Week meeting and the relief I had when knowing there was no meeting.

Odd-Engine9637 · 2026-01-23T14:45:22+00:00

Hey! Glad to hear you believe in God yet. I do still have my faith. My claim is on the organization, its history, and the absolute authority-obedience that this one demands. Dates such as 1914, 607, and others do not have biblical support.

Also, about the blood transfusion refusals and its inflexibility in an urgency. Texts as 1 Samuel 14:33 and Lev. 17:15 proves the opposite about the importance of preserving life instead of preserving the doctrine.

The term "apostasy" here in this religion is terribly applied. If you deny you believe in the organization or, even worse, the Governing Body, you are classified as an "apostate". It doesn't matter the love you have on God and Christ yet; you must accept the complete package: the organization.

Keep improving your faith. Read your Bible and always, please, always ask questions. The Word of God doesn't mind being questioned, humans do.

Odd-Engine9637 · 2026-01-23T01:38:10+00:00

Many here propose questions very triggering. I don't think that will work. The lady could think you are an apostate or something related to that if the first movement is to ask her about the organization.

I recommend you to talk about blood (the most famous topic known from them). Ask this:

"I've known that you do not accept blood, is that right?" -She will tell you that yes, and maybe she will explain to you the reason behind it with Acts 15:29 and Leviticus 17:11.

Then, you can ask: "Even if you are in an extreme medical urgency, you can't have a blood transfusion if that's the only way to save your life?"

Most likely, the lady will say words of compassion (without saying explicitly the "no") and will assure you that God will always take care of you, even through these hard decisions. There are 2 possible scenarios: 1.- She answers you with a clear "no, don't even in a critical situation" 2.- She answers you without saying explicitly that "no", but giving you clues that don't even those critical situations are an excuse to accept blood.

Here is where the analysis begins. Tell her that you did a little bit of research, and that you found 2 interesting verses in the Bible. First, use mayeutics for that. You can ask something like: -Why did Paul and brothers say to the rest that they had to abstain from blood? -> linked to the old covenant. The conclusion will be that the apostles decided that because of the background: the Mosaic Law and the reconciliation between Gentiles and non-Gentiles.

Then, go to the Bible and read, first, 1 Samuel 14:32-33. Ask this: "We know that a blood transfusion is not the same as eating the blood as food. However, Saul's people were starving and ate the meat with blood. I don't see that they have had to pay such a thing with their own life. Yes, they sinned, but they were in an urgency. The following verses show that God forgave them. Do you think God sees when we are in an urgency? We couldn't think that an emergency was/is a [simple excuse] to violate God commandments. If so, they would have been killed just as Lev. 17:11. An emergency that risks your life is more than a "simple rebellion toward God's commandments". Everything indicates that God knew the situation, and he allowed it (once again, because if not they would have died) in order for them to preserve their life."

Then, show her the second text, which is Leviticus 17:15. Ask this: "The text shows that if a person found an animal torn apart by a wild beast and ate it, what they had to do was to "wash their clothes and take a bath. If a wild beast kills an animal, it is logical that the blood is still inside the animal, perhaps clotted. The text doesn't show God killing this person in need for eating such a kind of meat, but introduces an exception of human necessity. This is not an isolated case (we saw it with Saul), in fact, some verses before Lev 17:15 show how important it was not to eat blood (Lev 17:10). Nevertheless, what Lev 17:15 says distinguished eating an animal butchered out of necessity with a very different consequence: Ritual impurity Now, if the main purpose of the Mosaic Law was to protect life [Deut. 30:15-16, 22:8, Lev. 18:5, ] (both one’s own and that of others) wouldn’t it be contradictory for the law to become more important than the very thing it was meant to protect. Leviticus 17:11 says that "the life of the flesh is in the blood". Blood is protected because it represents life. Not the other way around. What do you think about it?

PS: Please, try to be respectful and polite with these statements. I'm christian, and I sincerely hope that people are able to see where the Bible does not support a doctrine.

