Ann O'Maly

He wasn't an elder. It's just a joke cos Prince was a singer, see, and 'Hello, my name is Elder ...'  is a (brilliantly performed) song from the musical The Book of Mormon where missionaries are elders, and Mormons knock on doors and ring doorbells like JWs do, and it's like Prince is ringing a doorbell and singing his presentation and ... although the joke was kinda lame it raised a smile but now any slight amusement that was there has been killed.

1 hour ago, HollyW said:

When was 606 dropped in favor of 607?  

The shift really began in the 1943 book, The Truth Shall Make You Free. P. 239:

"In Nebuchadnezzar's time the year began counting from the fall of the year, or about October 1, our time. Since he destroyed Jerusalem in the summer of 606 B .C., that year had its beginning in the fall of 607 B .C. and its ending in the fall of 606 B .C."

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

And you might well be right, that this is why October has stuck with us. 

Absolutely.

ZWT 1892, Feb. 15, R1372:

The seventy years which followed the overthrow here depicted are frequently referred to as the seventy years captivity, but the Scriptures designate them the seventy years desolation of the land--a desolation which had been predicted by the prophet `Jeremiah (25:11`), saying, "And this whole land shall be a desolation, and this nation shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years." The completeness of the desolation is shown in `verses 8 and 9` of this lesson and also in `2 Chron. 36:17-21`; and although the king of Babylon allowed certain of the poor of the land to remain, and gave them vineyards and fields, yet it was the Lord's purpose that the land of Israel should be desolate seventy years, and so it was. In the same year Gedaliah, whom the king of Babylon had made governor and under whom many of the Jewish fugitives were disposed to return from neighboring countries, was assassinated, and the entire population speedily removed into Egypt for fear of the wrath of the king of Babylon.--`2 Kings 25:21-26`; `Jer. 41:1-3`; `43:5,6`.
 

ZWT 1896, May 15, R1980:

PERIOD OF THE "70 YEARS DESOLATION OF THE LAND."
This period began after Zedekiah's kingdom was overturned when the land was left desolate (`Jer. 40:6-13`; `40:10-18`; `43:5-7`)

Jer. 40 and 43 are about Gedaliah's assassination and the Jews' flight.

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

JWTheologian even brought up the reference to those scholars who make a case for saying that the land was never completely desolated, but who claim that there may have been political purposes for speaking of the land as "completely" desolate when it was really only in a "deslolated" condition. Some scholars claim that this would more easily resolve land ownership disputes among the elite when they came back and found squatters. I pointed out to him that this is an interesting point of view but is NOT a Biblical point of view.

There is such a thing as 'prophetic hyperbole.' E.g. 

Zephaniah 1:2, 3 - “I will completely sweep away everything from the surface of the ground,” declares Jehovah.  3 “I will sweep away man and beast. I will sweep away the birds of the heavens and the fish of the sea, And the stumbling blocks along with the wicked ones; And I will remove mankind from the surface of the ground,” declares Jehovah.

This was just about punishing Judah.

There is some archaeological evidence that areas of Judah remained inhabited throughout the Babylonian hegemony. Desolation/devastation doesn't necessarily mean complete depopulation. E.g.

Nehemiah 2:3 - Then I said to the king: “Long live the king! Why should I not look gloomy when the city, the place where my forefathers are buried, lies in ruins, and its gates have been consumed by fire?” 

Nehemiah 2:17 - Finally I said to them: “You can see what a terrible situation we are in, how Jerusalem lies in ruins and its gates have been burned with fire. Come, let us rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, so that this disgrace will not continue.” 

The Jews had been repatriated decades before, yet Jerusalem was still considered to be a devastated, ruined place.
 

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

It has nothing to do with when the Temple fell even though the book "What does the Bible Really Teach" mistakenly indicates that the temple fell in October.

Really? *Runs off to look* Holy blunders! You're right! 

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

I think the "Bible Teach" book changed it to October just to simplify the reasons for explaining October 1914.

I think so too. It was poorly worded. It would have been better phrased, "The 2,520 years began in October 607 B.C.E., when  after Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians and the Davidic king was taken off his throne."

