Anna

I suppose it really is a "take it or leave it" scenario as you suggest. Whatever one's opinion of the "communication conduit" or "media channel", it remains that a large group of people have a peception, based on the Bible, that there is a strong possibility of surviving a world cataclysm to life on a cleansed earth. And they have learned about this from a rather smaller group of people who are convinced of themselves having a rather more immediate destiny in the heavens as rulers with Christ.
Now they didn't make it all up themselves. Clarity on the idea and detail on it's connection with Bible teachings and prophecy was shared with them to a greater or lesser degree. Some, like myself, were able to discern the bare bones of a concept of people living on earth forever, by resurrection or survival, from the Bible,  and certainly rejected the notion of "all good people go to heaven" long before associating with Jehovah's Witnesses. It was refreshing to come across an organised approach to sharing this Bible based view with other people, and to get a lot more detail on the whole concept of it.
Granted, there is a measure of human imagination thrown in as is always the case in matters of understanding God's Word. But, fanciful ideas  have a way of being skimmed off in time, whilst the genuine core concepts remain. There are plenty of critics and criticisms around, exhibiting varying degrees of emotion toward both groups amongst the Witnesses, ranging from a sort of benign and patronising disbelief through to plain vitriolic hatred. Rather like the "intellectual" Greeks at the Areopagus (Acts 17:32) and the hate-driven Jewish leaders at  Jerusalem (John 11:53)., and all manner of in-between shades.
Really, it is simply a case of "take it or leave it". You either believe or don't believe, accept ot don't accept. It is presented as an invitation in Scripture, so there is no compulsion, other than it's appeal, which has persuasive power, but not to everyone to the same degree. It seems, judging from the forum comments, there are even those who have a better understanding intellectually of the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses on this matter than do some Witnesses themselves. Yet to them, this only spurs an active disbelief and rejection.
But notwithstanding, the invitation to both groups remains and there is still a response to it. It seems that Jesus's words in connection with the kingdom invitation at the time of his preaching still have a very real application in the current period of time.
"From the days of John the Baptist until now, the Kingdom of the heavens is the goal toward which men press, and those pressing forward are seizing it."  John 11:12

What's the issue here? A group of Christians go to heaven? No issue. A large group of Christians are going to live on earth? No issue.
"an exclusive group have access to this divine insight?" It's in the Bible. Who's this exclusive group? You just reccounted it yourself didn't you?

Not sure how large the lunch would be, but there are some quite basic reasons in the case of a reception hosted by bereaved Jehovah's Witnesses ion the occasion of a funeral of a loved one who has served Jehovah faithfully.
"A good name is better than good oil, and the day of death is better than the day of birth." Ecc7:1. The remembrance of a live well-lived in faithfulness is entirely appropriate.
"Moreover, brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who are sleeping in death, so that you may not sorrow as the rest do who have no hope." 1Thess. 4:13. It is a time to comfort one another with the wonderful resurrection hope and forms part of the healing of the sting death causes.
"But sanctify the Christ as Lord in your hearts, always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason for the hope you have, but doing so with a mild temper and deep respect." 1Pet.3:15. It is an opportunity to share discreetly the hope of the deceased with unbeleiving friends and relatives of the deceased, where tasteful and appropriate. On occasion, this is an express wish of the deceased.
"Follow the course of hospitality". Rom12:13. Funerals are lengthy and stressful affairs for a variety of reasons. People travel considerable distances to attend at short notice as death does not come by appointment. The provision of hospitality is virtually incumbent.
At the very least, hospitality arrangements that follow the principle expressed by Jesus at Luke 10:42: "A few things, though, are needed, or just one" are quite appropriate in connection with Jehovah's Witness funerals, regardless of the status of the deceased

Because it makes sense and is considerate. Some people have come from afar. Some are in no shape to cook. I don't think it is unique to Witnesses. I think it is more common than otherwise.
In cases of family, I remember in my youth people lamenting that the only time the whole family got together was for funerals., as though love itself would not suffice, but only an obligation. I finally decided to run with it. It is what it is. Death in this system of things is a natural course of life. Use it as a metronome, to reliably bring everyone together from time to time. 
Kill two birds with one stone. Bring everyone together and use the power of family to help the bereaved one heal. Stay the course, and the time will come when there is no death.
 
 

I did not think I would live to see a reason that I might thank @Jack Ryan for a post. Every day God tells me how little I know. I take back one or two of the mean things I have said about him.
 

You aware sir, that this "gospel" is not the "gospel" preached before his coming? The message did change, after he came, correct? We do proclaim his death and resurrection. But what did Jesus himself teach? Was it not the "good news" or gospel of God's kingdom? All we are doing is proclaiming its coming, because it is the hope of mankind. With Jesus as king, he will remove all wickedness from this earth, what he done on a temporary scale while on earth, he will do again with permanent results. That is 'good news'. This ruling government which Isaiah foretold would be given to this child, is what we pray for in the model prayer that Christ Jesus taught his disciples. In the very words,"Let your kingdom come". The arguments the apostles had were about who was going to have the best seats in that government, of which they did not fully understand that it was a heavenly one. So berates us if you want, but understand that we are indeed, proclaiming a 'gospel' worth listening to. It is GOOD NEWS. Do you have any?

