Jump to content

Shiwiii

Only jws will be saved

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

Shiwiii -
Space Merchant -
26
682

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

KEEP TRYING TO MAKE DISCIPLES

14. According to Jesus’ instructions recorded at Matthew 28:19, 20, what do we try our best to do, and why?

14 Read Matthew 28:19, 20. As we conduct Bible studies, we have to try our best to “make disciples . . . , teaching them to observe all the things [Jesus has] commanded.” We need to help people understand how important it is for them to take their stand for Jehovah and his Kingdom. This means trying to motivate people to make the truth their own by applying what they learn, dedicating their life to Jehovah, and getting baptized. Only then will they survive Jehovah’s day.—1 Pet. 3:21.

 

This was taken from the study article for Oct, Nov or Dec. I think it is to be studied in Dec. Anyway, so the jw position is that all who are not baptized  jws will die at Armageddon? Do you folks tell people this when you are at their door? or at your carts?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1Peter 3:20,21

20 who had formerly been disobedient when God was patiently waiting in Noah’s day, while the ark was being constructed, in which a few people, that is, eight souls, were carried safely through the water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, is also now saving you (not by the removing of the filth of the flesh, but by the request to God for a good conscience), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, William T said:

1Peter 3:20,21

20 who had formerly been disobedient when God was patiently waiting in Noah’s day, while the ark was being constructed, in which a few people, that is, eight souls, were carried safely through the water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, is also now saving you (not by the removing of the filth of the flesh, but by the request to God for a good conscience), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

So........do you align with the statement in the wt? Do you tell this to others while in service? Cart sitting? 

"Only those baptized jws will survive" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** w19 October p. 11 Keep Busy During the Last of “the Last Days” ***

KEEP TRYING TO MAKE DISCIPLES

*** w19 October p. 12 Keep Busy During the Last of “the Last Days” ***

KEEP CLEAR OF ALL FALSE RELIGION

God’s Word!

Isaiah 52:11

Deliverance for Jerusalem
…10 The LORD has bared His holy arm in the sight of all the nations; all the ends of the earth will see the salvation of our God. 11Depart, depart, go out from there! Touch no unclean thing; come out from it, purify yourselves, you who carry the vessels of the LORD. 12 For you will not leave in a hurry nor flee in haste, for the LORD goes before you, and the God of Israel is your rear guard

2 Corinthians 6:17
"Therefore come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you

Revelation 18:4
Then I heard another voice from heaven say: "Come out of her, my people, so that you will not share in her sins or contract any of her plagues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shiwiii said:

So........do you align with the statement in the wt? 

I believe the statement that William was aligning himself with was that of Peter. 

2 hours ago, William T said:

Baptism, which corresponds to this, is also now saving you (not by the removing of the filth of the flesh, but by the request to God for a good conscience), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

You asked your question wrong. Do you think that verse has any merit, or is it all nonsense? Do you object to working in harmony with that scripture?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you TrueTomHarley, yes I was aligning myself with what Peter said. That just as being saved meant in Noah's age, being on the ark, being saved in the time of the depends on being baptized. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

You asked your question wrong. Do you think that verse has any merit, or is it all nonsense? Do you object to working in harmony with that scripture?

That is NOT the question asked Tom, the question asked is in the posts above.:

 

"do you align with the statement in the wt that ONLY baptized jws will survive Armageddon? Do you tell this to others while in service? Cart sitting?"

 

its really not hard, unless you don't know what to say because you want to say both yes and no. Do you align or do you not? 

 

36 minutes ago, William T said:

Thank you TrueTomHarley, yes I was aligning myself with what Peter said. That just as being saved meant in Noah's age, being on the ark, being saved in the time of the depends on being baptized. 

interesting point, but please consider the thief on the cross next to Jesus, was he baptized?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

its really not hard, unless you don't know what to say because you want to say both yes and no. Do you align or do you not? 

Since the verse of Peter says what it does, the GB can hardly say other than what they do, can they? Though masked as an attack on the GB, it seems that what you really have a problem with is that passage of verse. 

Surely there is no harm in directing people to a known place of safety, is there? You have a beef with that? As to whether it applies to each and every case, someone very dear to me says, when asked if anyone other than those baptized will be saved: “Well....I’m not Jesus, and I don’t know.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

As to whether it applies to each and every case, someone very dear to me says, when asked if anyone other than those baptized will be saved: “Well....I’m not Jesus, and I don’t know.”

