JW Insider

I know they don't exist any more, but they did.
PS. You want I should show you my green bible and list of "Back Calls"?
Shibboleths are shibboleths.

Mostly all, perhaps. To me it really is a matter of conscience. While my wife and I have been willing to die over the no-blood doctrine, we both agreed when our children were young that we would not be willing to impose our conscience(s) upon our young children before they were baptized. This still doesn't mean that we would simply allow them to take blood or blood-based medical treatments, but it would be a medical decision depending on risks to their physical life. It turns out there are only few limited circumstances where one could say that blood is absolutely required to offer the optimal chance of saving a physical life. But, contrary to the beliefs of many Witnesses, those circumstances do exist. The principle, for my own conscience, is built from this:
(Matthew 12:10-12) . . .So they asked him, “Is it lawful to cure on the Sabbath?” so that they might accuse him. 11 He said to them: “If you have one sheep and that sheep falls into a pit on the Sabbath, is there a man among you who will not grab hold of it and lift it out? 12 How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! . . .
Fortunately, the issue has not come up for any of us.

That example (Paul's ministry) was an excellent example, because we consider both Paul and some of the elders and apostles at Jerusalem to be analogous to a 'governing body' which Paul sometimes good direction from -- but we also consider Paul himself to be a part of that same body, which covers the potential problem of Paul making statements that were not immediately acceptable to the Jerusalem body.
Of course, one of the more obvious examples is the one that Paul spoke of directly as a matter of conscience: the eating of meats that had been sacrificed to idols. The Jerusalem body evidently said no, and Paul said that it was or had become a matter of conscience. (Also a possibility of timing at play here.) It seems probable that he still wouldn't eat meats in front of Jerusalem's body of elders to avoid stumbling their weak consciences.
That interpretation is likely controversial to some, and I might not have it right, but we do know that Paul said conscience was directly related to this issue.

Exactly! And if we feel our conscience is weak, or has made us react too strongly or strictly, we can improve our conscience through association with a collective group (congregation/brotherhood) of serious persons who continually train their conscience with Bible principles.

Mostly all, perhaps. To me it really is a matter of conscience. While my wife and I have been willing to die over the no-blood doctrine, we both agreed when our children were young that we would not be willing to impose our conscience(s) upon our young children before they were baptized. This still doesn't mean that we would simply allow them to take blood or blood-based medical treatments, but it would be a medical decision depending on risks to their physical life. It turns out there are only few limited circumstances where one could say that blood is absolutely required to offer the optimal chance of saving a physical life. But, contrary to the beliefs of many Witnesses, those circumstances do exist. The principle, for my own conscience, is built from this:
(Matthew 12:10-12) . . .So they asked him, “Is it lawful to cure on the Sabbath?” so that they might accuse him. 11 He said to them: “If you have one sheep and that sheep falls into a pit on the Sabbath, is there a man among you who will not grab hold of it and lift it out? 12 How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! . . .
Fortunately, the issue has not come up for any of us.

Mostly all, perhaps. To me it really is a matter of conscience. While my wife and I have been willing to die over the no-blood doctrine, we both agreed when our children were young that we would not be willing to impose our conscience(s) upon our young children before they were baptized. This still doesn't mean that we would simply allow them to take blood or blood-based medical treatments, but it would be a medical decision depending on risks to their physical life. It turns out there are only few limited circumstances where one could say that blood is absolutely required to offer the optimal chance of saving a physical life. But, contrary to the beliefs of many Witnesses, those circumstances do exist. The principle, for my own conscience, is built from this:
(Matthew 12:10-12) . . .So they asked him, “Is it lawful to cure on the Sabbath?” so that they might accuse him. 11 He said to them: “If you have one sheep and that sheep falls into a pit on the Sabbath, is there a man among you who will not grab hold of it and lift it out? 12 How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! . . .
Fortunately, the issue has not come up for any of us.