This is an interesting concept and has a bit more to it than it's context.
For the congregation, in the absence of an alternative, there is a 2 witness rule. Now the debate about what does or should constitute the 2 witnesses is being tested elsewhere.
But what is it to accomplish? That one judged as guilty as charged and unrepentant is excluded from the congregation. Pretty pathetic sanction when compared with the gravity of the crime wouldn't you say? Aw, the poor little molester's relatives won't talk to him no more What a shame.....not.
There are probably other crimes that could be similarly characterised. The congregation today only has a spiritual role and the sanctions against crime can only be handled in that context. Isn't that why Romans 13:4 says current secular governments serve as "God's minister", and "it is not without purpose that it bears the sword"?
There is no need for 2 witnesses to report an allegation of child abuse to the secular authorities, although the inconsistencies of requirements and conflicting legislation make it very prudent for legally-inexperienced congregation elders to seek legal advice in carrying out this action where it is not specifically mandated.
The congregation is simply neither authorised nor equipped to carry out the kind of investigation and victim support needed, or to try, and if found guilty, impose sanctions that God's secular minister has within their remit  at this time. And if God's secular minister finds such a perpetrator guilty of a crime of this nature, then we can trust that the finding is sufficient once the appeal process has been exhausted. The perpetrator, if found guilty, has carried out a henious crime and will likely find that the hands of Caesar are a lot rougher in the short term than the hands of Jehovah via the current congregational structure, to which stoning is no longer an option.
So it will always be true that Theocratically, we can trust that Jehovah's current arrangement, which allows for the secular authorities to execute judicial decisions, is always going to be better than our own. And, thankfully, they answer to him, not us, as how they are discharging their responsibility.

I agree with this idea, too. And as you mentioned a few other possibilities in your preceding paragraph, the few things that might change in the greater scheme of things could result in some longer-lasting benefits, too. As you said:
And there are also longer-term benefits when any of the "evil" people (perpetrators or deliberate enablers) were in positions of responsibility, as is often the case, or when persons, through a misplaced sense of priorities or naivety, inadvertently contribute (enablers) are put on a correct path. As you said:
I really appreciated that your comment was thoughtful and covered a lot of bases.
 

They did as a whole, however the problem was the total misapplication of 1 Corinthians 6:5-7 by some elders. I personally know of an instance where the elder advised to keep the matter away from secular authorities lest it brought shame to Jehovah. That was the attitude of some in the 80's as far as I know. It was never the policy of the society on the whole though. I am so pleased we have a concise, transparent document now which informs not just the elders, but also the publishers and anyone else of how cases of child abuse should be handed. Every one can be on the same page now. I particularly like par. 10 because it makes a clear distinction between congregational matters and secular matters of the same same instances:
"Child abuse is a serious sin. If an alleged abuser is a member of the congregation, the elders
conduct a Scriptural investigation. This is a purely religious proceeding handled by elders according
to Scriptural instructions and is limited to the issue of membership as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. A
member of the congregation who is an unrepentant child abuser is expelled from the congregation and
is no longer considered one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. (1 Corinthians 5:13) The elders’ handling of an
accusation of child abuse is not a replacement for the authorities’ handling of the matter.—Romans
13:1-4.
This is also good for instances where congregationally a perpetrator is not disfellowshipped because of lack of evidence or some other reason, but if the perpetrator is convicted of a crime by secular authorities, especially the crime of sexual abuse of children, then this notoriety may warrant disfelowshipping.
For those who haven't read  the document yet:
https://www.jw.org/en/news/legal/legal-resources/information/packet-jw-scripturally-based-position-child-protection/

They did as a whole, however the problem was the total misapplication of 1 Corinthians 6:5-7 by some elders. I personally know of an instance where the elder advised to keep the matter away from secular authorities lest it brought shame to Jehovah. That was the attitude of some in the 80's as far as I know. It was never the policy of the society on the whole though. I am so pleased we have a concise, transparent document now which informs not just the elders, but also the publishers and anyone else of how cases of child abuse should be handed. Every one can be on the same page now. I particularly like par. 10 because it makes a clear distinction between congregational matters and secular matters of the same same instances:
"Child abuse is a serious sin. If an alleged abuser is a member of the congregation, the elders
conduct a Scriptural investigation. This is a purely religious proceeding handled by elders according
to Scriptural instructions and is limited to the issue of membership as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. A
member of the congregation who is an unrepentant child abuser is expelled from the congregation and
is no longer considered one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. (1 Corinthians 5:13) The elders’ handling of an
accusation of child abuse is not a replacement for the authorities’ handling of the matter.—Romans
13:1-4.
This is also good for instances where congregationally a perpetrator is not disfellowshipped because of lack of evidence or some other reason, but if the perpetrator is convicted of a crime by secular authorities, especially the crime of sexual abuse of children, then this notoriety may warrant disfelowshipping.
For those who haven't read  the document yet:
https://www.jw.org/en/news/legal/legal-resources/information/packet-jw-scripturally-based-position-child-protection/

I can't for the life of me see why this kind of topic should be presented in such a sinister and threatening manner.
At the worst, investigations could reveal nothing. 
At the best, evil people who have wormed their way into the congregation will be exposed and ousted. The naivety of those inadvertantly contributing will be shown up and addressed. Processes will be reviewed and refined. Hopefully, victims will be acknowledged and gain some real benefit from the whole experience (although, sadly, this is not guaranteeed).
Admittedly, there are implications in terms of financial costs, time and attention of a large number of people, emotional impact on victims and their associates, reputational issues around perpetrators exposure, issues around mishandling and injustice due to distorted exaggeration driven by the bias and prejudice of opposers and those easily swayed by opinion, and the inevitable media brouhaha.
But really, what's to fear or to lose? Nothing changes in the greater scheme of things, but the immediate benefits far outweigh the costs.
I mean I am sure Bro Rutherford's experience was unpleasant at the time, but what was lost? And what was gained?

