Posts by aqwsed12345

45

Blood decisions are now your problem: WT JULY 2025

by raymond frantz in

the following is from the latest study watchtower july 2025, study article 28, paragraph 17:.

each christian must make up his or her own mind about whether to accept or to reject these fractions.

we may find it a challenge to understand this matter fully, but making decisions like this is part of the load that each of us must carry.

aqwsed12345

@Rattigan350

The promise Nathan delivered to David in 2 Samuel 7 was never an elastic concession that God could stretch, pause, or retract for twenty‑five centuries. In the biblical text the Lord swears to “raise up your offspring after you … and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever.” That oath is fulfilled in Jesus the moment He is conceived by the Holy Spirit and anointed at His baptism, not at some later celestial coronation in 1914. He is already Son of David and “King of kings” while walking the roads of Galilee (Mt 12:23; Jn 1:49); He mounts the Cross wearing a placard that openly proclaims His royalty (Jn 19:19‑22). There is therefore no biblical warrant for inserting a “Gentile Times” hiatus after Jehoiakim, for Scripture itself says God “removed kings and set up kings” all through that period (Dan 2:21) and that even in exile the Davidic hope looked forward, not to a sabbatical, but to the advent of the Messiah (Ez 34; Jer 23; Hag 2). The alleged 2,520‑year suspension is a 19‑century‑late arithmetic innovation, not apostolic teaching.

Because Christ’s kingship began with His exaltation, the veil of the Temple split at His death, signifying not a delayed enthronement but present access to the Father (Heb 10:19‑21). The New Testament says repeatedly that the Covenant people already share in a kingdom (Col 1:13; Rev 1:5‑6). No text hints that the heavenly city must wait for 1,900 years while Satan roams untouched. Revelation 12—which Jehovah’s Witnesses place in 1914—actually frames the dragon’s expulsion as the immediate fruit of Christ’s Ascension (“the child was caught up to God and to his throne,” vv. 5‑10).

The JW assertion that “no one who died before Christ can be in heaven” founders on Jesus’ own words. He pictures Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the prophets “reclining at table in the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 8:11; Lk 13:28) and promises the repentant robber, “Today you will be with me in Paradise” (Lk 23:43). Classical theology has always distinguished the limbus patrum—“Abraham’s bosom,” the happy Sheol where the righteous awaited redemption—from Gehenna. Christ’s descent “to the dead” proclaims victory, liberates those souls, and opens heaven, exactly as 1 Peter 3:19‑22 and 4:6 imply. Thus Moses and Elijah can stand in glory with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration long before 1914 (Lk 9:30‑31).

The first generation of Christians therefore did not lie unconscious until an invisible enthronement. Paul confidently teaches that “to depart and be with Christ is far better” (Phil 1:23) and that absence from the body means being “at home with the Lord” (2 Cor 5:8). The JW reply—that the “we” of 2 Corinthians refers only to first‑century "anointed"—is arbitrary. The New Testament does not present an idea of different salvation "classes". Paul simply writes those letters “for all who in every place call upon the name of our Lord” (1 Cor 1:2). If the Spirit who raised Jesus dwells in us, He “will give life to your mortal bodies also” (Rom 8:11). No expiry date is attached, not limiting the promise to a limited elite group.

Nor does Scripture restrict the number of glorified saints. Revelation’s 144,000 is a symbolic square of twelve, multiplied by a thousand, depicting the whole Israel of God sealed on earth, while John immediately sees “a great multitude which no one could count” worshipping in heaven (Rev 7). Early Jewish apocalyptic loves such literary juxtapositions; it was never meant as a census. To insist that the tally closed in 1935—and that Paul was ignorant of the ceiling—requires reading an 1870s corporate narrative back into the apostolic age.

In the New Testament, the existence of "heavenly and earthly classes" would have necessitated clear references as to which verse, passage, or letter refers to and is addressed to whom. There are no such references, so either we must discard the New Testament due to the astonishing and misleading negligence of the sacred writers, or the doctrine of separation. Otherwise, considering the alleged privileges of the 144,000, the masses of Witnesses take the Bible into their hands completely unnecessarily, as only a fraction of it pertains to them.

The JW dismissal of the Lord’s Supper for the vast majority of believers breaks with the earliest and most universal Christian practice. Christ did not limit His command, “Do this in memory of me,” to eleven men; Luke records that the Church “devoted itself to the breaking of bread” (Acts 2:42) and that Christians met on the first day of the week “to break bread” (Acts 20:7). Participation in the Eucharist is precisely how believers “proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes” (1 Cor 11:26)—not by abstaining from the elements. The claim that four written Gospels render the sacrament obsolete is a modern rationalization unknown to the Church or the Fathers.

Finally, heaven is not merely an “office.” It is the unveiled fellowship of the Trinity, the consummation for which the cosmos was created. Those who share Christ’s priest‑kingship do serve, but their service is perfect beatitude (Rev 22:3‑4). Traditional eschatology foresees a renewed creation in which risen humanity reigns with the Lamb, yet remains forever one family: no eternal caste system, no bifurcated hopes.

In short, the JW construction—pausing God’s covenant, limiting Christ’s kingship, postponing resurrection, capping heaven’s citizens, and withholding the Eucharist—rests on speculative calculations and selective readings. Historic Christianity, in continuity with Scripture and the apostolic Church, proclaims one seamless kingdom inaugurated in Christ, one communion of saints already sharing His life, and one Eucharistic memorial for all who believe until He comes again.

