Anna

(In bold) that's what I figured after you brought that question up. Exactly

Not sure if you were being funny as this was a reply to animal mistreatment. That's one mistreatment I would happily support though after being bitten about 20 times on each ankle while standing in a field trying to spot Neowise the other night. That's all I got from that night, swollen itching ankles and no sighting because the northwestern sky developed a haze just after sundown. Of course I am not really being serious as any kind of chemical interference on insects can have bad effects on other life. I suppose spraying myself would be less selfish. My fault, I left the bug spray at home...

It's the same 😄. I'm a night owl, I guess you are too

Well this is the difference between immortality and eternal life, you live forever in both cases, but if you are immortal you cannot die, whereas eternal life can be cut short. Although that in itself is an oxymoron....

Are we back to discussing Furuli's book again? That's the way he spells immortality in at least one place, Lol, yes, that's my way of trying to stay on topic. Seriously though, spellcheck is a pain on my phone. It does whatever. My fault for not noticing though. Perhaps that was Furuli's problem too....

Yes, that's how I understand it too.

Good question. I guess we both know that WT teaches that only those resurrected to heaven will have immortality. It teaches that Jesus was not initially immortal when he was created, and neither were the angels. In fact nothing that Jehovah created seemed to have been immortal. Which begs the question, what was Jehovah's purpose with regard to that? If humans hadn't sinned, and Jesus hadn't needed to give his life as a ransom, would he still be mortal? He only became immortal as a "reward" for his obedience. So perhaps that means that if Adam & Eve had passed the test, they could also have been given immortality (as a reward)? So it is reasonable to say that after mankind passes the final test Jehovah might give them immorality as a reward. Possibly that could have been his purpose for Adam & Eve*. I'm just shooting from the hip here without any scriptural references We are assuming that in the future all of Jehovah's perfect creatures will NEVER sin and ALWAYS do the right thing. But what IF one of them doesn't? After all, Satan and the Demons were once perfect. So if they are immortal they will not be able to be destroyed, but Jehovah could exile them somewhere. But that gets into the realms of fairy tales. A Pandora's box kind of thing. But it's possible...Again, I have not looked for any scriptural backing for that theory. The only thing I can think of is the symbolic prison and spiritual darkness of Tartarus. But that begins sounding like the concept of "Hell"..... And sorry, yes, that's another topic 😄 * But then what about their children? Would they inherit immortality from their parents? That's doesn't sound right..

One question I do have though. If death will be "destroyed" i.e. hurled into the lake of fire, does that mean death will no longer exist? It would seem like it. But we know that humans on earth will not be immortal, which means they could die. So how does one reconcile those opposing concepts?

Yes, it's definitely been moved. I've noticed things move quite frequently...

I think it's still there. Under "Becoming a Witness"

I think this has been discussed somewhere before, that in fact Gnam's claim was correct, that is, in the context of a family member living at home, which would naturally apply to husband and wife, and any children that were currently a part of the household. But, the claim was deceptive because it did not clarify this, and allowed for the assumption that the topic included ANY family member living inside or outside the home, in other words in a broad sense, which is how most people view "family".

For goodness sake John Butler, I mean 4Jah2me, there are no elders controlling this forum!

No, that they would die at Armageddon.

In context this is true of course. But some opposers will say they were held in slavery by the JW religion because of the fear of death because if they didn't do what was right they were going to die.

Sometimes all you have to do with a statement like that from the Glock Wait a minute....are you saying that was a statement from Br. Glock? Because it wasn't, that was what I deducted from what I've been seeing.

I've been getting similar. Mine says the website didn't renew its license or something like that, so it's not secure...

When people no longer want to live as Jehovah's Witnesses, for whatever reason, and an opportunity presents itself where they feel justified in leaving, then they will eagerly grab that opportunity. Very often this has nothing to do with any actual "truth" or "facts" but everything to do with that person's attitude and desire to do what they want. With the internet, these opportunities present themselves much more frequently and readily than in the past. There have always been opposers, but now they are finding more of a voice than they ever had before....

Do you really think that? I think you are completely wrong and are confusing this forum with a congregation. Nobody wants anybody to get thrown out of here. There would be no discussions otherwise. Plus, I'm sure you are an inspiration for some of his fictional characters in his books 😄

Certainly. But now I do wonder why Br. Glock said what he said. Is there a feeling that the GB's trust worthiness is under fire and is it gaining some success?

I am probably misunderstanding the point you are trying to make. I don't think science has anything to do with Br. Glock's use of the word "proof' in the context he used it in. I think you might be over thinking things....