Or better yet, insert the real year (587 B.C.E.) ... and delete the '2,520 year' part. But that's another discussion. 

Quote

Apparently, the entire October tradition was just something we inherited from Nelson Barbour, and we kept it even though we found very little basis or evidence for it.

The October thing is to do with Gedaliah's assassination in the 7th month (September/October) and when the remaining Jews fled to Egypt. Russell and Barbour maintained right from the beginning that the '70 years' related to the period when the land was 'desolate, without an inhabitant' and that only happened, according to their interpretation, once the remnant Jews fled to Egypt.

Of course, as we know, Jeremiah's '70 years' related to the nations' servitude to Babylon which began long before Jerusalem's destruction. Not only that, but according to Ezekiel, there were still people living in Jerusalem's ruins in December:

Ezekiel 33:21 - At length in the 12th year, in the tenth month, on the fifth day of the month of our exile, a man who had escaped from Jerusalem came to me and said: “The city has been struck down!”

Ezekiel 33:23-29 - Then the word of Jehovah came to me, saying: 24 “Son of man, the inhabitants of these ruins are saying concerning the land of Israel, ‘Abraham was just one man, and yet he took possession of the land. But we are many; surely the land has been given to us as a possession.’

25 “Therefore say to them, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah says: “You are eating food with the blood, and you lift up your eyes to your disgusting idols, and you keep shedding blood. So why should you possess the land? 26 You have relied on your sword, you engage in detestable practices, and each of you has defiled his neighbor’s wife. So why should you possess the land?”’

27 “This is what you should say to them, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah says: “As surely as I am alive, those living in the ruins will fall by the sword; those in the open field, I will give as food to the wild beasts; and those in the strongholds and the caves will die by disease. 28 I will make the land an utterly desolate wasteland, and its arrogant pride will be brought to an end, and the mountains of Israel will be desolated, with no one passing through. 29 And they will have to know that I am Jehovah when I make the land an utterly desolate wasteland because of all the detestable things that they have done.”’
 

On 8/3/2016 at 9:29 PM, homesolution2011@aol.com said:

Can anyone please share the guidelines set forth from the governing body regarding cart witnessing. I have a disabled sister that would love to take part

in the PW campaign but was instructed she can not sit down during her assignment any longer. She was told that maybe the cart witnessing wasn't for her

to find another avenue of service??    (She can stand for 30 to 45 minutes then must sit for 10 to 15 minutes)

Relevant extract from July 15, 2014 letter to the BOE:

8. Determining who may participate in public witnessing: The Congregation Service Committee will select qualified publishers to participate in this feature of the ministry. Those selected should be known to present themselves in a dignified way. Their appearance and dress should be professional, well-arranged, and modest. Those selected should demonstrate discernment and a willingness to witness in different public settings, should enjoy and promote good relations with others, should be committed to taking the assignment seriously, and should be willing to cooperate with the body of elders. 

9. If it is possible and practical, the service overseer or someone designated by the body of elders should organize a midweek and weekend schedule for each selected location. There is an advantage to having the literature displays set up in the same location, on the same days, and at the same times. They serve as a constant feature readily recognized by those in the area.  

10. It is usually best for two or more persons to be assigned to work together. The safety of participants as well as their varying abilities should be taken into account when scheduling. Partners should remain watchful over each other since the conditions in a normally safe area can unexpectedly change.—Prov. 22:3; Eccl. 4:10, 12. [emphasis in red mine]

There is nothing in there about not being allowed to sit or disabled people barred from taking part (discrimination!). In fact, whenever I see a literature cart in my town, the JWs are often sitting. If what you describe is all there is to it, it sounds like your local elders are making up unnecessary rules.

On 8/1/2016 at 10:17 AM, SonOfcaleb said:

 

The Tree of Life in Eden as you know was symbolic. The Tree didn't possess anything intrinsic within it that could provide ever lasting life as Adam and Eve were created perfect and thus had the abiity to live forever.  Eating of the Tree of Life was a priviliege that they would have been able to partake of if they'd been obedient and not eaten from Tree of Knowledge....

