Shiwiii

5 hours ago, Arauna said:

These humanists find us foolish because we stick to Jehovahs morals..... but this is the difference between fleshly and spiritual thinking

I find jw's foolish because they follow the ideas of men, which changes to suit those in the power tower. 

5 hours ago, Arauna said:

This I do know - only people who do not have repentance and have a rebellious spirit are shunned....   mostly a gross sin such as lying, stealing, deceit, sexual immorality.

again, you have NO evidence of anything those people, who were there with their signs, did anything you think they did. You also don't have any evidence of what anyone who is df'd has done. What is said from the platform doesn't make it true. 

You are playing judge, jury and executioner based on what the octo-pope says to the DO/CO/BOE. .

3 minutes ago, Arauna said:

I myself have not always been treated fairly by everyone.

none of us have, it is the nature of humans. We are only to treat others the way Jesus did. Sometimes our human nature gets in the way, that is why we have forgiveness in the sacrifice and acceptance of what Jesus did for us, all of us.  

15 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Few take traditional sexual morality as seriously as do JWs.

unsubstantiated and pure speculation. 

15 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

annoyed that your protesters weren’t interviewed by the convention-goers

I did not commission them, nor did I even know their agenda. After seeing what they were actually speaking out against, I do support them and agree that the jw practice of shunning is very un-christian. Those jw's who do shun, do so based on assumption of what they think the person has done. This is evident by the posts here by yourself and Arauna.

14 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Ask Alan to vent his outrage over LGBT. Go on, ask him.

A bit of generalization from Arauna on this point, but the overall picture she nails.

give me a break. You're just as bad as she is then. The assumptions made about people who no longer want to be a part of your beliefs is ridiculous. I don't even think in your own mind that those assumptions are correct, nor do they "paint the picture" as you say.  

45 minutes ago, Arauna said:

I have OCD about immorality. No problem with sex when in accord with jehovahs principles.  Most shunned people are those who had no respect for Jehovahs standards and were unrepentant about it..... you cannot have your cake and eat it.... 

didn't you assume that those people that stood with their signs were unrepentant sinners who support LGBT? That is what you think of them, and you have NO clue as to what they believe or why they are no longer a jw.  You have made yourself judge AND jury of them because they do not subscribe to what YOU believe. 

here is my supporting information:

On 11/27/2019 at 11:54 PM, Arauna said:

The signs read: "love does not shun".   True, the liove of this world with its "practices" of fornication, LGBT does not shun.

48 minutes ago, Arauna said:

Most shunned people are those who had no respect for Jehovahs standards and were unrepentant about it.....

How do you even know this? You're not allowed to partake in the process of deciding who is shunned and who is not!  Sounds like you have many assumptions. 

2 hours ago, Arauna said:

I presume you are quoting him correctly.  I do not agree with him...... but fortunately it is a personal choice what one does in your home and with your children. 

agreed, it is a personal choice when it comes to our children. 

I encourage you to watch Tony's message and then, if you are willing, let me know what you think of his talk. You can even shoot me a private message if you'd like, but I am very curious what you think of it. It was in the 2015 regional convention, last talk on sunday. 

12 hours ago, Arauna said:

Asking questions is a good thing - to establish if the person really understands what the bible teaches and their personal moral obligations.  ...... in other words understand the seriousness of their dedication (promise). ..... in laymens terms...... what they are getting into....... 

Despite this process, some here on this forum did not understand their public promise they made and got themselves in an undesirable situation by brazen conduct and then rebellion and outside the JWs. THEN they turn around and critisize the GB and do not take any responsibility for their own actions - like Adam, it is always someone else's fault. Blame it on the seducing wife/lover, domineering elders or crazy, unqualified GB.  ...... 

I think that parents should be smart and have the right to say something while the child is under 16 (the age one can take responsibility for driving a car), some children mature later.   Jesus asked deep questions at age 12 but one cannot put an age on something like this.  I know of an almost 90 year old anounted sister who got baptised at age 9 - still faithful with no ego or other problems.

 

Sure, ask questions. I agree with you that a person should be diligent in their understanding of what it is they are doing. I feel the same as you in regards to blaming the gb for their mistake. A person needs to be aware of their own hand in mistakes and learn form them. 

Sure, we as parents, those of us who are, should be responsible enough to not let our children get involved in something if we know that they are not capable of understanding the risks involved. 

