One baptism...

by NeverKnew 18 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  NeverKnew

  EXACTLY Retro!

  First off, I didn't say I was GOING to do it. It was a what if. I'm far from being a mean person so drop that. In fact, it's because of my feelings for someone who still knows as you knew and believes as you once believed that I'm here.

  Second, when did I say someone's baptism was invalid? Realize Steve, to some of us, that's EXACTLY what they're saying to the very people they've invited! THAT THEIR BAPTISM WAS INVALID! "Some of our adherents are MUCH more worthy of heaven than you and just a little more worthy than us JWs. Maybe one day you'll be worthy of our Earthly hope..." I'd be thinking, "so, I guess you invited me to see how holy you and your friends are?... PEACE, I'm out."

  Did you ever consider that they are inviting people who believe as I do? Have you learned that others who visit other churches might consider asking the question out of respect? Did you learn that in my presentation? Or were you so quick to judge me that you lost the lesson? This forum is a wonderful tool to not only question ourselves and our own perceptions (including mine) but to learn about others as well. I think we can both agree that here, there's a common enemy with quite a few similar perspectives. Mine is on the outside. As an outsider, I hope to offer a glimpse of what you may not know. Take advantage of it. Stop judging.

  Here's the irony.... how sincere is it to do a mad push to invite non-jws to an event that only a fraction of, if any of the congregation can participate in with no sincere description of the true meaning behind this event? Are you telling me that NONE of the adherents sincerely know that this isn't cool? Should those who know as I know be insulted by that if they don't?

  PLEASE don't talk to me about sincerity where the WTS is concerned. I've learned too much.

  I know it's not the adherent's fault. They are victims. My annoyance is with the WTS and THEIR doctrines. NOT the adherents.
• 

  NeverKnew

  and FURTHER, please realize that you're not communicating with someone who has a "my belief or it's the wrong belief" position! You're talking to someone who is open to learning aspects from ALL faiths for I believe it was a religion teacher who pounded Proverbs 18:17 in my head:

  The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

  I come from a different school Steve.

  But may I never become so arrogant as to believe my knowledge should be everyone's truth.
• 

  steve2

  But . . that's what they do, isn't it? Except for the "boldly" part. They accost people in the street and at their doors, unsolicited. They disguise the message "you are not a true Christian" until they have established ascendency in a "bible study".

  Well, I guess if you are literal minded you'd say that. In general, they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they did literally accost you (please look up the word in the dictionary - it has an overtly confrontational meaning), you'd complain. And, if they take a gentler, more considered approach, you'd accuse them of deception.

  Why not cut to the chase and say, which ever approach they adopt, you don't find fault with it?

  Besides, there is a significant difference between approaching people in public spaces to proselytize and entering people's places of worship to feign puzzlement and outrage. Do you not see the difference?

  Moreover, one of the most tired lines people give for their own crossing of the line in their behavior is, "Other people do it".

  While I now see that the original poster has clarified he would never do what he laughingly proposed in the first post, the mocking tone is off-putting. And yes, I found the JWs own mocking tone about others' religious beliefs just as off-putting.
• 

  Retrovirus

  Well, I guess if you are literal minded you'd say that

  Well, I am

  In general, they're damned if they do and damned if they don't

  Only because of their arrogance and black-and-white thinking. And yes, I know it's the cult personality and many, most jws are really nice people.

  If they did literally accost you (please look up the word in the dictionary - it has an overtly confrontational meaning), you'd complain

  Disappointing to see that you taking an arrogant approach yourself. When I'm out walking and a group of people block the path so that I cannot avoid a child offering me a tract, that's accosting.

  Besides, there is a significant difference between approaching people in public spaces to proselytize and entering people's places of worship to feign puzzlement and outrage. Do you not see the difference?

  So my porch is a public place now? But yes, of course I see the difference. Nevertheless, as the OP made clear (the first line did mention "joke") there was no intention of doing that.

  Moreover, one of the most tired lines people give for their own crossing of the line in their behavior is, "Other people do it".

  Perfectly true, quite irrelevant. See above.

  Generally I enjoy your posts. Hope you feel better soon. Retro
• 

  steve2

  Hi retrovirus, I appreciated you taking the time to provide point-by-point responses to my post. You raise many fair points; I can only say, you have given your opening post a much better appearance. I do see where you are coming from.

  If I have come across as "arrogant" I apologize; I can always take on board feedback about any "tone" or "manner" that gets in the way of my message.