... Now the ToL did not bestow immortality on anyone eating from that tree. The Tree symbolically only provided ever lasting life.

 

Hmm.

But they were literal trees, right? 

Why, after A & E sinned, did the ToL have to be guarded if it was just a symbol? Why not remove the symbolism of the tree and make it ordinary instead? If sinful A & E had got to the ToL and eaten its fruit, what would have happened?

Genesis 3:22-24 - Jehovah God then said: “Here the man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad [This was after eating literal fruit from the literal tree - Ann]. Now in order that he may not put his hand out and take fruit also from the tree of life and eat and live forever,—” 23 With that Jehovah God expelled him from the garden of Eʹden to cultivate the ground from which he had been taken. 24 So he drove the man out, and he posted at the east of the garden of Eʹden the cherubs and the flaming blade of a sword that was turning continuously to guard the way to the tree of life.
 

17 hours ago, Queen Esther said:

  ... but  the  short  video  is  always  so  fascinating.

The video is nicely done - albeit fictional 

Urban myth.

http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp

On 7/29/2016 at 6:01 PM, admin said:

 

Interesting quote above:

The Encyclopedia of Religion says: "'Allah' is a pre-Islamic name . . . corresponding to the Babylonian Bel" (ed. James Hastings, Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1908, I:326). 

 

I can't find that quote in this encyclopedia. Can you?

https://archive.org/stream/encyclopaediaofr01hastuoft#page/326/mode/2up

Anyway, Bel just means 'Lord' or 'Master.' Allah is related to El which means 'god' or 'deity.'

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=allah

 I'd take what 'Dr' Robert A. Morey says about Islam and its origins with a large pinch of salt. For a start, the picture of a statue of the moon god isn't established to be anything of the sort. The picture is what set off my BS meter and prompted me to check him out. Those that have analyzed his 'scholarship' have found that he seems to make stuff up or cobble together a variety of mined (mis)quotes that don't actually support his claims.

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/Allah/moongod.html

Reply To Robert Morey's Moon-God Allah Myth: A Look At The Archaeological Evidence

Quote

 

Conclusions

Morey claims to have conducted groundbreaking research on the pre-Islamic origins of Islam. However, on the basis of his poorly edited popular level book, there is a substantial lack of evidence to support this assertion. In fact, there is a considerable amount of evidence to conclude quite the opposite.

Morey claimed that "Allah" of the Qur'an was in fact a pagan Arab "Moon-god" of pre-Islamic times. To support his viewpoint, he presented elaborate evidences from an archaeological site in Hazor, Palestine, and the Arabian "Moon temple" at Hureidha in Hadhramaut, Yemen. An examination of these two evidences confirms that none of them support the view that Allah was the "Moon-god" of pre-Islamic times. The evidence from Hazor suggests that the interpretation of the statue of a man with an inverted crescent suspended from his necklace and holding a cup-like object in his right hand, which Morey labelled as "Moon-god", is disputed among the scholars. This statue could be of a deity, king or priest. None of the scholars, however, say that the statue represents a "Moon-god", let alone the statue representing Allah!

As for the "Moon temple" at Hureidha in Hadhramaut, it was a claim of G. Caton Thompson which Morey dutifully repeated. The name of the Hadramitic patron deity according to the epigraphic evidence is  and it is transcribed as SYN, which Thompson transcribed as Sin. Modern scholarship rejects this view on the basis of South Arabian orthography and the testimony of the Natural History of Pliny which points to a vocalization Sayīn. Furthermore, the numismatic evidence from Hadramaut shows that Sayīn appears as an eagle, a solar animal, and this clearly points to him as being the Sun god. Coupled to this is the fact that none of the inscriptions say that Sayin was a Moon-god. Morey also claimed that G. Caton Thompson discovered an "idol which may be the Moon-god himself" and that this "was later confirmed by other well-known archeologists". We have shown that Thompson did nothing of the sort; as to how "well-known archeologists" can confirm something that Thompson never claimed is a mystery to everyone. Rather Morey concocted the evidence to fit his pre-conceived notion that Allah was a "Moon-god".