@TrueTomHarley I know what you are saying, and I understand why you are saying it. It's similar to being a literalist. But that quote " proof they have God's backing" says exactly what it means, and essentially boils down to this: In context Br. Glock was talking about apostate lies putting doubts into peoples minds about the GB. So, "In case you doubt the wisdom of the GB because they are imperfect and sometimes make mistakes and you want proof that they have God's backing, well here is proof". (Despite the fact that anyone can issue similar guidelines, and HAS issued similar guidelines). But sorry, all it proves is that the GB have been diligent in watching the world, are wise in applying the Bible's wisdom, wise in applying the authorities' advice and that they are concerned for us and want us to stay safe.. Really, the praise goes to all the hard working CO's, elders, and publishers who willing cooperate and actually make all this work! Without the co-operation of everyone in the organization, the GB can give wonderful advice till they're blue in the face and have Jehovah standing right behind them what would it prove? Come on Tom, just admit it, it was not the best argument to prove a point ( Br. Glocks) or choice of words. And you must admit that this is somewhat of a clumsy effort at reassurance that the GB do have God's backing and that we can trust them. I believe there has been some success on the part of opposers in bringing the friends away. It was confirmed by a trustworthy elder, as I already mentioned in one of my posts. Br. Glock's talk is what the opposers like to call damage control. I won't call it that, because I am not on the opposers side. But I can see how some could think that! Actually, to be honest, I find it rather exciting as it may indicate something drastic is going to have to happen soon (oh, you don't say!) By the way, apart from the "trust the GB because we have proof they have God's backing" bit I thought the talk was very good.

Yes, I thoroughly agree with that statement (therefore I do not need to be assured this is proof of Jehovahs backing, in this situation (covid)) and I said this in one of my posts above. My use of the Catholic church was just an example. Probably a bad one. But my point was that just because someone does something right, is it proof of Jehovah's backing? And what if we do something that turns out to be wrong advice, as the GB has admitted (because they are fallible and can err) does that mean this is proof they do not have Jehovah's backing? I think it was just a really bad choice of words....and a little presumptuous. And was it really necessary for him to say it? Something like this surely would have been more appropriate and modest: "the advice that the GB are giving is proof that they really apply the scriptures in their life and are allowing the holy spirit to lead them" and he could have even added "we will do well to immitate them". But saying this is proof of God's backing is almost painfully insecure. Like we need to be assured because some are doubting. But do not actions speak louder than words? Should it not be left up to others to make that deduction, (like you and I did) rather than say it about themselves? And they did say it about themselves, because as I have already commented to Tom, everything that is published first gets approved (by the GB).

It appears that the GB will not join in "relaxed measures". This is because as he said; they value life more than money and they would rather be over cautious than too casual. So no meetings of field service for a while yet. Also conventions will not be held in 2021. They require preparations a year in advance. However, what each individual family does is their choice. Personally, I feel it is very wise to not relax protective measures. Especially not here in the USA. Cases of covid are on the rise again. Each countries' situation differs though, and this was acknowledged by the brother. So it may happen that resuming meetings will be based on countries.

Do you know this? No, I don't know this, but logic tells me this is so. Not only that, but G. Jackson said as much in his ARC interview. In any case, your example is not really relevant, I don't think. There is a big difference in someone giving a part at a convention, and someone giving a talk on video at HQ that will be "immortalized forever" . I am not sure when you gave your parts, but I know that in the past there was much more leeway in how brothers handled talks. This is why Charles Sinutko was able to deliver that infamous talk which included the slogan "stay alive till 75" . OK, I know you probably gave talks long after that, but still, I do know for a fact that things have become a lot stricter and brothers are supposed to stick to the very detailed outline. This is confirmed to me when I watch the convention videos (sent to us because of my mother in law who is housebound) the talks are practically identical to the ones I heard at our convention, with perhaps very minor differences, mainly pertaining to experiences. I think it makes practical sense that the GB would look over a script/detailed outline before the video is shot, rather than after. And even if they didn't do that, they would see the video before it was broadcast on the website. The fact that it is broadcast shows the GB approved it. As G. Jackson said, they approve everything before it gets printed or broadcast. Again, do you know this? Or is it just a common sense deduction, an application of the scripture that it is better when someone else’s lips praises you, and not your own— Yes, pretty much.. It is true, he may or may not have imputed this. I guess it's left to individual interpretation which leads to what you say next: Here I am not so sure.......saying that the GB advice is proof of God's backing very much hovers on the borders of the "woo" factor. As if for example the catholic church did something right, are we supposed to think this is proof they have God's backing? By the same token we should. (JWI mentioned something along similar lines). I completely agree with you. Just today I read this quote: "Basically, we're seeing what happened in New York back in March, except it's happening in multiple metropolitan areas of the country," said Dr. Leana Wen, an emergency physician and public health professor at George Washington University. And we don't have the political will and the public willingness to impose the shutdowns as we did back in March." And these are the kind of people that will be allowed to be subjects of God's kingdom, because this is the only way it would work. This is what my very astute Bible student once discerned. I was impressed.

Yes, I understand. Sometimes I feel like I have unnecessarily dissected some things, and it may appear that I am being overly critical, but I am just trying to be fair, and look at things from all angles(I know you do the same). I do think the GB are giving excellent counsel. Whether this is because of some "woo" factor, as Tom calls it, or whether it's just common sense is immaterial really. It's the results that matter in the long run.