WT publications say that no one should be baptized into an organization...yet they lure thousands into doing just that every year.

WT publications say that no one should be baptized into an organization…yet they lure thousands into doing just that every year.

You are likely familiar with the two questions asked of baptismal candidates at assemblies and conventions of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It has been worded and used in the exact same way since 1985, which incidentally was the year I was baptized into the Watchtower Organization. If you were baptized prior to 1985 then the second question was different for you. We have written about this before in the article, entitled, “Questions about our baptism” but the topic bears revisiting as you will see as this article progresses.

The questions asked by the brother giving the baptism talk (since 1985) read:

1. “On the basis of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, have you repented of your sins and dedicated yourself to Jehovah to do his will?”

2. “Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses in association with God’s spirit-directed organization?”

Many have noticed that a person is not actually being baptized into Christ (See Romans 6:3 and Galatians 3:27) at this occasion as the scriptures indicate the first century Christians did. Also, as has been discussed on the JWStruggle forum and in other places online and by Bible scholars, there is strong circumstantial evidence that Matthew 28:19 was “adjusted” by those that hoped to cement their new trinity doctrine back in the fourth century, and the Father and the Holy Spirit were added to the original text.[1] This is beyond the scope of the subject at hand but some references in the notes have been provided if any want to do further research on this topic.

So these new Witnesses are actually being baptized into the Watchtower Organization, aka the Jehovah’s Witness religion as disciples of it, not Christ.[3] It is believed that this change in 1985 was made primarily for legal reasons so that when someone left the movement, they could be more easily dealt with and less successful when directing any lawsuits at the Watchtower Corporation. Prior to 1985 the second question simply re-affirmed the candidates belief in Christ and did not put an asterisk on the Godly vow so as to cement the person into a verbal contract with the Watchtower Corporations.

At any rate, the purpose of the article is to illustrate that their own Watchtower publications say that people should not and DO NOT get baptized “into a work, or into an organization”[2] as it says in the JW Bible study guide, “What Does The Bible Really Teach?” on page 183. This reference and publication can be found on JW.org, the offical website of Jehovah’s Witnesses, yet the Watchtower-crafted question asked of these baptismal candidates just minutes prior to their immersion tells them the opposite- informing them that their baptism is connected to the Watchtower Organization!

Phone Call to Patterson Bethel

A brother recently called the Watchtower headquarters with just such a quandary, and spoke to a Bethel Elder in Patterson, New York. The conversation was recorded to protect the brother and document the exchange. He presents to them three quotes wherein the Watchtower states that a person is not and should not be baptized into an organization. And initially the WT spokesman actually seems to agree with him, admitting that it is an “inconsistency”.

I assembled the audio along with captions. Below are some still frames from the video giving a quick thumbnail of how the conversation went:

.
.

Video still from "A Phone Call to Patterson Bethel"

Video still from “A Phone Call to Patterson Bethel”


.
.
Video still from "A Phone Call to Patterson Bethel"

Video still from “A Phone Call to Patterson Bethel”


.
.
Video still from "A Phone Call to Patterson Bethel"

Video still from “A Phone Call to Patterson Bethel”


.
.
Video still from "A Phone Call to Patterson Bethel"

Video still from “A Phone Call to Patterson Bethel”


.
.
Video still from "A Phone Call to Patterson Bethel"

Video still from “A Phone Call to Patterson Bethel”


.
.
Video still from "A Phone Call to Patterson Bethel"

Video still from “A Phone Call to Patterson Bethel”


.
.

If you would like to to listen to the entire exchange, please go to my YouTube channel, JWStruggle, by clicking the link below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIQlOuCME0A

.
.
.
.
.
.
——- NOTES ———-

[1] For more information on the altering of Matthew 28:19, a few links are below:

https://sites.google.com/site/theendtimewarning/baptism-sprinkling-or-immersion

http://www.torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/Matt28.19TexualCriticism.pdf

http://www.oocities.org/fdocc3/quotations.htm

.
.
.
[2] As quoted:

“Remember, too, that you have made a dedication to Jehovah God himself, not to a work, a cause, other humans, or an organization.” (What Does The Bible Really Teach, page 183 par. 24)

.
.
.
[3] For more information on this concept, see the excellent video by ARP7601 entitled “Baptism Validated By Whom?” below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riF9XOIYQJo

.
.
.
.
.