I appreciated your take on the questions you raised. I have heard ex-Witnesses claim that there is no such thing as a collective conscience or an organizational conscience, and that all of us are therefore completely on our own when we stand individually before the judgment seat. I agree with the Bible statement that we stand alone for judgment, but you have made an excellent point about how all of us will develop morality based on what has been passed down to us and what we get (or even choose to get) from our various environments. But we all have opportunities for further conforming our environment by choosing association with those who will prod us and encourage us in the direction of an ever clearer Bible-trained conscience.
No one can argue that there isn't already a collective conscience that waits for us to absorb it, much of it subconsciously I suspect. But if we accept that, then we should have no problem "artificially" maneuvering our environment to strengthen our conscience. And, of course, many of us have found the environment of the brotherhood of Witnesses to be perfectly suited to the needs of our conscience.
I also agree with Srecko, that to some extent we will probably accept some decisions made by a "collective" conscience that will be seem artificial to us.
(2 Timothy 3:1-5) . . .But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2 For men will be . . .3 having no natural affection, . . .
Our conscience tells us that we can't turn our back on the physical and psychological needs of family members who might be disfellowshipped. This is a case, as Srecko says, where our own "natural affection" might say we must do one thing, but the collective environment of our congregation tells us to do something else. Perhaps it will not always be right for everyone to respond in exactly the same way the "collective" conscience tells us to. After all:
(James 4:17) 17 Therefore, if someone knows how to do what is right and yet does not do it, it is a sin for him.
But without the additional training of conscience from the congregation, would we even have stopped to think about the application of Jesus' words about how he came to put a sword on the earth?
(Matthew 10:34-36) . . .Do not think I came to bring peace to the earth; I came to bring, not peace, but a sword. 35 For I came to cause division, with a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 Indeed, a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.
There will be some tension between the two extremes on this topic, but I think that's a good part of what a conscience is for.

Two things. (on the blood issue)
1. No one can speak to all JW's and what they might or might not do in any given situation. As a group, you CAN crunch the numbers.
2. The doctrine is biblical in the sense that it is derived from the bible, as are pretty much every attempt at concretizing a biblical principle by any individual. The question is nuanced w/regard to the application of the underlying principle.
Some have little to no capacity for nuance. (some may suggest that "nuance=loophole")

There are three of us, so it can't be wrong. Every testimony that is said by two or three witnesses is "the truth". :))) 

I appreciate the feedback, and I suppose anything not obvious has an element of controversy about it. What I see is (and now I'm addressing my personal fascinations w/various brain-body states and ways of interacting w/the world and why the differences and how to find common ground w/o giving important ground and how to help if possible anyone else who may be wrestling w/the same issues)...I've run into many people w/Aspergers or variously high-functioning Autistic people. The latter, one I know quite well - has a phenomenal memory, always knows the time w/o looking at a watch, always knows the amount in their bank account, always is on time, never misses an appointment. This one has issues with nuance in people and differences in conscience. She'll say "If they didn't mean what they wrote, then why did they write what they wrote?". Quite bleedingly literal. It seems that w/people like this, the black and white is stark. When the organization says something these autistic types have like Rain-Man a memory on everything they've said "exactly what they said", but of course w/o the biosphere of emotional content, social circumstances, allowances for error and the like they get critical and have really difficult times dealing w/changes. Of course this is the one type of person leaning out more towards individual conscience that I have more sympathy for because they almost seem pathologically limited in dealing w/change.
https://www.integrityinc.org/signs-symptoms-of-high-functioning-autism/
(On the other hand I must be betraying myself in my own OCD fascinations. Reminds me of before I became a JW. I had a roommate who's GF was bipolar. I'd been studying the process of active listening and so when she was on a rather manic verbal episode I decided to engage w/her on her thoughts using active listening. About 8 hours later I was still going and the thought occurred to me "Who's manic now?")

That example (Paul's ministry) was an excellent example, because we consider both Paul and some of the elders and apostles at Jerusalem to be analogous to a 'governing body' which Paul sometimes good direction from -- but we also consider Paul himself to be a part of that same body, which covers the potential problem of Paul making statements that were not immediately acceptable to the Jerusalem body.
Of course, one of the more obvious examples is the one that Paul spoke of directly as a matter of conscience: the eating of meats that had been sacrificed to idols. The Jerusalem body evidently said no, and Paul said that it was or had become a matter of conscience. (Also a possibility of timing at play here.) It seems probable that he still wouldn't eat meats in front of Jerusalem's body of elders to avoid stumbling their weak consciences.
That interpretation is likely controversial to some, and I might not have it right, but we do know that Paul said conscience was directly related to this issue.

Exactly! And if we feel our conscience is weak, or has made us react too strongly or strictly, we can improve our conscience through association with a collective group (congregation/brotherhood) of serious persons who continually train their conscience with Bible principles.

