As long as someone mentioned religion ...

as if he wasn't doing enough crying.

'Never get religion or science from Hollywood. They always get it wrong.'

Add "from politicians".

Dingell was "catholic" they say; probably RCC. You know, 'The Church that gave us the Bible.' Therefore the widow should know that the dead are in the grave, awaiting a possible resurrection. They know nothing, they feel nothing.

See how the truth sets you free?

Of course, death of the body means the nerves loose their function so, technically, they'd feel nothing in that regard. There's also the separation and rejoining of the body and soul. It's a real bone of contention so I'll not venture further. You'll have to accept only partial credit for the accuracy of your statement.

That's correct.
You've said that you were taught to be nice to all (no proselytizing e.g.), keep a clean house and yard, do good works and such. (I've seen that myself, on various blogs via newadvent.) That is covered in scripture, but you don't want to hear it just now.

Side note: I often refer to the RCC as 'the church that gave the Bible to the world', which you've taken as a JW slur. It is not. It's the official position of the RCC and a claim I've heard from many Catholic householders. You can be held to it. (They're referring mainly to the Council of Trent, although few of the laity know that.)
In any event, you yourself could spend time profitably with Strong's Concordance of the KJV, researching especially "soul" and "spirit". Soul is defined first at Gen 2:7, where you'll find that man is a soul, he does not have a soul. When the man dies, the soul dies. (It is not "immortal". That was Greek paganism brought into the Magisterium.) Death is no more or less than the simple absence of life. The underlying Hebrew word is "nephesh" and is found at Joshua 10:28,30,32 et al.; corpses on the ground.

The soul is not the spirit. Heb 4:12.

Some thousands of Bible and language scholars agree with me; full credit given. But you'll want to do the research yourself. You can't trust a 'lying, heretical, child murdering, Bible altering JW'. (Quotes from various of your fellows over the last 30 years.)

Or not. What you learn will be disturbing. And don't discuss it with your Deacon when he comes over to help with your yardwork.

Oh good grief, Charlie Brown. I wouldn't take the word of "Catholic householders" as the official position. Go to someone of greater authority if you need an authoritative answer. What I do know to be official doctrine is that the church will claim that its founding and establishment preceded the compiling of the scriptures into the book known as The Bible. If you need to hear that from the higher ups, do so rather than rely on blogs. That book also acknowledges that not all that Jesus said is contained within it. Much more is said about the use of scripture and that, too, has been a bone of contention. As for your charge that I consider "'the church that gave the Bible to the world', which you've taken as a JW slur.", that is also incorrect. But, when it's so often repeated in that manner, it can certainly be taken as a sly dig. Sly digs aren't always helpful to one's stated mission.

You are also very wrong in the notion of what I was taught about proselytizing. There are both active and passive components in that endeavor. Surely one must first display that they walk the walk before doing the talk. In some cases, a person who sees that will make their own inquiry. Yes...by example we are said to be known. That, too, is referenced in scripture.

It's on my computer, which is down for a day or two. I'll be Bach, with a cogent and accurate reply.
Meanwhile, here's an overview.

https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/history/history-of-the-bible/#?insight[search_id]=6bab3a33-0607-468c-a04f-a7c9cd3d9216&insight[search_result_index]=4

how so many "people of faith" seem to need to keep themselves propped up so as to not lose that faith or allow someone try to take it away? I sure have. Their own circle seeks to extol the virtues of that faith and make certain that an antagonistic attitude toward the many alternatives is maintained. I'd have to admit to having seen such things in my own church but only in the laity and not the clerics.

living your faith in the open does not mean being propped up. and having a group of friends with the same faith and the same life style does not mean a thing. just because their conversations is different than those who go bar hopping, chase skirts, do drugs or whatever, don't mean a thing either. different lifestyles will have different conversations

That may be because it is full of grammatical and other errors. It also seems to be unaware of other conversations between myself and the person I addressed. I was speaking about personal observations and not ideals. This has not one thing to do with differing lifestyle choices but is about the personal support that exists within religious circles that seeks to maintain the allegiance of the group in at least two different ways.

there are not "many alternatives." The author of that commandment seriously displayed "an antagonistic attitude" toward the imitation gods and their worshippers that came up later.
The first was Satan, disguising himself as unbridled free will, or worship of self. That's still a large denomination. By his particular disobedience, Adam denied God's right to rule his creation.

