Srecko Sostar

I think the issue of underage baptism needs to be evaluated the same way other decisions are made by minors …. and since a Baptism Covenant and dedication between a person and God CANNOT BE UNDONE … except by God … it should be made with that foremost in mind.
This is a Covenant Of Dedication, allegiance and fealty to God and his Christ ….
ONLY!
1.) At what age should a lesser decision be made by a minor about getting married? I say at least 18, and for about 1/4 of the population 24 to 30.
2.) At what age should a lesser decision be made by a minor about getting a driver’s license? I say at least 18, if they can pass the exams.
3.) At what age should a male or female decide that they want to be surgically mutilated, by circumcision or “transgender” reassignment? I say at least 30.
4) At what age should a man or woman be allowed to take up recreational parachuting? I say at least 18.
5. At what age should a person be allowed to join a military organization? I say at least 18, preferably 24.
6.) At what age should a person be allowed to consume alcohol, or other recreational drugs? I say 18 as a minimum.
7.) Since the JW baptism oath of today legally binds you to obey the policys and directives of the “Organization”, under pain of being disfellowshipped, and exiled, and shunned, and the same to every JW that knows you that does not do the same, at what age should a young person be baptized? I say 18, the same as any secular military organization.
In scripture ONLY men and women were baptized. Jesus was Bar-Mitzpah’d at age 12, presumably, but waited to be baptized until he was 30.
Why?
A person, boy or girl, should not make a decision at age 8, 10, 12 or before age 18 that has the potential to later HAVE OTHERS DESTROY THEIR AND THEIR FAMILIES’ LIVES.
These conclusions are only my personal opinions, but they have a rational basis.
Like circumcision, male or female … baptism cannot be undone.
If the Society would allow shunning to be a personal decision of each individual in the Congregation, and release all the hostages from their oath of fealty and obedience to the WTB&TS “Organization”, so they cannot be sued because they are members of a private legal covenant … I would withdraw my objection to an 8 year old being baptized.
For a change …. let God decide.
The Baptism Covenant should be between individual people and God and Christ ONLY.
Earthly accountants, lawyers, and overreaching tyrants who promise to rule well, BUT INTEND TO RULE ANYWAY, should not be involved.
It took them 80+ YEARS to figure out beards!

We are talking about the baptism of children. 

All personal opinions are subjective.
All collective opinions are objective.... from the perspective of the group.
The saying goes that repetition is the mother of wisdom. That's why I'm repeating it to you, so that you can learn new knowledge. lol
WTJWorg's biggest argument against (infant and children, too) baptism in the Catholic Church is all the Bible quotes that, while describing "Biblical Baptisms," do not include infants and children, but only men and women (Act 8:12). You are now making the argument that the "absence of a specific mention", in the Bible, "does not negate a possibility of" certain practice.
So you really want to go with such a clumsy way of proving that the Bible doesn't forbid something or how Bible allow something, just because it doesn't talk, write about that something? The Bible does not say anything against, say, celebrating birthdays. God nowhere forbids you to celebrate the day of your birth. So how could WTJWorg, based on the absence of a prohibition in the Bible, claim that God hates birthdays?
You now claim that "young people" may have been baptized in the time of John the Baptist. Does the group "young people" include young men and women or minor children? ("Minor" in possible biblical terminology, and also "minor" in today's terminology) And why don't you use the only term that is correct in the context of this topic, which is the term "children"? .....,"Children are not fully developed in their ability to think, to reason, or to recognize and avoid danger." 
Children, not "young people". 
Paul said: “John baptized with the baptism in symbol of repentance,a telling the people to believe in the one coming after him,b that is, in Jesus.” . Act 19:4
"But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women" - Act 8:12
Bible purport of term "people" here are "men and women", not children. 

WTJWorg claims that children are not enough mentally competent.
quote: "Children are not fully developed in their ability to think, to reason, or to recognize and avoid danger."
Consequently, this means that they are not mature enough to make decisions about their religious affiliation with the WTJWorg through the act of baptism, because; "they are not fully developed in their ability to think, to reason and to recognize and avoid danger" for dedicating his life to the Religious Corporation.
No. How on earth you came to such conclusion? 
 

WTJWorg has made a public statement with very clear meaning regarding the mental capacity of children. They made a general statement that covers all children.
As  supposed proof that their claim is justified and correct, they used one biblical verse.
In what context is Paul's statement from this biblical quote applicable? 
Its 13th chapter deals with the spiritual and religious aspects of one's understanding of God's dealings with men. He talks about knowledge and love and faith. Paul is not talking about CSA. Nor is there any indication that he was alluding to the CSA.
WTJWorg used it in the context of a life situation that can affect the youngest members of a family and society in general.
Why do you think that this is the only application that this Bible passage can cover? Don't JWs teach that the Bible is the Word of God that helps people in ALL circumstances of life?
I dismiss your criticism as baseless. I am horrified by your ability and desire to try to selectively apply what WTJWorg baselessly uses only for their current needs of religious domination over people. This shows that you are a successful "student" of your spiritual "teachers".

