Shiwiii

I completely agree with you and your thinking, but is that what has been done thus far? I mean, to proclaim something as dogmatic then to reverse oneself over blood,blood fractions, the resurrection of Adan and Eve, when the "faithful and discreet slave" was appointed over whatnot. Can it really be tested? I mean, in the examples above, if you disagree with certain things the "infallible" gb says, what happens to you? Lets say you don't agree with their blood stance? You need it and take it, what happens to you? you didn't agree then and you don't now......I guess you are just not a jw, right? Disfellowshipped, shuned, etc. if you do not adhere to what the "slave" says, then you are an outsider.....even though they admit not being perfect in their interpretation of scripture. that's not testing.....that's tyranny.

I quite agree with you that many are lead by such, however I do not think that was Tom's implication.

by this logic, you must believe that the Catholic church, Islam, Hinduism and the Mormans are all also spirit directed?

Matthew 1:21 " She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.” How would Jesus save His people? Romans 6: 3 "Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? " Romans 6: 5 "For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his. " Romans 6: 8 "Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him.9 For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. 10 The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God. 11 In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. " 1 Corinthians 15: 3 "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures," Isaiah 53:5 " But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities;the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed. " I would say that the Bible DOES attach great importance on the death and resurrection of Jesus.

This link only has one comment after the presented position , to come here to discuss. To answer from both the archive link and this one, No, there is no Biblical reason not to celebrate Father's Day/ Mother's Day and the like. It is an unfounded requirement to obey the wt. However, the leaders of the wt are not inspired and regularly dispense errors in doctrine as admitted in Feb 2017 wt. So that leaves it up to the individual to either follow the commands of men, or God. God, in His holy word, does not condemn this practice from what I can find.

This will be my last comment to you. Do you not see that people are getting tired of your dribble, the constant put downs and negativity? You bring NOTHING to the conversations you impose upon, only angst and hateful speech. You derail topics to puff yourself up, but it fails to do so, especially when your own support evidence destroy's your own position as referenced above. You can dismiss me and my comment however you wish, I just hope that you actually do take the time to reflect on your communication skills. You have dragged me into your world, where I too retaliate in kind, for the last time. Good day

Allensmith: G1781 ἐντέλλομαι entellomai en-tel'-lom-ahee From G1722 and the base of G5056 ; to enjoin: - (give) {charge} (give) {command(-ments}) injoin. you are presenting a strawman argument with your added commentary of what your perceived emphasis should be. Also, this statement from you makes absolutely no sense: Conditional Sentences Conditional sentences are statements discussing known factors or hypothetical situations and their consequences. These sentences use conditional construction and verb forms, which is called the conditional mood. Complete conditional sentences contain a conditional clause and the consequence. As a refresher, a clause is a group of words with their own subject and verb. Consider the following sentence: The tricky part about constructing a conditional sentence is it involves many factors both in its form and meaning. Since there are various factors involved when writing conditional sentences, the rules can be explained in different ways. The properties of the entire conditional sentences are determined by the condition’s tense and degree of realness.

then why is it even mentioned and considered in the baptismal questions? Why must one "agree" to that particular question at all?

isnt that Jesus' actual words and command? why wouldn't you want to follow Jesus and what He said? why not? Does this limit our prayers to only this? No, but it does give us a starting point for those who are just learning. Again, why not, this was Jesus' words and command?

nope, i wouldnt even do that. you are assuming you know "my kind" and you dont.

the proof is in the Australian Royal Commission for one, which under oath admitted by each member defending the wt had confirmed that they allowed known perpetrators to remain a member and serve within the organization. Also, it wasn't just lay people within the org, but Mr. Jackson a gb member. another is the Candice Conti case in California and another Gonzalo Campo in Linda Vista ca. there are plenty more, but this should suffice to answer your concern.

but this doesn't apply to child molesters? I mean known molesters are still being treated the same as they were before they were found out. These are also still wanting to be a part of the organization and have done so. So where does the organization hold them accountable if nothing is done? If one wants to sit back and claim " leave it in Jehovah's hands" then one must also accept a murderer, drunkard, fornicator within the organization just the same. Would you go out in service with a known murderer, alone? or allow your child to go out in service with a known child molester without you? I seem to recall a "return to Jehovah" brochure that did exactly that, policing those who have faded or become inactive.

Would you think that those who sexually prey on children, but still want to be a part of the organization, fall into the first category you mentioned? If so, what judicial matter can determine the validity of the claims of child abuse if there is no other witness except the victim? Does this determine the validity of their dedication according to your statement? I mean there are plenty of child molesters who have NOT had their validity questioned because of actions like this and still remain within the organization as a MS, elder, etc. I fully agree, we as humans can choose our sin, but we cannot choose the consequences!

so then what is the point of this article? Doesn't the article make the organization the one who makes the very determination you assert to Jehovah? Are they not saying that one cannot revoke their vow and claim an invalid baptism? you are saying exactly the opposite of what this article is saying. The publication, produced by the organization, it saying that a baptism is valid, even if you don't like it.