Morey's deception is also clearly highlighted by the numerous misquotes. An examination of the actual quotes suggests that none of them say what Morey is claiming they say. Certainly, none of them say that Allah was a "Moon-god". In conclusion, Morey set us up with a case which we could not lose. Instead, he has cast his own credibility into doubt by penning a shoddy piece of pseudo-scholarship. Recently, however, there are signs that some Christian missionaries, especially those tentmakers involved in field work in Muslim dominated areas have discovered that this form of untruthful argumentation is hampering their presence and is operating as a counter-balance against their missionizing efforts. Such was the seriousness of the situation, members of the missionary communities were compelled to write articles to disprove such speculative and fallacious theories, attempting to consolidate and strengthen the strategies already in place for evangelizing Muslims.

Morey's book will be remembered as one of the worst examples of published Christian missionary polemics and will join those category of books attempting to disparage Islam at the expense of objective cogent scholarship. In general, it will be observed that on numerous occasions Morey has resorted to forgery, deception, suppression of evidence and deliberate misquotation. When these fatal academic flaws are combined with his established inability to consistently cite references in an accurate manner, Morey's argument is left in tatters. Such are the extent of the factual inaccuracies in his book that one would be flabbergasted if it had been read by anyone else prior to publication.

[...]

 

It just needs some candles or a showgirl bursting out the top tier. 

On 7/13/2016 at 6:26 AM, JAMMY said:

Do we have any changed info regarding this subject?

Zip, as far I can tell. The last mention of Babylon's 'hanging gardens' in the Org's literature was 2011 - 2 years before Stephanie Dalley published her research.

9 hours ago, JaniceM said:

Maybe the dissenters are looking for perfection from some anointed class of people they will never find.

No, that's not it. As I posted before,

"...  he concludes that there is a disconnect between the Organization's doctrines, with its claims about itself, and the Bible and known facts. Therefore, the Organization doesn't have a special relationship with God after all, and is just another Christian-based group among many with their various strengths and weaknesses. Subsequently, there is no reason to regard the Organization's human leaders in any higher esteem than one would a clergyman. This person would also be praying to God for strength to endure the situation he was in and to find a way through. "

9 hours ago, JaniceM said:

Losing faith or falling away from God's message and commandments through Christ is what needs to be the main focus.

For a believer, absolutely. Organizations come and go and can become corrupt. God's word and Jesus are the Truth.

10 hours ago, JaniceM said:

I can't see where anyone is forced to become one of Jehovah's Witnesses or forced to stay.  A husband and wife still have to keep their covenant in marriage to keep the family together even if the husband/wife decides they no longer want to worship God or stay as one of JW's.

I realize other factors come into play if someone is disfellowshiped for any certain reason why a person would feel isolated and estranged from other members of their family or congregation.

I'm also not quite sure what is meant "be made to choose" like in an ultimatum?  If that is the case, I think we do have to choose.  Jesus made that quite clear: [Matt 10:32f. ]

A child can be pressured or coerced to become baptized as was shown in the other thread.

As already explained, a dissenting JW is presented with a dreadful dilemma - keep the status quo along with his family and friends, or voice his disagreement, leave (or get kicked out), and face losing everyone he holds dear to his heart. I know it's hard to imagine how agonizing it is if you haven't been through it.

The scenario Jesus presents in Matt. 10 is where a family is ripped apart because some wanted to follow Jesus whereas others didn't. He was addressing an audience of Jews, remember? However, why should families be ripped apart when everyone is following Jesus according to their Bible-trained consciences and beliefs? Jesus wasn't talking about Christian family members becoming enemies of other Christian family members. I'm sure he'd be horrified.

And again, if a dissenting JW concludes that Jesus is long dead, following someone that doesn't exist would not figure in his available choices, nor would he ask for a mythical diety's help in making his choice. Nevertheless, the basic choice is the same: keep the status quo along with his family and friends, or voice his disagreement, leave (or get kicked out), and face losing everyone he holds dear to his heart.