I appreciated your take on the questions you raised. I have heard ex-Witnesses claim that there is no such thing as a collective conscience or an organizational conscience, and that all of us are therefore completely on our own when we stand individually before the judgment seat. I agree with the Bible statement that we stand alone for judgment, but you have made an excellent point about how all of us will develop morality based on what has been passed down to us and what we get (or even choose to get) from our various environments. But we all have opportunities for further conforming our environment by choosing association with those who will prod us and encourage us in the direction of an ever clearer Bible-trained conscience.
No one can argue that there isn't already a collective conscience that waits for us to absorb it, much of it subconsciously I suspect. But if we accept that, then we should have no problem "artificially" maneuvering our environment to strengthen our conscience. And, of course, many of us have found the environment of the brotherhood of Witnesses to be perfectly suited to the needs of our conscience.
I also agree with Srecko, that to some extent we will probably accept some decisions made by a "collective" conscience that will be seem artificial to us.
(2 Timothy 3:1-5) . . .But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2 For men will be . . .3 having no natural affection, . . .
Our conscience tells us that we can't turn our back on the physical and psychological needs of family members who might be disfellowshipped. This is a case, as Srecko says, where our own "natural affection" might say we must do one thing, but the collective environment of our congregation tells us to do something else. Perhaps it will not always be right for everyone to respond in exactly the same way the "collective" conscience tells us to. After all:
(James 4:17) 17 Therefore, if someone knows how to do what is right and yet does not do it, it is a sin for him.
But without the additional training of conscience from the congregation, would we even have stopped to think about the application of Jesus' words about how he came to put a sword on the earth?
(Matthew 10:34-36) . . .Do not think I came to bring peace to the earth; I came to bring, not peace, but a sword. 35 For I came to cause division, with a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 Indeed, a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.
There will be some tension between the two extremes on this topic, but I think that's a good part of what a conscience is for.

I appreciated your take on the questions you raised. I have heard ex-Witnesses claim that there is no such thing as a collective conscience or an organizational conscience, and that all of us are therefore completely on our own when we stand individually before the judgment seat. I agree with the Bible statement that we stand alone for judgment, but you have made an excellent point about how all of us will develop morality based on what has been passed down to us and what we get (or even choose to get) from our various environments. But we all have opportunities for further conforming our environment by choosing association with those who will prod us and encourage us in the direction of an ever clearer Bible-trained conscience.
No one can argue that there isn't already a collective conscience that waits for us to absorb it, much of it subconsciously I suspect. But if we accept that, then we should have no problem "artificially" maneuvering our environment to strengthen our conscience. And, of course, many of us have found the environment of the brotherhood of Witnesses to be perfectly suited to the needs of our conscience.
I also agree with Srecko, that to some extent we will probably accept some decisions made by a "collective" conscience that will be seem artificial to us.
(2 Timothy 3:1-5) . . .But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2 For men will be . . .3 having no natural affection, . . .
Our conscience tells us that we can't turn our back on the physical and psychological needs of family members who might be disfellowshipped. This is a case, as Srecko says, where our own "natural affection" might say we must do one thing, but the collective environment of our congregation tells us to do something else. Perhaps it will not always be right for everyone to respond in exactly the same way the "collective" conscience tells us to. After all:
(James 4:17) 17 Therefore, if someone knows how to do what is right and yet does not do it, it is a sin for him.
But without the additional training of conscience from the congregation, would we even have stopped to think about the application of Jesus' words about how he came to put a sword on the earth?
(Matthew 10:34-36) . . .Do not think I came to bring peace to the earth; I came to bring, not peace, but a sword. 35 For I came to cause division, with a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 Indeed, a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.
There will be some tension between the two extremes on this topic, but I think that's a good part of what a conscience is for.