Claims of irrationality have always been levelled against witnesses who have experienced Gods great gift. "And we are witnesses of these matters, and so is the holy spirit, which God has given to those obeying him as ruler" Acts 5:29.
Compare: " “He has gone out of his mind." "Mark 5:21
                   " “You are going out of your mind, Paul!" " Acts 26:24
 If you believe that Jesus would have followed the superstitious and insulting pattern set by religious leaders in Israel of excluding God's personal name from His own word, then I feel you may well be spiritually floundering in human tradition.
For example, to think that Jesus would have quoted from Ps.110:1and intentionally ommit to include his Father's personal name beggars the imagination, and indeed is an affront to the "Faithful and True Witness"!
Why, even The Catholic Living Bible (with Impramatur) includes a pronouncable version of the holy name of the True God at this verse, "Jehovah said to my Lord the Messenger, "Rule as my regent - I will subdue your enemies and make them bow low before you." Ps.110:1. Was this an addition to the text?
Then, sadly, they acquiesce to the weight of religious traditionalism and, with red letters, render Jesus's use of this verse as "God said to my Lord, sit at my right hand until I put your enemies beneath your feet." Matt.23:44.
No, the restoration of God's name in a pronouncable and specific form is to do justice to the text, and to follow in the pattern of someone of far more worth than scholars with their inconsistency , someone who stated in prayer to his heavenly Father "I have made your name known" John 17:26.
(I have included this response to your reference to NWT restoration here as you raised it here, but, with respect, I think the discussion around the inclusion of God's name in Scripture belongs elsewhere as a topic.)

My greatest creation, @JW Insider, has kept them all fooled for the longest time.

Compulsive Habit?

Why do I want to create a phony profile (another one!) ... that of a GB member who admits that, deep down in his heart, he knows that Witness is right, that he is utterly ashamed of himself, and that he is astounded by her phenomenal grasp of the scriptures and reasoning ability?

I have noticed that as yet, nobody has attempted to answer any of the very valid questions and points you raise. Is this perhaps because there is no foolproof answer? I have heard many times Christendom say that certain unexplained matters are a matter of faith. That is why religion is a faith based organization. While I don't subscribe to the way they use this explanation (because it's more blind faith) we do have to have faith that Jehovah will surely not allow any lasting harm to come to anyone that serves him out of a complete heart.
I for one, appreciate your honesty.  I think we are all a work in progress in one way or another (including the GB). Always learning new things. This is why I posted this particular topic, because it is something that I wondered about, you may not be too bothered about it, you may have something else on your mind. I think most of us, if we are honest, have some topic that we do not see eye to eye. But rarely do we make a public fuss and tend to ride it out, wait on Jehovah and see what happens.
And also as @Gone Fishing pointed out Matthew 25: 34-40 “Then the King will say to those on his right: ‘Come, you who have been blessed by my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the founding of the world.   For I became hungry and you gave me something to eat; I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger and you received me hospitably;   naked and you clothed me. I fell sick and you looked after me. I was in prison and you visited me.’ Then the righteous ones will answer him with the words: ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?When did we see you a stranger and receive you hospitably, or naked and clothe you?  When did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’  In reply the King will say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’"  Jesus tells us that supporting his brothers, which applies to the anointed, so the GB included (and by extension to all of us) is very important. This of course does not mean we will support something we believe is scripturally wrong.  Br. Jackson also  alluded to the fact that it is each individual's responsibility to "make sure" when he made this statement at the ARC, I quote: ": “Now, the Governing Body realises that if we were to give some direction that is not in harmony with God's word, all of Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide who have the Bible would notice that and they would see that it was wrong direction”.  @JW Insider made some good points in his comment regarding producing versus sharing/distributing spiritual food. There is nothing the GB can add to the Bible all we can do is share its message effectively, which can include using Bible aids.
This brings us to the notorious question of interpretation, but by our baptism, didn’t we agree with the interpretation? But also I think it has definitely to do with faith. We had faith that what we were learning was the best interpretation we had heard.  Hebrews ch 11 gives examples of all those who followed Jehovah’s instructions because they had faith "in things not yet seen". Abraham didn't even witness some of the things he was promised.  
This is not strictly true according to Br. Jackson:
Q.   And do you see yourselves as Jehovah God's spokespeople on earth?  
Br. Jackson.:  That I think would seem to be quite presumptuous to say that we are the only spokesperson that God is using. The scriptures clearly show that someone can act in harmony with God's spirit in giving comfort and help in the congregations, but if I could just clarify a little, going back to Matthew 24, clearly, Jesus said that in the last days - and Jehovah's Witnesses believe these are the last days - there would be a slave, a group of persons who would have responsibility to care for the spiritual food.  So in that respect, we view ourselves as trying to fulfill that role.
also:
Q.   And the definitive interpretation of the Bible from time to time is the Governing Body; is that right?
 Br. Jackson: Ultimately, as guardians of our doctrine and beliefs, yes, some central group needs to make that decision, but that doesn't mean to say that we are just on our own   uunilaterally making those decisions without research and input from others.
also
Q.   I take it, too, that the state of knowledge about the
scriptures and, in particular, historical knowledge about
scriptures, also improves or increases from time to time?
 Br. Jackson:  That is correct.  But there are some basic things in
 the Bible that have not changed right from the beginnings
 of the Jehovah's Witness religion, and I won't take your
  time, obviously, going through those, but it is important
  to realise what are basic things in the Bible.  For
  example, is the Bible from God?  There is no possibility of
  us changing our viewpoint on that" end of quotes
 
It is those basic things that I think we can all agree on. They are the backbone of our faith/religion. As for those other things, we may have our opinion, without causing any upset, provided we don't go and harass other people about them or try and make them see it our way.
Sorry, I am going to have to continue this later....
 