26

WT June 2025: We Are Not Blind We Just Don't Know

by raymond frantz in

https://youtu.be/7xumqjq3zfc?si=ivcg96t4dtgze4ft.

so this is from the brand new watchtower study edition of june 2025 which has just been posted on jw.org .under the title: modestly accept what you do not know, a let’s read paragraphs in question 4 &5: “read matthew 24:36. we do not know when the end of this system of things will come.

even jesus, while on earth, did not know the ‘day and hour.’ he later told the apostles that jehovah, who is the great timekeeper, keeps the timing of certain events ‘in his own jurisdiction,’ or authority.

aqwsed12345

In a recent article, the Watchtower leadership has taken a surprising turn—not by offering new insight, but by confessing, almost meekly, that they simply don’t know. After over a century of setting and resetting prophetic clocks, they now encourage their followers to “modestly accept what [they] do not know.” It’s a rhetorical shift that deserves far more scrutiny than reverence, especially from those who have built their lives around promises that the organization once claimed were unshakably certain.

For decades, the organization insisted that it held privileged access to divine timetables. 1914, 1925, 1975—these were not vague impressions or speculative musings but hard dates confidently proclaimed as spiritually significant. They were offered not as possibilities but as assurances—declarations so certain that followers were urged to make life-altering decisions: forgo education, delay careers, avoid children, invest in door-to-door ministry because the end was “just around the corner.” Now, with this latest publication, that tone of prophetic certainty has been rebranded as humble ignorance. And instead of repentance for the generations misled, we are served a sanctimonious appeal to “modesty.”

But there is nothing modest about what this organization has historically claimed. To announce oneself as the exclusive “channel of communication” for the Almighty, to call for total loyalty and unquestioning obedience, and then retreat into theological obscurity when predictions fail—this is not modesty. It’s spiritual gaslighting. You were wrong, but the blame is placed on the sheep for being discouraged, for growing weary, for asking questions. They call it “waiting on Jehovah,” but what they truly demand is submission without clarity, loyalty without understanding.

And let’s not forget the theological sleight of hand. They point to Matthew 24:36 to remind us that “no one knows the day or the hour.” Yet the same group who now clings to that verse as an excuse for ignorance once used it as a platform for declaring with confidence that “the generation of 1914 will not pass away.” If they are invoking that passage just now, they must also be held accountable for why they ignored it then. This isn’t just doctrinal inconsistency; it is a profound failure in spiritual stewardship.

They now appeal to the uncertainty itself as a virtue. They claim that not knowing builds faith. But Christ gave his followers clear signs and seasons—not so they would wander blindly, but so they could prepare with hope and discernment. Faith is not contrary to understanding. Real faith seeks truth, not evasions. There is a chasm between trusting in God’s providence and following an institution that absolves itself from accountability while still demanding absolute trust.

Even more disconcerting is how this narrative manipulates emotion. The article acknowledges the fatigue of believers, the ridicule they endure, and the sorrow of waiting endlessly. But instead of recognizing that these burdens stem from the organization’s own false expectations, it implies that the fault lies in the believer’s patience, or lack thereof. You’re not tired because you were misled—you’re tired because you don’t trust enough. This is not spiritual care; it is psychological manipulation.

Nowhere is this clearer than in the continued insistence on 1914 as a prophetic cornerstone. They “do not know” the end, but they “do know” that the “last days began in 1914.” This teaching hinges on a creative reimagining of history, where the timing of Satan’s expulsion from heaven somehow coincides precisely with the outbreak of World War I—despite the war beginning months before their alleged heavenly battle even concluded. The only way to maintain this illusion is to double down on a fragile system of chronology and hope that no one examines it too closely.

But more and more are examining it—and more are leaving. Not out of rebellion, but because they can no longer abide by a theology that cloaks uncertainty in the language of divine insight. They are tired of waiting in a spiritual waiting room with magazines in hand, hoping the receptionist will one day call their name. The “Great Timekeeper” narrative has worn thin. It once promised revelation. Now it delivers delay.

What then remains? The Gospel of Christ. The actual one—not the speculative timelines or apocalyptic graphs, but the enduring call to trust, follow, and hope in the Person of Jesus. The Christian walk is not built on countdowns but on communion; not on watchtowers but on witness. Christ did not ask for loyalty to an institution that revises its teachings every decade. He asked for faithfulness to Himself—who does not change.

So let them admit they do not know. Let them confess that they’ve lost the plot they claimed to have written. But let us also remember that in the Church, in the Body that Christ established and continues to guide, there is continuity, there is clarity, and above all—there is Truth. Not always spelled out in dates and hours, but rooted in the unchanging faith handed down from the apostles and preserved across the ages. That truth was never in flux. That hope never needed a reset. And that faith does not need to apologize for being sure.

36

Sisters can now wear pants. Any more important changes

by Witness 007 in

alot of my witness friends were excited sisters can now wear pants and you can say hi to disfellowshiped folks but what about important stuff child molesters in the congregation you need 2 witnesses blood fractions are fine but not whole blood????

607 bce is from the 1880s wrong....anything else?

aqwsed12345

A religious group once obsessed with enforcing trivial dress codes now parades its “new light” by declaring that women may wear pants and men may grow beards. The tone among its members swings between relief and celebration—as if emancipation had been granted by divine decree. Yet, beneath these superficial shifts lies the same oppressive foundation: rigid authoritarianism masquerading as biblical fidelity.

