Posts by MarcusScriptus

59

Why did God create humanity?

by XPeterX in

what was the reason?.

MarcusScriptus

God does not exist in time. God transcends it.

According to Christian theology we as human beings live in what’s referred to as the “temporal realm” of existence. The theology teaches that change occurs on this plane of existence as we are bound by the dimensions of that in which we live. It also teaches, like science, that while always existent time is also relative.

This same theology teaches that God lives in a transcendent realm, called “eternity.” God is not bound by it since it is defined by God’s very existence. There is no space, no place, no time, no change. Future, present, and past are all one in that God transcends these very things.

This is another “Watchtowerism,” the teaching that God is also bound and tied up with time the way that Adventists are obsessed with it. It is has never been a teaching of Judaism or Christianity. The Christological view of existence on both planes is based on the ancient Hebrew.

This is why Scripture teaches that one day to YHWH is like a thousand years and also that while the heavens and earth will grow old, God will be able to ‘roll them up’ like one does with a garment for storage because God never changes.

This is also where the Watchtower teachings on heaven, hell, purgatory, paradise and other eschatological teachings fail because JW theology makes God subject to time and experience it as do humans. Even the JW view of celebrating Communion is warped due to this misunderstanding, leading to their one year and symbolism views.

Thus God never has had to contemplate eternity and being alone always in it. There is not past, present, or future for God. God himself Is, the very definition of Existence, of I AM. That is all defined by God.

59

Why did God create humanity?

by XPeterX in

what was the reason?.

MarcusScriptus

Why does the Bible have to be the basis for my answers? Are the religious systems of Judaism and Christianity founded on what was written in Scripture or was it not that the Scriptures were composed by members of these forms of worship, religious systems that already existed?

This is one of those “Watchtowerisms” that we have to learn to get rid of. Religion and religious thought are not based or founded on these writings as the Witnesses try to get people to think, but quite the opposite. These Sacred Texts are based on religious thought of the religions paradigms from which they originate.

If one follows the JW rule that religion must be based on Scripture to be true, then that means the Jews and Christians had to wait around until somebody wrote these texts. That scenario has people wandering around, stumbling into a book, reading it and saying: “Hey, let’s based a religion on what we find written here.” That sounds like Mormonism.

And if that was the case, who wrote them if they were written by Jews and Christians to begin with? How were they canonized since neither Old or New Testaments has instructions on how to do so or what books should make up the lists? If we had to wait for the Bible first, there would have been no Jews or Christians because Jews and Christians wrote the books.

No, one’s thoughts don’t have to originate from the Bible themselves to reflect Judeo-Christian thought. They only need to work in unison with them. It’s a living faith, not a dead one based on “proof-text” exercises like Gnosticism was. Always having to spout texts that most people on this board already know isn't necessary all the time.

The cart does not pull the horse. The horse pulls the cart.

30

Do you ENJOY these endless theism/atheism - faith/reason - creation/evolution debates?

by nicolaou in

.

sure i get frustrated when i have to explain for the bajillionth time just why atheism is not a belief or why it is possible to know some things with 100% certainty but despite all the exasperations i still count it as one of the rewards of freeing my mind and exiting the wt that i can argue so endlessly and freely.. even if some of you do get on my tits sometimes .

nic'.

MarcusScriptus

Debates are tiresome. If I find myself stuck in one—which I already have and had to pull myself away—I take a bucket of ice and pour it over my head. I don’t describe to debate at all. Why?

When I was in high school I joined something called the National Forensic League. It made young people into very talented speakers through various exercises and competitions held throughout the country. One of these means was by teaching us how to debate, most notably the type that people tend to engage in today based on the L-D style or form, otherwise known as the Lincoln-Douglas debate.

I have noted that some often call their debates on religious matters an exercise in “apologetics.” There are even so-called “experts” in this field who do the same thing. But this is a mistake. In the apology, the goal is to defend one’s stand by demonstrating how it is not against reason that you came to adopt your position. The aim is not to prove one’s convictions as true by calling up evidence or proof texts, nor is the intention to convert or catechize others. The apology merely attempts to prove that one’s own reasons for adopting one’s beliefs—despite what these may entail—are in themselves conclusions arrived at logically.