We all think about moral issues all the time. What we think is good and what we think is bad.
We have a conscience. We have a knowledge feedback loop with ourselves. Is this an open system or a closed system and if it's open, what is it open to? If it's closed, what is it closed to?
Now I can't speak to anyone else or their conscience except as a presumption - the presumption that they have one as much as they have a mind. We could go on at length in the manner of Descartes and on down the line to the existential and materialist philosophers as to whether anyone has a mind/or free will. I simply presume it on the basis of my own knowledge feedback loop. When I say "I know" I'm not saying "I know" in any Gettier "True, Justified, Belief" "know" because that would take reams of unnecessary paper. Not only that Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem (as I apply this to knowledge in general) is true in all realms (you'll always be able to "know" things you can't prove from any set of axions(or scriptures)).
So you get born into a culture with a baked-in morality. You get born into a family with a baked-in morality. You are born (infant studies prove) with a sense of right and wrong.
There's history which you have nothing to do with which created the climate into which you and your conscience has been birthed.
Now you exist, and you have a feedback loop with the world and your conscience. You come to understand things like the permanence of objects which don't cease to exist when you stop seeing them. (Later we somehow can't ratchet that up to the conscience's constant awareness when it comes to God).
You interact with the world and your various groups with intersecting circles of implicit or explicit moral ideas and you assent with these or deny these and deal with the consequences to yourself as a result (this could be you simply misjudged reality and got it wrong, or you got censured by the group(s) you're associated with).
I prefer "rewards" over "consequences", but "rewards" indicates I've been informed by some external authority (which I presume exists as in God, or which I see) who will give me "as a reward" the thing I've decided I want in return for a given action or actions.
"Consequences" sound more threat-ish, and yet these are similar. Consequences come as a result of me as an individual doing or saying something and the thing happening like one domino fell intro another. There can, of course be unintended consequences, but that's something else.
So the external world allows me all manner of illusions which I may choose to hold as "true" in my head which may be "false". It's only when the connections between some false idea and a painful consequence (physical or psychological) occurs and I see the one event (me holding a false idea or acting falsely) as directly connected with the pain event that I stop believing the false thing or acting falsely. (I still might, if I feel the cost/benefit ratio is such that I'll deal w/the pain/consequence).
Ideally our sense of morality is tied in with certain egalitarian ideas (we're no better than anyone else, as we're all creations, as a sentient creation something has a certain right to maintain itself and try to exist and thrive, but w/in limits...yada, yada) and most importantly that a Creator exists who is the penultimate judge of all things.
You know where this is going....
Then you have to have the Creator telling us good/bad right/wrong. We need examples and life stories. So we have the Bible.
Bringing it up to the 1st century, and the Christian Congregation we have many accounts which we can read to tell us that nothing was perfect then. (would we expect that today? why?)
Of course we do have arguments as to what organization IS the most Christian on the planet.
This would have to be argued scripturally.
Why talk about organization?
Because organizations necessarily involve themselves w/the individual conscience at some level.
We can argue(and do and should) as to what degree. Guess what? They did in the 1st century. We can "get in trouble" and not actually "be in trouble" w/Jehovah by this arguing, but there has to be balance and there should be (and was in the 1st century...unless Demas and others who split were "faithful" and just went on to live their lives...maybe so, maybe not).
We have to expect that there's going to be a "middle ground" which makes everyone less than comfortable in the Christian Congregation. But, if we refuse to be a part of organization, how can we expect to prosper? We never see Jehovah NOT use organization or recommend scripturally that someone should go it alone.
So where ever you might be you're going to have to choose.
Don't want other people influencing you by telling you things you'd rather not hear, telling you maybe you have it all wrong or that there's a place to argue and a time, but in the middle of the hall during a meeting just might not be met w/the best response?
Could be like one brother said "He doesn't take counsel."
Will your conscience work right if it doesn't get recalibrated by scripture AND by others who admit to the same scriptures?
***BTW This is me thinking out loud for ME, not anyone else***
https://www.openbible.info/topics/conscience
(Link for me to look at or anyone else)
https://rts.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Libery-of-Conscience.pdf
Interesting paper.

