spouses and other relatives often cease relationships with divorced ex-spouses. In fact, opponents do not ask courts to compel Jehovah’s Witnesses to associate with expelled or apostate ex-members, which would be practically impossible, but to prohibit the Jehovah’s Witnesses from teaching that relationships should be suspended.
However, in some form, that relationships should cease is clearly taught in the Bible 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”: all quotes from the New International Version). How to read these passages is a matter of Biblical interpretation that cannot be adjudicated by secular courts without a gross violation of freedom of religion.
The third charge is that the Jehovah’s Witnesses use “psychological coercion to create dependency, which leads to psychological harm to individuals or their family members or damage to their social relationships.” By reading the explanatory part of the cease and desist letter, it seems that “psychological coercion” is allegedly practiced by avoiding relationships with expelled or apostate ex-members, which would make the third charge a duplicate of the first. On the other hand, the charge itself uses the language of the discredited theory of “brainwashing” or “psychological subjection” allegedly used by religious movements, debunked since the past century by mainline academic scholars of religion and rejected by courts of law in most democratic countries (with the exception of France, whose campaigns against “cults” have received widespread international criticism).
The fourth charge relates to the question of blood transfusions to minors, including in cases when they are “necessary to save the child’s life.” Again, the letter does not mention whether specific incidents happened in the Czech Republic.
The Czech Ministry failed to consider that in most democratic and medically advanced countries the issue is becoming moot as hospitals can provide appropriate care that does not involve a blood transfusion. On their official website, Jehovah’s Witnesses refer to various medical studies showing that “patients, including children, who do not receive transfusions usually fare as well as or better than those who do accept transfusions.” When Jehovah’s Witnesses wish to receive assistance in finding doctors who can provide bloodless treatment, they can seek the help of Hospital Liaison Committees, which have been established for this purpose.
In most democratic countries, courts—including the European Court of Human Rights in 2010 (“Jehovah’s Witnesses of Moscow and Others v. Russia,” June 10) and 2022 (“Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia,” November 22), and the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation in 2020 (3rd Civil Session, decision of 4–23 December 2020, no. 29469)—have ruled that adult patients have a right to refuse any medical treatment and protected the right of the Jehovah’s Witnesses to refuse blood transfusions. In several jurisdictions, this also applies to “mature minors.”
As for minors who are not “mature,” in the rare cases when doctors believe a blood transfusion is absolutely necessary, and parents or guardians would not authorize it, that dispute can be resolved by a court. In such a case, a parent who is one of Jehovah’s Witnesses will respect the decision made by the court. Courts in democratic countries have also recommended that such measures are adopted only exceptionally. As stated in the Canadian appeal court decision of “M. (J.) v. Alberta (Director of Child Welfare)” (2004 ABQB 512, para. 43), the State “must be careful not to presume that the doctor has always recommended the only acceptable treatment and that Jehovah’s Witness parents are always wrong in denying their consent for treatment by way of blood products. Such a paternalistic attitude impairs the parents’ [constitutional] rights…” In Italy, one of the countries with the largest per capita population of Jehovah’s Witnesses, courts have held that by choosing medical alternatives to blood transfusions, parents who are Jehovah’s Witnesses are not displaying “parental inadequacy,” but are instead conscientiously exercisingbut are instead conscientiously exercising constitutional rights afforded to all parents (Minors Court of Genoa, no. 1109/19, 6 May 2019; Minors Court of Milan, no. 1110/2014, 15 January 2014).
Undisputed champions in the longevity stakes.
The longest-living plants, based on scientific records, include:
Bristlecone Pine (Pinus longaeva): Individual trees can live up to 5,000 years. The oldest known, "Methuselah," is around 4,850 years old.
Pando (Populus tremuloides): A clonal colony of quaking aspen in Utah, estimated at 14,000–80,000 years old, though individual stems live about 130 years.
Norway Spruce (Picea abies): A clonal colony in Sweden, "Old Tjikko," has a root system dated to ~9,500 years.
Lomatia tasmanica (King’s Lomatia): A clonal shrub in Tasmania, with colonies estimated at 43,600 years old.
Yew (Taxus baccata): Individual trees, like the Fortingall Yew in Scotland, may live 2,000–5,000 years.Clonal colonies often outlast individual plants due to their ability to regenerate. Ages are estimated via radiocarbon dating and growth records.
Isaiah ch.65:22NIV"No longer will they build houses and others live in them, or plant and others eat. For as the days of a tree, so will be the days of my people; my chosen ones will long enjoy the work of their hands."
Man is not even an also ran in the longevity stakes according to GROK.
The Greenland shark has an estimated life expectancy of at least 250–500 years, making it one of the longest-living vertebrates on Earth. Studies using radiocarbon dating of their eye lenses suggest some individuals may live over 400 years, with sexual maturity reached around 150 years. Their slow metabolism and cold, deep-water habitat contribute to this extreme longevity.
Bowhead Whale: Up to 200+ years. Radiocarbon dating of harpoon points in blubber suggests some live over two centuries.
Galápagos Tortoise: Around 150–200 years. Famous examples like Harriet lived over 170 years in captivity.
Ocean Quahog Clam: Over 500 years. One specimen, "Ming," was dated to 507 years via shell ring counting.
Galápagos Tortoise: Around 150–200 years. Famous examples like Harriet lived over 170 years in captivity.
Ocean Quahog Clam: Over 500 years. One specimen, "Ming," was dated to 507 years via shell ring counting.
Rougeye Rockfish: Up to 205 years. Age determined by otolith (ear bone) analysis.
Tuatara: Around 100–150 years. These reptiles have slow metabolisms and can live over a century in the wild.Hydra: Potentially immortal. These simple freshwater organisms can regenerate cells indefinitely under ideal conditions.
Parrot (e.g., Macaws): Up to 80–100 years. Some captive parrots, like Cookie the cockatoo, lived nearly a century.
Longevity often correlates with slow metabolisms, stable environments, or regenerative abilities. Deep-sea or cold-climate species, like the Greenland shark, tend to dominate the upper ranges.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)