On 7/8/2016 at 9:12 PM, JaniceM said:

David trying to preserve his life was not cowardly but acting in accord with God's will for him to stay alive. 

David, trying to save his life by hiding who he was and pretending to be somebody he wasn't, was not cowardly. We agree. It's extremely brave to be among those who would turn hostile toward him (even kill him!) in a heartbeat. It's similar with the situation a doubting or unbelieving JW often finds himself in. His family and friends may not go so far as to kill him, but it can lead to them cutting off all contact with him which can be a kind of living death - for both parties.

Quote

David also did not speak against God's anointed one or against God's organization or arrangement for true worship, even though the head one or king (Saul) constantly sought to kill him, and made excuses to do wrong.  David continuously expressed his concerns to God.

That assumes that the JW organization is specially chosen by God and that the leaders are God's anointed. A questioning JW who thoroughly researches his religion and concludes it doesn't stand up to scrutiny will broadly fall into one of two camps:

1. Someone who remains a Christian believer and takes the Bible as God's Word. In this case, he concludes that there is a disconnect between the Organization's doctrines, with its claims about itself, and the Bible and known facts. Therefore, the Organization doesn't have a special relationship with God after all, and is just another Christian-based group among many with their various strengths and weaknesses. Subsequently, there is no reason to regard the Organization's human leaders in any higher esteem than one would a clergyman. This person would also be praying to God for strength to endure the situation he was in and to find a way through.

2.  Someone who believes the Bible originated with man. The Judeo-Christian God does not exist. All bets are off. The Organization is human construct with irrational, mumbo-jumbo ideas.

Either way, your point about speaking against God's anointed or organization would be considered moot by a JW dissenter.

Quote

I also don't think anything is worth the expense of one's spiritual well-being especially if one's eternal life is at stake and relationship with Jehovah.  

Assuming the person is still a Bible-believer, he'll find himself in an impossible situation. Despite the Awake's comment a few years ago ...

"No one should be forced to worship in a way that he finds unacceptable or be made to choose between his beliefs and his family." - g 7/09, p. 29, Is It Wrong to Change Your Religion?

... he'll have to choose between his beliefs (and expressing them) and his family. He can seek out a Christian church and join with them in praise and worship ... but he'll lose his JW family and friends. Or he can keep his beliefs to himself, continue with his JW family and the JW community with its 'unacceptable' worship, but struggle with his godly conscience and personal integrity. He may end up in a spiritual no-man's land. It's not an easy choice and it often takes some time to make.

Quote

If a person decides to get baptized, he has made a dedication and vow to serve God and Christ and should fulfill that obligation.  It's not like they didn't know what they were getting into. They had a choice to get baptized or not.  

A person has a better idea of what they were doing if they get baptized as an adult. Not necessarily so with a minor. Eoin and I have had a couple of discussions on the ethics of minors getting baptised as JWs. Rather than repeat myself here, you might like to take a look.

Quote

The Israelites were in a covenant with God, and death was the penalty for breaking it.  Children were also born into the same covenant and had no choice in the matter, yet experienced the same punishment and consequences.   There are consequences to one's actions.    
2 Chron 15:12  "Furthermore, they entered into a covenant to search for Jehovah the God of their forefathers with all their heart and with all their soul; 13  that anyone that would not search for Jehovah the God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman."

You make it sound like 'no choice' is a good thing. It's one matter for a child to be born subject to a country's laws, but death for not following your parent's religion? Doesn't society criticize fundamentalist Muslim groups/authorities for having a similar mindset? What about tolerance and freedom of religion that JWs often fight for - even going to Caesar's courts to do so? Is it fair to demand those freedoms for oneself while denying the same for one's own children or others?

Quote

Of course ones can fall away or lose faith which it is understandable how this can happen with Satan sowing so much doubt in the world. They would need help in this regard, prayers, etc. to assist them in getting back on the right path.  However, if ones were willing to be disowned by their fleshly family to come into the truth despite financial lost, homelessness or any alienation, detriment to mental or emotional distress, others should hold the same convictions instead of making an excuse it's because of my family.  God always provides for those doing his will just as he provides for the birds or lilies of the field, even if we meet with some hardship in the beginning. 