Debates are basically arguments, but not necessarily fights—though they can end up being such or at least shouting matches charged with lots of emotion. While a person might attempt to prove that their logic for adopting a certain conviction is sound, one is more often attempting to win the argument at hand. Parties attempt to prove their points while dismantling those in opposition. It is often used as a tool to proselytize or to disprove. There can be a panel of judges, and there can be a winner to a debate, usually chosen by the panel. Also the winner is not always the one who has proven their case by meeting some standard of agreed methodology nor is this a requisite of debate. Often the one who proves to have the most talent for expressing their argument more elegantly than the other is chosen at the triumphant one.

Debates on the Internet usually get dirty and are filled with name calling and display lots of hatred. They don’t settle anything, otherwise one would not keep debating over the same things over and over. But don’t misconstrue what I am saying as if I cite no value to debate. Much can be learned by means of them. You just can’t prove any of it because the other side can always claim you didn’t satisfy them with your answers.

I prefer apologetics because at least another can see that you did not come to your conclusions lightly and that it was a logical step to take despite the fact that some facets of one’s convictions might be difficult to prove in themselves. Also I am not of the opinion that I can or should be the one to govern another’s conscience and say that they belief system is wrong. In the apology I am meant only to defend my reasons for the stand I have taken and prove this alone.

59

Why did God create humanity?

by XPeterX in

what was the reason?.

MarcusScriptus

If God is this benevolent being that so many throughout the centuries have testified, I believe it would be impossible for Someone who is the epitome of Good not to have created humanity.

If we are created in the image of this Benevolent One, then it is because the type of life God enjoys must truly be quite a wonderful thing to experience. Someone truly good would not keep something to himself if it was truly marvelous. If there was enough for everybody, this Good God could not avoid creating others with the intellect and the spiritual capacity to grasp and enjoy this life as he does without denying himself.

Like those of us born to parents who truly wanted us, we were created by Love, out of Love, for Love, and to Love. While not meaning to wax poetic and end up sounding like some kind of Sunday sermon, what I mean is that if God is real and truly the type of Person that religions and the Bible claim, then the answer is simple. We were created because God wanted us.

Because God is Love, we were thus created by God, out of God, for God, and believe it or not “to” God. In other words our ultimate finality is linked to possessing life as God does and with God. God is our Origin and God is our Destination.

Granted, not everyone believes this and I am not saying that others somehow should. I definitely do not look down or pity or dislike the atheist for not believing this either, nor is this meant to be a challenge to them or others with a differing view. I am merely stating that it doesn’t make sense for God, being who he is supposed to be and how he is supposed to be not to create us. Otherwise God would be selfish because he did not want to share this thing called life. On the contrary God not only gives us life he shares with us the essence of his very own.

19

Can the Gospels be Dated Early?

by XJW4EVR in

this is the first post examining the manuscript and scriptural evidence for an early dating of the four gospels.

again the author is looking for both positive and negative feedback, as well as spirited good-natured debate with those that may not agree with his opinions.

all posts will be allowed provided they are civil and use appropriate language (inapporpriate language will be removed, but the post will not)..

MarcusScriptus

I think this is another case of expecting the gospels to say something—like prophesy about the future—when in fact that is what the Watchtower taught us.

The gospels were not written to foretell the future or give detailed clues about exactly how eschatological history is to unfold because Jesus taught his followers that this was not something they should concern themselves with as much as being ready for the time whenever it did come. It is due to the Adventists’ obsession with dates that claims like these became part of the Watchtower tradition, but there isn’t that type of prophecy in the gospels.

Even the destruction of the temple is not necessarily a prophecy in itself. The synoptic gospel accounts were written either alongside or just after the Temple’s destruction in Jerusalem. This was more of a way of saying that Jesus was right, and that’s why the Christians didn’t perish who were living in Jerusalem around the time the Romans surrounded the city. Nothing was written for them before that event, but it was the oral catechesis of Jesus’ sayings that were taught by word of mouth that got the Christians to leave Jerusalem when the Romans appeared to back down.

The gospels seem to mention the event as having just happened or being a well-established event in history. It is merely part of the narrative of a prophetic speech, but not a “crystal ball” that was merely waiting for JWs to come along and pick it from ‘it’s shelf in the Ministry of Magic.’

As for other “prophecies” in these texts, Jesus gives very few, most in apocalyptic eschatological terms, and then generally as a lessons in preparation, but far from being given any specifics of the end.

