On Isaac Newton's Arianism

 Yes, Sir Isaac Newton held beliefs aligned with Arian theology, though he kept these views private due to their controversial nature. Arianism, based on the teachings of Arius, denies the full divinity of Jesus Christ, asserting that the Son is a created being, subordinate to God the Father. Newton’s extensive theological writings, including manuscripts like A Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture, reveal his rejection of the traditional doctrine of the Trinity. He argued that the concept of the Trinity was not supported by early Christian texts and was a later corruption of scripture, a position central to Arian thought.

Newton’s studies of early Church history and biblical texts led him to conclude that passages like 1 John 5:7, which supports the Trinity, were later interpolations. He believed the original Christian doctrine was closer to Arianism, emphasizing the unity and supremacy of God the Father. However, as a fellow at Trinity College, Cambridge, and a public figure, Newton was cautious, sharing his views only with close associates to avoid persecution, as Arianism was considered heretical in 17th-century England.

His theological notes, many of which were unpublished during his lifetime, confirm his sympathy for Arian ideas, though he never formally declared himself an Arian. Instead, he framed his beliefs as a return to a purer, original Christianity. For further details, Newton’s manuscripts at the National Library of Israel or the Keynes Collection at Cambridge provide primary source material.

The origin of life vs. Darwin

 

Darwinism's third way problem?

 

The thumb print of JEHOVAH in the cell

 

The king of titans is a human engine?

 

Grok on open theism.

 Open theism, also known as open theology or free will theism, is a theological framework that emphasizes God’s relational nature and the openness of the future. It holds that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent but chooses to limit His foreknowledge or control over human decisions to allow for genuine free will. Key points:

Open theism, also known as open theology or free will theism, is a theological framework that emphasizes God’s relational nature and the openness of the future. It holds that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent but chooses to limit His foreknowledge or control over human decisions to allow for genuine free will. Key points:

God’s Knowledge and the Future: Open theism posits that the future is not entirely fixed or exhaustively known by God. Instead, God knows all possibilities and probabilities but leaves room for human free choices, making the future partly "open" or undetermined.

Divine-Human Relationship: God interacts dynamically with creation, responding to human actions in real-time rather than following a predetermined script. This makes prayer, decisions, and actions meaningful, as they can influence outcomes.

Biblical Basis: Proponents cite scriptures where God appears to change His mind (e.g., Exodus 32:14), expresses surprise (e.g., Jeremiah 3:7), or tests people to discover their choices (e.g., Genesis 22:12), suggesting a relational rather than deterministic view.Critiques: Critics, often from classical theism (e.g., Calvinism), argue it undermines God’s sovereignty or omniscience, claiming an all-knowing God must know the future exhaustively. Open theists counter that God’s omniscience includes all that is knowable, but an open future is inherently unknowable in detail.

Key Figures: Theologians like Clark Pinnock, John Sanders, and Gregory Boyd have been influential in developing and defending open theism.It’s a minority view within Christianity, often debated for its implications on divine providence, prophecy, and human responsibility. If you want a deeper dive into specific arguments, biblical texts, or criticisms, let me know!

On evolution and the design debate.

The greenest tech of all vs. Darwinism

 

No intelligence allowed?

 

Darwinism does not have enough time to find this needle in this haystack?

 

File under "well said" CXIX

"The end of Life is to become like God,and the Soul following God will become like him."

Socrates.

Grok on the history of EVs

 The earliest electric vehicles (EVs) date back to the 19th century, predating modern gasoline cars. Here’s a concise overview:1830s: Robert Anderson, a Scottish inventor, is credited with creating one of the first crude electric carriages around 1832–1839, powered by non-rechargeable primary cells.

1840s–1880s: Inventors like Thomas Davenport and Gustave Trouvé developed early electric motors and vehicles. In 1881, Trouvé showcased an electric tricycle in Paris.

1880s–1890s: Rechargeable lead-acid batteries spurred EV development. In 1884, Thomas Parker built an electric car in England. By the late 1880s, companies like the Electric Carriage and Wagon Company in the U.S. produced electric taxis.

1890s–1900s: EVs peaked in popularity, especially in urban areas, due to their quiet operation and ease of use compared to steam or gasoline vehicles. In 1900, about 28% of U.S. cars were electric, with manufacturers like Studebaker and Columbia producing models.

Decline: By the 1910s, EVs waned due to limited battery range (20–40 miles), high costs, and the rise of affordable gasoline cars like the Ford Model T, coupled with improved road infrastructure favoring longer-range vehicles.

EVs saw a revival in the late 20th century with models like GM’s EV1 (1996), but the modern era began with the Tesla Roadster (2008) and Nissan Leaf (2010), driven by advancements in lithium-ion batteries.

Steven Meyer on the debacle in which Origin of Life science finds itself and the case for desgn.

 

ID triumps despite the scopes trial

 Despite Scopes Effect, Intelligent Design Flourishes

Andrew McDiarmid

The Scopes “Monkey” trial of 1925 has cast a long shadow over the evolution debate in the last century, thanks in large part to the Hollywood film Inherit the Wind, which caricatured the trial and promoted stereotypes that still persist today. On a new episode of ID the Future, I continue a conversation with Dr. Casey Luskin about the long history of the Scopes effect in science and how intelligent design has managed to flourish in spite of it.

In Part 2, Dr. Luskin explains that even as Scopes stereotypes were crystallizing in the public consciousness, skepticism about the power of Darwin’s selection/mutation mechanism continued to mount, and not just in intelligent design circles. Prominent evolutionary biologists were also voicing concern about the adequacy of the modern synthesis of Darwin’s theory. And as those concerns grew louder, so did the desperate response from committed Darwinists. Luskin talks about a surge of persecutions that have been leveled against any scientist who dares to question neo-Darwinism. 

But, as Luskin notes, the intelligent design research project has gone from strength to strength in the last three decades. Much progress has been made in building a strong, cumulative case for intelligent design as the best explanation for the origin and development of life on Earth. So as the Scopes centennial gets marked with fanfare in 2025, do ID scientists get a seat at the table? Or is the spirit of Scopes still hampering scientific progress and academic freedom today? Luskin has answers. Download the podcast or listen to it here.

The state religion?

 More on Disguised Religion

David Klinghoffer

Not in science or in any other context does one faith get to impose its terms on others. That sounds like common sense. But a concern about being scientifically or politically acceptable often causes us to feel intimidated into accepting disguised religious terms that are not our own, when we’re really under no obligation to do so. With that in mind, I want to highlight a post here from earlier today, “Methodological Naturalism as religion in Disguise.” 

The key point: “If the observable data points to outcomes that natural causes cannot adequately explain, then ruling out supernatural causes from the outset is not scientific humility — it’s dogma.”

A Random Example

Religion in disguise is more common than you might think. As a random example, the other day on our Seattle NPR station I was listening to an interview with a local trans activist. The activist, Danni Askini, was saying that trans identity is not a medical practice but a spiritual one. As the activist candidly said, it is a religion where the essential activity is not going to church but going to the doctor (whether for surgery or medication). I don’t think that Askini, who goes by “they/she,” had fully thought through the implications. If trans is a religion, then you don’t have the right to tell others to accept your preferred religious language, and call you “she” rather than the more biologically accurate “he,” or to adhere to your preferred framing of reality at all.