That depends on your point of view. Losing faith in what? Falling away from what? 

For the still-Christian-but-doubting-JW God, not Satan, is leading them out of the Organization. For the atheist or agnostic JW, the biblical God and Satan don't exist; they survive without expectations of divine help or fears of devilish temptation.

As for your comments about what a person should and shouldn't do, everyone's circumstances are different and the individual has to carefully weigh up his options and their wider ramifications. 

"Don't judge a man until you have walked a mile in his shoes."
 

Details of the case:

https://cases.legal/en/act-uk2-264937.html

Was David a coward when he hid and feigned insanity among the Philistines and later pretended to be their ally when he was really working against them? Or was he working for the greater good?

Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 - There is an appointed time for everything, A time for every activity under the heavens:  2 A time for birth and a time to die; A time to plant and a time to uproot what was planted;  3 A time to kill and a time to heal; A time to tear down and a time to build up;  4 A time to weep and a time to laugh; A time to wail and a time to dance;  5 A time to throw stones away and a time to gather stones together; A time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing;  6 A time to search and a time to give up as lost; A time to keep and a time to throw away;  7 A time to rip apart and a time to sew together; A time to be silent and a time to speak;  8 A time to love and a time to hate; A time for war and a time for peace.

Oftentimes it is better to gently coax loved ones into truth by maintaining relationships with them rather than by hitting them with a giant mallet, causing injury and alienation that never fully heals. It takes greater psychological fortitude to use the soft approach - often at the expense of your own mental and spiritual well-being.

When a JW is alone in his unbelief and there is nobody among his family and friends to share his concerns or frustrations with for fear of becoming an outcast (which may cause extreme practical, economic and emotional problems - not just for himself but for others too), online forums are the places to safely vent and get the needed validation and support.

This 'Jordan' guy is going through a process and that is what 'Tears of Oberon' is seeing. 'Jordan' will eventually leave, but it will be when he is ready. How many times have you heard experiences where people have dilly-dallied and taken years to officially convert to the JWs? There is no cookie-cutter method of disengaging from a high-control religious group ... or converting to become a member of one ... and 'Tears of Oberon' will do well to be mindful of the individuality of a person's spiritual journey.

2 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

I agree wholeheartedly.

3 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

But they were just not up to the task of accommodating the conscientiously held view of this individual, who felt that non-blood medical management was the only option for them within the particular medical circumstances of their case.

It's extremely difficult to treat AML and acute anemia without the best tools at the medical profession's disposal. It's not the medical profession's fault that blood well fits that purpose - blood was designed to oxygenate the human body in the first place. 

Anyway, it's still sad. One can applaud the boy's faith, but unfortunately it found expression in a deeply flawed interpretation that made his sacrifice so unnecessary.

The medical services weren't inadequate here. They were prevented from using the best treatment available for giving the boy optimal chance of survival. They did all they could under the circumstances.

It's a sad story for all concerned. 

Finally, I've had time to read through this thread. Some observations:

I see that no scriptural support has yet been given for the idea that there will be a resurrection during the 1000 years. Where does the idea come from, then? 

It appears to be based on assumptions, i.e.,

1. that 'Judgment Day' isn't a specific point in time but a long period lasting 1000 years;

2. that there are two groups of Christian believers;

3. that the 'deeds' people will be judged on are those done during the 1000 years and not those done before they died ...

... which comes from the interpretation of Rom. 6:7 that once a person dies, they have been 'acquitted' from their sin ...

... in which case, the resurrected start with a clean slate but are still raised in imperfect bodies that can sin again, and it's really during the 1000 years that they are able to avail themselves of the merit of Christ's sacrifice (paradoxically by working toward perfection) ...

... which means that Christ's sacrifice doesn't atone for their sins committed before death in this present age, as their own deaths paid for their sins ...