Even the reading of the Matthew 24 and Luke 21 passages as “prophecy” as done by the Jehovah’s Witnesses is highly suspect. While the Witnesses claim Jesus is saying that the parousia and the end of the world will be accompanied by ‘wars, earthquakes, famines,’ Jesus is actually saying taht these things do not make up a composite sign of prophecy of the end. These are normal historical events. Jesus then tells them not to have any fear therefore because these things “must happen” but that “the end is not yet.”

So there is little actual prophecy intended to be a timetable or roadmap like the Witnesses teach. We need to unlearn this particular Watchtowerism so that even if we come to the opinion that the Bible is not God’s word, it isn’t based on searching in the Gospels for earmarks like literal histoical forecasts by “prophecy.” That is not something these written accounts are known for having.

Thus when I hear that same old song, “The Gospels aren’t authentic because their prophecies were written after the fact,” I always wonder, “There’s an actual prophecy in them? Where?”

39

To serving elders and anyone else who went to the SM this week ...

by wannabefree in

jw serving elders ... did any of you have to handle the part at the sm this week on why jehovah's witnesses are not a false prophet?.

this part made me livid.

our most corporate elder handled this part and i felt my self wanting to refute everything he said.

MarcusScriptus

There’s also the possibility that this is not meant to cover up for mistakes of the past as much as it is designed to make way for the rank and file to be prepared for a major change in doctrine.

When I left the Organization (as we then called it), the hymn (and I refuse to call it “Kingdom” song…To quote the recent rendition of Horton Hears a Who: “You know, sticking ‘Who’ in front of everything doesn’t make it hurt less!’”), I repeat, the hymn we used to sing a lot was one called: “Then They Will Know.” It was about how we were the “prophet” that would be exonerated once Armageddon broke out:

Then they will know you only are Jehovah Then they will know you only are our God; Then they will know throughout the whole creation All you have purposed you will surely do!

I don’t know if that is one of the present Who-Songs, I mean Kingdom Hymns, I mean—bleah (I just vomited a little in my mouth)!

From what I read now, the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses is nothing like it was when I was a part of it. When I was a part of it we were proud to teach that it was based on dates because that was a sign that we were in the Truth, i.e., being in the only religion that knew the “day” and “hour” because the time had come to reveal them since 1914. To have even considered that we would have been having this discussion in the year 2010 would have been considered blasphemy for there was no way in Hades that this system of things was going to make it past the end of the 20 th century! We were already pushing it with being several years from 1975 as it was.

I digress a bit, but this is not so much a means to repair the past since the Watchtower merely erases its past by letting books go out of date or resetting the type on a past edition of the Watchtower magazine before putting it in a bound volume (do you guys even have bound volumes every year still?).

No, I think this religion is finally done with its dates. The entire generation that saw the “predictions of 1914” have come and gone from their Governing Body. Their dead. Yes, dead is the generation that was not to pass away until all they prophesied was to come to pass. They are all very dead. Who’s left in the JW religion who knows how to even do the formulas borrowed from the Adventists of the 1800s?

While I don’t see them becoming too mainstream, per se, I do see them doing a “Worldwide Church of God” maneuver (major reconstruction of their religious belief system) but in a far more graceful manner. Why deny so adamantly that they never were a “prophet” when I can remember the Watchtower study articles, the weekly Bible study group, and the Society’s book on the prophecies of Ezekiel that we had to study week after week to get it pounded into our heads that we were the composite modern-day antitypical Ezekiel prophet class, at least the anointed were, and thus the great crowd was too by association? It’s not just something to deal with what apostates are challenging in the field. If I taught then what is being taught from the platform today, that no such “prophet” status exists among Jehovah’s Witnesses, then instead of disassociating myself I would have found myself disfellowshipped.

No, this is likely the foundation for a new way to finally convince their people that they are not now nor never were a religion that attempted to set dates for the end of the world, or something like that they can build on. They can’t be the true religion and at the same time these people who encouraged false hopes in dates. If it is the one true religion, then they can’t be associated with such rubbish because none of those predictions came true.

As a post script to illustrate this, take 1975 as an example. They basically blamed 1975 on the expectations of others, taking very little responsibility for themselves for the whole debacle. You now hear people say: “1975 was due to some brothers and sisters attaching significance to a date that they themselves—not the official religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses—had done come up with on their own.”