That is a scientific context, since biology is a science, but in the philosophical scientific context of methodological naturalism (MN), adherents of the dogma, whether atheists or theistic evolutionists, don’t get to dictate to others that they must accept the framing where only natural, never supernatural, causation is scientifically acceptable. We outside the walls of MN always have to bear that in mind. Mutual respect is one thing. Dictating terms is another.

The future of the net?

 

Homeostasis vs. Darwin

 Homeostasis Is More than Treading Water

David Coppedge

If you were to watch a person treading water in a murky lake, you might assume she is standing on a shallow bottom. She might look calm and be talking to you, but below the surface a lot of kicking and stroking going on. That’s a bit like homeostasis, a broad term for maintaining internal stability in a dynamic environment. Here we will look at recent discoveries showing the complexity of systems required to keep organisms functioning while the surroundings are changing.

Frog Breath

Consider the case of a frog maintaining its breathing reflex while the temperature is dropping. Like us, it must keep the oxygen coming in and the CO2 going out, but without endothermy, breathing might drop to a standstill in the cold or accelerate too quickly when the temperature rises. What keeps the frog happily breathing?

In Current Biology, Tara A. Janes and Richard Kinkead review a study by Cannon and Santin also in Current Biology. The researchers identified specific neurons, signals and receptors involved in maintaining the rhythm. Janes and Kinkead comment that breath homeostasis is anything but boring:

Respiratory networks, like most networks, aim to maintain relative stability in their activity level over time. Traditionally, this has been described in terms of activity-dependent mechanisms where neurons respond to their own level of activity. At the cellular level, this often involves responses to intracellular calcium signallingthat occur proportional to activity. Neurons can also stabilise network function by fine-tuning ion channel density, synaptic strengths, and intrinsic excitability. 

Before Cannon and Santin’s work, they say, much of what was known about homeostatic networks came from studies on rodents which benefit from endothermy. How do frogs keep up their autonomic breathing rhythm without that luxury? Even more challenging, how do they maintain oxygen intake when undergoing metamorphosis from tadpole to adult?

A fundamental principle is that as body temperature goes down, so does metabolism and drive to breathe. Remarkably, frogs survive and thrive in the face of these environmental fluctuations by maintaining activity in the respiratory rhythm-generating networks for air-breathing. So how do they do it?

By altering temperatures in brainstem-spinal cord preparations from bullfrogs which can survive in vitro for a day, Cannon and Santin in “a clever set of experiments” found “a novel, environment-driven mechanism regulating network activity that is capable of driving compensatory changes in respiratory function in response to cold exposure.”

First, they determined that temperature alone acts as a trigger for certain changes at the cellular level. At 10°C motor activity ceased, but became hyper-excited as the temperature returned to 22°C. “This suggests that cold exposure elicits increased network excitability in an attempt to restore respiratory motor output,” the commentators say. But much more is involved: production of norepinephrine in the locus coeruleus (LC), “a compact and highly homogeneous group of neurons located rostral to the respiratory networks,” which triggers changes in calcium ion channels. 

Ensuing pharmacological experiments showed that in response to acute temperature changes, inhibition of the electrogenic Na+ pump serves as a critical transduction step, which then activates network compensation via β-adrenergic receptor signalling

And  so to keep breathing when it’s cold, a frog depends on the coordinated responses of temperature sensors, hormones, LC neurons, neural circuits, sodium pumps, receptors, calcium ions and muscles. The research does not explain everything, but

the authors propose novel ideas that are certainly worthy of further exploration. One that caught our attention is the suggestion that central respiratory circuits switch from CO2/pH-sensing to temperature-sensing as an important source of drive to breathe at cool temperatures. In this way, temperature sensitivity allows the network to restore activity under conditions where it might be needed, while maintaining the ability of the network to fall silent when it is adaptive to do so.

Speaking as air-breathers themselves, Janes and Kinkead conclude, “Despite our respiratory bias, we humbly acknowledge that neural circuits regulate other important physiological processes beyond breathing.”

Synapse Traffic Control

In my  2024 article on the synapse, I shared my bewilderment at how those nanoscopic signal transducers work and perform rapidly and reliably despite multiple transitions in information-bearing media. A new paper adds to my bewilderment by claiming that synapses bring order out of randomness. (For more on how life brings order out of chaos, see this article.)

Krisha Aghi et al., writing in Current Biology about fruit flies, find that “spatial distribution of facilitating and depressing synapses is random” and yet the neurons maintain stable transmission anyway. How?

Synaptic strength can vary greatly between synapses. Optical quantal analysis at Drosophila glutamatergic motor neuron synapses shows that short-term plasticity also varies greatly between synapses, even those made by an individual motor neuron. Strong and weak synapses are randomly distributed in the motor neuron nerve terminal, as are facilitating and depressing synapses. Although synapses exhibit highly heterogeneous basal strength at low-action potential firing frequency and undergo varied plasticity when firing frequency increases, the overall distribution of strength across synapses remains remarkably constant due to a balance between the number of synapses that facilitate versus depress and to their degree of plasticity and basal synaptic weight.Constancy in transmitter release can ensure robustness across changing behavioral conditions.

The  robustness of the transmitted signal despite individual variations in synaptic plasticity allows fruit flies to fly, but this method also enables us to live and move. How this “method in madness” mechanism is able to work automatically in the nervous system from infant in the womb to athlete to senior citizen must cause us all to stand in awe.

Clearing Up Clock Confusion

Imagine having to follow two clocks that run at different rates. It would be like trying to play drum or trumpet in Symphony No. 4 by Charles Ives, who in one movement called for two conductors waving their batons at different tempos.

Because we have minds and large brains, we humans can track lunar cycles, solar cycles, and orbital cycles simultaneously with the help of experience, language, charts, and computers. But how does a crustacean do it? Here’s a case of life cycle homeostasis. If a crustacean gets out of rhythm, it might become desiccated on rocks or fail to reproduce.

How marine species cope with both diurnal and tidal cycles is unclear. A new study in crustaceans identifies distinct brain cells that exhibit either 24- or 12.4-hour rhythms of gene expression, thus providing a mechanism for tracking multiple environmental cycles.

So begin Victoria Lewis and Patrick Emery in a Dispatch within the same issue of Current Biology. They say that the circadian clock (day/night cycle) is fairly well understood:

The nuclear accumulation and subsequent degradation of the repressor complex are dependent on kinases and phosphatases that adjust the period of the circadian pacemaker to ∼24 hours (h). The circadian clock is primarily entrained by the light–dark (LD) cycle, but also responds to the temperature cycle and other relevant cues. With the elucidation of the molecular mechanisms underlying circadian clocks comes a key question: are similar mechanisms implicated in other biological rhythms?

Indeed they are. They comment on research reported in the same issue by Oliphant et al. who “present evidence supporting the idea that the circadian clock machinery is retooled to allow marine organisms to cope with tidal cycles through dedicated brain cells.” 

The new study helps narrow down three hypotheses about how marine crustaceans can keep up with two tempos: the circadian rhythm and the circatidal rhythm. But how do the resulting proteins interact when regulated by different brain cells? “The extent of the mechanistic overlap between the two clocks,” they remark, “still needs to be determined.” Indeed, “considerable work is still needed to understand how circatidal rhythms are entrained and generated.” Yet the humble sand flea gets along without a thought.

Much More to Homeostasis

These three studies illustrate the complexity of homeostasis, but there are many thousands more that could be drawn from. Other recent examples in my pile include, in brief:

A “mitochondrial contact site and cristae organizing system” that keeps the membranes intact in these cellular powerhouses (Current Biology).