I don't like it when people are banned.
I especially don't like that they lose the continuity of the good points and arguments that they have been making. When a person loses their temper or says something that sounds threatening, they aren't really hurting anyone, in my opinion. I think it's appropriate to publicly criticize and even remove certain types of abusive content like spamming, porn, gore, bullying against specific groups/individuals, overt racism, and deliberately threatening or inflammatory content -- but not to completely ban individuals who merely lose their temper or use harsh words. We should be adults here. We can expect some harsh words here and there. There are very few "child-safe" places on the Internet.
And on a religiously charged forum, we should also realize that "attacks" on our views are not usually meant personally. If Allen Smith attacked my views, he might have appeared to be attacking me, but I present myself almost anonymously here. So what does it really mean to attack me personally? I certainly don't feel it that way. I'm sure the intent is to attack the views themselves, and usually with the full backing of the Watchtower's current views. This is easily understood. I also see it as a means of him trying to warn others who might be influenced by evidence that goes against the Watchtower's current views on certain specific topics. This means that he may very well be a Witness, but just very frustrated at the difficulty in mounting counter-evidence. Different people will handle that situation in their own way. Frustration for some means cursing and threatening, name-calling and judging. For others it will present as child-like tantrums. For some it will be grasping at straws or non-sensible counter-arguments. And for some, they will very seriously study the issue and find real counter-arguments.
So, the various types of responses can actually say something about the strength of the original arguments and evidence, and even the cursing and the tantrums and the name-calling will often inadvertently speak to the validity of the original evidence. In these cases, especially, it's much better to keep all those uncomfortable words and exchanges on the forum. Along with negative responses to them. The same effort it takes for an admin/moderator to evaluate someone's words as supposedly worthy of banning, is about the same amount of work it takes to merely flag the questionable comment and write up a quick explanation of why the forum owners/admins/moderators don't like the comment.
Banning removes the entire continuation of argument/evidence and counter-argument/counter-evidence. I still don't like banning anyone. I haven't seen anyone here whose posts rose to that level. For my own comfort level, there have been a few curse-words I would have "asterisked" (mostly from another Alan) but that can be usually be set automatically in software.
 

If you want to hear my opinion.  
There are two types of conscience. First is Natural conscience (in biblical terminology) given by God. It is obtained by birth and inherited by genetics that began with Adam  and Eve. After birth, a child or in another situation an adult, comes under the influence of family, environment, society and their own choices.
Second is Artificial conscience. For example, JW members have two types of conscience. The first one, natural, from God. The second type of conscience is called in the WTJWorg publication; "Bible-trained conscience." It is an artificially created conscience based on religious-ideological interpretations and doctrines. It has some positive aspects, but not always. For example, not greeting a former member of the Organization creates a certain conflict in the JW member. There is a conflict between two types of conscience: between the Natural Conscience given by God and the Artificially Created Conscience trained in the Organization.

From the sahidicinsight blogspot linked above:
 
John 14:14: To "me" or not to "me", that is the question
  With apologies to Shakespeare's Hamlet.

Many modern Bible translations are based on a critical text like the Nestle-Aland 27 (NA27). At John 14:14 such texts read: ἐάν τι αἰτήσητέ με ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου ἐγὼ ποιήσω, "If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it." (English Standard Version)

New Testament textual scholars consider the Alexandrian text to be generally "the best text and the most faithful in preserving the original." (Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p. 5) The "me" reading is found in a number of such ancient textual witnesses, including p66 (2nd century).

The Sahidic Coptic text (2nd/3rd century) is also in the Alexandrian text family. Like still other ancient witnesses, it does not have "me" at John 14:14.

Rather, the Sahidic Coptic text reads: ЄΤЄΤΝϢΑΝΑΙΤЄΙ ΝΟΥϨШΒ ϨΜ ΠΑΡΑΝ ΠΑΙ ϯΝΑΑΑϤ, "If you should ask anything in my name, this I will do."

Some scholars think that "ask me" is original because it is the more difficult reading. That is a consideration, but a more important consideration would be if it squares with everything else that Jesus said and did.

"Ask me" would be logical in the immediate context of Jesus' speaking with his disciples while he was still with them. Even the first Christian martyr Stephen implored Jesus as if he were still present. (Acts 7:59) But it is not unusual that Jesus as a living presence would still resonate with Stephen, since Jesus' ministry and resurrection were recent events for Stephen.

However, beyond that context, Jesus directs Christians to pray to "Our Father" (Matthew 6:9), and the apostle Paul said "I bend my knees to the Father." (Ephesians 3:14)

There is no other verse in the New Testament where Jesus requests or directs that prayer as an act of worship should be addressed to him. If the "me" reading is original, it would be an anomaly that is out of character with the whole New Testament.

"Ask me...in my name" is tautological, a needless repetition that is also ambiguous. Further, in the context of the Gospel of John as a whole, "ask me...in my name" is strange doctrine, if it is taken to refer to prayer.