This group, known for its dogmatic hierarchy and unquestioning obedience, continues to demand absolute loyalty while disguising minor policy revisions as spiritual progress. Allowing women to wear pants is not a move toward equality, but rather a token concession from men who still refuse to allow female voices in any position of doctrinal authority. Beards, long associated with Jesus and the prophets, were inexplicably stigmatized for decades—until one governing leader apparently decided it suited his personal style. Suddenly, what was once discouraged as worldly became "acceptable," revealing that the so-called spiritual guidance is often dictated not by timeless divine truth, but by the whims of aging bureaucrats.

Meanwhile, the truly urgent issues remain unaddressed. Sexual abuse victims are still told they need “two witnesses” before their testimony is taken seriously. A grotesque misapplication of Mosaic law persists, turning a mechanism for establishing civil guilt in ancient tribal society into a shield for predators in the modern congregation. Rather than seek justice, the organization protects its image, treating abuse not as a crime but as an internal spiritual failing best handled behind closed Kingdom Hall doors.

Their chronology remains equally dishonest. Despite overwhelming historical, archaeological, and astronomical evidence dating Jerusalem’s destruction to 587 BCE, they stubbornly cling to the disproven 607 BCE date—an invention of 19th-century Adventist speculation, not divine revelation. Why? Because the entire scaffolding of their prophetic interpretation collapses without it. Truth is sacrificed at the altar of institutional pride.

Doctrinal contradictions abound. Blood transfusions are condemned, yet fractions of blood are permitted—a legalistic compromise designed to placate critics while maintaining the illusion of doctrinal consistency. They champion scriptural purity, but selectively reinterpret or discard texts when it suits organizational convenience. The same leaders who once expelled members for celebrating birthdays or sporting facial hair now reverse these rules with no acknowledgment of the pain their prior teachings inflicted. In this system, the error is never the doctrine—it’s the follower’s fault for failing to “wait on Jehovah.”

The truth is, these cosmetic changes are not signs of reform but tools of retention. They are intended to create the appearance of adaptability while the core machinery of control grinds on. The rules may change, but the rule-makers remain unaccountable. As long as the faithful are trained to obey without question, to fear independent thought, and to accept doctrinal reversals as “new light” rather than institutional backpedaling, nothing has truly changed.

A system that conditions people to equate obedience with righteousness, even in matters as mundane as clothing, is not a spiritual paradise. It is a spiritual prison. The celebration of pants and beards only underscores how deep the conditioning runs: that such basic human choices were ever in question proves just how far removed this organization is from the freedom Christ promises.

True faith does not suppress justice, falsify history, or micromanage lives under the pretense of divine governance. It does not require its followers to ask permission to express joy, celebrate life, or grieve wrongdoing. No amount of “new light” can illuminate an institution that thrives in the shadows of silence, control, and unrepentant abuse. Until there is truth, justice, and accountability, these changes are not progress—they are propaganda.

15

The Big Secret

by finishedmystery in

when the gb brought a formal end to all the type/antitypes in so many ways it could be said that they brought the religion to an end.

the other sheep/anointed teaching that leads to a two class religion was originally based on two antitypes--the jehu/jehonadab relationship and something about the cities of refuge.

in that 2014 annual meeting talk david splane even specifically stated that the cities of refuge has no antitype.

aqwsed12345

There was a time when Jehovah’s Witnesses stood out for their elaborate, if imaginative, interpretive schemes—where nearly every Old Testament narrative had a prophetic counterpart, every shadow had a substance, and every minor figure in Scripture foreshadowed some vital element of their eschatological worldview. These “types and antitypes,” as they were called, offered the illusion of a grand theological coherence, albeit an artificial one. But now, without warning or apology, the very leadership that crafted this interpretive edifice has swept it all away—silently, strategically, and with staggering consequences. And almost no one within their ranks has noticed.

The so-called "Governing Body" has methodically unraveled the interpretive framework that underpinned their most foundational teachings—without offering any adequate replacement. The cities of refuge no longer represent anything. The Jehu/Jehonadab model, which justified the two-class theology of “anointed” and “other sheep,” has vanished. The Watchtower’s unique interpretation of Malachi 3, once the core proof text of their claim to be the one true religion, has been discarded without ceremony. Their bizarre 1914 doctrine—built on the supposed antitype of Nebuchadnezzar’s madness—suddenly floats in a vacuum. And rather than explain or defend this revolution, the leadership offers only silence. They do not defend the remnants. They do not declare any exceptions. They simply erase and move on.

But this is not mere theological refinement. This is a self-immolation of identity. For over a century, these prophetic “types” justified their distinctiveness—justified their doctrine, their exclusivity, their two-tier salvation system. And now that foundation is gone. With it crumbles the rationale for the 8.8 million adherents to believe that their salvation depends on loyalty to an organization which, by its own admission, no longer possesses divine insight. Instead, the members are told—implicitly, yet forcefully—that none of this matters. Do not question. Do not discuss. Obey, even if it seems illogical. It is Orwellian in its boldness: the doctrinal pillars can vanish, but the structure must remain standing.

This is not simply confusion. It is theological gaslighting.

Even former members who still cling to much of the movement’s theology have noticed the absurdity. One disillusioned academic insider observed that with the abandonment of prophetic types, hundreds of Watchtower publications have retroactively become meaningless. Generations were taught to build their lives upon teachings that are now openly declared to be speculative fiction. These were not minor footnotes—they were the blueprints. But in place of these discarded typologies, we now receive little more than moralistic platitudes. Naboth is no longer a Christ-figure or a symbol of the anointed; he is just a man who stood up for what was right. Elijah no longer foreshadows the prophetic class; he is merely a bold example. The cities of refuge, which once pointed to organizational safety, now mean... nothing. All that remains is “practical application”—but with no theological anchoring, no eschatological significance, and certainly no compelling reason to believe this group speaks for God.

