Jump to content

Matthew9969

Permission to get baptized

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

Matthew9969 -
Andre Plamondon -
28
639

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

So I have heard that witnesses need to pass a 80 question exam by the elders. Why do you need to pass an exam, and if you pass isn't this getting permission from men to have a personal relationship with Christ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Matthew9969 said:

So I have heard that witnesses need to pass a 80 question exam by the elders. Why do you need to pass an exam, and if you pass isn't this getting permission from men to have a personal relationship with Christ?

This requirement is in harmony with a suggestion from Ronald J Sider in his book, “The Scandal of the Evangelical Concience” in which he explores the question: “Why are Christians living just like the rest of the world?” Their conduct is so shocking that it should “drive us to our knees in repentance,” he says.

The specific remedy that he offered was: “Make it harder to join.” So he does not agree that just saying you have a personal relationship with Christ is enough. 

This is just one of four proposed remedies he offered. As it turns out, Jehovah’s Witnesses employ them all. And yes, they do go a long way in cleaning up the mess of words not matching deeds that afflicts the evangelical world. I wrote about it here:

https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2007/12/four-suggestion.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

I noticed you did not even remotely answer his specific question .....

I left it that one for you while I answered the more far-reaching one that he should have asked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

even remotely

Oh. Maybe you really did not see the connection. He asked why isn’t it easy to be a Witness? (why the 80 questions) I responded with Sider’s observation that it is not good for it to be easy. The quickie version results in conduct indistinguishable from the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering your unrelated answer, TTH, I am beginning to wonder if you saw his actual question.  It is quite clear you did not comprehend it as written, as you wandered off-topic about something you had already prepared, before he asked his question.

Just for Yuks, heah tis',  his question quoted:

12 hours ago, Matthew9969 said:

So I have heard that witnesses need to pass a 80 question exam by the elders. Why do you need to pass an exam, and if you pass isn't this getting permission from men to have a personal relationship with Christ?

There is a problem with his question, as I am sure you are well aware ... it's HARDER and more complex than the question you answered  ....... that was not asked.

....AND ... as usual, today's Dilbert Cartoon addresses this kind of presumptuousness, specifically:  (" ... I left it that one for you while I answered the more far-reaching one that he should have asked." - TTH)

dt191106.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have, it seems two sort of "burden" or "yoke". And two ways how implement this in person?s life.

We have Jesus' "burden" he ask us to carry. 

And we see "Organizational" way of implementations of principles set by Jesus. Organization as such have need to broaden administrative system of ruling over people. If person want to candidate for some job, he have to give his CV and answer on questions by boss. If you want to be as volunteer member in one religious organization, not to be paid for work you done in own name, but under elders leadership, you are also obligated to be guided by some rules. It seems logical, BUT we have here some spiritual moments that make this 80 questions as human invention not empowered by spirit. In example of man who, after some time/hours of talking with Philip said, See, here is water!  

And this example is not unique in Bible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

There is a problem with his question

Fine. Give me your address and any persons who want to be baptized yet refuse to provide any evidence that they know what they are doing I will send to you. You can baptize them in your tub and they can help you scour the funnies for items to post.

Let them all be islands unto themselves if they like. No one will interfere with that decision.

Even the 80 questions is not enough in our congregation. We make people punch in at meetings. It cuts down on stragglers.

BD869908-3708-42E3-9204-DAD110499333.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Fine. Give me your address and any persons who want to be baptized yet refuse to provide any evidence that they know what they are doing I will send to you

I find it quite funny that Srecko destroyed your inability to form sarcasm here in this post, without intent, with his example of the Ethiopian and Phillip before your comment. 

Acts 8: 35-38

Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.

 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?”  And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

any persons who want to be baptized yet refuse to provide any evidence that they know what they are doing 

That is why clergy in some churches can show evidence for what they know. Some Diploma. :))

Elders have no diploma or prove for credential. Do they have to answer on 80 or 180 questions to be accepted as servants. No, all they need is to be appointed by GB and Spirit or by CO. You would know better how it works today.

This process is different. JW's are merely volunteers. All of them, GB, elders, members.   Volunteers not need to have evidence for education level, or some formal degree for qualification in some field. They learning while walking. Somebody told/teach them in few sentences what they have to do, and that is that. :)))  That is voluntarism. You don't need special knowledge, but wish, desire and good will to do something for free for other people benefit.

As for baptism, person need to meet much less than 80 questions: - Do you believe? Do you repent? Do you love? Do you have faith? Perhaps, when Jesus speaking about knowing God as fundamental for eternal life,  he meant on few basic points: love, faith and trust as evidences that God looking for to see in mind and heart of individual.

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!  
    • 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.