But the Sahidic Coptic reading, ЄΤЄΤΝϢΑΝΑΙΤЄΙ ΝΟΥϨШΒ ϨΜ ΠΑΡΑΝ ΠΑΙ ϯΝΑΑΑϤ, "If you should ask anything in my name, this I will do," harmonizes with the rest of Jesus' teaching. -- John 15:16; 16:23   http://sahidicinsight.blogspot.com/    

Some interesting observations form a  blog:
John 14:14 'me' is omitted after 'ask' in the following trinitarian Bibles:

ASV; CBW; Darby; GNV; JB; KJ21; KJV; MLB; NEB; REB; NKJV; LB; MKJV (Green); NLV; RSV; WEB; WE; Young’s. 
Many of them do not mention an alternate reading of 'me' in a note! And, likewise, many of the Bibles which do translate ‘ask me’ in this verse do not mention an alternate reading without ‘me’!!

The prestigious The Expositor’s Greek New Testament (Vol. 1, p. 824) also omits “me” from its text and does not even bother to address the matter in its voluminous notes.  Bible Analyzer calls this 5-volume work “The Premier Greek Resource.”

This is a disputed text. There exists manuscript evidence that ‘me’ may not have been used by the original writer.  (Also see http://sahidicinsight.blogspot.com/  - Nov. 2, 2010 - where ‘Memra’ explains the importance of the ancient Coptic translation of this verse.)

However, there is no such dispute about John 16:23 where John wrote: “... whatever you ask the Father for, he will give you in my name.” We should ask the Father (not the Son) in Jesus’ name. Therefore 'me' at John 14:14 is even more in doubt.

Bowman has access to a copy of (and is quite familiar with) the 1984 NWT Reference Bible. He repeatedly quotes from it and refers to notes in it in both this 1991 publication (Understanding Jehovah’s Witnesses) and his 1989 publication, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John.

Yes, the 1984 NWT Reference Bible (which does have notes, of course) says in a footnote for John 14:14:

14* “Ask,” ADIt and in agreement with 15:16 and 16:23; P66 [Aleph]BWVgSy(h,p), “ask me.”
Source:
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2010/11/john-1414-from-rdb-files.html
 

bow down, do homage, adore, worship, fall on knees - to anyone entitled
Pope is entitled, King and President are entitled, Caesar is entitled ...etc. King can present not only secular but spiritual (religious) authority. Elizabeth II is a monarch who heads the Church of England. Would a JW member bow (in any of possible form) to this Queen? She is entitled, because of Romans 13! Pope is entitled because of same verses.
To what extent of understanding, about what is “worship” and what is not, will someone go?
JW members are forbidden, by GB decree, to paint walls in some non-JW church. Is that sort of worship? Is that supporting "false religion"? Being part of UN and OSCE and sitting with religious leaders of various churches, done by GB, is it not showing "support" for secular and religious things -  and sort of bow down, do homage, adore, worship, fall on knees .... if we stretch the terms a little to degree of famous painting church walls?
Problem of understanding exist, of course, but WTJWorg contributing to that confuse too.
 
 

I never thought I would use a Catholic site to explain the difference between bowing down and worshiping but here is:
Question:
Catholics say that they don’t worship Mary, but isn’t it the case that their actions suggest otherwise, such as when they bow before a statue of Mary? Answer:
The question assumes that bowing before something or someone necessarily involves worship. But this is not true.
For example, Solomon didn’t offer worship to his mother when he bowed before her in 1 Kings 2:19. It was simply a gesture of honor, since Bathsheba was the queen mother. Isaac wasn’t prophesying that the nations would worship his son Jacob when he said, “Let peoples serve you, and nations bow down to you” (Gen. 27:29). He was merely indicating that the nations would honor Jacob and his descendants.
Moreover, the act of bowing can’t be idolatrous in and of itself, because God commands that it be directed to finite beings. For example, in Revelation 3:9 Jesus says that he will make “those of the synagogue of Satan” “bow down” before the feet of the Christians in Philadelphia. If bowing before another were an act of worship, then Jesus would be commanding idolatry. But that’s absurd.
It’s possible that someone who bows before a statue of Mary might offer the statue, or Mary herself, worship. But the idolatry would not be due to the act of bowing. It would be due to the intentional offering of worship; like in the case of Cornelius who bowed before Peter and worshipped him (Acts 10:25-26). If a Catholic were to do such a thing, they would need to repent and begin offering worship to the one who alone has a right to our worship—namely, God.
Edit: I forgot to include the source: https://www.catholic.com/qa/bowing-isnt-worshipping
 