The Watchtower’s new interpretive minimalism is not humble. It is evasive. The leadership’s newfound "simplicity" is a shield—not from error, but from accountability. For decades, they claimed that they alone could interpret the prophetic Word. Now, having undermined their own credentials, they refuse to acknowledge the spiritual damage caused by their false predictions and typological acrobatics. It is not that they are returning to biblical restraint. It is that they are retreating from the battlefield of reason and responsibility.

Worse still is the cruelty of what this abandonment implies: the erasure of hope. The previous theology, though flawed, at least offered a vision—of vindication, of deliverance, of paradise. Now, salvation is a shell. The old dual-class structure—anointed versus other sheep—was dubious to begin with, but at least it claimed biblical roots in types and shadows. Now those shadows have been declared formless, the types merely incidental, the structure unsupported. And yet, the system remains in force. You must still believe in it. You must still obey. Or face expulsion.

This is not Christianity. This is institutional delusion.

What Christian body, however errant, has ever dared to declare that it can strip away the theological grounds of its own salvation schema while demanding unquestioning loyalty to it? What church has ever said: “We have removed the reason for your hope. Now trust us all the more”? It is spiritual abuse cloaked in “greater discretion.” It is not prudence; it is paralysis.

In their refusal to allow serious doctrinal inquiry among their own members, the leadership has enacted something like a doctrine of willful ignorance. The problem is not simply that they no longer explain prophecy—it is that they mock the very desire to seek meaning. They infantilize their followers, punish theological curiosity, and weaponize obedience. To suggest that Solomon may not be resurrected is not caution—it is absurdity. It is the institutionalization of not knowing, elevated to virtue.

This shift betrays what little confidence the leadership has in their own theology. And so they fortify their control through what one ex-member rightly called “brainwashing preemptive damage control”: if the masses ever begin to grasp what has happened—if they connect the dots and realize their doctrinal foundation has been silently removed—they are already conditioned to respond with apathy or fear.

But truth is not afraid of questions. Hope does not thrive in the absence of understanding. And Christ never required blind submission to an evolving theological fog. The real tragedy is not just that millions are being misled. It’s that they are being deprived—of the very thing they most desire: the certainty of God’s promises and the joy of salvation. All that remains is a counterfeit gospel propped up by suppression, not revelation.

In the end, the greatest scandal is not the change itself—it’s the silence.

6

Building Houses for the Resurrected.

by vienne in

recent to b's history blog, an article explaining that n. pierson, a russell associate, built cottages for his soon to be resurrected relatives.

fascinating.

he hated rutherford, but still .... https://truthhistory.blogspot.com/.

aqwsed12345

It is difficult to conceive of a religious movement more embarrassingly entangled in the ruins of its own failed prophecies than the organization now known as Jehovah’s Witnesses. One of the most striking and frankly bizarre illustrations of this is the construction of literal houses for the physically resurrected dead—yes, actual buildings, real estate, complete with addresses and deeds—built on the unfounded expectation that long-dead biblical patriarchs would soon knock at the door. Such was the spectacle of Watchtower eschatology in the 1920s and 30s.

In 1925, a devout Russellite, Andrew N. Pierson, built cottages in Cromwell, Connecticut, for his deceased family members, believing they would be resurrected imminently in fulfillment of C. T. Russell’s prophetic speculations. That this man loathed Rutherford, Russell’s dictatorial successor, did not prevent him from absorbing the same delusional timetable. Pierson’s misguided piety was a microcosm of a broader movement that replaced sacred tradition and doctrinal continuity with apocalyptic guesswork and speculative theology.

But the greater scandal lies not with Pierson’s personal folly, but with Rutherford himself, who took the failed prophecy of 1925 and used it as a pretext for constructing a mansion in San Diego—Beth Sarim—which he claimed was built for Abraham, Moses, David, and other ancient “princes.” Yet as the world reeled from the economic devastation of the Great Depression, this Watchtower president lived in ostentatious luxury, chauffeured in a 16-cylinder Cadillac and enjoying a ten-bedroom palace with palm-lined grounds, under the flimsy excuse that he needed the warm climate “for his health.”

And who paid for this absurd house supposedly built for resurrected patriarchs? According to official Watchtower publications, it was a “gift” from unnamed “friends”—a nebulous phrase that conveniently shields the organization from financial transparency. The irony is grotesque: while Rutherford’s followers were selling their homes and livelihoods to finance the Watchtower’s publishing empire and door-to-door campaigns, their leader was sipping wine in California, awaiting King David to arrive and claim the guest suite.

Let that sink in: during a time of worldwide economic collapse, when real human beings were suffering hunger, eviction, and joblessness, a man who claimed to be "God’s mouthpiece" built a mansion—not for the poor, not for missionaries, not for widows or orphans—but for dead men who never showed up. When 1925 passed without resurrection, the mansion remained. When Rutherford died in 1942, the “princes” still hadn’t come. The house was quietly sold in 1948, the prophecy conveniently “adjusted,” and the faithful instructed to move on as if nothing happened.

This is not biblical faith. This is cultic absurdity, a form of religious theater that builds houses for the dead while ignoring the gospel of the living Christ. Real Christianity teaches the resurrection of the body—but it never required building vacation homes for the saints. The Church venerates the patriarchs of old—but never taught they would return to govern from San Diego. Real Christianity proclaims Christ crucified and risen—not date-setting fantasies and eschatological real estate.