The part you missed is where Tony Morris said that parents should withhold a drivers license from an assumed 16 year old, UNTIL they get baptized. That is what I was referring to, 

7 hours ago, Equivocation said:

@Shiwiii No, I was only encouraged to seek Baptism,  even my late uncle who had no religous affiliation,  but was very hard on applying the Bible also encouraged me and others in my family Caza despues del bautismo y se salvo, as he puts it. But as I grew older, I took the steps necessary torwards Baptism myself, especially during my early preteen years. I made thos choice because I firmly accept what the Scriptures teach about Jehovah God and his Christ and I took the time and effort to put the teachings of the Scriptures first, even as far as to mold myself to be a better Christian, and a declaring that I myself want to serve God fully, and in doing so, I go about with the tools that I have been given to teach what Jesus taught regarding the good news and what the Kingdom would bring - caso y punto.

I wasn't singling you out at all, only making the statement that Tony Morris did. see my response to Arauna

14 hours ago, Ray Devereaux said:

I would imagine a parent would prevent a teenage child from driving if that youth is not ready to take the written and physical test just like it should be done in order to see if an individual is spiritually mature to be baptized.

agreed.

14 hours ago, Ray Devereaux said:

. I will agree a “baby” should not be baptized just to satisfy a church tradition.

isn't that what was proposed in Tony's hypothetical situation? 

14 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

No mention is made of a diploma.

no mention of dedicating oneself to an organization either. 

5 hours ago, Equivocation said:

 The choice of Baptism is up to the individual themselves

or their parents according to Tony Morris. 

2 hours ago, Ray Devereaux said:

Is baptism a joke or is it a very serious matter that even Jesus didn’t partake until he was 30 years old. Even as the son of God, baptism is a covenant with God. A promise not to fall into the temptations of this world by obeying God.

I would have to agree, it is serious and should not be taken lightly. However, the number of children baptized into being jws is pretty high and when Tony Morris is telling folks to keep a drivers license away from a child UNTIL they get baptized, leads me to believe that a jw baptism is done for many reasons other then the individual's seriousness towards God. 

9 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Can you really destroy an inability? And if you could, wouldn’t that be a good thing?

Yes, Tom, I should have worded it differently. Choose one:

Srecko destroyed your attempt at sarcasm here in this post,

Srecko destroyed your post.

Srecko dismantled your sarcasm here in this post,

Point is still, without trying, he made your statement void before you even said it. 

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.

16 hours ago, Anna said:

Baptism is only possible for those who have made those initial steps first. Obviously, not every single person on earth will have been given the chance to even take the first step. Therefor the WT statement cannot apply to those people, but it applies to those who are able to take the steps leading to baptism. That is the context.

You are trying very hard to say yes and no at the same time.

The fact of the matter is that the wt says one must be a baptized jw in order to survive.

It is so black and white that no one batted an eye when Tony Morris was telling people how to force children to get baptized. 

Just now, Anna said:

It most certainly  does: "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".—

Obviously getting baptised cannot apply unless they have first  made the truth their own, applied what they learn, and dedicated their life to Jehovah.

 

but you disregard the part " ONLY THEN WILL THEY SURVIVE..."  meaning if one is not baptized a jw, they will not survive. 

you just made my point. 

2 minutes ago, Anna said:

WT is not making the point that only baptised JWS will be saved.

they most certainly are and have stated such many times. You can deny it all you want but it is in print. 

8 minutes ago, Anna said:

It is saying that you can't sit on the fence because if there is nothing preventing you from getting baptised and you don't get baptised, you need to realize (in this context) that if you don't ,it will cost you your life, as oposed to someone who is ignorant of baptism.

Definition of context: the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect. - Dictionary.com

This means that what is said prior to a statement, forms the idea behind the thought or meaning. Nothing in the printed publications give the idea you claim here when the wt states that one must be a baptized jw. 

also to add, why is Tony Morris instructing people to withhold a drivers license from a child until they get baptized? Shouldn't this be a choice by the child once the child is no longer a child? 

2 minutes ago, Anna said:

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.

I appreciate your thought and position, however the question is do you warn others while out in service or cart sitting that if they are not baptized jws they will be destroyed as stated in the wt publication? 

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? 

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?

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" 

KEEP TRYING TO MAKE DISCIPLES

On 10/31/2019 at 10:41 PM, Arauna said:

Lepers are not dirty

context, surrounding those at that time. I wasn't saying in our time. 

On 10/31/2019 at 10:41 PM, Arauna said:

 I will study with any leper as I have had a study with a Rasta - dispite his pot smoking and his unhealthy looking hair...... because I saw the person behind the crazy hair and valued him as a person. 

good, but I hardly believe this to be common among other jws. I could be wrong though. 

On 10/31/2019 at 10:41 PM, Arauna said:

BUT I did expect him to change his appearance as he grew in knowledge about Jehovah.   SPIRITUAL GROWTH BRINGS CHANGE -  did you change? 

why do you or anyone expect another to change their appearance based on what the gb says is good or not? 