Rating 4.49 out of 5
[?]

Tags: , , , ,

79 Comments on Who were you baptized into? The Watchtower? Or Christ?

  1. Londo says:

    Awesome work, brothers!

      (Quote)

  2. Rupunzelsawake says:

    Great job brother! On one of my “shepherding” visits prior to my judicial committee meeting, having explained my feelings about the organisation, I asked the elders what my “options” were. He said, “Put it this way. If you joined the working mens club and agreed to the rules, then you disobey the rules, you either resign, or get kicked out.” So he was saying the organisation was a club. I broke the club rules. The penalty, spiritual execution!

      (Quote)

    • Elder James McBanal says:

      How much of the Bible did you read on your own before you thought of getting baptized? Think hard, did you really do some heart searching research or did you get the “Ultimatum”, “if you don’t make progress, we are going to have to stop studying with you!” so you phoned-it-in with your study and the Questions with the Elders.

      I learned my Bible knowledge was weak and my brain was atrophied because I let the Watchtower do my thinking for years and ignored some very bad things done by some very bad elders. Like “Clear and Present Danger”, I got many “chips in the big game” for keeping my mouth shut!

      A Elder who can ignore the sins of highly productive witnesses and elders is living up to his baptism to the Organization, not Jesus Christ! Knowing the Bible and loving humanity is not what upholds your dedication to the Organization, it’s how we are viewed by the elder-body and Kingdom Hall, you don’t make waves or rock the boat and learning the art of tenderly kissing the circuit overseers butt and we prove our dedication to the Watchtower Society!

      To examine yourself, you might be dedicated to the Organization if you are like my two sisters, who have never spoken anything about the Bible in thirty years. Really, no Good News, what does that tell you about their spiritual relationship with God and Jesus Christ? They can tell you about new “Sex in the City” Movie, the (R) and (MA) rated movies they watched with their Ministerial Servant kids. In the field service you see them stumble around looking for Scriptures like (John 3:16) or Revelation 21:1-4. while they curse how they hate the preaching work! The Congregation admires these two women married to elders as “assets to the congregation” and “possibly they must be of the anointed” because they can fake it so good!”. Who are they dedicated to, the Organization or God and his glorious Son, Jesus Christ our Savior?

      The quickest way to kill a conversation with my sisters is to mention the Bible or something cool I learned, and I usually get them in-sync saying “Boring! Boring!”. Who did you get baptized to, the Organization like my sisters or Jehovah God and his Son Jesus Christ?

        (Quote)

  3. use2badub says:

    It would be interesting to find out if all those baptized before the new 1985 have a legal right to resign from the org. and have the right to sue the WTBS if we are df’ed. There are probably thousands of us who would love to resign without the heartache of being ‘cutoff’ or spiritually stoned. What do you think pre-1985ers?

      (Quote)

    • JJ says:

      Some have used that legal line of defense with some success. I know of one person in particular that did that and the elders suddenly left him alone.

        (Quote)

      • use2badub says:

        Hi JJ,
        I miss your comments and new threads on this site. Seriously, has there ever been a concerted legal effort to force the org to take “no action” against those who were baptized prior to 1985? In reality, we, PRE-1985er’s, did not make a ‘contract’ with the WTBS or agree that our baptism ‘identified us as one of JW’s in association with “God’s Spirit Directed ORGANIZATION”!
        Do you think that it would make a difference if the pre-1985er’s, who know ttatt, started making an ISSUE of the post 1985 ‘loop hole’ the org uses to ‘legally, df brothers and sisters and force family and friends to shun them?
        I see a ground movement beginning in other countries regarding the org’s use of vile ‘name calling'(such as apostate) starting to to be viewed as politically incorrect and even a violation of human rights and dignity. The emotional blackmail and mind control has to stop!