A system to prevent crowding in epithelial tissues which otherwise might cause cell damage and loss (Northwestern University Medicine).

Spatiotemporal control of mitosis by cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) to keep order during the many rapid changes across the cell (Nature).

A relationship between the cell cycle, circadian clock, and sense of taste that can cause food to taste differently at different times of day (PNAS)

A new organelle in the cell, dubbed the hemifusome, that “could fundamentally reshape our understanding of how cells recycle their contents and sort and direct intracellular cargo” (University of Virginia School of Medicine).

Homeostasis is a tremendously varied and complex field ripe for discoveries from a design perspective. It adds an essential time dimension to irreducible complexity, revealing the interactions of multiple IC components working in cooperation to keep an organism stable in a changing environment. And so while admiring the smiling swimmer’s face above water, we must not be unaware of the vigorously beating legs and arms under the surface that are keeping her afloat.

Grok on :the Arian emperor?

Yes, Constantine the Great's son, Constantius II, was a supporter of Arianism, a theological position that differed from Nicene Christianity. Arianism, based on the teachings of Arius, held that Jesus Christ was distinct from and subordinate to God the Father, rather than being co-equal and consubstantial as defined by the Nicene Creed.Constantius II (reigned 337–361 CE) actively promoted Arian or semi-Arian doctrines during his rule, favoring bishops and policies aligned with Arianism over those adhering to the Nicene orthodoxy established at the Council of Nicaea (325 CE), which his father Constantine had supported. This stance led to tensions with Nicene Christians and influenced ecclesiastical appointments and councils during his reign, such as the Synod of Antioch (341 CE) and the Council of Serdica (343 CE), where Arian-leaning positions were often favored.

However, it’s worth noting that Constantine’s other sons, Constantine II and Constans, leaned more toward Nicene Christianity, though their reigns were shorter and less impactful on this issue. Constantius II’s support for Arianism was the most pronounced among Constantine’s heirs.If you want more details on specific events or sources, let me know!

GROK on the baptism of roman emperor constantine.

Yes, historical evidence suggests that Roman Emperor Constantine the Great was likely baptized by an Arian-leaning clergyman, Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, on his deathbed in 337 CE. Eusebius was a known supporter of Arianism, a theological position that viewed Jesus as subordinate to God the Father, which was deemed heretical at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE, where Constantine had supported the orthodox Trinitarian view.However, the exact circumstances are debated. Some sources, like the 5th-century historian Socrates Scholasticus, confirm Eusebius of Nicomedia performed the baptism. Others, like Eusebius of Caesarea, a key biographer of

Constantine, are vague about the officiant’s identity. The choice of Eusebius of Nicomedia, an Arian, may reflect political or personal ties rather than Constantine’s theological stance, as he had previously backed the Nicene Creed but also sought to reconcile Arians and orthodox Christians for imperial unity.There’s no definitive evidence Constantine himself adopted Arian beliefs at the time of his baptism, but the involvement of an Arian-leaning bishop has fueled speculation about his late-life theological leanings.

On the scopes monkey trial

 A Century Later, the Spirit of Scopes Is Alive and Well

David Klinghoffer/Casey Luskin

The Scopes “Monkey” Trial turns 100 this month. According to secularist legend, the Scopes trial represented a great showdown between ignorant, fundamentalist religion and enlightened, scientific progress. But what really went down in 1925? And a hundred years later, is science still suffering from the Scopes effect? On a new episode of ID the Future, Dr. Casey Luskin begins a conversation with me about the famous trial, the play and movie based on it that reinforced unrealistic stereotypes, and some of the flashpoints in science since the trial that have fanned the flames of the debate over evolution.

         Dr. Luskin first takes us back to 1925 to remind us of the basics. That year, the Tennessee state legislature passed a law that made it a misdemeanor crime to teach human evolution. An incredibly misguided move, of course — the teaching of science should never be criminalized. But that’s what they did. The ACLU recruited a public school teacher, John T. Scopes, to teach evolution so they could test the law. He was then accused of teaching human evolution and convicted of the crime. Ultimately, it went up to the Tennessee State Supreme Court, which upheld the law and found that it was not unconstitutional. 

 How Did the Trial Capture the Nation?

, this was the 1920s, when radio had first come on the scene. So the Scopes trial itself was broadcast around the United States through radio. A whole media circus descended upon the little town of Dayton, Tennessee, and the whole nation was invited to tune in. The event was framed and postured as if it was the old outdated forces of fundamentalism versus the new forces of modernism, technology, and science.

The trial itself came and went, explains Dr. Luskin, but in 1960, the stereotypes espoused by the trial would get amplified and crystallized for generations by a play and movie loosely based on the trial called Inherit the Wind. Luskin discusses how the stereotypes from Inherit the Wind became deeply embedded in the cultural psyche, setting the stage for waves of suppression and cancellation of Darwin skeptics throughout the last half century. But even as questioners of Darwin’s theory were marginalized and often silenced, real doubts in the scientific community about the power of Darwin’s selection/mutation mechanism were mounting.

Download the podcast or listen to it here

Darwin bars birds from getting driver's licenses

 Birds Don’t Drive Buicks Because of … Evolution, You See

Denyse O Leary

Archaeologist Sarah Newman offers the thesis that, contrary to our assumptions, animals taught humans culture. She writes at Aeon:

Many millennia before spectacular figures of horses, mammoths, lions and other animals were painted (c17,000 years ago) on the walls of the famous Lascaux cave in the Dordogne region of southwestern France, hominin artists were dragging their fingers through soft clay, pecking and scratching simple lines and circles into rock, and rubbing and dotting cave walls with red ochre. These early marks were often placed around or atop the polished surfaces and claw marks left behind by cave bears, felines and other mammals. Sometimes the human marks imitate the forms of existing scratches or smoothing made by other species. Human art, then, is part of a broader tradition of animal mark-making.

At times, this ‘parietal art’ (the name for human-made art on cave or rock walls) is so similar to animal traces that archaeologists struggle to disentangle and distinguish one from the other. In the 1960s, for example, the French prehistorian Amédée Lemozi interpreted a series of engraved lines at Pech-Merle cave in the Occitania region of southern France as a representation of a masked and wounded shaman. Lemozi saw lines piercing the figure of the shaman and pecking intended to represent wounds, leading him to suggest that the shaman was depicted undergoing a ritual death. Lemozi’s ideas were taken up by the Belgian prehistorian Lya Dams in the mid-1980s and extended into a broader exploration of wounded men in Palaeolithic art. A few years later, however, the French prehistorian Michel Lorblanchet showed that the many crisscrossing lines making up the ‘wounded shaman’ on the calcite surface of the cave were, in fact, gashes in multiple directions left by the claws of cave bears. 

“Animals taught us culture”, June 13, 2025

This sounds like a conventional case of over-interpretation on the part of Lya Dams. Now, if someone could show that the bears depicted shamans undergoing a ritual death, Newman might have a point…

Many of the bear marks, beaver logs, and bison paths that incited new human behaviours come from a time when the divide between human and nonhuman was more porous, when humans were discovering how to be human. That process of discovery was less about our species defining itself against everything else in the world than it was about interactions, observations, mimicry, creativity and experimentation. 

“Animals taught us culture”

Overall, Newman’s thesis seems to depend on the view that only the vice of human exceptionalism would cause us to see the Lascaux cave drawings as something intrinsically different from claw marks or St. Peter’s Basilica as something intrinsically different from beaver dams. 

