From the GB's official point of view getting baptized is not "a risk," but the article quoted in the OP does acknowledge that the GB/FDS/(or whoever it is that actually writes these articles) knows that many JW parents believe it is "a risk."
Baptism is a risk says JW.org - New YouTube video
by RayPublisher 35 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
blondie
Exactly Oubliette. That's what the article says, not that the WTS considers baptism a risk.
-
braincleaned
I don't see the problem, as Ray himself explains in what way the WTS aknowledges between the lines the consequences (hence the risk) of child baptism.
And the point is to expose people like David Splane who gives the parents guilt-trips if their kid is not baptized. I know — in 1972 Splane pushed my dad to impose baptism on me.
I still hold a grudge... :( -
FlyingHighNow
I wouldn't let my kids be baptized, because of the risks. I told them they needed to wait until they were adults. I felt it was too easy for kids, whose minds were still forming, to get into trouble and be subjected to shunning. Niether has been baptized. Jesse will soon be 30 and Carrie-Anne will soon be 35.
-
RayPublisher
We are all on the same side here and I appreciate the great comments and points made.
What I find difficult to fathom is why someone would dogmatically stick to defending something that is the equivalent of the "tenth of the mint and the dill" and get stuck in a loop with responses like "the WTS does not say it is a risk in that article...which I find deceptive"
Is WT deceptive or isn't it? Are they simply altruistic Christians trying to help these lovely young people become true Christians? If you know the WT is deceptive and a racket then why persist in arguing against the heinous act of child baptism into the cult of WT? You are in effect doing this:
"THE ARTICLE DOESN'T ACTUALLY SAY BAPTISM IS A RISK SO NANNER NANNER NANNER YOUR VIDEO IS SH1T!!!!!!"
We all know the risk of disfellowshipment is real. JW parents know it. GB members know it too, and the article make reference to this fact.
It is the height of lameness IMO to keep debating this but some people love to disagree about everything and now I'm getting sucked into debating too lol...
-
besty
ray if I could just suggest your title is inaccurate
jw.org does not say baptism is a risk - it says ' some parents think "baptism is a risk" '
jw.org does not say anything in fact - jw.org is a domain name, but that would be getting all tenth of a mint on you :-)
keep going with the videos though - it all helps!
-
RayPublisher
Thanks besty- if you feel the title is inaccurate that's okay that is your opinion and I respect that. I feel it is a 100% accurate statement that's what the little debate is about.
---
I have decided to start using "JW.org" interchangeably with Watchtower Organization, Watchtower Society, etc. for the simple reason that the WT is currently re-branding itself and phasing out the word "Watchtower" more and more. They are even putting up stores with "JW.org" on the side of them now. Not JW, not WT, but that.
Their letters are usually signed:
I predict that in the next five years the word "Watchtower" will not appear anywhere in their new writings, magazines, books, Kingdom Halls, etc.
-
Watchtower-Free
Good job .Eric JWstruggle.com
-
besty
Ray - if you feel that the Watchtower quote
"Some parents consider their children’s baptism as a beneficial step that involves risk—much like getting a driver’s license."
can be paraphrased to
"Baptism is a risk says JW.org"
then you should brush up on your critical reading skills - I think the paraphrase is inaccurate and incorrectly attributed to the wrong entity.
just my 0.02 - I don;t want you to lose credibility with your audience, or worse - end up with the wrong audience - see Rick Fearon for details of train crash activism where nobody with 2 brain cells believes anything he says.
-
besty
BTW - I don;t think the recent emphasis on jw.org means the demise of any of the corporate entity name Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society, the publication Watchtower or the religious denomination Jehovah's Witnesses
using these terms interchangeably is confusing to me - a website, a religion, a corporate entity and a magazine are all different things