Ever since, man-made governments have put themselves in place of Jehovah as rulers of men. Many of those show antagonism to competing states. But Jesus spoke often about a return to divine government- God's kingdom.

He commanded his followers, who would come to be called Christians, to petition Jehovah to bring about that government "on earth". His father is still antagonistic, so we can be sure by reasoning that when that prayer is answered there will be no others left. If reason fails, the Bible states this. Often. Unmistakeably.

If you've spent any time on SE the last few years you've seen those statements often, quoted from various Bibles. No matter what your view of the Bible is, these are certainties in it just as it's certain that Moby **** is the whale in that book and Ishmael is the narrator.

Given Galli's position, CV, and claims ("it does damage to the cause [Christianity] that I've given my life to") I don't hesitate to hold him to the teachings of Christ.

But.
He faults Trump for "immorality". Many will agree, thinking perhaps of his adulteries and frauds, going back over much of his adult life. But Galli worries that he is "immoral" only per the impeachment citations, which have to do only with his oath of office, not his marriage vows.
That is no concern of Galli's. His government should be the one that makes a [capital] crime of adultery, and will have no place for intergovernmental "favors".

Further, he worries that Trump lacks "loyalty to the Creator of the Ten Commandments". But that makes the Law and the Constitution equal. They are not.

One of our people was asked if we thought we had the [only] true religion.
"Certainly. If [we] thought someone else had the true faith, [we] would preach that. There is only 'one faith', said Paul."
(Milton Henschel in Religions of America, Leo Rosten, 1975.)

You should worry more about Franklin Graham. His idea that Trump is 'sent by god to rule' is very close to calling him the Vicar of Christ. It's also foolish and wrong. Compare my ruler with yours, at 1Pet 3:21-23

OK...so maybe I should have said "offered" alternatives so as to not cause a some kind of stir. Certainly there are many paths persons may seek...and many of the paths claim to offer the same objectives. IMO, we fight too much over this when there is only ONE who will make the final determination as to whether or not our earthly life met expectations. That fighting is, in reality, a distraction that serves no legitimate purpose.
I'm not interested in wasting any time judging the morality (or lack of it) in DJT. My reply was just the notice of at least two of your offerings in the thread that related to subtle antagonistic statements regarding a particular religious path that's not your own. My (subtle) intention was to make your ears burn....not your entire body.

You'll hear from my lawyer. [Devil face, which I don't know how to make.]

That 'many roads' is a common belief, but it doesn't come from "I the LORD thy God am a jealous God" of famous memory. His son described two roads only; Mt 7:13,14. And notice the contrast- life vs. death, not 'heaven vs. Hell'.
People who have been taught otherwise resent this teaching, so they accuse us of fomenting bad feelings. Do you see that it's their Bible they resent? The word of God, as they call it?

Are you aware that someday soon you'll have license to kill the messengers?

have I spoken disparagingly of your or any other religious practice that claims belief in the same master (your choice of name, OK with me) of our universe? Does that attitude appeal to you or does it not? Tearing down another person's religious choice is not, IMO, a reason to join theirs but to dismiss it as unworthy of consideration. I'm fairly certain you know that the bible teaches how others will recognize disciples of Jesus. "Put downs" are not included in the list. As for your "Sermon on the Mount" reference, all of that is in beautifully done figurative language and would lose that beauty if left to the terse. Never did I read anything in the Bible where Jesus claimed that following him would be a piece of cake.

people who have been taught otherwise resent this teaching, so they accuse us of fomenting bad feelings? Do you see that it's their Bible they resent? The word of God, as they call it?

Per the Bible rules in place since 70 C.E., Christians are forbidden to use force of arms, among many other "persuaders", to spread the Gospel. That rule we follow.

>Green asked if Galli was motivated by his "belief that the association with Trump is going to do long-term damage to the ability of Christians to share the Gospel." "Oh my God," Galli said. "It's going to be horrific."<

No, it won't. Nominal Christians were once associated with Alexander VI and other immoral leaders, but we're sharing the Mt 6 Gospel down to this day.

....."pieces of silver" Galli was paid to publish that?

"Release to us Barabas", or maybe it was "Release to us Biden" and "Crucify Trump". I'm reminded of the words of Apostle Paul, when speaking of such troublers like Galli, "they went out from among us, but they were not OF us".