That’s impossible. How could the rank and file attach significance to a date on their own and be allowed to do it to the extent that entire articles in Watchtower literature, yes, in fact, entire publications regarding this date would highlight 1975? Has anyone besides the Governing Body or those assigned by them ever created their own dates and attached a significance to it to such an extent that when the day came and went there was a major fallout because of it?

No, the rank and file did not create or attach their own significance to the date. Though the “slave-class” had “warned” people to not say anything specific about 1975, they themselves went against their own warning by publishing articles, materials, and talk outlines that stirred up these expectations.

Believe me, all of us who were once part of this religion know I’m not making this up. Was there ever a time we were even allowed to think for ourselves to such an extent as to force the Writing Department to reflect this “other unauthorized” significance in such a manner? In fact, don’t people regularly get disfellowshipped for attaching their own interpretation to things that aren’t “Watchtower” approved?

Are we really meant to believe that from the year 1966 when they released the book Life Everlasting in the Sons of God, which is the publication that first highlighted 1975 in a chart in connection with their own eschatology, that they did nothing to stop such apostasy of independent thinking in its own ranks? Are we to believe that those in authority just sat back and watched as expectations among the brothers and sisters got so out of control, the year 1975 came and went which caused the debacle that people are still talking about today and did nothing to stop it? If we accept the “others attached their own significance to dates” excuse, yes, that’s the conclusion we also have to accept.

Let’s put the word “Kingdom” in front of it and see if it hurts less.

I may have allowed myself to accept this explanation for brief time before I left, but I don’t today. The Governing Body itself created the entire 1975 anticipation. They invented the connection between 1975 and the end of the world, they wrote the books, they wrote the magazines, they published them and they distributed them worldwide, and thus they alone were the authors of any expectations anyone had at the time. We hoped in what they taught us to hope for because we were not allowed to hope in ourselves.

86

What is the most secularly acclaimed Bible translation?

by sabastious in

jw
friends

i want to start reading the bible more but i do not want to use the nwt.

the fact that the nwt took so many liberties makes me a little gunshy about other translations, which one would you recommend?.

-sab.

MarcusScriptus

Backing up your claims for others here to see whether or not your experience as a former Catholic was really like that of every other Catholic is more efficacious than just coming back at me and telling me I am in a dream world.

I don’t wish to explain so much about myself as to make others feel uncomfortable but I will say that I have been in the publishing business, the religious publishing business, both Protestant and Catholic.

As such my job was responding to the needs of various religious groups based on the type of activity that existed. The book publishing world gets its data on how or what to publish by the type of interest and real life use people in a market are engaged in.

Here is one last link. Since you claim I am in a dream world because what I am describing does not match your limited experience as a Catholic (which up till now I was unaware was the touchstone by which all that is Catholic is obviously to be measured?), I introduce you to this world I am talking about through one of the most important blog of Catholic Bible readers in the entire world.

This one Catholic Bible blog is part of a network of others like him that opens up into tens, hundreds, thousands, and eventually enables the publishing world to understand how the basic Catholic Bible student uses the materials produced.

You’ve claimed that Catholics don’t study the Bible and that all those you associated with and know of don’t and that you didn’t. Compare that to this very interesting world (and you can’t stop at this one blog, you should read all the others linked to this one and so on) and compare that to all the data you’ve been providing so far to back this up... oh right, you haven't done that, have you?

Remember this is the starting point. You need to not only research what this fellow is talking about but what his fellow like bloggers are too and you'll see why (and even see several exanples of) publishers taking note of what they do to serve the Catholic Bible reading/stufying public:

Of course what is true in so many cases about people who are Witnesses can be claimed here too: To those who believe in what actual data says about the NWT, no further explanation beyond empirical evidence is necessary.

But to those Witnesses who accept only the testimony from their own religion as true, no explanation, no matter how empirical and exhaustive the evidence provided, will ever be enough.

http://catholicbibles.blogspot.com/

86

What is the most secularly acclaimed Bible translation?

by sabastious in

jw
friends

i want to start reading the bible more but i do not want to use the nwt.

the fact that the nwt took so many liberties makes me a little gunshy about other translations, which one would you recommend?.

-sab.