 
 
 
 
 

Has anyone wondered about this?
God’s Kingdom Rules! Page 230, par.19 & 20  says:
How to Prepare Ourselves
19  How can we prepare ourselves for the earthshaking
events that are to come? The Watchtower stated some years
ago: “Survival will depend on obedience.” Why is that so?
The answer is found in a warning from Jehovah to the captive
Jews living in ancient Babylon. Jehovah foretold that
Babylon would be conquered, but what were God’s people
to do to prepare themselves for that event? Jehovah stated:
“Go, my people, enter your inner rooms, and shut your
doors behind you. Hide yourself for a brief moment until
the wrath has passed by.” (Isa. 26:20) Note the verbs in this
verse: “go,” “enter,” “shut,” “hide”—all are in the imperative
mood; they are commands. The Jews who heeded those
commands would have stayed in their houses, away from
the conquering soldiers out in the streets. Hence, their survival
depended on obeying Jehovah’s instructions.[2]
 
20  What is the lesson for us? As in the case of those ancient
servants of God, our survival of coming events will
depend on our obedience to Jehovah’s instructions. (Isa.
30:21) Such instructions come to us through the congregation
arrangement. Therefore, we want to develop heartfelt
obedience to the guidance we are receiving. (1 John 5:3)
If we do so today, we will be more inclined to obey willingly
in the future and thus receive the protection of our Father,
Jehovah, and our King, Jesus. (Zeph. 2:3) That divine
protection will allow us to witness firsthand how God’s
Kingdom will completely remove its enemies. What an unforgettable
event that will be!
Prior to those paragraphs, and in harmony with Matthew 24, it was made clear that the sheep and the goats will have already been judged, the sheep being marked for survival. Why would there be further need to follow some other instructions in order to survive? Matthew 24 does not indicate anything about additional instructions as a criterion for survival. In fact it says “then two men will be in the field; one will be taken along and the other abandoned.  Two women will be grinding at the hand mill; one will be taken along and the other abandoned.” This indicates that people will be in ordinary situations, when they are “saved”. The rest of the gospels focus on doing God’s will and following in Christ’s footsteps as the criterion for gaining salvation. "For this is what the love of God means, that we observe his commandments; and yet his commandments are not burdensome" 1John 5:3. None of the Greek scriptures talk about any special instructions that will have to be obeyed during the great tribulation and Armageddon.  It is only Isaiah that mentions this in relation to surviving the overthrow of Babylon, with similar references to the Passover in Egypt and perhaps also Noah entering the Ark.
I wonder why the Slave thinks that the same pattern will be followed when the ultimate destruction comes, as if Jehovah is not capable of saving individuals wherever they may be. Looking at it from a practical point of view, not everyone will be physically able to “go” or “shut” or “hide”. Think of the old and infirm.  The scripture in Zepheniah 2:3 talks about doing specific things well before  the day of Jehovah's anger. “Seek Jehovah, all you meek ones of the earth, Who observe his righteous decrees, seek righteousness, seek meekness. Probably you will be concealed on the day of Jehovah’s anger”.
The paragraph that follows,  (Par. 20) talks about us learning to obey the Slave now, so that when the time comes we will “obey” the Slave then, because our salvation depends on it.  But the scriptures clearly show our salvation depends on lots of other things, one of them being enduring faithfully to the end.  This was the symposium at this year’s Do not Give up convention as well. This included practical steps to “Run With Endurance”
·         Run to Win! (1 Corinthians 9:24)
·         Train Diligently (1 Corinthians 9:25-27)
·         Let Go of Unnecessary Burdens (Hebrews 12:1)
·         Imitate Good Examples (Hebrews 12:2, 3)
·         Eat Nutritious Food (Hebrews 5:12-14)
·         Drink Plenty of Water (Revelation 22:17)
·         Obey the Rules of the Contest (2 Timothy 2:5)
·         Be Confident of Gaining the Prize (Romans 15:13)
That pertains to everything we do now. And those are the things we will be judged on. That’s how we prepare ourselves surely? Not by obeying some last minute instructions as if Jehovah is not capable of saving each individual Witness wherever they may be, since the whole performance is going to involve supernatural powers anyway....Plus, it has been speculated that some may die at Armageddon, not by Jehovah's hand, but by other extenuating circumstances, even by being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I will do some more research on this....
 

.... submitted for your thoughtful examination and consideration is the following article that has been floating around the Internet for at least a dozen years that I know about ....
 

Is it appropriate for a Christian to own a cat, in light of their past pagan religious affiliation and the medical information that is now coming to light? -J.R., U.S.A.  

It would be misleading to answer this question with either a simple ‘Yes’ or a ‘No.’ The Scriptural answer of necessity must be a ‘qualified’ one, and it is easy to see why. Many conscientious ones among Jehovah’s people today have wondered if Christians should own cats in view of their somewhat sordid symbolic history and the many health risks associated therewith. While we would not wish to state an opinion on what must remain a matter of personal preference, what is acceptable to one person may, although unintentionally, stumble another.
 

This can become a life-or-death issue since to move the steps of a brother away from the path of Christ’s ransom sacrifice is tantamount to ‘putting a millstone around the neck and being thrown into the sea.’ -Matt. 18:6. Clearly, in a matter where our eternal salvation is involved, the mature Christian will not pursue a purely selfish course based on his own personal choices, but will adopt a congregational viewpoint as scripturally prescribed.
 

First, let us consider what most scholars agree is the etymology (word derivation) for the English term ‘cat’. When analyzed with the Latin ‘felis cattus domesticus’, the original Koine Greek is ‘cur.io huma bes-tia’, means ‘a contemporary housecat with all of its beastly identifying characteristics and behavior.’ A faithful servant of Jehovah would quickly notice that the nature of a cat is so marked as being ‘beastly’.
 