But they are; they involve abstractions. That chasm may appear narrow to some but it is deep. No doubt, humans learned a lot by watching animals but the critical fact is that we learned fundamentally different things.

A More Measured Look

Also at Aeon, University of Sydney evolutionary biologist Antone Martinho-Truswell provides a more measured look at humans, animals, and culture:

Culture and its transmission from generation to generation is the defining feature of humanity. It is perhaps the best candidate for the thing that separates us from other beasts. Though there are other species that have been shown to hand down accumulated knowledge — including chimps, who show some evidence for cultural transmission of tool-use — no other animal approaches our ability to layer breakthrough upon breakthrough in such a complex way, and certainly no other animal does it with the conscious intent to lift future communities beyond the achievements that came before. That is a human distinction if there ever were one. 

“Empire of flight,” June 17, 2025

So, he asks, why don’t intelligent birds do the same things? “Why do they not have a market economy, with not only goods for trade, but luxury goods whose value relies on concepts rather than raw usefulness. Why don’t birds drive Bentleys?” 

He goes into a detailed explanation of how Darwinian natural selection explains it all, provided that we see its peaks as valleys instead and assume that it operates somewhat like gravity.

For a species like ours, the valley is deep and wide, driving increasingly capable brains and increasingly complex sharing of information — and presumably, creating enough gravity to draw other species in.

That hasn’t occurred.

For reptiles, fish, amphibians, cephalopods and other groups, it is not terribly surprising that they haven’t fallen down the well of complex culture in the evolutionary landscape. Their constellation of traits actually places them rather far away, in their own local minima, with the gravitational effects of human-style culture felt only distantly, if at all.

“Empire of flight”

And still no Bentleys for the birds? Martinho-Truswell blames flight:

Flight is an evolutionary black hole. It is a gravitational well with no bottom, a trait so powerfully effective at improving survival and reproduction that it plunges a species into a well of easy life and high fitness from which there is no escape. Or, to return to more conventional evolutionary language, it relieves an incomparable amount of selection pressure that might drive a species to alternative traits.

“Empire of flight”

This all seems a roundabout way of saying that humans are exceptional. And here’s the question that no one in evolutionary biology has the answer to: What is the “it” that we have and birds don’t? The conundrum of human consciousness strikes again.

I repeat my ultimatum to nincsnevem.

 Mr.nincsnevem you made a false claim against us and not only have you not retracted your false claim but you are making additional false claims. Either you supply quotes to back up your false claim or you retract the falsehoods nothing less that that is going to reactivate this conversation

Where is the quote stating that organ transplants were a serious enough violation to warrant expulsion if no repentance was forthcoming? And as for your new lie where did russel say that only those accepting a particular chronology would be saved or who rejected any chronology should be expelled from the congregation?

Your copying and pasting of apostate lies  does not meet my standard you keep repeating the lie that the brother's equated transplants with canabalism the mention of canabalism in that one article was from a direct quote from a nonwitness publication,the fact that you can't produce one single other quote from any witness publication where the brothers themselves make that claim is telling. The book the truth that leads to eternal life is what provided guidance as to qualifications for baptism and also what wrongdoing can lead to disfellowshiping during the sixties and seventies,it NEVER mentioned organ transplants. The book you can live forever in paradise on earth followed it too never mentions organ transplants clearly organ transplants were never put on the same level as transfusions or the flag salute issue. So I going to have to reject your lies until you produce a quote specifically stating that JEHOVAH Hates transplants and that true christians never get transplants that is the language that lets JWs know that a particular pattern of conduct can lead to disfellowshiping.

I note your pathetic excuse making with russel as well,the brother never claimed that anyone who rejected any chronology will not be saved that is a lie plain and simple. You either retract these lies or produce actual quotes not self-serving praphrases chapter and verse.

January 1908": : "We are not prophesying; we are merely giving our surmises . . . We do not even aver that there is no mistake in our interpretation of prophecy and our calculations of chronology. We have merely laid these before you, leaving it for each to exercise his own faith or doubt in respect to them""

There are essential truths but these pertain to the identity of JEHOVAH and his high priest and his standard of moral and spiritual purity not a complete understanding of recorded prophesy as JEHOVAH'S People have NEVER Had a complete understanding of recorded prophesy even the apostles and prophets who uttered the prophesies did not fully understand them understand them 1Corinthians ch.13:9

And haven't you made loyalty your church a requirement for salvation so why the hypocrisy?

Why can't you at least point to one other article 

We reject the anthropology of those who have repeatedly shown a willingness to trample our rights. The truth book mentions the blood issue it is unconceivable that it eould not also mention the organ transplant issue if it were equally serious. Note to the blood issue is repeatedly mentioned you and your kind have to rely on this one admittedly vague article for your entire case it is never the case that an actionable offense is based on a single vague article.

There are things that violate cultural our norms that do not rise to the level of disfellowshiping there are far more articles about marrying unbelievers for example or watching horror movies than there are about organ transplants but you can't be expel from the congregation for either. You likely will not be considered for any privileges of service but you won't be expelled.

And you keep muddling issues I said nothing about your church expelling anyone I said you made loyalty to your church a requirement for salvation,eternal torture seems a far more serious consequence than loosing fellowship with a tiny hated minority

You need to find some better approach to argumentation your argument by unrecognized authority of your church or your self proclaimed ability to peer into our souls and know what we are thinking is not cutting it. Leave the peering into men's souls to God

You are again confusing the issue the issue is not whether a cultural norm is violated but whether the violation rises to the level of disfellowshiping no disfellowshipible offense has been based on a single article this has never happened your propaganda is rejected but we note that as usual you provide no quotes. Your quote free claims are rejected.

All disfellowshipible offenses are made known prior to baptism in our baptism preparation material during the sixties and seventies that would be the the truth that leads to eternal life the book also mentions offenses that fall below the disfellowshiping level yet it does not even mention organ transplants in that context.

So the issue is not.Our authority is the bible we recognize the administrative authority of the brothers because the BIBLE Commands us to hebrews 13:17 we confirm our essential doctrine by our personal study of the bible enabled by holy spirit we do not believe in modern day prophets. A plenary understanding of prophecy is not required or we would have to reject Christ apostles as God's channel 1Corinthians 13:9. Your church is not recognized as an authority. I recognize the administrative authority of the brothers because the signs JEHOVAH Provides in his word the BIBLE to guide sincere truthseekers to his true church are confirmed in them. Holiness and Peace elements notably lacking in Christendom's churches.

As for real world harm no representative of the bloodstained churches of christendom has any standing to lecture us about real world harm,the reason why many secular voices spoke against transplants back at the beginning of the procedure was because it was not an unmitigated good,many were killed by immune reactions and even in a best case scenario you were prolonging one person's life by months by shortening another petson's life by years. So to speak as if the matter were open and shut is typical of the kind of disengenuity we have come to expect from your kind.

Here is the march 1980 article you mentioned clearly the there is no hint that people were previously disfellowshiped for reaching different conclusions to the writer of the 1967 article.