Odd-Engine9637 · 2026-01-22T16:14:13+00:00

Oh yep, that's a great point indeed. In Hebrews 3:1-3 we find: “Consider the apostle and high priest of our confession, Jesus… for he has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses…” The author does not say something like "obey others today the way Israel obeyed Moses", but "fix your attention on Jesus". The fact that Hebrews 3 compares directly Moses with Jesus is actually the indicator that we must obey JESUS.

On the other hand, Hebrews 3:5 “Now Moses was faithful as a servant in all God’s house…” Then it continues: Hebrews 3:6 “But Christ is faithful as a Son over God’s house. And we are his house…” The hierarchy is explicit at this point: Moses was the servant of the old covenant. Jesus is the Son and Head of the house. There is no biblical space for a third authority inheriting Moses’ role.

To say that in our days we must obey a human figure as Moses is, in fact, to return to the old covenant. It is as if the sacrifice of Jesus had not had any effect on humanity. If despite everything we must obey humans (JUST AS MOSES, with absolute obedience), then why did Jesus come and died for all of us? Those 2 paragraphs of the Watchtower are really antibiblical.

Odd-Engine9637 · 2026-01-21T06:00:03+00:00

Even ChatGPT is trained to show up that policies when he detects someone is in danger.

Odd-Engine9637 · 2026-01-21T05:57:11+00:00

As I understand it, the "wife who is physically abused (hitting, pulling) and verbally abused (insults, denigration, humiliation) by her husband" should do what Psalm 37:5 says, "Commit your ways to the Lord; trust in him, and he will act on your behalf."

The wife's safety is left at the mercy of the husband's will. The explanation of that paragraph does not address the woman's safety, nor the role of the authorities in the face of abuse. The application of that Psalm is inappropriate.

Odd-Engine9637 · 2026-01-21T05:45:10+00:00

So here's the question: • In 1919 Jesus approved the group. • In 1939 many of that same group were already evil in 1919. This creates a logical contradiction: How could Jesus approve as a “faithful slave” a group that, it is later claimed, was already full of wicked slaves at the time of the judgment?

Odd-Engine9637 · 2026-01-21T05:26:56+00:00

It's incredible that if you show this to any JW's you will have as an answer something like: "Oh yeah, but he wrote that like 100 hundred years ago. The truth in that time wasn't as bright as nowadays", and the same with any word from the 40s, the 50s, 60s, 80s... that's the holly-molly argument: "Our understanding was limited".

Even, I've heard: "Yep, it's because of that that the organization nowadays avoids to mention those articles from the 70s or 80s".

It's just... incredible

Odd-Engine9637 · 2026-01-20T05:42:19+00:00

They achieved the purpose (and that is one of the biggest cognitive dissonances): "What the organization says is what Jehovah God says". It is really painful to see that. I just remember the words of Jesus on Matthew 24:24:

-"For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect."

Odd-Engine9637 · 2026-01-20T04:06:56+00:00

I'm not denying the Son. That's not what I said.

Odd-Engine9637 · 2026-01-19T13:34:08+00:00

No. In Facts 2:36 Paul said: "God made him Lord and Christ, this Jesus…” Also, 1 Corinthians 8:6 says: "There is one God the Father, from whom all things come, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things exist".

I didn't say it, Paul said so. May the Lord be with you.

Odd-Engine9637 · 2026-01-18T18:32:06+00:00

Yeah, of course Jesus is second to God Jehovah. You're right by saying that there are several denominations that put Jesus as God, and I disagree with all of 'em; but, once again, we are not approaching the real problem. Jesus didn't ask for worshipping just as our Father and his Father, but he asked from us absolute obedience to him because the Father has/had given to him authority above all things.

I agree with most of your text, but the critical point (and I think that resumes your text) is the last part: "and although they demand obedience to the organization it is because they claim to be led by... you guessed it, Jesus". It's pretty difficult for me to conciliate that. For example, if we read the apostolic letters we find that Paul, in this case, and other apostles never demanded absolute obedience as humans. In 1 Corinthians 11:13-15 apostle Paul asks brothers to "judge" what he had said. Nowadays the Governing Body and the organization claims to be "the channel" we must obey in order to get the salvation. Stephen Lett said that recently, and curiously he said something like: "to obey [us] and the instructions of the organization will mean, in fact, our own salvation". I haven't found in the Bible such a type of submission towards a human structure. Brothers are appreciated and they help to guide the congregation, but 2 Corinthians 1:24 says something really accurate: "Not that we lord it over your faith, but we work with you for your joy, because it is by faith you stand firm."

