GB 2025 Update #4

[LeolaRootStew]

1 hour ago, ChrisC said:

Saying: “Are you okay?”, can sometimes work.

 

1 hour ago, Obb said:

 

Or, Gesundheit which just means 'health'.  

 

Those are still superstitious, based on the belief that the person was facing some sort of danger by sneezing and you needed to quickly bless them or something bad would happen. We don't give blessings when someone coughs or burps, so why would we do it with sneezes? It only makes sense if you understand the origins.

[Obb]

2 minutes ago, LeolaRootStew said:

 

 

Those are still superstitious, based on the belief that the person was facing some sort of danger by sneezing and you needed to quickly bless them or something bad would happen. We don't give blessings when someone coughs or burps, so why would we do it with sneezes? It only makes sense if you understand the origins.

 

Yeah, I suppose if someone sees desiring good health for another after a sneeze as superstition, that’s one way to interpret it. Personally, I think the best approach is to simply say nothing. Most people don’t expect or need any response after a sneeze. On the other hand, if someone says 'bless you' to me after I sneeze, I simply say "excuse me".   

[Joe]

11 minutes ago, LeolaRootStew said:

 

 

Those are still superstitious, based on the belief that the person was facing some sort of danger by sneezing and you needed to quickly bless them or something bad would happen. We don't give blessings when someone coughs or burps, so why would we do it with sneezes? It only makes sense if you understand the origins.

I think you are missing the point. Just like clinking glasses or toasting used to be a pagan Norse thing, no one thinks of that anymore and that’s why it has been “white listed”.
it’s the same thing for saying god bless you. No one these days thinks that when a person sneezes is facing some sort of danger.  
And when is wishing a blessing from Jehovah upon anything is a bad thing?

Edited 6 hours ago by Joe

[LeolaRootStew]

 

47 minutes ago, Obb said:

Yeah, I suppose if someone sees desiring good health for another after a sneeze as superstition, that’s one way to interpret it.

 

We would never say of someone dying that they have "given up the ghost". Why? Because that would imply we believe they have become a ghost/their soul survives the death of the body. That is a non-Biblical teaching we don't support, so we wouldn't say a phrase that affirms such a belief.

 

It is similar with saying "bless you" to someone who sneezes. I think we can agree that we do not see sneezing as a life and death moment, so why would you feel compelled to bless someone who sneezed? Because historically people thought that sneezing might be your soul escaping the body or some other near-death experience that can only be resolved by quickly evoking a blessing from God. Since we know that is nonsense, ie a superstition, why would we affirm our belief in such a superstition by blessing someone who sneezes? 

 

45 minutes ago, Joe said:

I think you are missing the point. Just like clinking glasses or toasting used to be a pagan Norse thing, no one thinks of that anymore and that’s why it has been “white listed”.

 

Clinking glasses has other purposes - it engages all 5 senses when drinking alcohol. You see wine, smell the wine, taste the wine, feel the wine, and hear the glass. It wasn't the action that was inappropriate, but the reason behind it. With the reason gone, the action is now neutral.

 

Covering your mouth when you yawn has other purposes: it's gross to see the inside of someone's mouth. It wasn't the action that was inappropriate, but the reason behind it. With the reason gone, the action is now neutral.

 

Blessing someone after they sneeze has only one purpose: to affirm your belief in a superstition that says their life is in danger unless you appeal to God. The action of blessing someone is intrinsically tied to the reason for blessing them. The action can never be neutral because you would only act because of a superstition.

[Obb]

2 minutes ago, LeolaRootStew said:

 

 

We would never say of someone dying that they have "given up the ghost". Why? Because that would imply we believe they have become a ghost/their soul survives the death of the body. That is a non-Biblical teaching we don't support, so we wouldn't say a phrase that affirms such a belief.

 

It is similar with saying "bless you" to someone who sneezes. I think we can agree that we do not see sneezing as a life and death moment, so why would you feel compelled to bless someone who sneezed? Because historically people thought that sneezing might be your soul escaping the body or some other near-death experience that can only be resolved by quickly evoking a blessing from God. Since we know that is nonsense, ie a superstition, why would we affirm our belief in such a superstition by blessing someone who sneezes? 

 

 

 

 

That’s why ‘given up the ghost’ wouldn’t be appropriate. It doesn't make sense in the context of a sneeze. As I mentioned, it’s usually best to remain silent. Still, my lighthearted suggestion of saying ‘gesundheit’ doesn’t carry any actual spiritual meaning, especially if you look into its origins. I agree, we don’t need to acknowledge sneezes at all, though even Paul adapted to local customs when the situation called for it to not draw undue attention.

[SteveAus]

5 minutes ago, LeolaRootStew said:

 

 

We would never say of someone dying that they have "given up the ghost".

 

I certainly have used that term, not in the context of a living thing, but to inanimate objects like "my car's given up the ghost". I've no issues with that.
 

[Sweet Tooth]

6 hours ago, carlos said:

The same as a child matures until he becomes a man

I remember an experience from the WT that a couple waited for a newly baptized witness to develop a balanced conscience before they go for a drink. 

The term is balanced conscience  instead of just having a Bible Trained Conscience. Its trained but the question is: Is it balanced? 
 

thank you for your thoughts @carlos. 

 

[Badger]

I have a feeling there might be some more clarification in the next governing body update

[LeolaRootStew]

3 minutes ago, Obb said:

 

That’s why ‘given up the ghost’ wouldn’t be appropriate. It doesn't make sense in the context of a sneeze. As I mentioned, it’s usually best to remain silent. Still, my lighthearted suggestion of saying ‘gesundheit’ doesn’t carry any actual spiritual meaning, especially if you look into its origins. I agree, we don’t need to acknowledge sneezes at all, though even Paul adapted to local customs when the situation called for it to not draw undue attention.