Regarding the transplantation of human tissue or bone from one human to another, this is a matter for conscientious decision by each one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Some Christians might feel that taking into their bodies any tissue or body part from another human is cannibalistic. They might hold that the transplanted human material is intended to become part of the recipient’s body to keep him alive and functioning. They might not see it as fundamentally different from consuming flesh through the mouth. Such feelings may arise from considering that God did not make specific provision for man to eat the flesh of his fellowman when he made provision for humans to eat the flesh of animals that had been drained of their life-sustaining blood. They may give consideration also to the way people in Bible times viewed sustaining themselves by taking in human flesh. For example, see the account at 2 Kings 6:24-30; Deuteronomy 28:53-57; Lamentations 2:20 and La 4:10. At John 6:48-66, Jesus spoke figuratively of eating his flesh and drinking his blood. On hearing this discussion and not perceiving the spiritual significance of his words, some of his Jewish disciples were shocked and turned from following him. These accounts illustrate how some humans felt about eating human flesh.

Other sincere Christians today may feel that the Bible does not definitely rule out medical transplants of human organs. They may reason that in some cases the human material is not expected to become a permanent part of the recipient’s body. Body cells are said to be replaced about every seven years, and this would be true of any human body parts that would be transplanted. It may be argued, too, that organ transplants are different from cannibalism since the “donor” is not killed to supply food. In some cases persons nearing death actually have willed body parts to be used for transplants. Of course, if a transplant should require taking in another person’s blood, undeniably that would be contrary to God’s command.​—Acts 15:19, 20.

Clearly, personal views and conscientious feelings vary on this issue of transplantation. It is well known that the use of human materials for human consumption varies all the way from minor items, such as hormones and corneas, to major organs, such as kidneys and hearts. While the Bible specifically forbids consuming blood, there is no Biblical command pointedly forbidding the taking in of other human tissue. For this reason, each individual faced with making a decision on this matter should carefully and prayerfully weigh matters and then decide conscientiously what he or she could or could not do before God. It is a matter for personal decision. (Gal. 6:5) The congregation judicial committee would not take disciplinary action if someone accepted an organ transplant.

Note that those who had previously to this article arrived at different conclusions are called sincere christians and they would have felt free to vent their concerns because in their preparation for baptism this was not presented as an essential,that is if it was mentioned at all.

I also observed that you have returned to repeating the vaccination lie for which you can't even cite a vague watchtower article as support. I'm sorry I can't allow you to simply repeat these lies your fellow sociopaths have numerous places on the net where you can repeat your lies unchallenged,you will just have to confine your lying propaganda to those spaces,but it's definitely not going to be happening here.

Again being viewed as immature is not the same as being in line for disfellowshiping you keep conflating the two issues clearly it did not rise to the level of disfellowshiping.

Its so stupid to remark that marrying outside the faith was never called cannibalistic. 

As for vaccines The watchtower is the voice of the governing body not the awake and again why can't you cite two or three of these screeds from the golden age, besides the one article written by a nonwitness you liars you usually trot out I mean,I promise to put them unedited on the blog so the public can read them for themselves

As soon as the blood issue was deemed serious enough to warrant expulsion that was explicitly stated publicly likewise some issue of the truth book would have clearly stated the prohibition against transplants if rose to the level of expulsion just as it mentioned smoking,saluting national emblems the blood issue. your position is in effect that we should unquestioningly accept the claims of those with a history of violently trampling our rights without CLEAR evidence. I don't care what your apostate handlers have been telling you but we are not idiots so that will never happen I demand chapter and verse minus your anthropology and mind reading if you can't meet that Standard this dialogue is over. 

I repeat the conclusion of the november 15 1967 question from readers bear in mind this is the only article on which this expulsion claim is based here is it's conclusion

It should be evident from this discussion that Christians who have been enlightened by God’s Word do not need to make these decisions simply on the basis of personal whim or emotion. They can consider the divine principles recorded in the Scriptures and use these in making personal decisions as they look to God for direction, trusting him and putting their confidence in the future that he has in store for those who love him.​—Prov.

That kind of language is NEVER used in articles about smoking,voting national election,fornication, saluting national flags those aren't personal decisions for a dedicated servant of JEHOVAH you can't be baptised unless you come around to JEHOVAH'S Opinion on these matters.

The Vaccination Fraud By Mrs. Andrew J. Holmes

The article is written by a woman I also observe that she does not cite a single scripture to back up her theories. On the inside copy of each issue of the golden age is a disclaimer making it clear that publishers and editor do not necessarily support every view there in hence my demand for watchtower article the 1931 article was written by a nonwitness.

More lies the watchtower was always the flagship publication there was never a time when that was not the case the absence of a single article making it clear that vaccines strictly prohibited. Clearly shows the mind of the leadership some may have been swayed by popular scepticism re vaccines at the time but in the absence of a scriptural foundation the GB at the time were cautious how come no articles from prominent members of the society were published anywhere how is it that no convention talks mentioned this Ironclad prohibition. I use the word liar because my own firsthand experience has established that as the case.

The 1921 article is written by a W.M Pugh even Grok could find him so I suspect that like the writer of the 1931 article he too was not a brother. Definitely not a brother of note. When it came to knew situations the brothers were ultra cautious it took decades before a firm stance was taken on the blood issue even though solid scriptural evidence was mounting,similarly with vaccines there were conflicting opinions even at the top,the hardliners had their way for a time but there was never any sanction. Rather it was presented as a test of maturity.

The 1923 article list some imminently qualified experts who also were sceptical about the 1920s version of vaccines

Among the names of famous men who are opposed to vaccination is that of Alfred Russell Wallace, who after exhaustive study prepared an essay on the subject “Vaccination a Delusion; Its Enforcement a Crime.” Prof. Wallace says: “While utterly powerless for good, vaccination is a certain cause of disease, and is the probable cause of about 10,000 deaths; and annually of 5.000 inoculahle diseases of themost terrible and moat disgusting character.” - Dr. Walton Ross, a scholarly student, physician and scientist, has this to say on the sub-ject:     “I should fail in my duty and prove false to the beat interests of humanity did I not record my convictions based on irrefutable facts that vaccination is an unmitigated curse, and the most destructive medical delusion which baa ever afflicted the human race. I know full well that the vaccinator sows broadcast the seeds of many filth diseases, of the skin, the hair and eye^ which are transmitted from generation to generation, an ever-abiding curse to humanity.”Dr. Charles Crighton, a recognized authority on epidemiology, and a pronounced vaccin- -ist, was selected by the publishers of the "Encyclopedia Britannica” to write an article on vaccination. To his own surprise and that of the editors, the fifteen-column article resulting from his exhaustive investigation was packed full with irrefutable proofs of the fallacy of vaccination.Dr. Carlo Ruata, Professor of Materia Medics, University of Perugia, Italy, was indicted and arraigned in the Prefers Court in Perugia* When making his own defense, he stated, after reciting the disastrous results of the practice in Italy:

“Were it not for this calamitous practice, smallpox would have been stamped out years ago, and would have disappeared. Believe not in vaccination; it is a worldwide delusion, an unscientific practice, a fatal ^uper* stition whose consequences are measured by thousands of dead and wounded, by tears and sorrow without endF. M. Lutze, M. has this to say about vaccination:

“When sowing disease we can only reap a harvest disease and death, and this is the result of vaccination.

I have treated a very large number of children for granular eyelids, disease of the heart, lungs, bronchi, and indigestion, undoubtedly due to vaccination, for they had become ill immediately after vaccination. Children who had been intellectually bright became dull and stupid soon after vaccination, and were restored to health with difficu“Sanitation, construction of sewers, collection and destruction of all refuse and waste, properly ventilated dwellings, pure food—these alone can prevent smallpox or any other disease.”

Just to show that concerns of some among the brothers were not conjured out of thin air.