Beth Sarim stands as a monument not to hope, but to hubris. To a false prophet who refused to repent of his errors, who manipulated sacred Scripture to justify personal comfort, and who mocked genuine Christian faith with theatrics better suited for a charlatan than a shepherd. It is a physical, historical witness against a system that continues to demand unquestioning allegiance, while rewriting its past every time reality fails to conform to its expectations.

Those who trust the promises of Christ do not build mansions for the dead. They build the Kingdom of God in love, in truth, and in fidelity to the Church that He founded. No Cadillac, no mansion, no failed date of resurrection can compete with that.

27

God’s wisdom in allowing bearded JWs July 25 Watchtower

by Listener in

the july 2025 watchtower has a paragraph that claims that it was the superior power and wisdom of jehovah that guided the gb into allowing jws to grow beards.. the study article is ‘can you still learn from basic bible teachings?’ under the subheading ‘jehovah is the creator’ paragraph 7 states-.

“ 7. what did rahela do to accept a change in direction?.

your answer.

aqwsed12345

There was a time when Christian doctrine concerned itself with matters of salvation, the Incarnation, the sacraments, and the eternal truths revealed by God. But in the surreal theological theater of modern sectarianism, even the facial hair of a man has been mystically elevated into the realm of "divine direction." A recent example of this absurdity is the July 2025 issue of the Watchtower magazine, which claims—without irony—that the "superior wisdom and power" of God guided a religious organization's governing body into allowing its male members to grow beards.

The paragraph in question offers the tale of a woman named Rahela from Slovenia, who reportedly struggled to accept this shocking new reality: that a fellow believer could appear on stage with facial hair. But with much prayer and reflection on her Creator’s sovereignty, she came to terms with this seismic doctrinal shift. We are expected to believe that Almighty God, the Lord of Hosts, chose to exercise his infinite wisdom in resolving the crisis of... beards. That this anecdote is meant to inspire awe or reverence is not only pitiable—it is profane.

What emerges from such accounts is a grotesque caricature of divine providence. The omnipotent God who crafted galaxies, who redeems souls, is reduced to a micromanaging bureaucrat of grooming policy. The faithful are encouraged to meditate on God's inscrutable ways because a man was permitted to appear with stubble on his chin. The implication is as staggering as it is ludicrous: that God himself changed his mind about something that Scripture never even condemns, because a few men at the top changed theirs.

In truth, this is not theology—it is manipulation. By attaching the name of God to every policy shift and preference of the leadership, the line between divine will and human control is intentionally blurred. Once, Jesus was portrayed beardless in Watchtower publications, against all historical and scriptural evidence, simply because the cultural taboos of the time demanded it. Now that society has shifted again, so has "God's guidance." This is not revelation; it is reinvention.

The mechanism is clear: invent a rule, enforce it for decades, then rescind it as a matter of spiritual enlightenment, attributing both the original prohibition and the new permission to the same divine source. Meanwhile, the laity is infantilized—trained not to discern right from wrong through prayer, Scripture, or conscience, but to await new instructions from above. And when those instructions arrive, they must be accepted as if descending from Sinai itself, even when they contradict what was once taught as sacred.

The tragedy of this theater is not only the intellectual insult it pays to those who love and fear God, but the spiritual damage it inflicts on sincere souls. It replaces the liberty of the Gospel with the chains of organizational whim. It conditions believers to associate divine approval with external compliance, and to accept that even their appearance must be sanctioned from above. But what is most blasphemous is the way God's name is drafted into every petty edict—as if He were the mascot of every memo and adjustment.

This is not faith. It is religious theater scripted by bureaucrats who presume to speak for God but contradict Him by their every inconsistency. The God of Scripture does not obsess over grooming trends. Christ wore a beard not as an act of rebellion but because he was a man in first-century Judea. His appearance was not subject to committee vote. That this needs to be said at all is a testament to how far from apostolic Christianity such sects have strayed.

To attribute the changing fashions of men to the eternal purposes of God is to profane the divine name. True reverence does not mean blind submission to every organizational pivot; it means worshiping God in spirit and truth. And the truth is this: the Creator of heaven and earth did not descend from his throne to approve goatees. What did descend, however, is a spirit of control masquerading as guidance—and the faithful should have the courage to see through the charade.

27

BABYLON THE GREAT IS NOT FALLING ANYMORE? (NEW LIGHT FROM THE ANNUAL MEETING)

by raymond frantz in

https://youtu.be/rsbfa_7lqv4?si=muuxmgtll1n1ifad.

the watchtower’s babylon the great: a shrinking reality?.

so this latest annual meeting introduced a new idea about babylon the great, and here is the part from geoffrey jackson's talk we real need to dig in and consider it's ramifications..... so you’ve got to hand it to them; they know how to keep things interesting with their ever-evolving interpretations and, of course, those classic "adjustments" in understanding.

aqwsed12345

Once again, the self-proclaimed “faithful and discreet slave” reveals itself not as a prophetic guide but as a doctrinal contortionist. The latest “new light” from the Annual Meeting has sparked a quiet, awkward shift in Jehovah’s Witness eschatology: Babylon the Great, long caricatured as the entirety of “false religion,” no longer seems to be falling according to script. But rather than acknowledging the failure of past prophecies, the leadership pivots, reshapes, and rebrands its narrative—an all-too-familiar pattern for those who have tracked the Watchtower's checkered doctrinal past.