          (Quote)

    • Reader says:

      (pre 85)
      Means I still count my baptism as valid, what I have faded from is simply a structure I must now do without. Though the witness part is now online.
      B
      ps; hover over the person’s name and website addresses appear if one has been entered.

        (Quote)

      • Reader says:

        I’m replying to myself, I should have qualified my website;

        I would not wash my laundry in public [www], so my gripes with WT are not nor will ever be published. I do however disagree on some Scriptures, so;
        The site yahweh-immanuel.info should be considered a personal view, any are free to share or desist.
        In many cases, the view varies, on Virgin Birth I still believe, but disagree on the method WT proposes as not legal under Mosaic Law.
        On kings of North and South I agree up to p259 of ‘Your will be done’, but suggest a different path to Russia as King of North, with the 1335 days as years.
        On Revelation 13 v 18: I use a count/sum/calculation for 666.
        For Babylon the Great and Trinity I trace to Eden.
        The mystery of 3 who are 1 is easy from Genesis.

        Perhaps like many there is a dichotomy whilst disagreeing on points there is still the upbringing I received and good things remembered.
        Its like a rift between child and parent/teacher, it certainly was not all bad.
        I do not associate the site with any group, save the broader Unitarian believers.
        After it being pointed out my style was ‘difficult’ I have started to add diagrams; but the subject matter is not the easiest, wasn’t at book studies.
        I just love Scripture and make no other claim that this;
        ‘its my James 1 v 5 to your Acts 17 v 11’.
        B

          (Quote)

  4. Rupunzelsawake says:

    I would recommend watching arp7601 video on youtube called “Baptism Validated By Whom? – Extended Version. He brings out additional quotes, eg,baptism brings us into a “intimate relationship with Jehovah AND his visible organisation”

      (Quote)

  5. BeenMislead says:

    These were the 1913 baptismal questions:

    ———————————————————-

    The following is an excerpt from the May 15 1913 Watch Tower.

    BROAD UNSECTARIAN QUESTIONS
    The following are the questions usually put by Brother
    Russell when receiving candidates for water immersion. It
    will be noticed that they are on broad lines-questions which
    any Christian, whatever his confession, should be able to
    answer in the affirmative without hesitation if he is suitable
    to be acknowledged as a member of the church of Christ:

    (1) Have you repented of sin with such restitution as
    you are able, and are you trusting in the merit of Christ’s
    sacrifice for the forgiveness of your sins and the basis of
    your justification?

    (2) Have you made a full consecration of yourself with
    all the powers that you possess-talent, money, time, influence
    -all to the Lord, to be used faithfully in his service, even
    unto death?

    (3) On the basis of these confessions, we acknowledge you
    as a member of the household of faith, and give to you as
    such the right hand of fellowship, not in the name of any sect
    or party or creed, but in the name of the Redeemer, our glorified
    Lord, and his faithful followers.”

    ————————————————————

    As you can see there is quite a difference between the questions then and now…

      (Quote)

  6. use2badub says:

    As all know, the WTBTS holds closely to the practices of the 1st Century Christian Congregation. (as they so proudly proclaim.)
    I’m sure that the org will sooooooon (SOON is a word that the WTBTS has redefined, similiar to the redefinition of the word ‘generation’) find out (nu lite) that indeed the 1st Century Christians also required those who were to be baptized to go over the ‘100 questions’ with the 1st century elders and then to also have to make a public declaration by answering another 2 loaded questions. Sheesh! those elders must have busier than hell when 3,000 and at another time 5,000 were dipped at one time after hearing the good news declared. I’m sure that this missing information from the Bible will soooooooooon be discovered and once again the WTBTS will have been proved right.
    Stay tuned for the upcoming anal, I mean annual, meeting Of the WTBTS at the Stanley. The 8 Poopes, I mean Popes, may reveal startling nu lite that will definitely convince the rank and file JW’s just how accurate “the faithful slave”, (aka GB) has been down through the years. We may, for example, learn that the ‘faithful men of old’ actually were resurrected in 1925 (just as the #1 “faithful and discreet slave” JUDGE Rutherford prophesied) but the faithful men of old have remained incognito until the proper time to reveal themselves and also because they didn’t want to live in San Diego. We may also learn that Armageddon really did take place in 1975 but that it was invisible, symbolic, figurative. Only the “faithful slave: aka GB were able to ‘see’ it happen with THEIR eyes of understanding.
    Stay tuned: the anal, I mean annual meeting is only 2 months away! I can hardly wait to see how they can possibly top last year’s nu lite.