The Bible makes clear reference to this condition when describing parts of Satan’s organizations, both past and present. For instance, consider the fearsome ‘beasts’ as described in the book of Daniel or the ‘scarlet colored wild beast’ in Rev. 17:3. The demons entered the swine when rebuked by Jesus showing the potential harm and malevolent spirit control to which a Christian may be potentially exposed. Lest we forget the story of Nebuchadnezzar and the condition of God’s enemy when being humbled by Jehovah, the student of God’s Holy word would ask – is it by accident that the Bible in the book of Daniel describes his experience as a ‘beast’ of the field? Hardly so!
 

Clearly, the Bible – by using this kind of terminology – shows beyond any reasonable doubt that the basic nature of cats, while created perfect by God, has become evil or ‘beastlike’ since the fall of Adam six thousand years ago, and more probably, since the Great Flood of Noah’s time (c2350 B.C.E.). This is a development of the condition borne by the ‘Original Serpent’, the ‘Great Dragon’ Lucifer himself.
 

(Gen. 3:1) Indeed, modern studies of classification of cats, while not necessarily being reliable as they may be based on the discredited ‘theory’ of evolution, strongly associate felines with serpents (despite some external differences in physiology and morphology, which confuse those who do not study these matters deeply).
 

There are numerous reasons why a loyal dedicated servant of God should use his Bible-trained conscience to arrive at a proper understanding of why cats are not advisable as pets or companions for Christians. Consider, then, the following facts:
 

It was a common practice in ancient Egypt to worship or idolize cats as ‘gods’. Indeed, after death many cats were mummified, venerated and sacrifices were made to them. As Christians we observe not only the Mosaic Law, but also the ‘necessary things,’ identified by the Apostles at Jerusalem, to include the following edict: ‘(1) Abstain from sacrifices to idols’. We are to ‘guard ourselves from idols’ and ‘worship no other gods’. Such feline influence could lead to idolatry and thereby ‘grieve Jehovah’s Spirit’ with tragic consequences. May we never take for granted Jehovah’s wise and generous counsel brought to you by your spiritual brothers in the pages of this magazine!
 

The Bible does not say that cats were not present at Herod’s birthday party when John the Baptist was beheaded. History shows that cats were most likely present at this tragic party that Jehovah did not approve of. Clearly then, as loyal Christians, why would we even want to associate with animals that are without a doubt of such bad influence, remembering how true are the Bible’s words: ‘Bad associations spoil useful habits’! -1 Cor. 15:33. Some have exposed themselves to possible spiritual contamination in this way.
 

To invite cats in our house is to toy with disaster. Can one deny that the chance exists that the same grave consequences could visit your home that fell upon John? Clearly, God disapproved of this ‘birthday’ party. Should we not then disapprove (without showing any malicious intent, only Godly hatred) of cats the way the scriptures recommend?
 

Throughout history, particularly in the middle ages and reaching its climax in the Salem Witch trials of the seventeenth century, cats were recognized by the forces of Christendom as familiars and carriers if not direct incarnates of demons. While, in common with most beliefs of the empire of false religion, no evidence has ever been found to support this, the symbolism of cats still remain within the public psyche, and involvement with them reflects poorly on God’s footstools and footstep followers. Many pagan faiths still conclude that black cats bring ill-luck and possess demonic forces, while we have shown that it is, instead, all cats that share these perceived characteristics.
 

 Since cats were associated with the devil, could we as faithful and dedicated servants of God therefore contaminate ourselves by exposure to a ‘living symbol’ of satanic incarnation? How would this reflect on God’s name and that of his visible, earthly organization? Would we want to be linked with a symbol of Satan, the ‘god of this beastly system of things’?
 

The careful student of the Bible will acknowledge that nowhere within it is any species (‘kind’) of cat referred to in favorable terms. In fact, was it not lions of the first century who the Devil used to devour faithful Christians? Jehovah Himself ‘stopped up the mouths of the lions’ (Dan. 6:22) in Daniel’s day. True, the small housecats of today are not quite lions, but being of the same accursed animal family used by God’s enemies on numerous occasions throughout history, would it be wise or prudent to own one? In addition, by owing any type of cat (feline), would we not give an appearance of condoning their evil deeds throughout recorded Bible and secular history? The Bible makes clear that God’s people are ‘no part of this world’ (John 15:19) and that we are ‘not to share in the sins of others’, consume lecithin within nutritive cereal or ‘candy’ bars, or do other things directly banned in Holy Scripture.
 

The demeanor of a cat is seen by many honest-hearted observers as reflecting some supernatural, unnatural proclivity towards malice or evil.
 

 And, it is a well-known fact that cats are impossible to tame, teach or raise in the truth. The cat has a rebellious, independent spirit. While the animal itself may be unaware of this tragic condition, it serves only its true master – Satan, the Devil.
 

The scriptures clearly indicate that neither Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, faithful Job, the Apostles, Jesus nor any other human bearing God’s favor himself owned a cat. Should we simply assume that this is a mere coincidence? Surely not! This was most likely because they didn’t want to be like the pagan contemporaries of their respective days who showed no regard for how God feels about owning a cat. In harmony with the pattern set by the faithful prophets and worthies of old, it would therefore not be fitting for the true Christian today to own a cat.
 

But, the most modern scientific evidence also supports the Biblical view. Contrary to popular beliefs among worldly people, cats are unhygienic animals. Recently the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) announced that ‘Cats .. can shed Salmonella in their feces, which can spread the bacterial infection to humans’. Salmonella (salmonella typhimurium) creates a condition of ‘week-long diarrhea, abdominal cramps and in some instances, hospitalization.’ Would we be showing the proper respect to our life, Creator and to our ‘neighbor’ by exposing ourselves and others to this potentially deadly disease? Would this be seen by your brothers, and by those showing an interest in God’s word, as giving a good witness?
 