For decades, Babylon the Great was a centerpiece of their apocalyptic worldview. Illustrated in Watchtower literature with collapsing cathedrals and burning churches (always churches, never mosques or synagogues), it served as a convenient foil against which the organization could define its own purity. The message was consistent and forceful: all other religions are corrupt, demonic, and on the brink of divine annihilation. And yet now, when that anticipated destruction fails to materialize, and religion continues to thrive in vast swaths of the world, the Society’s bravado fades into ambiguity.

What is unfolding before us is not a case of divine refinement but strategic rebranding. This recent reinterpretation, in which the “one thought” of Revelation 17:13 is redirected toward the political realm—namely, the nations handing power to the United Nations—signals more than theological ambiguity. It reveals a desperate retreat. Babylon the Great, once center stage, is gradually being relegated to a conceptual background as the governing body attempts to preserve relevance in a world that continues to disprove their chronological confidence.

Let us not forget, their 1919 narrative—that Christ judged all religions and chose Jehovah’s Witnesses alone to be his earthly organization—is foundational to their authority. To walk back any part of their eschatological framework, even slightly, is to shake the fragile scaffolding on which their spiritual supremacy rests. That scaffolding, built on the ruins of failed expectations and revised dates, cannot withstand scrutiny. The fall of Babylon the Great was not merely postponed; it was never happening according to their timeline. Yet, instead of admitting prophetic error, they simply recalibrate the lens, hoping that loyal members won’t notice the sleight of hand.

But the shifting emphasis carries further implications. In toning down their aggressive stance against other religions—especially Christianity—the organization positions itself as more palatable to secular governments and charitable watchdogs. In nations like Australia and the UK, where the Watchtower has faced legal scrutiny and where charity status is under review, it is expedient to appear moderate. How ironic that an organization which once reveled in damning others as "harlots of Babylon" now adjusts its tone to avoid appearing intolerant or sectarian. The fire-breathing denunciations of “Christendom” are replaced with vague, sanitized language designed to escape controversy and preserve tax benefits.

Even more revealing is the selective application of their rhetoric. While Christian denominations—especially the Catholic Church—are depicted as the ultimate embodiments of Babylonian corruption, Islam, Judaism, Eastern religions, and animistic traditions receive conspicuously little criticism. Why? Not out of theological nuance, but due to social caution. It is far safer to attack Catholics—who won't retaliate—than to risk accusations of bigotry or incitement by polemicizing against protected or sensitive religious minorities. Thus, their so-called prophetic courage proves itself to be moral convenience.

In truth, the only “fall” that appears underway is that of the Watchtower itself. Membership stagnates or declines in many parts of the world. Kingdom Halls are shuttered or sold. The once-tight screws of behavioral control loosen quietly. Beards, university education, relaxed dating rules—all formerly grounds for suspicion or discipline—are now tacitly accepted or openly allowed. The governing body, once the purveyor of eternal absolutes, now trades in temporal flexibility.

But what is left when the apocalyptic urgency fades, when the walls of doctrinal exclusivity begin to crack, and when the “us vs. them” paradigm is diluted into vague niceness? The answer is simple: a hollowed-out ideology struggling to reinvent itself. The supposed uniqueness of Jehovah’s Witnesses is being traded for survival strategies, and the prophetic core that once gave them zeal now resembles little more than a shuffled deck of outdated Watchtower magazines.

In this, we see the inevitable unraveling of a theology not rooted in timeless truth but in reactive adjustment. The Catholic Church, by contrast, does not hinge its authority on predictions of imminent Armageddon or on denouncing others to validate itself. Her endurance lies not in sensationalism, but in sacrament; not in doomsday charts, but in apostolic succession; not in adjusting doctrines to save face, but in preserving what was handed down from Christ and his apostles.

As the Watchtower continues its evolution into a more socially acceptable but spiritually vacuous institution, one cannot help but ask: if Babylon the Great is no longer falling, then what exactly are they waiting for? Or perhaps, more poignantly: has the Watchtower mistaken itself for the very harlot it so often condemned?

45

Blood decisions are now your problem: WT JULY 2025

by raymond frantz in

the following is from the latest study watchtower july 2025, study article 28, paragraph 17:.

each christian must make up his or her own mind about whether to accept or to reject these fractions.

we may find it a challenge to understand this matter fully, but making decisions like this is part of the load that each of us must carry.

aqwsed12345

In the July 2025 Watchtower (Study Article 28, paragraph 17), Jehovah’s Witnesses are told:

“Each Christian must make up his or her own mind about whether to accept or to reject these [blood] fractions… So when should we ask a mature Christian for advice? After we have done our own research…”

At first glance, it seems like a modest, even humble, appeal to personal responsibility. But make no mistake: this is not about spiritual maturity. This is not about conscience. This is about liability—and it reeks of cowardice dressed up as piety.

The blood doctrine has long been a centerpiece of the Watchtower’s theological and cultural identity, enforced not merely through publications but through judicial action, social shunning, and unrelenting moral pressure. Now, as legal scrutiny tightens and the public grows increasingly repulsed by policies that have claimed the lives of countless men, women, and children, the Governing Body is playing a new game: plausible deniability. They want all the control without any of the responsibility. All the blood, none of the blame.

For decades, members were told explicitly that receiving a blood transfusion was a sin worthy of disfellowshipping. Families were torn apart, children died, and parents were lauded for letting their sons and daughters perish “faithful.” Elders delivered ultimatums in hospital rooms. Awake! magazine ran cover stories of brave martyrs who “stood firm” to the end. And now, just as the tide of global opinion turns and lawsuits mount, the organization dares to say: “Do your own research. The choice is yours.”