      (Quote)

    • Axrover says:

      So, you accuse the watchtower of requiring 102 questions before baptism. Yet with the same keyboard, you accuse the same organization of not telling it’s members the truth about itself BEFORE baptism. You hypocrisy knows no bounds. Would you rather we ask: “Are you aware that if you get baptized and do not behave like a good little JW, we will expel you?” “Are you aware that by baptizing, you cannot eat blood anymore (some Latin countries do this, it’s called a morsilla) nor accept blood transfusions, and henceforth you agree not to sue us for it?” Would that be more acceptable? If you studied, as you are supposed to. On your own, not for the 1 hour a week your instructor shows up, then you would know this material by the time you get dipped. There is no need to bring up negative stuff, during what is supposed to be a joyous occasion.

        (Quote)

  7. C M says:

    I was baptized when I was 11(at a recent assembly I swear I saw a 8 or 9 year old get baptized and I know he is that old because my gf used to babysit him, it was not exactly forced on me, but it was the thing everyone was doing and people kept telling me that nothing was holding me back from dedicating my life to Jehovah…had i known that it is a bonding contract with the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society Organization, and that I would never be able to freely leave, I would have waited, now that I am an adult, I do consider my baptism valid but only the part where I wanted to dedicate my life to God In the name of our Lord Jesus, I am voiding my contract with the organization though since i know TTATT.

    C M

      (Quote)

  8. Freethinkerinjah says:

    Hi use2badud, your humor regarding your aug 16 post is priceless! Thank you.

      (Quote)

  9. Freethinkerinjah says:

    I was babtized in 74, and I understood clearly that I was dedicating my life to Jehovah , but I did not know that later that the pharissic practices were slowly watering down the organization, that I know see as the crown Jewell of Satan’s greatest deception ever to rock the earth, as the thing that causes desolation, will soon be exposed, the son of destruction, of which this pharissic seed is a part of. Also I see how Jesus, has been slowly over the years, removed as mediator from common folk as myself, and understand the frustration, of “Paul”‘ and other servants of God, the stealing of the good news from honest hearted ones.
    Today I am totally free of the bondage and slavery of the GB, and I no longer touch the unclean thing, and let go of things Jehovah will devote to destruction. Today I have a spritiual sustaining relationship with Jehovah, and Jesus is my mediator, and all the bible truths are intact and I have TTATT and life keeps getting more spritiual. My life now is totally worth all the lose of of so called friends , and family still wandering in the wilderness , and I have no doubt that Jehovah will eventually lead all out to the promise land. Keep up the fine fight of truth!

      (Quote)

  10. JezebelFromHell says:

    I was baptized the week after my 11th birthday. It was at a convention in Philadelphia Stadium. I answered Yes to the first question, then whispered no to the 2nd just to see what would happen. Is my baptism voided?

    C M:
    I was baptized when I was 11(at a recent assembly I swear I saw a 8 or 9 year old get baptized and I know he is that old because my gf used to babysit him, it was not exactly forced on me, but it was the thing everyone was doing and people kept telling me that nothing was holding me back from dedicating my life to Jehovah…had i known that it is a bonding contract with the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society Organization, and that I would never be able to freely leave, I would have waited, now that I am an adult, I do consider my baptism valid but only the part where I wanted to dedicate my life to God In the name of our Lord Jesus, I am voiding my contract with the organization though since i know TTATT.

    C M

      (Quote)

    • JJ says:

      Jezebel

      Welcome to the site. If this is in fact a genuine question (as opposed to a tongue in cheek commentary) then I would say no it is not voided. But that line of reasoning will hold no water if you try and use it as an excuse to leave the WT Organization.