... which goes against the gospel message (Rom. 3:21-26).

If Jesus' death does atone for sins committed before a believer's death, then why isn't that individual 'declared righteous for life' like the 'anointed' are? 

And yet, even with regard to the 'anointed' who are regarded as being 'declared righteous for life,' there is judgment based on what they did 'while in the body':

2 Corinthians 5:10 - For we must all appear before the judgment seat of the Christ, so that each one may be repaid according to the things he has practiced while in the body, whether good or bad.

This judgment for the 'anointed' doesn't last for 1000 years, does it? And they are judged according to what they did before they died and were raised as spirit beings, right?

Why the different standards between two groups?

This raises another conundrum because, if Adam died, he was acquitted of his sin too. So why do JWs insist that in his case, his 'Adamic death' doesn't acquit him of his sin? Where is the scriptural support for the idea that he has fast-tracked, without passing 'Go' and collecting $200, straight to the 'second death'?

Melinda mentioned 'willful sin.' Isn't much of our 'sin' 'willful' in some way or another? What about David? Was his adultery with Bathsheba and murder of her husband involuntary, accidental? Manasseh's offenses against God with his child sacrifices and false worship - were those lesser sins than Adam accepting his wife's offer of forbidden fruit to eat? 

Eoin talked about there being a difference between 'immortality' and 'everlasting life,' and that humans cannot be immortal due to their nature. But then, wasn't it argued that angels are not immortal either (one of Melinda's posts)? So what does a being's human nature have to do with it?

And does 'immortality' mean 'cannot die' or simply 'does not die' because the person has been granted a spirit-generated body - whatever the nature? If an immortal person 'cannot die,' doesn't this limit God's power or make the immortal person as indestructible as the Creator? On the other hand, if immortality means one doesn't die, and that life continues indefinitely, forever, or everlastingly, no matter what body the rewarded believer is given, it will always be dependent on God's life-giving spirit, would it not?

OK, OK. Enough of our ping-pong 'Yes he does' / 'No he doesn't.' To me, AMIII's words and intent are as plain as day. You disagree. However, we can agree on this:

6 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Obviously, bribing or coercing minors to dedicate themselves to Jehovah to obtain a drivers permit is unacceptable. It is also stupid, as it would render void that dedication anyway.

On 6/21/2016 at 1:56 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

As for the scenario's validity to the discussion on a minor prioritising working toward dedication over seeking a driving permit or vice-versa, I see absolutely no relevance at all.

That's because the discussion wasn't about a minor prioritizing working toward dedication over seeking a driving permit. The discussion was about a JW father withholding his child's driving permit to coerce him into getting baptized on the basis that, if he wasn't ready to handle a car, he wasn't ready to make a lifelong dedication/commitment to the Sovereign of the Universe and the Org that claims it exclusively represents Him.

I agree that Anthony Morris III and the father in my scenario are comparing apples and oranges when trying to equate the responsibility that comes with dedication and baptism (or marriage) to that of having a drivers permit ... which makes using that kind of coercive tactic with one's children all the more distasteful - my point all along.

So basically, Glenn, it looks like you are arguing that the phrase 'came to life' has a different meaning depending on the group. 

One group is resurrected to perfection.

The other group is resurrected to imperfection ... until they've 'achieved' sin-free perfection at the end of the 1000 years.

Where is the scriptural evidence that one group has to 'achieve' perfection during the 1000 years?

If one group is resurrected perfect, why can it not be that the other group is resurrected perfect but at the end of the 1000 years, in harmony with the timing contained in v. 5's parenthesis? 

Furuli's method for obtaining the data for his 1993 study was to personally interview congregation members about their mental health. A local elder assessed the mental health of those members who couldn't be there for interview that day and this formed part of the results.

The 2015 study involved sending out a questionnaire to congregation elders and getting them to answer questions about members' mental health issues that they were personally aware of. They also had to categorize what kind of mental health issue the member(s) had, how long they'd suffered from it, and the kind of professional help they had been given.

The many problems with these approaches and how they would affect the results are glaringly obvious.