No, I don't see this, at all.
Then Jesus said to him: “Go away, Satan! For it is written: ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’”
The Bible is explicitly clear that worship belongs only to God.
It is a case of what does "worship", as opposed to "obeisance" or "bowing down" or "honoring" mean?
I understand this to mean that you can bow down, kneel or curtsy to anyone entitled to such a sign of respect and honor. But you would not worship them.
Unfortunately the Greek word proskuneo has been translated in various ways in different Bibles depending on what the translator "deemed appropriate" 
For example in the same Bible (New American Standard Bible): 
Matthew 2:2: "Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east and have come to worship Him."
Matthew 8:2 And a leper came to Him and bowed down before Him, and said, "Lord , if You are willing, You can make me clean.
Matthew 14:33 And those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, "You are certainly God's Son!
Matthew 15:25 But she came and began to bow down before Him, saying, "Lord , help me!"
Matthew 20:20 Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to Jesus with her sons, bowing down and making a request of Him
Matthew 28:9 And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him. etc.
The Darby translation:
Matthew 2:2 Where is the king of the Jews that has been born? for we have seen his star in the east, and have come to do him homage.
Matthew 14:33 But those in the ship came and did homage to him, saying, Truly thou art God's Son etc...
 
Mark 15:19:
American Standard Version: And they smote his head with a reed, and spat upon him, and bowing their knees worshipped him
Good News Translation: They beat him over the head with a stick, spat on him, fell on their knees, and bowed down to him.
King James Version: And they smote him on the head with a reed, and did spit upon him, and bowing their knees worshipped him.
Duay Rheims Catholic: And they struck his head with a reed: and they did spit on him. And bowing their knees, they adored him
ETC.
Strong's Number: 4352 Browse Lexicon Original Word Word Origin proskuneo from (4314) and a probable derivative of (2965) (meaning to kiss, like a dog licking his master's hand) Transliterated Word TDNT Entry Proskuneo 6:758,948 Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech pros-koo-neh'-o Verb Definition to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence among the Orientals, esp. the Persians, to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of profound reverence in the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication used of homage shown to men and beings of superior rank to the Jewish high priests to God to Christ to heavenly beings to demons   NAS Word Usage - Total: 60 bow down 1, bow down before 1, bowed down 1, bowed down before 2, bowing before 1, bowing down 1, prostrated himself before 1, worship 32, worshiped 17, worshipers 1, worshiping 1, worships 1
 
 

I will put that on our watcht list, although my husband will probably say we've already seen it. That's the trouble, when it comes to movies I have a brain like a sieve, well not just movies. I tell him if I ever get Alzhimers he won't notice the difference....
Yes, I hate that too. It's such a pity when good quality movies are peppered with swear words, they grate on me like nails on a chalkboard. They are really not necessary. The other day we watched something pretty tense (don't ask me what it was) and it had no swear words in it at all! It didn't take away from the story. In fact I doubt anyone, even the most cuss filled people, would have objected. I can't see anyone saying; well I can't watch this, there isn't a swear word every 2 minutes. 
I used to hate it even more when our teenage soon would  watch something with us. He would casually say: mum, that's nothing, I hear that at school all day....
That is cultural. The more you see it the less you notice it. I lived in one country where the sisters were dressed more sparse on top. Everyone else was. Nobody seemed to care. Then I moved to the USA and I had to adjust my wardrobe slightly.  It's funny, but even movies are categorised differently here. Nudity (without sex) gets you an immediate R, but gory violence a pg 13, whereas elsewhere, only violence (and obviously explicit sex scenes) gets the R treatment. 
In any case, as my mum would say, in paradise we are all wearing fig leaves. Hey, even Rutherford thought it ok to depict Eve topless....

Nathan W Pyle's alien comics are hilarious. Without kids, I don't think I would have known. Do you think the WTS will ever make use of something like them to help show the folly of Birthdays (aka Emergence Days)? Or Valentine's Day?

Nathan W Pyle's alien comics are hilarious. Without kids, I don't think I would have known. Do you think the WTS will ever make use of something like them to help show the folly of Birthdays (aka Emergence Days)? Or Valentine's Day?