      Once you join WT you can never leave honorably as you likely know.

        (Quote)

  11. Elder James McBanal says:

    Hi Eric,

    You gotta give people time to see the spiritual armor the Organization has provided is not Bible based. If it’s not Bible based, there is no strength and as time continues for this religion that said “we are not going to see the 21st century and the work will be over!” The apologist who frequent your website are hypocrites of the worst kind, they want the world to forgive them for being False Teachers and chronically wrong but they are not willing to forgive their fellow Christians of various religions “once” for teaching wrong doctrine.

    Why should we even listen to closed-minded people who are not the least forgiving or loving? How many times over the last One Hundred Years have you read in the Watchtower Society’s publications how evil other religions are for not teaching the Truth when their teachings are condemned by their own founder? Russell said we can’t blame God for wrong teachings and chalk it up to New Light, reading that post on your video, there is another link to the Watchtower’s JW.ORG by a black brother condemning the Watchtower’s teachings and he does not even know it, that’s Lord Jesus Chris at work there! Showing honest hearted Witnesses, this is not the Truth! You have plenty of time with the new generation kids, most don’t read their magazines or their Bibles. They are frustrated by the lies and lack of love their parents propagate. Children from ages 16-34 are seeing in their Second and Third Generation parents they are liars, hateful and mean. The J.W. religion is nothing more than baptism into a dying religion, it will peak by the year 2023 and start to fall as the wise see it was a mistake.

    There is no love to bind all the hatred, craving of adulation is stunting growth and all the of mean spirited demonstrate their baptism is not from Jesus Christ, it’s from men and a religion that has past it’s expiration date of 1994. Keep up the good fight, don’t waste your time on JW Apologist (Misnomer or oxymoron) who are not defending the Christ, they are defending a self-claimed group of Doomsday Advocates that said “we will expire before the 21st century!” now, notice as they try to remove all their rotten teachings like the Mormons did, the CD-ROM will eliminate everything up to 1995 to cover their tracks.

    Elder James McBanal

    Your Loving Brother in arms!

      (Quote)

    • Charles says:

      You look young and smart. Wise up and run away as fast as you can. Don’t fall into the trap like
      Lots wife, do not look back. Your family and jw friends will destroy your life and your future.
      The world will not end, things will continue despite the fairy tales all religions spew.
      Religion is a lie. There is no sin greater than wasting your life. Oh, your baptism means nothing.
      God is a fairy tale.

        (Quote)

    • Axrover says:

      I have a hard time believing you are an Elder. If you are, what congregation do you preside over, so that I may confirm it. Nevertheless, I will proceed under the assumption that you are, for argument’s sake. “Keep up the good fight, don’t waste your time on JW Apologist (Misnomer or oxymoron) who are not defending the Christ,” If you are an elder, this is how you refer to those under your care? The sheep you are supposed to love and care for as representative of the Christ. “Children from ages 16-34 are seeing in their Second and Third Generation parents they are liars, hateful and mean.” Perhaps this is how you reffer to members of the congregation. How you view their treatment of their own offspring. I am in that group…barely. I’m 37, but I came into the organization on 1995. Like many of you here, I was also disassociated. BUt even during my disassociation, I never…ok I did for a month, then I stoped, talked bad about the organization. But even though I was upset, I never lambasted it in the public arena like this. I have since returned. I have some questions about some policies they have. Such as the hair thing. I think it is stupid. But if this is your yard stick for measuring the organization, then you have a problem. You mentioned our experation date was 1994 (80 years after 1914) Show me your proof that the JW’s chronology is inaccurate. BTW, there are still people born on or before 1914 alive today. So we have not yet reached our “expiration date.” We may not reach it for another 7 or 10 more years as a new development, super centenarians (people who live over 110 years of age), has emerged. You also speak that our teachings are condemned by our own founder. Well, Mr. Russel celebrated Christmas, yet we KNOW, Jesus wasn’t born in December. We know that we don’t know when he was born. We know that the Bible never commands us to celebrate birthdays. It does not even suggests it. They used the cross symbol. Yet we do not. You know why. While Mr Russel is important, as he founded the movement, we have moved on from him and yes a lot of our current teaching contradict what he believed. He didn’t know everything. A lot of what he believed in, was wrong. But you let that become a stone in your path. As for the work being over into the 21st century, you are dead wrong. If you were trully an elder you would know that. Even during the millenial kingdom, when people are resurrected, the preaching work will go on. All those people who are raised will need to be thought. They will need the opportunity to learn the truth and choose for themselves, a resurection to life or a resurrection to judgement. I have done a great manny things that will probably earn me death, when the great tribulation comes. But no matter, I will continue to defend God’s organization. if you trully are an elder, I suggest you either reconsider your position and resign, or follow thru your promise and represent the organization faithfully.