Additionally, cats practice many unclean habits not befitting a Christian household: coughing up fur balls, licking inappropriate body areas on their own bodies (inappropriate handling) and even, in some cases, on the bodies of their human owners (wrongful motive?), urination on the floor, vocal and blatant promiscuity (unknown to any other species, all others being endowed with Godly chastity and decorum) and widespread sexual misconduct without the benefit or sanctity of holy matrimony, even orgiastic practices, substance abuse of catnip (an intoxicating herb) which produces conditions akin to drunkenness, stealing food from the table, producing ungodly sounds, excessive playfulness and the employment of devices not known to have been used by Jesus, the conducting of its unholy business under the cover of the darkness of night, and so on.
 

 What sort of example does this give our young ones endeavoring to faithfully serve Jehovah? The Bible clearly shows that ‘neither fornicators .. nor thieves .. nor drunkards .. nor revilers .. will inherit the Kingdom.’ (1 Cor. 6:9-11)
It must not be forgotten that the feline is a killer. It eats mice and their kind, which is forbidden to Christians and their pets (Lev. 11:29, Isa. 66:17). But, far more serious, is the matter of the wanton consumption of the undrained corpses of the victims of this nocturnal creature; eating bodies filled with God’s sacred blood is not a matter to be trifled with (Gen. 9:3,4; Lev. 3:17; Deut. 12:16,23,24; Acts 15:20,28,29).
 

 In an earlier article in The Watchtower, we have shown that it would be improper for a Christian to permit a veterinarian to give blood transfusions to his pet, for animal feed known to contain blood to be served to a pet or a farm animal under one’s jurisdiction, or to employ any fertilizer that is known to have blood in it (w64 2/15 127-8). By allowing one’s cat to roam uncontrolled, the Christian becomes a willing party to, even a conspirator within, this serious breach of God’s law of life.
In addition, the Apostle Paul admonishes us to ‘quit mixing in company .. not even eating with such an unclean [one].’ -1 Cor. 5:9-11; Mark 2:13-17. Although Paul was speaking primarily about Christians who fell into sin, there is no reason to conclude that this inspired Biblical principle cannot be applied to association with cats. Uncleanness in any form is condemned by Jehovah and the fact that the Apostle Paul made no distinction when it came to associating with housecats proves beyond a doubt to the right-thinking worshiper of Jehovah that loyal Christians must avoid all association with all sources of uncleanness. This would logically include animals that either harbor these tendencies or indulge in such practices.
 

Of course, while demonstrating one’s obedience to God’s lovingly-issued commandments, one must do so without any spirit of meanness or ill-will towards these Satanic creatures, though they represent God’s enemies. Instead, mature Christians ‘feel a loathing’ toward those, including cats, who have voluntarily or otherwise made themselves God’s enemies, and they leave it to Jehovah to execute vengeance. -Job 13:16; Romans 12:19; 2 John 9,10.
Are we not grateful for this insight on God’s viewpoint regarding such matters? True worshipers follow closely God’s mandates on cleanness to their eternal benefit! Sister N.K. from Virginia, U.S.A. tells us that since getting rid of her cat, she has not had to be preoccupied with cleaning the litter box or wasting valuable time better spent pursuing kingdom interests with the burden of purchasing cat food. This has allowed her to become a full-time pioneer; she finds that it is now easier to meet her allotted hours in field service. Godwin, a brother from Sierra Leone, puts it this way: ‘I’m so grateful that God’s organization is kept clean! It has freed me from the burden of owning a cat and all the spiritual pitfalls and financial commitments that go with it. I hope all the brothers will realize how the Devil subtly uses cats to corrupt and distract us from the disciple-making work.’ (Matt. 24:14). What fine examples of faithfulness!
 

The question of how to dispose of one’s unwanted cat is a serious matter. Would it be proper to hand over such a creature of Satan to a person of the world? We see no immediate problem with this, as such a person is already immersed in the wicked ways of this system of things, and so a beastly companion would be a fitting one indeed. They could accompany each other on the road to destruction, through ignoring God’s generous gift of life proffered via His spirit-begotten earthly organization.
 

 It is on this same sound principle that a Christian doctor would have no reason to deny blood transfusions to a worldly patient. If, on the other hand, one took the view stated on page 128 of the abovementioned Watchtower, and consider that the pet or any other animal is under the ultimate jurisdiction of a Christian, who therefore bears responsibilities (Eccl. 12:13,14; Jas. 4:17, 1 Pet. 3:21) that are essentially parental in nature. The cat is a dependant. In harmony with this, surely it is the parent’s obligation before God to ensure the feline pet is treated as one would an unruly child who repeatedly refused to obey its parents, or of one who committed apostasy.
Unfortunately in the case of human offspring, one is limited by the laws of the higher authorities of the land as to what scripturally-ordained punishment may be meted out, as compliance with both sets of laws is necessary in such areas. This may not always be the case in terms of felines, where the fact that we are not living in theocratic countries may not prove such an impediment to what God requires of us, as manmade law may not afford such unmerited protection to cats as it does to humans. God’s soldiers would be mindful to apply, where the case merited it and local custom did not prohibit it, the principle of Deut. 21:18-21 which states that: ‘In case a man happens to have a [dependant] who is stubborn and rebellious, he not listening to the voice of his [guardian], and they have corrected him but he will not listen to them, his [guardian] must also take hold of him and bring him out to the older men of his city and to the gate of his place, and they must say to the older men of his city, ‘This [dependant] of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he is not listening to our voice, being a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of his city must pelt him with stones, and he must die.’
 