Your no quotations no citations approach earns scepticism the watchtower would have expressed the firm prihibition if there ever was all JWs no that. There was widespread scepticism about vaccines even among prominent people like alfred wallace. Some of the brothers were drawn in nut the fact that there was never a convention talk or watchtower article is conclusive proof that there was no actionable ban. Your lies notwithstanding that is the way prohibitions have always been handled through the watchtower and conventions so until you can produce a convention talk or watchtower article you have lost this one your fellow haters can buy this nonsense if they like but it is obviously unfounded.

Cite an editorial. 

The encyclopedia britannica is a fringe publication?google Alfred Russel Wallace And again there NEVER was an actionable ban on vaccines the TOTAL absense of a convention talk or watchtower article establishes that beyond all reasonable doubt.

There was never any actionable ban on organ transplant the fact that it was not even mentioned in baptism preparation material when even non actionable issues like entertainment were mentioned establishes that beyond reasonable doubt.

Again the 1931 article was written by a nonwitness,in the absence of a single watchtower article or convention talk you simply have no case. Every actionable offense is the subject of multiple watchtower articles and convention talks. It has always been that way

You say there were editorials can you produce an example?

When I say actionable I mean there was no penalty some accepted many did not. And contary to your lies only the watchtower is the voice of the GB not any other publication I gather that you are unable to find an article that can even be twisted so as to appear to support your position so you have to assign this fictional status to the golden age. Find a watchtower article  that is your only hope

I only asked for an editorial because you claimed such editorials existed. Is this yet another false claim? Are you trying for some kind of record?

Again there is disclaimer making it clear that contributions I would think especially by nonwitnesses are not necessarily endorsed by the magazines publishers. That is why in the absence of clear direction through the church's flagship publication none of these would be regarded as an actionable prohibition

Give it up if you can't produce a watchtower article that is the end anyone who is familiar with our inner workings knows that.

The apostates who are feeding you these falsehoods know that too but they are conscienceless liars.

Every other publication has ALWAYS Been secondary to the watchtower any other claim is a lie period. Your utterly unfounded lies are rejected. And the fact that you need to stoop to such mendacity makes our point because if even one article that could have been quoted out of context so as to appear to support your claim existed that is exactly what you would have done.

What about tracts ,handbills and the like? Any of those? If the brothers are in some kind of rabid antivax campaign there would have to be some of those?

Don't get on any high horse with me. I am the authority on my beliefs not lying propagandists like yourself. The watchtower magazine has always been paramount re: the brother's official opinion everything else is ancilliary. Any actionable prohibition MUST  (not may) be explicitly stated by a watchtower article. And worse if you can't even produce a tract or handbill.

You said that the society's officer mr.woodworth  authored editorials anonymously against vaccines. And now you a mendaciously revising your previous claims none of those articles were authored by mr.woodworth or mr.rutherford and I have not seen any of the anonymous editorials that you alleged supported the antivax position.

Can you point to an article by Mr.Rutherford against vaccines or a talk against vaccines? Because the absence of such an article or talk would be utterly inexplicable given the imperial of his presidency.

Unless your brain has been turned to mush by apostate lies,it would be obvious that no actionable prohibition in the 1920s and 1930s could take place apart from direct vocal or written input of the then very imperial president of the society and his lieutenants.

You haven't produced a single article by mr.Woodworth himself none of the articles you cited were written by mr.woodworth,The Watchtower was always the lead publication your unfounded and selfserving assertions to the contrary only underline your desperation. The fact that neither rutherford nor his lieutenants had any direct input cannot be brushed aside at the behest of lying propagandists like yourself. A more realistic take woild be that likely some felt that the scepticism re:vaccines of people like the great alfred russel wallace, by no means a fringe thinker, had some merit on purely scientific grounds and the right of those who chose to conscientiously object to vaccines was being defended,but the upper leadership could not find a biblical basis for an ironclad ban. So this was the compromise allow the findings of qualified sceptics to be published,but there was no ironclad ban. Incidentally there was no disfellowshiping until the 1960s. 

 The bulk of the literature published by the society at that tine was authored by the president and his lieutenants including the watchtower's articles and there were definitely convention talks. So your claim that the president and his lieutenants need not weigh in on actionable prohibitions is at least as nonsensical as it sounds.

Your inability to produce a single article from the president or a lieutenant in support of your unfounded claim exposes you as the shameless liar that you are. 

If you were preparing for baptism in the 1920s and 1930s you would study the harp of God surely there would be something about christians missing out on paradise if they allowed their bodies to be polluted by vaccines in its pages if that was what Mr. Rutherford and his lieutenant thought.

From the book "Faith on the March" by AH McMillan page 188,189

One of the more serious problems I had to deal with, as I

remember, was vaccinations. An order was received from the

health department in Washington for all the inmates and

guards to be vaccinated. Some of our boys in one prison in

particular considered this the same as blood transfusions, and

refused to submit. This caused considerable trouble. Then the

order came from Washington to put all the men who refused

to be vaccinated in solitary confinement. This did not change

our men. The prison authorities hesitated to be overly strict

about it; still they had their orders from headquarters. Well,

during the excitement I arrived on my regular visit. Now the

matter was put up to me to advise our men.

I asked the Warden to permit me to talk to all the men who

refused to be vaccinated.

He said, “IYe can’t do that because all the men are in soli-

tary on orders from tvashington and they’ll have to stay there

until they submit.”

“Well,” I answered, “they’ll be there all their lives, then,

for they’re not the kind to go contrary to their consciences.

Now if you’ll permit me to talk to all the men we can do some-

thing, but with some in solitary I’m helpless.”

Then the Warden phoned iVashington and told them what

I said. He was told to permit all the men to attend the meet-

ing and to allow them to spend as much time in the meeting as

Macmillan thought best.

We had an interesting time. For about half an hour the

men talked about the evils of vaccination, and so on. After

all had had their say, I told them, “We’re wasting time talk-

ing about the evils of vaccination because much could be said

both ways. The point for us to consider is what are we going

to do about being vaccinated. They have you all where they

could vaccinate an elephant, and they will vaccinate you all.”

Up spoke the leader of the resistance and said: “What

would you do if you were in prison and were called up for

vaccination? ”I was in prison,” I reminded them, “and T bared my arm

and received the shot. Furthermore, all of us who visit our

foreign branches are vaccinated or we stay at home. Now

vaccination is not anything like blood transfusion. No blood

is used in the vaccine. It is a serum. So you would not be

violating those Scriptures which forbid taking blood into your

system.

Grok confirms that many nations required certificates of vaccination especially for smallpox during the preworld war 2 period as precondition for entry.

Actually the faith on the march story shows that it was a conscience issue some took that position others did not McMillan who was a high ranking member of the organisation did not take that position and by implication neither did mr.Rutherford and his lieutenants. your evidence free claim of some kind of esoteric knowledge of the inner workings of the organisation is rejected. Logic and commonsense alone would tell any balanced person that there is no way that given the imperial nature of the presidency of the Rutherford era his silence would carry the force of a permit. The fact that you can't locate a single article or talk from then president rutherford or any of his lieutenants is conclusive evidence that this was always viewed as a conscience issue.

The 1931 article was written by a nonwitness the fact that the president not only did not confirm it but according to the testimony of mr.McMillan accepted vaccines when they were in prison and also as a precondition when visiting foreign branches confirms they view it as a conscience issue.

The book the harp of God by mr.Rutherford was the baptismal preparation material of the time the absence of any mention of vaccines therein proves conclusively that this was considered a conscience issue.