        (Quote)

  12. Rupunzelsawake says:

    Hi Elder James McBanal! That video clip you mentioned off the jw.org site, promoting the 2013 DC, really should get some more attention. After explaining the theme “God’s Word is Truth”, the brother said, “With humans I think we all know that it isn’t always the truth when we have to revise it, or change it, later on, but when you get the message from God’s Word, the Bible, you know it’s reliable and it’s truth” !!!!!! I CAN’T BELIEVE HE SAID THAT!!!! I agree, Jesus may even be using his unfaithful and indiscreet slave to warn honest hearted truth seekers! “Get out of Babylon the Great!”

      (Quote)

  13. Elder James McBanal says:

    Is there any way you can save the clip for posterity’s sake? Match his words with another poster lamenting their inability to reconcile what the Watchtower say’s and what it’s founder taught!

    Brother Russell’s words paraphrased “A religion can’t say they are God’s chosen channel while they are constantly changing their core doctrine…” Pastor Russell emphatically said “…New groups using the ‘new light’ “excuse” (ethics define “excuses” as the worst reasons rolled in a lies) are not from our Holy Father and his Son!…”

    You don’t have the time to debate liars, your value is drawing people to the real Truth, not arguing with individuals who use Red Herrings, Evasive Speech, Circular Reasoning,Appeal to Authority fallacies. You, I, and other truth seekers, we can’t read people’s hearts and would you really want to? Jesus said:

    “A good man from the good stored up in his heart brings out what is good; and an evil man from the evil stored up brings out what is evil; for from the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks.” Luke 6:45 Weymouth’s

    You are having great effects on others, you might not see it personally at this time but you have the circuit in chaos with elders talking about “sneak peaks” with your website.

    Finally truth seekers have a website where they are not insulted for asking questions, they can socialize with others who love Jesus Christ with a audience who are not calling them stupid by a group of anti-God and anti-Christian agendas. Thank you for providing me a new home to vent, no need to visit any other forums now!

      (Quote)

  14. Rupunzelsawake says:

    What a lovely comment brother! It’s great to have you join us here! JJ has provided a great place for us to build one another up in faith. It’s not always plain sailing, but it is good to scrutinise what we believe….the result is a more “real” faith, one that will stand up to fire! I think we all (mostly) have that goal here.

      (Quote)

  15. Frank says:

    Just to let all concerned with the demon in the TV issue that there is an article I wrote to discuss the issue. As this site believes in free opinion I would welcome comments from any and all about this matter. All are cordially invited; no collections.

    http://thegoverningbody.org/fi.....istianity/
    Frank

      (Quote)

  16. Reader says:

    Dear Frank;
    Had a read through your link above.
    I have seen the effects of a demon or wicked spirit on a person and have also felt the spookyness of electromagnetic fields.
    But;
    There is a difference between ‘belief’ and ‘faith’.
    Belief means an acceptance that God is true as a fact, even Satan believes God exists: James 2 v 19.
    Faith is more advanced Hebrews 11 v 1, so its not and never has been scientific, more a sort of feedback from God. Reading the rest of the chapter there is a working with God in the examples given.
    God causes us to believe the things which may be beyond our inspection, because of our interaction in some way with his purposes.
    Atheist agnosticism runs directly conflict to James 1 v 6-8.
    I doubt anybody here can offer a salve to your problems in that regard.
    God does not need us to believe in him, he will manage ok without us.
    So we’ve been let down by what we thought was better, what’s new Hebrew 11 v 36-38.
    B

      (Quote)

  17. Frank says:

    Hi Reader. You’ll have to explain what you mean by me having a problem. This ‘problem’ is purely an invention of those here who are not prepared to demonstrate their gift of reason.