The mature follower of Jehovah will do well to be reminded of God’s advice in page 503 of The Watchtower of November 15, 1952 where it was held that ‘In the case where a father or mother or son or daughter is disfellowshiped, how should such person be treated by members of the family in their family relationship? ..
 

We are not living today among theocratic nations where such members of our fleshly family relationship could be exterminated for apostasy from God and his theocratic organization, as was possible and was ordered in the nation of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai and in the land of Palestine. ‘Thou shalt surely kill him; thy hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him to death with stones, because he hath sought to draw thee away from Jehovah thy God, .. And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is in the midst of thee.’ -Deut. 13:6-11, AS.’ Of course, we can take no legal responsibility for anything which results from your voluntary application of your interpretation of such Biblical principles as you may believe that we have brought to your attention.
 

As loyal followers of Jehovah’s thinking on this matter, we can rejoice in the fact that in the new system, the incoming theocracy and World Order, the ‘lion will lie down with the lamb’ -Isa. 11:6-7. Yes, when Satan is finally abyssed, the ‘beastly’ nature of felines will be forever abolished, and they will be fit companions for humans on Paradise Earth! But until that rapidly-approaching time, God will reward all of our efforts to maintain integrity by loyally submitting to the leading of his spirit expressed through the loving guidance of the ‘faithful and discreet slave’. -Matt. 24:45-47
 
 
 

Because this is what some of them (cats) WERE (worshipped as gods), silly!
PS does this remind you of anything?

 

Just this morning in field service a long time faithful brother who was working with us mentioned the Jonah video (we have had our convention already, no spoilers here as most know there is a Jonah video) and that the people repented after the judgement message. He said he was wondering whether during the judgement message that we are going to declare, there will be people that will "repent" and maybe not even get baptized, but will be judged favorably and not be destroyed just like the Ninevites.....Our understanding has been, and is still current it appears, is that when we declare the judgement message after Babylon the Great is destroyed ("the hailstone message") it will be too late for anybody. It was brought out in the talk "proclamation of the hailstone message"  that according to Revelation 16:21, the people will blaspheme God, so no repentance there evidently. However, I wonder how the brothers can be so sure that this hailstone message will be an actual proclamation, and made by us?  We had a little trial run some years ago with the "false religion is nearing its end" tract and a few thought this was it. But obviously it wasn't. How can we be so sure that this is what Revelation 16 is talking about? because it seems to me that since an angel is pouring out the seven bowls of God's anger it would be a supernatural occasion, plus it sounds more like Armageddon already.
It could be said that the preaching work we do now is a judgement message like that of Jonah. But I see a distinct difference. We tell people the good news, and to repent as per what Jesus instructed us. With Jonah however there was no good news and no mention of repentance, he went there to tell the people Nineveh WILL be overthrown no ifs or buts.
When our message supposedly changes from that of good news to judgement, how is that not going to be similar to Jonah's message?

Just this morning in field service a long time faithful brother who was working with us mentioned the Jonah video (we have had our convention already, no spoilers here as most know there is a Jonah video) and that the people repented after the judgement message. He said he was wondering whether during the judgement message that we are going to declare, there will be people that will "repent" and maybe not even get baptized, but will be judged favorably and not be destroyed just like the Ninevites.....Our understanding has been, and is still current it appears, is that when we declare the judgement message after Babylon the Great is destroyed ("the hailstone message") it will be too late for anybody. It was brought out in the talk "proclamation of the hailstone message"  that according to Revelation 16:21, the people will blaspheme God, so no repentance there evidently. However, I wonder how the brothers can be so sure that this hailstone message will be an actual proclamation, and made by us?  We had a little trial run some years ago with the "false religion is nearing its end" tract and a few thought this was it. But obviously it wasn't. How can we be so sure that this is what Revelation 16 is talking about? because it seems to me that since an angel is pouring out the seven bowls of God's anger it would be a supernatural occasion, plus it sounds more like Armageddon already.
It could be said that the preaching work we do now is a judgement message like that of Jonah. But I see a distinct difference. We tell people the good news, and to repent as per what Jesus instructed us. With Jonah however there was no good news and no mention of repentance, he went there to tell the people Nineveh WILL be overthrown no ifs or buts.
When our message supposedly changes from that of good news to judgement, how is that not going to be similar to Jonah's message?

I had to scroll up quite a number of posts to find the part I said I was going to reply to later. Just getting around to it now.
So isn't this because when Jesus is talking about "the least of these his brothers" he is not talking about just anyone (neighbor) but rather he is talking about his anointed brothers?