  On the point of a JW child getting in your way as you walk in a public space to offer you a tract, that seems rude and you could be forgiven for advising the JW adults to look after the child by not making him/her deliberately walk out in front of passersby.

  I would like to think this is not standard JW practice when they street-witness. Ocasionally I have seen JWs street-witnessing in Welington New Zealand and they are almost always not in the faces of passersby - in fact, they sit back unobtrusively and hardly anyone notices them, leaving me wondering, "Why are they bothering to go out at all?"

  You raise the following point which appears fair:

  So my porch is a public place now? But yes, of course I see the difference. Nevertheless, as the OP made

  clear (the first line did mention "joke") there was no intention of doing that.

  Firstly, of course you're right - which is why you are entitled to tell them to leave your property and if they refuse, and you make at least two further requests that they leave, and they don't, they can be legally charged with tresspassing (the Law in New Zealand requires property owners to make the request three times before it becomes "tresspassing"). I cannot remember a JW being told to leave three times in succession and refusing.

  Yes, you did use the word "joke" in the initial post in this thread but until you explicitlly clarified you meant you wouldn't do it, I did wonder. Beside, people can talk about thinking of doing something for or as "a joke" and they actually do it "for a joke" - so, before your clarification, I had no way of knowing you meant you were "just" joking.

  Your parting shot - hoping I was feeling better soon - seems needlessly sarcastic. I am fine. I consider you fine too and would never take the view that because we may have differing views that there must be something wrong with you that you neede to get better from.
• 

  Retrovirus

  Thanks, Steve2,

  And to start, please let me apologise for the "parting shot". I have read many reasonable and informative posts from you and this seemed different, but I should not try to guess at reasons. The hot and humid night we had here in Melbourne didn't help me much.

  The group of Witnesses that blocked my path so that I had to slow for the child did happen - but only once, 3 years ago. I was seriously irritated then. I would agree it is not typical.

  Also, just to clarify; the OP was not mine; I don't know NeverKnew at all. I have been to many churches; my birth religion is inclusive and liberal, and have taken communion at several. From my perspective the jw practice of only a few select "valid" communicants is very strange and I think many would find it so.

  Retro
• 

  NeverKnew

  It wasn't Retro's post. It was mine, Neverknew's and I'm glad you two worked things out. I'm sorry that my presentation wasn't clear to you but my intentions are sincere. To say my goal was to be disrespectful at a service was way off. My presence here and questions should say more than that.

  Steve, my heart goes out to those having a tough time making non-jw friends once away from the organization. If I can help one person avoid an unintended communication challenge with a worldly, my words and time were worth it. As Retro and I are getting insight into the thinking of a JW, I would hope that reading our posts can provide insight towards the thinking (flawed or not) of non-jws.

  I do want to address another point in your post, but before I do that I'm curious... Before this post, was there anyone reading this who did not know that some churches acknowledged one baptism regardless of denominational affiliation and that in many circumstances it was acceptable to receive communion in a church of another faith?
• 

  steve2

  Thanks for the clarification Retro and yes, I agree Never Knew, the thread did get off topic - and I certainly contributed to that.

  I think the core question you raised regarding the enduring validity of one baptism is an excellent one.

  It may not be absolutely comparable to "one marriage" but broadly the same principle applies:

  As far as I know, when married people convert to a new religion, their marriage by their previous religion is typically not nullified - unless they're either Moonies or Mormons (the latter religious group providing special ceremonies to ensure the marriage lasts into eternity). Anyway the broad comparisons to marriage is also a little off topic.

  BTW, Retro, Melbourne on a very hot night is one of the best cities on earth!
• 

  NeverKnew

  Steve, your comparison is actually a perfect parallel! I absolutely LOVE it and will use it.

  Imagine you and your wife/partner/significant other (ie beliefs) being invited and encouraged to come to an event. You attend but throughout the event, you have a nagging feeling that others in the group aren't respecting your union but you're not quite sure if what's being said should be considered an insult. "Surely they're not saying... or are they?" Afterwards you run into the person who invited you and they say, "WASN'T THAT BEAUTIFUL????"

  Sadly, but purely out of an ignorance of everyone else's frame of reference (which the WT requires), the poor adherents believe they're inviting us to a beautiful ceremony but are just being set up to look ridiculous in our eyes. It's just not right.

  Both of you... stop talking/bragging about warm weather. That's not right either. It's cold here. *giggling*