    In my follow-up article I will show why the spreading of such unhealthy ideas to others less able to reason for themselves can have a deleterious effect.

    And please, Reader, you and the others are warmly invited to leave their comments, critical or otherwise, on Governing Body.org.

    Frank

      (Quote)

  18. Reader says:

    Dear Frank;
    Because we have found some men are liars, but we still find God to be True, Websites such as this can exist as product and as service. [& similar my own website is Bible apologist, more anti-Trinitarian than any other]
    The comments here [jwstruggle] of many tell of soul searching and acting on principle, this audience has generally done deep thinking to wits end and back.
    In such trials God becomes more real.
    As a lover of Nature I feel I live within miracles daily, it shouts there is a Creator.
    B

      (Quote)

  19. Frank says:

    I’ve always found Hebrews 11:1 mystifying.

    “Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for; the evident demonstrations of things though not beheld.”

    Surely the two statements here are contradictory. If we have hope there can be no expectation; and how can anything be evident when something is not beheld? It’s a tautology.

    “Beheld,” of course, can affect any of the five senses. It seems to me that this scripture only pays homage to human imagination.

    The Bible is ambiguous about the need for faith. It is true that some of the miracle-rich Jewish culture meant that Christ refused to produce a ‘sign’ for the ‘faithless’ in some vilages, yet he was prepared to materialise his body to present material proof to his disciple Thomas! Which is it? What is faith? and What is its practical use?

    Frank

      (Quote)

  20. Frank says:

    Hi JJ. How’s the new article coming along?

      (Quote)

  21. Reader says:

    Dear Frank;
    We [present society] missuse the word ‘faith’, because it is confused with simple belief or used instead of the word ‘religion’. ‘Belief’ is only our fist step toward God, the ‘faith’ though not that disimilar actualy comes from God to the believer, and that gift is very close to ‘Holy Spirit’ or ‘strengthening’.
    Thus the believer can exert surprising actions of trust in God, but it is no longer just belief but the dual action of man male or female walking with God.
    We know then what we mean by small or larger interactions with God’s help/direction, precisely how God accomplishes this we do not know and so it is un-explainable in detail.
    Read the rest of Hebrews 11 to get the variety of actions, ‘Faith’ is given.
    Belief is not enough to endure persecution, because although initialy being where we put our trust, it is only a mental process of ourself.
    B

    ps -if you put your website address in the posting form, your name will appear as a link to your site.

      (Quote)

  22. Reader says:

    Sorry Frank;
    I didn’t cover Thomas, poor Thomas gets a bad press, but was quite correct which is why Jesus’ responded to his request for evidence;

    compare John 20 v 24+25 with Matthew 24 v 23 to 26. Perhaps Thomas only ‘over did it’ somewhat?

    B

      (Quote)

  23. Freethinkerinjah says:

    Hi elder James Bana, welcome to this site, and I enjoy your comments, honest and to the point, thank you.

      (Quote)

  24. Frank says:

    What Thomas proves, Reader, is that there is no shame in asking for material proof to support an extraordinary claim. I’m not saying that faith is a weakness, but it sure can be as any snake oil salesman will tell you.

    The problem is that there are many many many charismatic people out there ready to take advantage of ‘faith.’ But tell me, Reader, how would you tell between and emotional attachment to something or someone and having ‘faith’ in them?

    1 Peter 3:15 calls for a defence of the ‘faith.’ When Paul says to ‘reason,’ he means ‘from the Scriptures.’ The Scriptures make many unsubstantiated claims and in a scientific age it is therefore hard to ‘make a defence’ of such things.

    Therefore, where would you start?