MarcusScriptus

Truebelieverbob,

Where did you get your information about Catholics? Are you one? And you know beyond any doubt that my information is incorrect, how?

I know what I’m speaking of because I not only worked with Catholics and other faiths in their religious education work, I even participated in it for the last decade.

Catholics Don’t Study? Or Is It You’ve Never Studied Catholics?

Catholics not only study their Bible, they read it far more than Jehovah’s Witnesses. Yes, a lot of Catholics might not do much more than hear it read at Mass, but generally speaking Catholics recite or chant the Liturgy of the Hours during the day, each day of the year, or say prayers based on this office. It consists of recitation or chanting of each of the 150 Psalms over a cycle that lasts four weeks before they start over again, four minor reading selections from the Scriptures, one major (large section) reading of the Scriptures, and one reading from the Church Fathers or one of the canonized saints. Each day there is a Mass that has one reading from the Old or New Testament, another Psalm recited or chanted as a responsorial to the first reading, followed by a reading from the Gospels unless it is a Sabbath where an additional reading usually from one of the epistles is added.

Add to this, Catholics are also expected to have the own personal Bible reading schedule which must include an equal amount of time and effort spent in personal research and study. They have an array of scholarly publications that anyone outside of the JW world can attest to. You can just go on Amazon.com to see some of the latest, not to mention the limitless volumes of the writings of the Church Fathers. Their library of study materials goes back a literal 2,000 years.

Lastly, the Catholics are now at the head of analytic research and studies of the Scriptures, and their volumes are thus found in all centers of higher learning around the world. If you would just visit one and see you would know I wasn’t making this up.

If they don’t study, they sure write and publish a lot. Those of us who are of other faiths use these materials ourselves too, and they had to learn this stuff somewhere, somehow by studying.

Saying Not the Divine Name: It’s Because Their Worship Is Related to the Jews

Remember in Scripture where the Christians see themselves as Jews at first, and even Jesus in Revelation says that Christians are Jews but other religions are but a “synagogue of Satan?”

When the Church, both Catholic and Orthodox, was excommunicated from the synagogue, they didn’t really change their worship much. If you’ve ever gone to Temple on Sabbath, you would notice that they have almost an identical set up. The only difference is the Mass (or Sacred Liturgy) is followed by Holy Communion, whereas at Temple it does not, of course. The reason for the similarities is that they were all once the same, worshiping as Jews did in the synagogue arrangement that existed in Jesus’ day.

So when they gather for worship, they don’t utter YHWH aloud. Why? On the High Priest does this. And who is the High Priest for Catholics? Jesus Christ is who they believe to be the High Priest, and they truly believe he is Present at each Mass. He is the embodiment of YHWH, the Word of YHWH, to them he is YHWH. With the great I AM present, they let the High Priest Christ alone witness to the name by the actions of Divine Liturgy or Mass.

But outside this, yes they do use the name. It wasn’t stripped away from their history or their translations, and they didn’t try to hide it to advance the Trinity? Why would the New Jerusalem Bible have it in there some 7000 times in the OT?

The NAB was designed specifically for reading aloud during Mass, so YHWH does not appear in the main section. However it appears throughout from beginning to end on the explanatory pages of each reading as “Yahweh.” Look up it up in the Catholic Encyclopedia on line. If you’re going to try to hide God’s name, surely the largest Christian denomination that baptized each day on average what the JW baptize in a year, could do better than stick it 7000 times in its most widely read version, right? If you wanted to hide the name of God from Catholics, why on earth have it in a plethora of the footnotes of the New American Bible. Surely they could have just not mentioned it at all, but they didn’t.

Learn About Witnesses from the Mormons and Lemons from Apples, Yes?

You just aren’t aware of what Catholics or Protestants or atheists or agnostics believe but you think you are getting all the correct information from the one source you trust.

But is this wise? Would you advise others to learn the truth about Jehovah’s Witnesses from the next pair of Mormon missionaries who come knocking? Can you get a correct understand of what your religion is all about from Baptists?

If you want to know what a lemon tastes like, are you going to pick an apple and base your knowledge of a lemon’s taste by what you were just exposed to? Of course not. You can’t learn what one fruit tastes like by sucking a rock or licking a fish head. If want to taste a lemon then you go to the lemon tree. You go to the source for direct accuracy, not anywhere else.