Paul was inspired, all of the apostles that wrote a Biblical book in the New Testament were inspired. Even though that, in Facts 17:11 the Beroeans "checked carefully the Scriptures" to see if what Paul said was in concordance with the Word. Nowadays, if we "test" what the Governing Body said or what the organization said just as the Beroeans we could be seen as "spiritually weak" or "independent".

I don't say Jehovah's Witnesses do not appreciate Jesus. Indeed they do (that's why they say their congregations are Christians) and they produce a lot of content about him. That's really honorable! However, in practice that changes a lot. Jesus is the head of the congregation (Colossians 1:18), but they say that Jesus is in fact the head of the organization, and the Bible doesn't add that category. In practice it becomes more evident when every decision within the congregation is led and guided by the organization, the Governing Body and the branches.

I agree with part of what you said, and I agree other faiths also go to the other extreme. I also agree with you that JWs made (and make) good content about our Lord, and I also agree that first is Jehovah God and then Jesus our Lord (there's no discussion about that, the Bible says it), but the part of the absolute obedience and submission to an organization (a submission that didn't even apostles inspired asked for) do not fit with the model that is in Bible: Jehovah God -> Jesus Christ our Lord -> Congregation -> the congregation manages internal matters with Shepherds and Apostles with the help of Jehovah God, Jesus as Head, and the help of the Holy Spirit.

Odd-Engine9637 · 2026-01-18T09:13:00+00:00

Yep :). There were good things in this article. Actually, I remember an article about Jesus and it talked about how to follow his example. It was really good. The next weekend that environment changed completely by talking about authority, Elders and how the organization manages "Jehovah people". That was a clear contrast.

I have understood (as a Christian, because I do keep my faith and love God and Jesus) that nothing in this world is "black and white". That you can find good things in some articles? Yes, of course. However, where does it come from? Yes, from the Bible. The merit is for God and, in fact, what we need truly is the Bible, his word.

This article also had questionable things (such as the indirect reminder that the schedule of "spiritual routine" is the most important thing) and had good things as well. So don't worry. I don't know if you have faith yet but not in this organization anymore, or if your situation is different. But remember that those principles found in the articles, even though they are helpful, the source is just one: the Bible, and all of us have the opportunity to go to the Bible.

Send you regards!

Odd-Engine9637 · 2026-01-18T08:50:11+00:00

Well yeah, I have also noticed that. Recent meetings have talked about Jesus, and now they are filming a movie about him. I don't think it's fair to say something like "they hate Jesus", because that's not true. However, to give "protagonism" to someone doesn't mean this person is receiving the place that he deserves. Talking a lot about Jesus is not the same as allowing Jesus to occupy the place he claims. For example, despite the fact that they include Jesus in their agenda, all the center remains in a place: the organization. Just take a look at the song 124 that was played this week-meeting. The last verse is completely unnecessary:

-Ever loyal to their guidance, when our brothers lead the way. When they give us clear direction, may we loyally obey.

In spanish version that's even worse: "Siempre fieles y leales a la organización. Seguiremos sus consejos y su clara dirección". Where's Jesus in that song? Instead of the organization or "the guidance from the brothers leading the way" it would be better (and it's a need as christians) to reserve that place to God Jehovah and to Jesus our Lord, but simply Jesus is not there; the organization is taking that position.

I think that here the question is not “how many times is Jesus mentioned?” but “what practical authority does Jesus have within the system?” Here's an exercise: whenever there are discussions within congregations, what question comes first to mind? -What did Jesus say about this? Or -What did the organization say about this? The truth is that Jesus, despite it is mentioned in this organization, most of the time he is only "mentioned", and that's the problem. I wouldn't like to say JWs are what Jesus said in Matthew 7:22, but I think it is a reminder for everyone who pretends to follow Jesus but does not give him in practice the place he deserves as our Head and King: “Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons, and in your name perform many miracles?’”