But the choice is anything but free. What Witness dares to reject the unspoken expectation? What parent wants to be seen as spiritually weak for authorizing a transfusion? The entire Watchtower framework is designed to steer members to the “right” conclusion, even while pretending to grant autonomy. A Witness who takes blood still faces social death by disassociation, even if it’s technically rebranded as a “personal decision.” It’s manipulation cloaked in compassion.

Apologists try to spin this shift as progress. “It’s just about fractions.” “They’ve always left room for conscience.” “There’s no hard rule anymore.” These arguments are disingenuous. If the Governing Body genuinely believed that accepting blood (or any of its components) was not a sin, they’d say so clearly. They’d abolish the Hospital Liaison Committees. They’d rescind decades of printed threats. They’d apologize for the lives lost under their directives. They’d disband the judicial penalties that still loom over every hospital bed.

But they won’t—because doing so would mean admitting that those deaths were not sacrifices to God, but to human arrogance. It would mean confessing that their understanding of divine will has been flawed, changeable, and deadly. And that kind of admission costs power.

Instead, they’re opting for ambiguity, letting rank-and-file Witnesses shoulder the moral burden they created. “Make your own decision,” they say, as if the ghost of a disfellowshipped relative isn’t standing in the room. “Do your own research,” as if the only available material isn’t their own doctrine, filtered through layers of euphemism and omission. “We never told them what to do,” they’ll insist, when the lawsuits come.

What’s more tragic is that none of this is new. This is the same playbook they used when they quietly reversed their ban on vaccinations in the 1950s after calling them “a violation of God’s covenant with Noah.” The same hedging they used when they outlawed organ transplants in 1967—calling them “cannibalism”—only to reverse course in 1980 without apology. The same backpedaling they’ll eventually do with blood transfusions, once the cost—legal, financial, reputational—is too high to ignore.

And when that day comes, it won’t be the Governing Body offering comfort to the grieving parents whose children died obeying a rule that no longer exists. It will be the same silence that always follows their doctrinal wreckage. No memorials. No retractions. No remorse.

So yes, the Watchtower now says the blood is on your hands. Not because they want to free your conscience—but because they want to free their own. It’s your choice, they say. But if you make the wrong one, you’ll still pay the price.

And they’ll still pretend they had nothing to do with it.

19

1975 debacle

by Gman2001 in

did the borg ever apologize for 1975?.

aqwsed12345

https://youtu.be/qqjzgYnq5Uo

The year 1975 stands as one of the most glaring examples of prophetic failure in the history of modern religious movements. It was a moment when the organization that claims to be God’s sole channel on earth built an entire campaign of urgency and expectation around a specific date—then, when the prophecy failed to materialize, deftly sidestepped responsibility with the slippery grace of a practiced illusionist. There was no thunderous apology from the platform, no sackcloth-wearing repentance in the pages of their publications. Instead, there was silence, followed by deflection, and then—years later—a watery, half-hearted acknowledgement that maybe, just maybe, their words “might have” misled some “overzealous” followers.

But the historical record is unambiguous. The literature, the conventions, the talks—especially the infamous Life Everlasting in Freedom of the Sons of God book—drew bold connections between the biblical timeline and the year 1975. Leaders cultivated a climate of anticipation so intense that families sold homes, delayed medical care, chose not to pursue careers, put off having children, or abandoned savings accounts—all because they were led to believe the system would not last past that pivotal year. Entire lives were redirected on the basis of this failed expectation.

What followed was not accountability, but a breathtaking display of institutional gaslighting. When 1976 dawned and Armageddon had conspicuously failed to appear, the narrative quickly changed. Suddenly, it was the fault of the rank and file for "reading too much into it." The publications began inserting subtle phrases like “some thought” or “certain ones expected,” as if it were merely a fringe belief whispered in backrooms—not an orchestrated global campaign driven by leadership from the top down.

To this day, the organization has never issued a clear, unambiguous apology. Instead, it has chosen to let the memory fade into the fog of institutional amnesia. Many younger members don’t even know the 1975 debacle happened. They weren’t told how devastating it was for thousands who had sacrificed their futures for a lie. The past was paved over with new publications, rebranded urgency, and a steady reminder to never “run ahead of the organization”—a thinly veiled warning not to question, not to remember, and certainly not to hold leadership accountable for its own failings.

This isn’t just a story about a wrong prediction. It’s a story about manipulation, evasion, and institutional dishonesty. It is about how a religious organization, while demanding absolute trust and obedience, took no responsibility when its predictions failed spectacularly. Instead of confession, it offered scapegoating. Instead of transparency, it gave revisionism. And instead of humility, it doubled down on its spiritual authority, expecting those it misled to simply nod and carry on, as if nothing had happened.

The legacy of 1975 isn't just broken dreams and ruined plans. It's a permanent stain on the credibility of a group that claims divine guidance yet repeatedly demands that its followers forget the cost of their misplaced faith. To this day, the lesson remains: in a system built on control, failure is never admitted—it is repackaged, redirected, and denied. And those left to bear the consequences are told, with astonishing audacity, that it was their fault all along.