McMillan was the equivalent of a governing body member today and thus outranks any of the writers you quoted.

Thus you could not only disagree with the writers of those golden age articles a remain a rank and file member in good standing,you could do so and be consider qualified for the highest privileges of service. You need to give it up you are embarassing yourself.

 Mr.Mcmillan was a member of the equivalent of the governing body at the time. He stated that while he and his fellow governing body member was in prison they were vaccinated. And that to travel to foreign branches he and his fellow governing body members had to get vaccinated it's all right there for anyone to read this would of course include brother rutherford. You have lost. Vaccines were clearly a conscience issue.

The fact that mr.rutherford and his lieutenants and their traveling representatives were themselves were vaccinated exposes as a total lie your claim that those who acted contrary to the articles in the golden age were victimised. Clearly that was not the case. Contrary to your lies apart from direct verbal or written input from mr.Rutherford and his lieutenants articles in the golden age would be secondary, not only but the longterm behavior of mr.Rutherford and his lieutenants for they did receive vaccinations as early as their imprisonment during world war 1 and there after would confirm the fact that vaccines were a conscience issue.

 If your aim was to totally destroy what little credibility you began with you have succeeded spectacularly mr.Rutherford and his lieutenants were vaccinated,traveling representatives of the society were vaccinated what rubbish are you talking?

They were in jail for refusing to violate their conscience so clearly they would not have received vaccines if these violated any conscienciously held conviction and leaders we are talking about are the topmost members of the visible organisation. Their traveling representatives rotinely received vaccines. The behavior and the silence of Mr.Rutherford and his lieutenants did clearly establish the vaccine issue as a conscience issue. Your failure to produce a single article from the watchtower or the harp of God establishes the fact that this was not a prohibition beyond all REASONABLE doubt.

They were in jail because of consciencious objection clearly they were not the kind to violate their conscience during world war II While the catholic and protestant clergy and were licking the fuhrer's boots it was the brothers who for the sake of conscience chose death or a life on the run rather than participate in the mass slaughter of their fellowmen so your argument makes zero sense.

Grok on the uncertainty principle

 The uncertainty principle, formulated by Werner Heisenberg in 1927, is a fundamental concept in quantum mechanics. It states that certain pairs of physical properties, like position and momentum, cannot be measured simultaneously with arbitrary precision. The more precisely one property is known, the less precisely the other can be determined. Mathematically, for position (x) and momentum (p), the principle is expressed as:

Δx⋅Δp≥ℏwhere Δx\Delta x\Delta x

 is the uncertainty in position, Δp\Delta p\Delta p

 is the uncertainty in momentum, and ℏ\hbar\hbar

 is the reduced Planck constant (\hbar \approx 1.054 \times 10^{-34} \, \text{J·s}).

This isn’t due to limitations in measurement tools but is a fundamental property of quantum systems. For example, if you precisely measure a particle’s position, its momentum becomes less certain, and vice versa. This arises because particles exhibit wave-like behavior, and their properties are described by wavefunctions, which encode probabilities rather than definite values.

The principle also applies to other pairs, like energy and time (ΔE⋅Δt≥ℏ2\Delta E \cdot \Delta t \geq \frac{\hbar}{2}\Delta E \cdot \Delta t \geq \frac{\hbar}{2}

). It implies that quantum systems are inherently probabilistic, challenging classical intuitions about determinism. For instance, you can’t perfectly predict both where an electron is and how fast it’s moving at the same time.The principle also applies to other pairs, like energy and time (ΔE⋅Δt≥ℏ2\Delta E \cdot \Delta t \geq \frac{\hbar}{2}\Delta E \cdot \Delta t \geq \frac{\hbar}{2}

Thus postulating a JEHOVAH'S creation a universe that is in certain respects undetermined is in no way similar to supposing that JEHOVAH Can create a square circle.

Against MetaChristianity

 Metachristian:true. We find Unitarianism/Unitarian Christology unable to Bridge & Mediate Created & Creator. YHWH’s Big-Reveal is a Super-Man. That’s it. That’s YHWH’s Centuries of Prophetic Revelation On His Motive For Creation. To give us ~ not Himself ~ but a Big Man ~ a Super Man ~ wholly unable to *Bridge & *Mediate & *Join Created|||Creator (screenshot etc.).

Me:JEHOVAH'S "big reveal" is that he is the perfect creator and that his creation is absolutely perfect capable of healing and rebalancing itself. If the only solution to an imbalance originating from within the creation necessarily had to come from outside of the creation it would constitute a failure of JEHOVAH as creator. To JEHOVAH'S Glory the imbalance created by misuse of free agency by certain of his creatures can easily be set right by the proper use of free agency of his loyalists the seed of the Woman/the heavenly city.

Genesis.3:15NIV"And I will put enmity

between you and the woman,

and between your offspring a and hers;

he will crush b your head,

and you will strike his heel.”

Compare revelation.12:1,2

Metachristian:Unitarianism believes Created Things ie Logos can and do PARTICIPATE in ACT in Creating Ex Nihilo yet it is never able to tell us what ACT its Created Logos DOES in Ex Nihilo that isn’t WHOLLY PASSIVE.

Me:I don't believe that any creature can create ab initio but the bible shows that God creates through prior creations as instruments and/or raw materials,man was made from the dust of the ground genesis.2:7 and this not only apply to the father of our race but to all

Ecclesiastes.3:20NIV"All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. " 

Even though they were brought into being through created intermediate causes. JEHOVAH Can still take total credit for their existence because ALL of the energy and information in the creation came out of him

Metachristian:Scripture is 31K Verses. It is ALL “Context”. But Unitarianism doesn’t approach Scripture as a Singular Divine Communique ~ and therefore ~ it ends up far afield in its beyond the pale claim of a ChThonic YHWH found rummaging around in paganism’s Human Sacrifice to accomplish the Work He can’t pull off Himself. The ungovernable violence of the pagan infinite: https://x.com/m_christianity/status/1818686327161786505?s=46

Me:The voluntary offering of JEHOVAH'S Righteous high priest has NO parallel among the pagans because JEHOVAH is truthfully the source of all life and has demonstrated the power resurrect to Holy perpetual Life. That is bargain for the victorious priest.

Hebrews.12:2NIV"fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith. For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God."

By the JEHOVAH'S iresistible might and inscrutable wisdom our priest was saved from death,and his unshakeable faith in his God was fully vindicated see hebrews.5:7

Metachristian:Those disastrous theological, existential, and rational catastrophes then carry forward in history to the following:

The historical monopoly rejects Unitarianism *i.e.* history rejects Unitarianism because of the Glorious Light of the Gospel of Christ — *Contra* the Unitarian Salvific Terminus in its beyond-the-pale-trinity of Human Sacrifice + Adam + the ChThonic-YHWH.

Me:This world rejected our Lord and chose barabbas one of the sons of the violent as its savior John.18:40,Daniel.11:14, Having "the monopoly" on your side is a red flag. You may be on wrong side of the issue. Luke.6:26NIV"Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you, for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets."

Acts.28:22NIV"But we want to hear what your views are, for we know that people everywhere are talking against this sect.”"

Me:The religious establishment during Christ's time on earth had the same problem. They could not acknowledge that God can give any authority he pleases to any loyal creature including the authority to forgive sin. But the common people, those not intimidated into abandoning common sense did acknowledge JEHOVAH'S true priest.

Matthew.9:6-8NIV"But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the paralyzed man, “Get up, take your mat and go home.” 7Then the man got up and went home. 8When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised GOD, who had given such authority to MAN.