AND finally we get to the point of the matter. The wt states directly that all who are not baptized jws will not survive Armageddon, but yet you still seem to think that someone very dear to you  says otherwise. Which is it? If you truly believe what 1 Peter 3:19-22 states, then it is a symbol/ pledge to God as stated  in verse 21 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God.[e] It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus and your belief in Him, but the wt states that only jws will survive, thus binding one to the wt org for salvation, when in fact we are to be bound to Jesus and by His resurrection we are saved and our pledge/symbol of this is baptism. 

So do you preach that if you do not belong to the org and are baptized into the wt you will not be saved? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with 'only baptised Witnesses will be saved' is that in the stream of time there will always be someone who is not baptised yet either because they are too young, immature, mentally incapable, or working towards baptism. So this admonition in my opinion is to be understood to mean that just like the eunuch told Philip "what prevents me from getting baptised" and he got baptised, so a Christian would not avoid or postpone baptism if there is no good reason to do so. Also, I am sure there will be many who have never been given the chance to get baptised  (India, China, Arab states etc.) and they will survive Armageddon on the merit that Jehovah reads their heart and will give them a chance to prove themselves later, and those who are informed, but keep sitting on the fence, ought to realize that they need to make a decision because the last step, baptism, is necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Forum Statistics

    61,565
    Total Topics
    113,563
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    16,488
    Total Members
    1,592
    Most Online
    Robert Cumulus
    Newest Member
    Robert Cumulus
    Joined