That "succinct" answer is a perfect example of the "skirting" I referred to earlier:
Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Feel That They Are the Only People Who Will Be Saved?
    No. Many millions who lived in centuries past and who weren’t Jehovah’s Witnesses will have an opportunity for salvation. The Bible explains that in God’s promised new world, “there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.” (Acts 24:15) Additionally, many now living may yet begin to serve God, and they too will gain salvation. In any case, it’s not our job to judge who will or won’t be saved. That assignment rests squarely in Jesus’ hands.—John 5:22, 27. First of all the more generally correct answer is YES, not NO. The question was do Jehovah's Witnesses FEEL that they are the only people who will be saved? In my opinion, millions of them do feel exactly that way, whether or not this matches the official position. In cleaning out 50 years of my parents house for the last week I have read a lot of my deceased grandmother's correspondence with elders, pioneers, and good friends she had all over the world. I was struck by the way assemblies attended in many different nations were often summarized. These ranged from the 1950's up to about 2010. Included in so many of them were expressions like: "Isn't it great to be associated with the only people whom Jehovah will spare through this old system."
Also if we look at the exact wording of the succinct answer you referred to, notice that it never says that anyone other than Jehovah's Witnesses will be saved through Armageddon. The answer is given as "NO" for only two reasons. The first reason is because many non-JWs from centuries past will have an opportunity for salvation through the resurrection. Presumably they will become Jehovah's Witnesses during the 1,000 year reign as we also teach that we will teach them. I'm sure you have also heard convention speakers talking about how in the resurrection we will hear stories from faithful men and women of Bible times, but then we will have the opportunity to teach them what Jehovah has been doing with us.
The second reason for saying the answer is "NO" also speaks vaguely about who may survive Armageddon: "Additionally, many now living may yet begin to serve God." (It's the new motto for the old "Millions" campaign.) This also does not say specifically that any non-JWs may survive Armageddon. Most Witnesses apparently presume that this means that our preaching work may result in more non-JWs becoming JWs.
This brings up another point about the idea that something nearly miraculous is yet to be seen in countries like China, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, India, etc. Expecting that something like this might have to happen first is counter to the idea that the end may come at any time like a thief in the night. The end could happen 5 minutes after you fall asleep tonight, or before I click "Submit Reply." But that couldn't be true if we need to see a miraculous new distribution of JWs around the world, first.

Will only Jehovah's Witnesses be saved? (No offence intended here to @Anna who raised this "hoary old chestnut" ?)
This is such a hoighty-toighty topic. It appears to be rooted in the same kind of attitude displayed by 1st century, pre-Pentecost followers of Jesus and exemplified at Mark 14:29-30: "But Peter said to him: “Even if all the others are stumbled, I will not be.” ............Also, all the others began to say the same thing." 
We all know where that got them: "..they all abandoned him and fled." Mark 14:50
I can't think of anyone who deserved salvation more than Jesus himself and yet we are told that "During his life on earth, Christ offered up supplications and also petitions, with strong outcries and tears, to the One who was able to save him out of death, and he was favorably heard for his godly fear." Hebrews 5:7.
So, whilst we know that recognition of Jehovah, Jesus, adherence to the pattern of life exemplified by Jesus, as well as ensuring we "worship in spirit and truth" (John 4:24) are all factors in  "being saved", the words from Paul's letter to the Hebrews, quoted above, should provide us with fuel for sober self-examination.
The religious designation "Jehovah's Witness" is a modern term coined from the words of Isaiah 43:10. Whilst the idea of Christians being witnesses of Jehovah precedes the year 1931 when those formerly known as "Bible Students" accepted the name as a formal designation, it is nevertheless a modern mission statement designating the identity of a group of people and their collective intent of purpose. It in no way was intended to serve as a talisman or token of salvation any more than any other name by which they had been called, even the 1st Century divinely provided designation,  "Christians". The history of misuse and misapplication of that designation needs no repetition here. Jesus's clear words at Matthew 7:21-23 should provide sufficient warning to any who would presume on 'salvation by association' with a name or organisation, devoid of the appropriate "fruits".
The term "Jehovah's Witnesses" serves to separate and identify a group of people. Of course there are responsibilities attached to any attempt to align oneself with the God of the Bible in such a clear, defined, and uncompromising manner. This accountability is much weightier for those who sincerely beleive the name to have been divinely provided. But the fact remains that nomenclature is no basis for salvation any more now than it ever has been in the history of those who would seek "righteousness and meekness" in an attempt to effect the probability of their concealement from "Jehovah's anger" (Zeph.2:3).
The most succinct official answer to this question is found here with an abundance of links to related topics:
https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/who-saved/
 

I'm not quite sure what you mean by saying more related as if there was an unbalanced emphasis somewhere. I think we are all pretty clear that an organisational membership alone is no sole criteria for God's approval. But it is clear from Scripture that purely motivated good works is not the sole criteria either.
I suppose to get the real balance would be to define the "world" that we are to be without spot from. This would be the same world founded with the children of Adam and Eve, born outside of Eden and outside of an approved relationship with Jehovah, conceived and born in sin. Additionally, this same" world" consitutes the human family ruled over by the one called Satan who is referred to elsewhere as the "ruler of the world". As it's "ruler", he dominates it's thinking, aims and objectives, practices, institutions and whatever else you can think of. Being that humans were made in God's image and endowed with conscience, Satan has always had a bit of a problem in getting all of them to do what he wants , particularly when they are  exposed to the will of Jehovah in one form or another. So he has had to rule for the most part in a deceptive, coercive, and oppressive manner. His additional hatred for all things related to Jehovah has led him to devise ways means of insulting or blasphemiing Jehovah with the knowing or ignorant complicity of both spirit and human creatures. However, as a right to rule issue is at the core of this  endeavour of Satan's, often beneficial results of varying degrees have been provided by his "world" as he has sought to harness the godly side of human nature in his deceptive attempt to dupe and win the support of conflicted mankind.
This "world" under his control has been sophisticated into all manner of systems by it's ruler, all manifesting the spirit that characterises it's originator, essentially one of rebellion against godly standards and purpose. It produces fruitage or behavioural characteristics rooted in the biblical descriptions of "works of the flesh" (activities driven by unbridled , sinful inclinations), and manifest in the deterioration of human relations descrbed as characterising the "last days" though of course not limited to that specific time period.
So that's the world to remain unspotted by. That obviously includes having the proper motivation for good works if they are to be approved by God.They can clearly be performed with wrong and corrupt "worldly" motivation, rendering them valueless to the "doer", even if many receive benefits from them.. But it also includes much more than a pure motive with a clue from the words of Paul at 2Cor 6:17 on this matter
So, as long as we are clear that community cleanness, as well as personal integrity, is essential in our having worship that is acceptable to the Father, all is well.  ?