228

The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity

by slimboyfat in

rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.

aqwsed12345

@KalebOutWest

Thank you for your reply. I want to begin by acknowledging the unique perspective you bring to the conversation, given your rich and multifaceted religious and cultural background. It’s clear that your experience spans Judaism, Catholicism, and the intense spiritual scrutiny of life within the Jehovah’s Witnesses. I don’t take that lightly. You have walked many roads that have given you insight not only into doctrine, but into the lives of believers navigating faith, identity, and integrity under the weight of tradition and religious authority. I respect that deeply.

At the same time, I would like to respond—not with aggression or dismissal—but with the clarity and theological grounding of Catholic orthodoxy. Your frustration is palpable, and I want to address the heart of your critique with empathy, while also offering correction where it’s due.

When I said that accusing a Catholic of being a "Jehovah’s Witness at heart" is both misleading and ironic, I was not belittling your personal journey. Rather, I was highlighting the vast theological and ecclesiological differences between Catholicism and the Watchtower organization. Jehovah’s Witnesses deny the Trinity, reject the real incarnation of God in Christ, eliminate sacramental grace, and operate under a rigid and anti-historical interpretive regime that is alien to the Church's magisterial tradition. These are not trivial points. They are essential divides. The claim that a Catholic defending apostolic tradition is somehow reflecting the mindset of Jehovah’s Witnesses is a categorical misfire. To equate fidelity to tradition and teaching authority with the authoritarian structure of the Watchtower is to confuse continuity with control, and apostolic inheritance with ideological indoctrination.

Your remarks about knowing “rotten Catholics” and seeing through "bad ones" sound like they come from a place of deep disillusionment—perhaps with real hypocrisy you’ve witnessed. If that’s the case, I hear you. Scandal and bad witness exist. But that is not the essence of Catholicism. The sins of her members do not nullify the sanctity of her doctrine, nor the truth of her sacraments. Augustine once said, “You are the body of Christ. But if you are the body of Christ, then it is your mystery placed on the Lord’s table; you receive your mystery.” The Church is always both holy and in need of purification—simul justus et peccator, as our Lutheran friends say of the individual, and in a certain sense it applies ecclesiologically as well. But if Judas Iscariot sat at the first Eucharist, we cannot expect the Church to be entirely free from betrayal even now. The wheat and the tares grow together until the harvest.

As to your claim that I “don’t read current Church and doctrinal explanations from the Vatican,” I must respectfully disagree. My formation and engagement with Catholic theology is precisely shaped by those teachings, especially the Catechism, the documents of Vatican II (especially Dei Verbum and Lumen Gentium), the writings of Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI, and the magisterium as it is faithfully interpreted within the hermeneutic of continuity. It’s possible that what you perceive as “walls and walls of words” is the result of an apologetic style shaped by St. Thomas Aquinas and the neoscholastic tradition, where argument and clarity matter. Sometimes clarity demands precision, and precision demands words. But I do not hide behind them.

The idea that Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium “distort” the Gospel is one of the most persistent and harmful misunderstandings in post-Reformation polemics. You seem to suggest, albeit indirectly, that Tradition is a kind of runaway appendage to Scripture. But that is not what the Catholic Church teaches. Tradition, properly understood, is not a supplement to revelation but the mode of its transmission. The apostles did not write everything they were commanded to teach; they passed on the faith through preaching, worship, and oral instruction long before a New Testament canon was even imagined. Scripture itself is the product of that living Tradition, not its origin.

You said that Catholics wouldn’t have their Bible or Tradition without the Jews, and you're absolutely right—at least partially. The roots of our faith are irrevocably Jewish, and Christianity without that soil would be incomprehensible. But Jesus Christ did not come to merely preserve or extend Mosaic religion. He fulfilled it. He established a New Covenant in His blood and founded a Church upon the apostles to be His mystical Body and visible instrument on earth. He gave this Church—not a book alone—the authority to teach, to bind and loose, and to sanctify the world through the sacraments. He did not leave us orphans. He left us a living voice.

To dismiss those who try to defend this tradition as “fantasists” or “liars” behind keyboards may feel cathartic in the moment, but it does little to advance the conversation. More than that, it unfairly presumes the worst about people who are simply trying to respond with reverence and clarity. I do not speak from a vacuum, nor from an “armchair.” My engagement is from within the lived reality of Catholicism—not just intellectually, but sacramentally and ecclesially. If I sound convicted, it's because I believe the Church is what she claims to be. If I sound confident, it’s because I trust the promises of Christ to His Church, not because I think myself superior.

Your personal background is not to be minimized. You have navigated more religious landscapes than many do in a lifetime, and your comments show deep awareness of both the beauty and the failures of Catholicism. I do not deny that. But I would gently suggest that pain and disillusionment with bad Catholics—real though they may be—should not drive us to caricature or bitterness toward the truth the Church bears. “We hold this treasure in earthen vessels,” as Paul said, “to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us.”

I close with this: Holy Thursday is indeed sacred. You called me out, perhaps with irony, for writing on that night. But perhaps it is also fitting, for Holy Thursday is the night when the priesthood and the Eucharist were instituted. It is the night when Peter protested he would never betray Christ, and then did. And it is the night when the Lord, knowing all, still washed His disciples’ feet. That is the Catholic Church—broken men, restored by grace, carrying something infinitely greater than themselves.

So no, I will not “go home” in shame. I am home—in the Church Christ founded. And if there is sin in her members, we weep for it, confess it, and rise again. But we do not abandon the Ark because of the storm.

May the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob bless you and draw you deeper into the fullness of His revelation in Christ, whom even now we both revere, though from different vantage points. And may you one day see the Catholic Church not through the failures of her members, but through the eyes of the Bridegroom who gave His life for her.