I quite agree, but what 13 year old understands the ramifications or implications of each of those 100 questions? A person of that age is not accountable in a court of law, nor behind the wheel of a car, alcohol, marriage, etc. you get the point. so then, does this article not point out the fact that the baptism is still valid and thus they are still connected to the organization? Their dedication isn't void because they changed their minds and decided to do/believe something else. Wouldn't you agree?

13 There is no way to undo a dedication vow, taking back what we promised God. If a person tires of serving Jehovah or of living a Christian way of life, he cannot claim that he was never really dedicated and that his baptism was invalid. * To all intents and purposes, he presented himself as one who was wholly dedicated to God. He will be accountable before Jehovah and the congregation for any serious sins that he may commit. (Rom. 14:12) https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-study-april-2017/what-you-vow-pay/#footnote2 Romans 14:10 You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister[a]? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. 11 It is written: “‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord,‘every knee will bow before me; every tongue will acknowledge God.’”[b] 12 So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God. 13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister. It appears that this is the case no matter if anyone likes it or not. So say someone who decided to stop going to the meetings and refuses to meet with the elders, are they still part of the congregation? They certainly cannot claim that they were not dedicated at some point. This leads me to a question of if a child (under the age of 16) participated in baptism, do they have the capability to understand what exactly that dedication means? Do they understand that they will not be able to claim it was invalid based upon ignorance?

So then you truly believe that "The Naked Clown" charity and "Welfare Group Disabled and Sexuality" charity are on par with the wt. They qualify by the law. You're trying to defend the indefensible, not all laws are written properly and MANY take advantage of those loopholes.

you are correct, however just because you call a zebra a dog doesn't make it so, regardless of what the law states.

Of course personal choice matters, but because this is a forum and a discussion is what is done here, I chose to point out the irrational logic to further thought.

I was just making the blanket argument that most can claim the same direction as the post I replied to does. Change the names I used to Methodist/Lutheran/Baptist/ etc. it still can be claimed by many other religious groups, which in turn makes it not "special" that jw's claim the same thing. Thus no proving factor of anything.

Is one not reproved and told to step back in line with a sheparding call? And if they do not, is this not grounds for a meeting with the elders? Then if they still do not adhere to the teachings of the wt/gb then face possible disfellowship? I think you might have missed the whole point though. You are told certain things are wrong by the gb/wt and you are to "keep up with Jehovah's chariot" but these things change and you are expected to change as well. While not claiming to be inspired any longer, by their own words, why must you toe the company line? Why must you keep up with their chariot when they do not claim any more guidance than the Catholic Pope?

point taken and you are correct. I was just making the blanket argument that most can claim the same direction as the post I replied to does.

I want to add something here that is found in the July 15,2014 Watchtower: "The Roman Catholic teaching of apostolic succession claims that there is an unbroken succession of popes in a line extending all the way back to the apostle Peter. (The church misinterprets Jesus’ words that are quoted at Matthew 16:18, 19.) Catholicism also claims that the pope is infallible in matters of doctrine when he speaks ex cathedra, or in an official capacity. I believed this and thought that if the pope, whom Catholics call Holy Father, is infallible in doctrinal matters and has proclaimed the Trinity to be true, then it must be true. But if he is not infallible, then the doctrine may be false. No wonder that for many Catholics the teaching of apostolic succession is the most important teaching, since the correctness or incorrectness of other Catholic teachings hinges on it! " Basically bg member Gerrit Lösch states here that: "I believed this and thought that if the pope, whom Catholics call Holy Father, is infallible in doctrinal matters and has proclaimed the Trinity to be true, then it must be true. But if he is not infallible, then the doctrine may be false." So then by a member of the gb of jw's, who now call themselves neither inspired nor infallible, he states that the gb's message may be false? Why then are jws forced to believe the statements/doctrines made or face disfellowshipping?

Couldn't this be said of any religious group? If in fact that is their intention? I believe the Catholic Church is spirit-directed in that they allow their deliberations to be guided by Jehovah's inspired word, look to Jehovah to guide their thinking where understanding needs clarification, and follow the spirit-inspired direction to preach the good news world-wide thus co working with Jehovahs angels. I believe the Jewish Rabbi's are spirit-directed in that they allow their deliberations to be guided by Jehovah's inspired word, look to Jehovah to guide their thinking where understanding needs clarification, and follow the spirit-inspired direction to preach the good news world-wide thus co working with Jehovahs angels. I believe the Hindu's are spirit-directed in that they allow their deliberations to be guided by Jehovah's inspired word, look to Jehovah to guide their thinking where understanding needs clarification, and follow the spirit-inspired direction to preach the good news world-wide thus co working with Jehovahs angels. I believe the Islamic Cleric's are spirit-directed in that they allow their deliberations to be guided by Jehovah's inspired word, look to Jehovah to guide their thinking where understanding needs clarification, and follow the spirit-inspired direction to preach the good news world-wide thus co working with Jehovahs angels. Etc...

Is this not after the NEW Heaven and New Earth? Where in the temple of God will be among His people and they will be with Him?