  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Uh oh. You are reacting (and I thank you) to my Dawkins post on the wrong thread. Be prepared for an onslaught from @AlanF about how STUPID you are!   He is not the same—JTR is an absolute saint by comparison—but I used to occasionally include off-color words in my posts just to see him, who could launch the nastiest and crudest of tirades, get all bent out of shape that I has said a naughty word.
    • Why I enjoyed your piece : it cclearly identifies the cantankerous way all darwinists act...... the religion seems to affect them this way.   Mr Dawkins has embarrassed himself quite a lot since he became a celebrity for the cause......  I think the best video I saw of him is when he said that aliens seeded the earth. ..... in a discussion on the origins of life. ..
    • Loved your contribution above.  The propaganda regarding the  "religion of peace" hides its extreme and barbaric violence.  True, JWs are the true religion of peace for refusing any political division in our ranks (not taking sides) or going to war to fight any of this system's battles. It is encouraging to be able to identify this nation on earth. I studied the "religion of peace" ...... most people in UK call it by this name now because one can get 2 years in prison for islamaphobia.  One can mock a Christian, burn the bible, call jesus an adulterer and make funny pictures of him but do NOT hint at  anything against the "religion of peace".  Oh-  I am comparing the injustice of the world in its bias treatment of JWs again in OCD way...... that will trigger Mr. JAH2......
    • This is not technically true. Admittedly, there was much opinion, but there was also at least one bit of solid information content: It would be very hard to dispute with that one.
    • I think a lot of people suspected that pretty quickly, especially as their top 3 issues appear to be the same, and as time goes on, even their pet peeves match up. I don't know for sure that JB was "DF'd" from the site, but it's the impression I got because there was some kind of warning, and then he was gone. At this point if they are the same, I don't think it matters in the slightest. But the reason I jump in on this topic is because I don't want anyone to be confused with my use of the term DF.  According to JB, he was treated as if DF'd in his congregation, even though he was not officially DF'd by a committee of elders. Not all of the reasons for this treatment were clear. Now that you have suspected that 4Jah2me was DF'd, I just figured that the JB story ought to be a reminder that it's always possible 4Jah2me was never DF'd either. 
    • Tweeted Richard Dawkins one fine day (11/13/19): “You could easily spot any Religion of Peace. Its extremist members would be extremely peaceful”  Can it be? Is Richard Dawkins referring to Jehovah’s Witnesses—universally known for being “extremely peaceful” yet declared “extremists” in Russia? If so, I will take back the relatively few bad things I have said about him. I have not really said THAT many bad things about him. At times, I have even been complimentary. When he blessed the atheist buses rolling out in London, I said that he raised a good point—his was a reaction to existing “hellfire’ buses, with advertising from the church. He did wuss-out, though, with a: “There probably is no God.” Probably? It wasn’t until I began following him on Twitter, though, that I noticed how breathtakingly contemptuous he was toward anyone who disagreed with him—not merely about God, but also on geopolitical things—and then I did say a few mean things. For example, I said of him that “he does not suffer fools gladly, and a fool is anyone who disagrees with him.” However, he has largely repented over this online meanness. I’ve noticed it over the months. He has not banished it entirely, but it is much less prevalent, so that I regret that I ever said what I did.  The temptation to be disdainful of opponents is well-nigh irresistible, particularly if you think that they are willfully choosing ignorance. I have (more or less) mastered the temptation, of course, but I have a source of effective and unending counsel that he does not. This is no more concisely stated than it was at a recent Watchtower Study. A Bible verse considered how we ought “do nothing out of contentiousness or out of egotism, but with humility consider others superior to you.” (Philippians 2:3) Practically speaking, this advice is not easy to implement. It may even strike one as nonsensical—how can everyone be superior to everyone else? Said that Watchtower: “The humble person acknowledges that everyone is superior to him in some way.—Phil. 2:3, 4.”  Of course. In some way everyone is superior to everyone else. Search for that way, hone in on it like a laser beam, and it will not be so difficult to treat even opponents with respect. “Disagree without being disagreeable” is the catchphrase today. But Professor Dawkins does not have this advantage. Much of his tradition would sway him in just the opposite “survival of the fittest” direction. So he must be given credit for his new, somewhat softer, online personality. Possibly someone who has his best interests at heart—perhaps his wife—said, “Richard, you sure do come across as a cantankerous crank on Twitter,” and he deliberately walked it back. It’s commendable. Now, I don’t think Richard had Jehovah’s Witnesses in mind with his tweet. He probably has formed his views of them through the contributions of their “apostate” contingent, and those views could hardly be blacker. I looked down among his comments to see whether any of those nasties had reared their heads. Perhaps here was an example: “Not entirely true. Extremists usually have their own misinterpretation of scriptures.” I responded to this one: “If “misinterpretation” results in a religion of peace, perhaps it is not a misinterpretation after all. Perhaps the mainline view is a misinterpretation.” Is that not a no-brainer?  Another one, disagreeing with the above tweet: “Actually no. Most extremists do exactly what is written in their book. ‘Misinterpretation’ is used as an argument by believers that cherry pick morals that fit our secular ethics today.” I know this type, too. This is the type that finds slavery in the Bible or war in the Old Testament and rails at the “hypocrisy.” I responded to this fellow as well: “Everything has a historical context and to deliberately ignore such context is to be intellectually dishonest. If our side does it to theirs, we never hear the end of it.” He blew up at this reference to context. Evil is evil, he carried on, across all places and time-frames. These characters are very predictable—you could even write their lines for them and not be too far off. Has “critical thinking” made us all nincompoops? It was once thought the most intelligent thing in the world to consider historical backdrop; one was irresponsible, even deceitful, not to do it. Very well. If he is going to trash, with blinders affixed, the source that I hold dear, I will do the same with his source: “You should turn your critical thinking skills upon Ancient Greece, the definer of it. When time travel is invented, history revisionists will give a friendly wave to American slaveholding forefathers as they race back in time to fetch wicked Greek pedophiles—it was an enshrined value of that world—back in irons.” He was not chastened by this. Hijacking Twitter as his personal courtroom, he cross-examined: “Is the holding and beating of slaves, as described in Exodus, morally acceptable? Yes or no?” I countered: “Is the raping of children as endorsed by Ancient Greek society morally acceptable? Yes or no?” Incredibly, he was not dissuaded. “Last chance!” he shot back. “Is the holding and beating of slaves, as described in Exodus, morally acceptable? Yes or no?” “To the blockheads, I became a blockhead.”