 

Gesundheit (health) is the German equivalent of "God bless you" because it's still based on the superstition that the person who sneezed is in some sort of danger, but I think we've exhausted the topic. I also say nothing when someone sneezes and I think Paul would say nothing as well because he wouldn't want to give credence to superstitions just to "adapt to local customs". He would certainly not start worshiping with their idols to fit in, either - there are limits to not drawing undue attention.

 

[i didn't say "giving up the ghost" was another phrase to use for sneezing, but for someone who died. just a logic comparison]

[Obb]

1 minute ago, LeolaRootStew said:

 

Gesundheit (health) is the German equivalent of "God bless you" because it's still based on the superstition that the person who sneezed is in some sort of danger, but I think we've exhausted the topic. I also say nothing when someone sneezes and I think Paul would say nothing as well because he wouldn't want to give credence to superstitions just to "adapt to local customs". He would certainly not start worshiping with their idols to fit in, either - there are limits to not drawing undue attention.

 

[i didn't say "giving up the ghost" was another phrase to use for sneezing, but for someone who died. just a logic comparison]

 

Ultimately, I think our disagreement stems from a fundamental difference in perspective. You believe the phrase means "God bless you," whereas I don't think it does. While it can be used that way, that’s not its original meaning. This misconception started with Medieval European superstitions but can actually be traced back to Middle High German when it didn't mean that. So, if we choose to accept what the phrase has come to mean, that’s one thing. But that doesn’t reflect its origins. This highlights another layer in how we interpret language and decide what's considered positive or negative, which is exactly what the broadcast highlighted. Which definition does it take on? The original meaning all the time, or the current meaning? Can it fluctuate depending on the circumstances or region?

 

Another take is that when someone sneezes, you might assume they’re unwell (and not necessarily in immediate danger), and in that context, saying "Gesundheit" or 'health' might not be inappropriate. That said, I agree that the best thing to do is to say nothing. But, we’ve discussed this thoroughly, so I’m happy to let the matter rest.

[Amygdala]

I am waiting to see the update with my family, but that is quite some news. 🥂
 

I remember a coworker in Canada giving me a hard time at my farewell lunch at a restaurant just before leaving for Germany. He tried to explain to me the origins of toasting - something to do with the Irish people. I can’t remember what he tried to reason, He was a bit of a troublemaker at work, though. My thoughts now, even though it isn’t the reason, it will certainly make us more incognito during the great tribulation, just like the beards and slacks for sisters. Every little thing helps! 😎

[ladiife]

13 hours ago, Derrick_m said:

Any thoughts on today’s update? In a similar thought about beards, which with time are no longer considered negative, clinking and toasting is now up to the conscience.

 

The origin is actually debated, with some people thinking it would ward off evil spirits. But nobody thinks that today. Wondering what other adjustments this might lead to. 

He basically summed it up when he said there’s no need to have a list of rules. That goes along with what the governing body said in the first century at Acts 15:28. Those brothers didn’t burden the friends with a list of rules. Brother Lett emphasized not having a list of rules which aren’t scriptural. However if something will stumble someone because they have some some customs that they practice. I think of when Paul had Timothy circumcised at Acts 16:3. Circumcising was no longer required but to gain the Jews, Timothy became as a Jew. Jehovah is helping them not go beyond what’s written. That’s what I see. 

[ladiife]

3 hours ago, Badger said:

I have a feeling there might be some more clarification in the next governing body update

The clarification needs to be in a lot of our thinking. They’re going along with the scriptures. We just have to know what God’s word says to know how they are coming in proper alignment with God’s word.

[Sebastian]

5 hours ago, jwzhang said:

Maybe the certain aspect part of birthdays, but I don't think this will happen personally. 

 

Someone already mentioned that birthdays from the Bible all have a negative connotation. On top of that, it would be a day to "glorify" yourself, or another person, which is not in line with good qualities. 

good point. I mentioned birthdays because our official explanation here, outlines 4 reasons. 
1. ancient pagan roots (new understanding on toasting encourages us to focus more current world view)

2. early Christians didn’t celebrate (they didn’t have anniversary parties or graduation parties either but we generally see no harm in these)

3. we only celebrate the death of Jesus not his birth (this one is probably not connected to the current discussion)

4. the two biblical birthdays ended badly (one Bible student in his sincerity after reading about these said that the Bible shows we should avoid wild parties. He had a point that the general idea is that parties can get out of hand if we are not careful)

 

honestly though, we have all given up many things in life because we love Jehovah, birthdays included. If He sees fit now to allow it, ok. If not, still ok. We’ll all follow the chariot 😉 

[Sepie93]

Something that has always been very interesting to me is the fact that many new ones in the truth have no idea of the many things we should or shouldn't do and which are considered "basic truths" for people who grew up in the truth or are around for decades.
For example: toasting isn't considered in the Bible study. I can imagine an exemplary brother, just baptized a few years ago, having no idea at all about this point and just participating in it.

Somehow, it already wasn't important enough to make a "dogma" out of it: so important to teach new ones.



Verstuurd vanaf mijn SM-S911B met Tapatalk

[Bluebell]

6 hours ago, jwzhang said:

 

.....On top of that, it would be a day to "glorify" yourself, or another person, which is not in line with good qualities. 

 

 

 

 

But is this not what we're already doing when celebrating someones wedding anniversary ?