Metachristian:At the ontic locus of Christ Crucified Unitarianism is forced into paganism’s means & ends which is why the historical monopoly rejects Unitarianism *i.e.* history rejects Unitarianism. 

Me:Whatever the creature accomplishes must be credited to his creator as he is the source of all the virtue in His creation. The creature did not create and does not sustain himself he is created and sustained by God the Creator/Father,so the creature's victories are necessarily JEHOVAH'S Victories, But JEHOVAH Will only give victory to the creature that credits him as the source of that victory any creature that attempts to take credit for what JEHOVAH has accomplished through him is in danger. To be sure our Lord did not fall into the same snare that the prophet Moses did see numbers.20:1-13

Metachristian:IT IS “….a necessity of logic that only God is capable of joining creatures to God; any inferior intermediary, especially one like the created Logos of Arius, will always be infinitely remote from God himself… if it is the Son who joins us to the Father, and only God can join us to God, then the Son must be ‘capable’ of the Father, so to speak. The Son must be God not only in an inferior and secondary sense, but in a wholly consubstantial sense….” (D.B. Hart)

Me:No there is no logic at all about that statement. If the disobedience of one capable of perfect obedience separated his offspring from his heavenly Father,then it stands to reason that the sincere obedience of one capable of perfect obedience will join his offspring to his heavenly Father.

1Corinthians.15:21NIV"For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man."

Flawless logic if God couldn't find such a faithful man among his creatures that would be injurious to his reputation as a creator

Grok on whether God can defy the laws of logic according to christendom's theologians

 Christian theologians generally hold that God’s omnipotence allows Him to do anything that is logically possible, but not things that are logically impossible, as these are not coherent "things" to be done. A Euclidean triangle, by definition, is a flat, two-dimensional shape with three straight sides and angles that sum exactly to 180 degrees. This is a logical and mathematical necessity inherent to Euclidean geometry.

Most theologians, following thinkers like Thomas Aquinas or C.S. Lewis, would argue that God cannot create a Euclidean triangle with angles summing to more or less than 180 degrees because such a shape would contradict the definition of a Euclidean triangle, making it a logical impossibility akin to creating a "square circle." God’s power extends to all possible realities, but logical contradictions are not realities to be actualized.

However, some theologians might note that God could create non-Euclidean geometries (e.g., spherical or hyperbolic), where triangles have angle sums different from 180 degrees, as these are logically consistent systems. This doesn’t contradict the Euclidean definition but expands the geometric framework.

In short, most Christian theologians would say God cannot make a Euclidean triangle with angles not summing to 180 degrees, as it’s a logical contradiction, not a limit on His power.

Against unknown (again)

 Unknown:Even the Watchtower’s argument that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is comparable to blasphemy against impersonal things (e.g., “the word of God” or “the tabernacle”) fails upon examination. No impersonal object is ever made the criterion for eternal salvation or damnation as in Matthew 12:32. Only a divine Person, equal in glory and majesty with the Father and the Son, can occupy such a position.

Me:No, you can't blaspheme the word of God and be saved. You must believe JEHOVAH'S Word to be saved.

Mark.16:15,16NIV"He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. "

Matthew.12:32NIVAnyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."

Does the fact that one can blaspeme the Son and be forgiven mean that Son is not a person? So whether or not the blasphemy in question is unforgivable or not is irrelevant to determining personhood. The spirit is directly and immediately from God it has no will of its own. So it's testimony is undeniable to any sincere heart every other testimony is filtered including the heartfelt testimony of the Son.

Against unknown

Me:This is exact kind of stupidity couched in high sounding language the the holy scriptures warns us against ephesians.5:6

Unknown:Thomistic metaphysics provides the necessary clarity: God knows all things—past, present, future, and possible—by knowing Himself as the universal cause of all that is. His knowledge is not piecemeal or successive, but a single, eternal act. 

Me:if God foreordains a universe inhabited by true free moral agents akin to himself then logically only the possible choices of such free moral agents can be  foreknown since they have been granted the privilege of sharing with JEHOVAH in creating the future being true sons of God. If all of God's thoughts and acts are eternally foreordained then logically he himself is not free and therefore cannot confer freedom on any of his sons.

Unknown:All possible choices and contingencies are present to Him, but He causes no one to sin;

Me:No every choice has already been made by God in your behalf. To prevent evil all he would need to do is not create those making the wrong choices unless he himself has no choice.you don't get to have your cake and eat it too

 Unknown:He merely permits it, respecting the genuine secondary causality and freedom of rational creatures. Predestination, 

Me:If he foreknew your choice eternally prior to your existence his giving you the means to commit evil with that knowledge in mind makes him an accessory. If his acts are all foredetermined then he himself is not free and cannot be a source of freedom

Unknown:in Catholic doctrine, is always subordinated to the universal salvific will of God (1 Tim 2:4); no one is predestined to damnation apart from foreseen resistance to grace. God’s foreknowledge is thus the mirror of His eternal act: it is both absolute and, paradoxically to the temporal mind, perfectly compatible with the free cooperation or refusal of creatures.

Me:All determinism counters morality because morality presumes genuine choice in moral decisions an eternal determinism makes choice a mere illusion God is not good if determinism is a fact.

Unknown:The Watchtower position, in seeking to exonerate God from responsibility for evil, only empties God of His divinity. A God who learns, is surprised, or cannot see the future is not worthy of worship, nor can He guarantee the fulfillment of His promises. Classical theism—and this is the Catholic faith—holds that God’s knowledge and will are not opposed to creaturely freedom but the very condition for its possibility. If God were not outside of time, upholding all things by His word, there would be no free agents to choose at all. To reject this is not only to misunderstand Scripture but to surrender the very ground of hope in divine providence.

Me:Plain logic and common sense tell us that only a free Father can beget free sons. God being free has eternal foreordain a creation where free children are a possibility. We can increase our freedom by making wise choices or decrease it by making foolish choices. Determinism manifestly excludes genuine freedom.

Unknown:In conclusion, the Jehovah’s Witness doctrine of “selective foreknowledge” is a grave theological error. It arises from a false dilemma (that God’s knowing causes our doing), a defective anthropology (reducing freedom to mere unpredictability), and a deficient theology (denying God’s immutability and omniscience).

Me:JEHOVAH Creates the future and is free to create an undetermined future to deny this fact is to undermine his true majesty JEHOVAH is not afraid of the dark he is the creator and sovereign over the the dark just as he is of the light he knows the limits of the dark see Isaiah.45:7. It is christendom's theologians who are injuring JEHOVAH'S Majesty in effect reducing him to the status of a machine.

Unknown:Catholicism, in the line of Thomas Aquinas, teaches that God’s omniscience is both perfect and perfectly compatible with genuine, meaningful freedom.

Me:Omniscience is not the issue does JEHOVAH Have the might and wisdom to create a future that is undetermined in certain respects. Does he have the freedom change his mind. BTW moral choices aren't only choices rendered meaningless by determinism,the entire concept of choice and liberty is rendered moot.

Unknown:The mystery of divine providence is not a rational contradiction but the very source of our confidence and awe before the Creator, who knows us better than we know ourselves, and yet “calls us friends” (John 15:15), inviting our free response to His love

Me:Every attempt to rationalise the obvious contradiction  between determinism and free will fails. Merely empty words, trust your divinely provided common sense and reject the the high sounding absurdities that the worldly wise are always attempting to pass off as subtleties.