Here is a Zinger!
There is no biblical example of ANYONE being baptized as anything other than as a full responsible adult.
Jesus was what … 30 years old?
 

WTJWorg has made a public statement with very clear meaning regarding the mental capacity of children. They made a general statement that covers all children.
As  supposed proof that their claim is justified and correct, they used one biblical verse.
In what context is Paul's statement from this biblical quote applicable? 
Its 13th chapter deals with the spiritual and religious aspects of one's understanding of God's dealings with men. He talks about knowledge and love and faith. Paul is not talking about CSA. Nor is there any indication that he was alluding to the CSA.
WTJWorg used it in the context of a life situation that can affect the youngest members of a family and society in general.
Why do you think that this is the only application that this Bible passage can cover? Don't JWs teach that the Bible is the Word of God that helps people in ALL circumstances of life?
I dismiss your criticism as baseless. I am horrified by your ability and desire to try to selectively apply what WTJWorg baselessly uses only for their current needs of religious domination over people. This shows that you are a successful "student" of your spiritual "teachers".

…. and is it “flagrant misconduct” to analyze what someone has stated publically?
Explain THAT!

What part did he distort?
It looks like STRAIGHT QUOTES from Watchtower publications.
Again …. what part did he distort?

Most everything is “beyond you” George, because you are hung up on your agenda, when the thread is about the appropriateness of JW customs, traditions, and POLICIES OF BAPTISMS.
Why don’t you start your OWN thread, and see what kind of response you get?
See how many people respond to your diversionary agenda defending the indefensible.
—————————————————-—-
 
 

…. since neither Srecko Sostar nor I made any such assertion …. not even CLOSE … there is no need to refute your false premise(s).
 

Srecko Sostar’s premise was ONLY about baptisms at a very young age. 
As usual, BTK et al, your train has jumped the tracks and headed off as wreckage into the woods. 
Your agenda is interfering with your comprehension and attention span.
”WDS - The Sword That Cuts Both Ways”.

…. It would help if things that were quoted verbatim were inside quotation marks   “___”. 
It should not be a capital offense if this basic rule is disregarded ….
…. if it’s a first time.

I look at it more that brothers are gentlemen and perform that task as a service to others including sisters. Like opening doors etc. 

Oh my, how would elders verify if a sister got a tramp stamp

When I was 15 I received a blood transfusion. My congregation soft shunned me because they literaly were afraid I might have received the blood of a satan worshiper or ax murderer.

This is the jw mindset.....since women can't grow beards, they are gonna stop shaving their legs and armpits.

Related to the beard issue is the issue of tattoos on the body. The Law of Moses forbade the Jews from tattooing. But, JWs do not care about the Mosaic Law to such an extent that its rules would guide them through today's life. JWs today tend to adapt the Bible's permissions and prohibitions to fit their circumstances.
Although I am not a supporter of tattoos, it will be a new experience to observe how GB will regulate this segment of the free will of its members, when it becomes so current that it captures GB's attention.

It is to be assumed that members do not need to question their elders for every dispute or ambiguity, because then the elders go to Bethel and Bethel to HQ for answers.
On the other hand, people in positions of power, and ultimately GB, should stop with the idea that they are "guardians of doctrine" for banal things like beards.
Consequently, everyone in the JW organization bears responsibility for the immaturity that prevails among the believers.
I have nothing against neatness.
This fact shows the senselessness of striving for rules and religious doctrines and instructions presented by GB. 

Related to the beard issue is the issue of tattoos on the body. The Law of Moses forbade the Jews from tattooing. But, JWs do not care about the Mosaic Law to such an extent that its rules would guide them through today's life. JWs today tend to adapt the Bible's permissions and prohibitions to fit their circumstances.
Although I am not a supporter of tattoos, it will be a new experience to observe how GB will regulate this segment of the free will of its members, when it becomes so current that it captures GB's attention.

The GB has with prayerful consideration decided that the admonition that a woman’s head be covered when preaching or praying needs modification.

This seems to be relevant only to people who are spiritually immature and believe they are above God's laws. I don't think former witnesses have the authority to dictate God's commands for this point to be considered by true witnesses.
If you can demonstrate that the rule suggested by the GB was truly exclusive to them and not a mere attempt to prioritize appearance on a global scale, then your perspective will become coherent.