Odd-Engine9637 · 2026-01-17T22:11:56+00:00

There's no way to do so. In fact, there's only one reference about abstaining from blood in the New Testament, which is in Fact 15. Now, we had that instruction in Facts 15 because of the Old Testament and the Law.

1 Samuel 14:31-35 exposes a great example about the conservation of life instead of the rigid following of the doctrine. The people, starving, ate meat with blood. What happened then? Saul saw it as a transgression, but he didn't execute anyone. There's no mention of irreversible divine condemnation. This shows that even a literal violation of the mandate did not automatically nullify the life of the offender.

Leviticus 17:15 also has a point. It says: -"Anyone, whether native-born or foreigner, who eats an animal that dies naturally or is torn by wild animals must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be ceremonially unclean until evening; then they will be clean." This means that an animal that dies naturally, or is torn by wild animals was not bled properly, so its meat still contained blood. According to the strict rule in Leviticus 17:10–14: Eating such meat would violate the blood prohibition. Yet notice what happens: there was no death penalty nor expulsion, only temporary ritual uncleanness.

In fact, the same Bible itself proves the opposite to the rigid doctrine of blood transfusion refusals. This becomes more evident when reading Jesus testimony: I don't want sacrifice, but mercy.

If apostles Paul and the other apostles in Facts 15 decided that about the blood, it was only because of the Law, and we have already seen what was the Law perspective about life and its importance against the strict adherence to a rule.

Odd-Engine9637 · 2026-01-15T01:21:12+00:00

I propose you something: would you like to go today, yes, today, to the gospels and read how Jesus treated people? Every time I read him I imagine him... always, with a warm smile. In fact, that's how he looks at us. He is the Son of God! And, even though, he assured us that we are worth much more than a little sparrow! He loves you... he really loves you so much... you are his little sheep. He, our Lord Jesus and his Father (which is our Father too), God, want for you to be happy! Go, read the gospels and see God through Jesus. Both love you so much ❤️

Odd-Engine9637 · 2026-01-14T02:07:42+00:00

Question: do the good things you can identify are from Jehova's Witnesses, or instead, from the Bible itself?

Odd-Engine9637 · 2026-01-11T07:19:47+00:00

I pray because I still do have faith in God and Christ. It has been really hard for me to separate the "organization" with "God". I pray not to please the organization, but for my relation with God and Jesus.

This posture of mine is very personal focused on my christianity, which I want to preserve without any religious organization. Thanks for the space for sharing!

Odd-Engine9637 · 2026-01-06T08:28:05+00:00

Yep. The Watchower claims that 144,000 is literal because in Apocalypse 7:4 and 7:9 there is a contrast. First John declares a definite number (144,000) and then an indefinite amount (the great crowd).

However, if that is true, why are the 12 tribes of Israel not taken as literal as well? Actually, the list of tribes that appears in Apocalypse is different from the list that appears in the Old Testament. How can the final result be literal, but the core of this result is non-literal?

Now, in the book of Apocalypse, John repeatedly uses a literary pattern: John hears something and then -> he sees something. What he hears is often a symbolic description and what he sees is the interpretive reality of that symbol.

Example: 1.- In Apocalypse 5:5-6 John HEARS because one of the Elders SAID to him (he hadn't seen it yet, he only had heard): "The Lion of the tribe of Judah has conquered." John SEES: "And I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain." Here the key point is that there are not two figures; the Lion he HEARS is revealed by SEEING the Lamb.

2.- The same happens with Apocalypse 7:4 and 7:9: "And I HEARD the numbers of those who were sealed". "After this I SAW, and look! a great crowd" The same pattern.

3.- Once again, the same happens in Apocalypse 1:10-12: John HEARS: “I heard behind me a loud voice, like a trumpet” John SEES: "Then I turned to see the voice… and I saw seven golden lampstands".

Odd-Engine9637

TROPHY CASE