—Paul (sort of) —1 Corinthians 9:19-22,” I tweeted back: “Two can play the game of obstinacy. Last chance: Is the rape of children—it was enshrined in Ancient Greek society—morally acceptable? Yes or no?” Then I went away, and when I came back, he had deleted all this tweets so that it was hard for me to reconstruct the thread. However, someone else had pointed out a grave sin I had committed: “Thomas you are guilty of the moral equivalence fallacy.” Am I? I suppose. You can sort of guess by the wording just what that phrase means—I had not heard it before. At least it is in English. I once heard a theologian quip that if there is a Latin phrase and a perfectly clear English phrase that means the same thing, always use the Latin phrase so people will know that you are educated. But my “moral equivalence fallacy” is still is no more than considering historical context, a praiseworthy intellectual technique for all time periods except ours.  Besides, I actually had posted something about slavery long ago. But it is not a topic so simple that it can be hashed out in a few tweets, and so I declined to go there with this fellow, who would debate all the sub-points. If God corrected every human injustice the moment it manifested itself, there would be nothing left. The entire premise of the Bible is that human-rule is unjust in itself and that God allows a period of time for that to be clearly manifested before bringing in his kingdom—the one referred to in the “Lord’s prayer”—to straighten it all out. In the meantime, the very ones who work themselves into a lather at religion “brainwashing” people are livid that God did not brainwash slavery away once humans settled upon it as a fine economic underpinning. If Dawkins’s tweet and my response hangs around long enough before burial in the Twitter feed, I would expect some of our malcontents to observe as they did in Russia, where the only evidence of extremism cited is proclaiming “a religious view of supremacy.” Huge protest will come at how Jehovah’s Witnesses practice shunning and thus “destroy” relationships and even family. But views inevitably translate into consequences and policies. Refusal to “come together” with those who insist on diametrically opposed views is hardly the “extremism” of ISIS—and yet the Russian Supreme Court has declared that it is, with the full backing in principle of those from the ex-JW community—the ones who go crusading, which is perhaps 10%. I’m going to write this up as a post and append it to his thread. Let’s see what happens. Probably nothing, but you never know. Plus, let’s expand on that particular Watchtower some more. The particular article covered was entitled: “Jehovah Values His Humble Servants” (September 2019 issue—study edition) Unlike nearly all religious services, Witness meetings are ones that you can prepare for. You can comment during them. They are studies of the sacred book, not just impromptu rap sessions, acquiescencing to ceremony, or sitting through someone else’s sermon. You can prepare for them, and you are benefited, as in any classroom, when you do. The focus here, as it so often is, is on practical application.  Humility draws persons to us. Haughtiness repels them, and thus makes next to impossible the mantra to “come together.” My own comment, when the time was right, was that haughty people can only accomplish so much—it may be a great deal, for haughty people are often very capable people—but eventually they run up against the fact that nobody else can stand them, and so people are motivated to undercut their ideas, even if they are good ones, out of sheer payback for ugliness. Humble people, on the other hand, may be far less capable individually, but their efforts add up. They know how to cooperate and yield to each other in a way that haughty people do not. Someone else on that Dawkins thread, an amateur wit, played with that them of unlikely extremists: “Jehova's witnesses are peaceful but their extremists are better extremely annoying...” Why fight this? It is a viewpoint. Viewpoints are not wrong, because they are viewpoints—right or wrong doesn’t enter into the equation. Better to roll with it. I was indeed on a roll, and so I tweeted back:  “I will grant that they can be. Still, if you had a choice between a team of JWs approaching your door and a team of ISIS members, you would (hopefully) choose theformer. Those 2 groups, and only those 2 groups are officially declared “extremist” in Russia.” And with that, I included a link to my ebook, “Dear Mr. Putin - Jehovah’s Witnesses Write Russia.” I am shameless in that. No matter how many books I sell, it is not enough. I don’t sell them, anyway. The book is free, a labor of love. It is an application of the theme: “If you have something important to say, don’t hide it behind a paywall.” It is the only, to my knowledge, complete history of events leading up to and beyond the 2017 ban of the Witness organization in Russia. As to the latest developments there, another one was herded off to prison, who, making the best of a sour situation, or perhaps genuinely finding value there, said: "I want to thank … prosecution. I don't just thank you, but thank you very much, because thanks to you my faith has become stronger … I see I'm on the right path." Of course. It is unreasonable to oppose so vehemently a people totally honest, hard-working, and given to peace—and yet the Bible says that such will exactly happen. How can it not serve to strengthen faith?
    • According to scientific knowledge, the entire universe is in two states every day: something becomes and something disappears. Life on Earth is in the same status. I am disappointed with suffer of creatures on Earth, too. And can't connect with "my picture" of God as i accepted through JW Bible interpretations and my own interpretations, then and now. What if we made wrong pictures about Creator? .... based on wrong or failed text? 
  • Popular Now

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.