The same goes for Jehovah’s Witnesses. Are other faiths going to give them a fair shake? Isn’t it best to go to the source and learn from Jehovah’s Witnesses what they believe?

And where did you get you information about Roman Catholics? From Jehovah’s Witnesses? That is like trying to figure out what an apple tastes like by biting into radish.

Sorry, but only you believe you and those who don’t go the actual source believe you.

Why not look up the following and see for a fact that everything you wrote about Catholics is wrong? And once you’ve realized that, ask yourself: Who taught me this false information about Catholics? Here are just some of the sources I got my material from. And see, you don't have to be a Catholic yourself to know this.

It will be the religion that you claim teaches the truth—except when it comes to the truth about what is really going on in the religions they condemn around them.

American Catholic.org: http://www.americancatholic.org/ The Catechism of the Catholic Church: http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/ The Holy See: http://www.vatican.va/phome_en.htm The Center for Religious Developent: http://secure.cmdnet.org/index.cfm?CFID=675474&CFTOKEN=7227fa9ffae32e76-04D6488B-1517-61B4-487619B8BE4CD8B6

The Catholic Biblical Association of America: http://cba.cua.edu/default.cfm

Catholic Book Publishing Company: http://catholicbookpublishing.com/

43

Was the legend about Smurfs being demonic just an urban legend, or was it mentioned in the literature?

by IsaacJ22 in

jw
friends

i never heard about the smurfs being evil until i joined the forum.

but when i look in the volume library, the word doesn't come up.

i was wondering if anyone ever heard mention of it in the literature--as in, was it an official position?.

MarcusScriptus

Additional details I forgot to add:

Though the toys were purchased at the so-called haunted Toys-R-Us in Sunnyvale, California, the events that sparked the rumors occurred in San Antonio, Texas not many miles from where I was living at the time.

According to what I know from the circuit overseer none of the toys “came to life” as the legends described. The phenomena in the house were limited to a few small objects reportedly moving about on their own. The “attack” itself was limited to toys on a shelf that apparently flew across the room on their own and landed on top of sleeping children (I do not know how many were involved or their actual ages, but I would guess that the main subject was an adolescent as is common to what those who subscribe to paranormal studies explain).

However no one, including the children, witnessed any of the objects in question jump across the room as the children were asleep at the time and the parents were in their own room. At least one of the children had a mark that was claimed to have been made by being struck with some force by one of the toys. The toys were small, solid figurines, not plush toys as were developed after the cartoon premiered.

None of the objects was ever reported to dance around, and it was just unfortunate that one of the objects reportedly purchased at the Toys-R-Us was the small Peyo Smurf figurine.

The Toys-R-Us is located at 130 E. El Camino Street in Sunnyvale, California, about 30 miles from San Francisco. The circuit overseer and I had discussed the events over the course of two different assemblies in 1990, one held in San Antonio, Texas and one in a much smaller city to the southeast called Corpus Christi.

10

Love your neighbor

by ex-chum in

i've often wondered how witnesses seem to do well with christ's 2nd commandment with fellow witnesses and not all their neighbors.

is this just another effect of their teachings?

do they translate this scripture differently in their bible?.

MarcusScriptus

Yes, I always thought this was a cop out that Witnesses had to change, even when I was one, for when Jesus gives the illustration of what it means to love one’s neighbor in the parable of the Good Samaritan, the individual he helps is not preached to. Instead the Samaritan provides medicinal and physical care to him.

Some might object and say that Jesus was merely highlighting “who” should be considered one’s neighbor, but that in itself centers around what type of actions the Samaritan employed towards the poor man, actions that proved the Samaritan was making himself a true neighbor to the man in need.

Also the narrative of the rich man who has been obedient to the Mosaic Law and wanted to go even further in serving God was told by Jesus that if he wanted to be “perfect” in this love for God that he had to sell all his material possessions and distribute them to the poor and then follow Christ, again after he had been made “perfect” by caring for the practical needs of those who were in want.

Besides, the word for “love” in these instances speaking of loving one’s neighbor is “agape,” which is actually not the word “love” in English, but the word “charity” which means to demonstrate love to others out of a devotion to justice. That is why we call non-profit organizations who serve the practical needs of others “charities” because they exemplify this love for neighbor commanded by Christ.

You can’t call the religion of Jehovah’s Witness a charity because it doesn’t act like one.