Of course spiritual growth brings change, and I have changed who I was to who I am. The difference is that I am not changing for ANYONE here on Earth, not my appearance anyway. If I do change my appearance it is for me and no one else. 

John 7:²³ Now if a boy can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with me for healing a man’s whole body on the Sabbath? ²⁴ Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly.” 

On 10/31/2019 at 10:41 PM, Arauna said:

Well a person should not just judge by appearance - that is very immature.

You just said that you expected the rasta to change his appearance. Do you see why some of us just can't comprehend the jw thought process? You are told two different things at the same time. "Don't judge by appearances, but you should dress this way or cut your hair like this. "

This is the type of thing, while rather small, that makes some point to the gb AND jws as hypocrites. It only applies when YOU want it to. 

On 10/31/2019 at 10:41 PM, Arauna said:

But first impressions do count. So being neat and not have some outrageous fad in your dress is recommended.

I have found nothing in the Bible to support this, maybe you can provide it for us? 

1 minute ago, TrueTomHarley said:

All the rest needed saying too. 

There was a time during which putting things in context was thought a responsible  thing to do. Today it is raising a straw man, not to be tolerated by single-issue people.

Well there really is no straw man when the fact still remains that the leaders are covering up CSA within the wt. 

16 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

All this does not necessarily mean that there is not a CSA scandal among Jehovah’s Witnesses.

this is pretty much all you needed to say. We all know there is a problem and the article points out a reason why it is a problem. Doesn't matter if it is leaders or regular joes committing the crimes, it is the leaders who are covering it up. 

18 hours ago, Arauna said:

This phrase is a way of rephrasing what the other person has said to give it a personal and nasty twist....

no need to add anything, you said it yourself. 

18 hours ago, Arauna said:

 RASTA does not look neat...... it always looks asif your hair has not been washed for 6 months and it "may " have some fleas lurking somewhere.

your personal opinion, but that part is fine. It is treating others different because of how they look is the problem.

18 hours ago, Arauna said:

That is YOUR opinion.

No that is scripture, Matt 8, did Jesus avoid/ treat the leaper any different then others? 

You do realize that lepers looked different, right? Sores, mostly dirty, etc. 

2 hours ago, Matthew9969 said:

When I see jw men all dressed up, I can't tell the difference between them and mobsters, lawyers, politicians, ands shady TV evangelist.

funny you mentioned that list, isn't that the kind of person whom they would like to be portrayed as?  Someone with some sort of clout? 

2 hours ago, Arauna said:

Most people notice appearance. Ever looked for a job as a truck driver?  No job if you look like a pot smoker..... Get real.   

When on field service we want to look  decent and clean cut so as to not bring reproach on Jehovah.  No Rasta T-shirts, dreadlocks to create impression that you smoke pot for religious experiences.   Nothing to do with race - but appearance does matter. 

So what you are saying is that those who don't look the way YOU want them to, are not worth your time? I hardly think that Jesus would do the same. In fact I think it has been demonstrated enough times in the Bible where Jesus did exactly the opposite. Not to mention, John, wasn't he wearing rags for clothes and eating locusts in the wilderness? Did that bring reproach on Jehovah? 

Yeah, you have summed up your position completely. I get it and frankly if that is how jw's are, which I am know many are, you can keep that among yourselves. We have enough bigots in the world already.  Please don't spread. 

1 hour ago, Arauna said:

Now I kindly want you to understand the subject above. This is about JWs who cannot wear these hairstyles in field service...... and it is slyly called racism..... the new victim badge. 

I grew up in a country in Africa where marjuana grows on every street corner - wild just about everywhere.  People smoke it all the time....... but Rastas use it as part of the religious experience and wear the gear and the hairstyles to identify themselves.  They WANT to be identified as Rasta.

When I see a rasta I treat them no different than any other person even though I immediately recognize the visible signs (some people like the look and do not know what it represents).

I had a bible study who was a Rasta. .... so I do not see it as a race but as an alternative lifestyle choice.

To say that it is racist when a JW cannot wear this hairstyle in field service is misleading and untrue..... it has nothing to do with race but everything about projecting a lifestyle choice or another religion.

You did say if someone has dreadlocks, you treat them differently. You can say that you're not racist and once had a study...blah...blah...blah, but the fact of the matter is you know you treat people different based on appearances.  

Nice witness to those on this board.  

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Yes. The trinity is confusing.

Almost all phrases that are used to support the trinity are ones that, were they to appear in any other context, they would instantly be dismissed as figures of speech. 

Figures of speech like a jew in and around strict jews saying "oh my God" ? 

Which by the way should have had him killed if over heard by other devout jews.