    Frank

      (Quote)

  25. Reader says:

    Frank;
    Try your own logic on “science”.
    Science should be repeatable and observed?
    Are we in communication with any observing scientific survey groups in the Jurasic age or in distant parts of galaxies?
    I dont think so, we must accept an interpretation of limited evidence, where even the exponents may differ.
    Science makes or requires leaps of faith too.
    So there is nowhere any of us go go where everything can be inspected beforehand.
    Or we can behave as the kid who never enjoys the water, even though all those in the water shout its fine, only cold for a bit.
    So when quoting something presented as science [esp evolutionary], ask where is the data for this, is this observable, is this repeatable???
    For myself I agree with Paul Romans 1 v 20, thats enough for me.
    So yes Thomas was correct, but dont’ overdo the Thomas doubt, some will believe without seeing everything.
    B

      (Quote)

  26. Reader says:

    Should have added;
    Apollo 11 would not have landed if NASA had given full credance to Evolutional science on dating.
    Because scientifically we can estimate ‘space dust’ settling.
    Millions of years could have led to deep dust layers.
    But many thought the Moon just had not been swept for about 6000 years or so.
    B

      (Quote)

  27. Frank says:

    Does science take ‘leaps of faith,’ Reader?

    Science does form a theory, discards it without evidence in favour of another that cannot be verified or falsified, surely.
    Is archaeology a science? I take your point about the Jurassic Period, but let’s scrap that in favour of merely 1500 years BC when the Bible claims that Moses was leading the Israelites through the desert of Sinai.

    When two Israeli archaeologists, Finkelstein and Silberman took their expedition into the Sinai they fully expected to dig up the “title deeds” to end all conflict in the Middle East. Putting aside any miracle claims made in the “sacred text,” did they succeed? With over a million Hebrews leaving Egypt and the Bible stating that the unfaithful would “fall in the desert” surely there must be something, anything, that would confirm the account.The evidence was zero.

    But surely the desert had taken whatever evidence would remain.

    Go to: http://www.britishmuseum.org/e…..n_man.aspx

    and find an extremely well-preserved human who wasn’t mummified, but merely buried crudely in the sand. What does sand tend to do? Desiccate! Notice too that this archaeological find dates from OVER 1500 previously to the ‘desert sojourn.’
    Here we have science taking no “leaps of faith” but merely evidencing its conclusions.

    Would the astronauts of any Apollo mission have place their lives in the hands of scientists whose findings were based on “leaps of faith”? …cont.

      (Quote)

  28. Frank says:

    Cont…

    Romans 1:20 works perfectly with clergyman William Paley’s conclusion that if something looks designed, it is; but since Darwin we now have a better way to thinking about nature. It is not that nature is a designer; rather what comes down to us, including humans, have survived as a matter of having tiny changes made over vast periods of time as the survivors of previous generations.

    Yes, it could be said that there is a ‘leap of faith’ in the present imperfect understanding of the FACTS, but if someone tells me that I should accept a subjective experience of demon molestation because that person believes this demonstrates the spirit world, then I reserve the right to test this theory like any other intelligent person.

    You see, Reader, it is not about “seeing everything,” it’s about having ANY evidence at all when it comes to the claims of the Bible. Even putting aside miraculous suspensions of known universal laws, any archaeological verification of the existence of Moses, Abraham, and any other miracle-worker, would help.

    If we want proof of the evolutionary process, one needs to go no further than a microscope under which anyone can see viruses mutate before our eyes in order to survive. But even today many continue to believe that sickness and death is the result of divine judgement.

    Frank

      (Quote)

  29. Reader says:

    Dear Frank;
    “If we want proof of the evolutionary process, one needs to go no further than a microscope under which anyone can see viruses mutate before our eyes in order to survive. But even today many continue to believe that sickness and death is the result of divine judgement.”

    Youv’e swallowed it whole haven’t you!

    I have never heard of any scientist seeing a virus mutate before his/her eyes. Though I should admit my microscopes arn’t powerful enough for virus’ so I obviously have never seen a virus directly.

    ABSENCE OF PROOF IS NEVER PROOF OF ABSENCE, works for and against both camps in this.

    Today some think the earlier archeologists got Sinai wrong and the crossing was over a then hidden shallow reach in the Gulf of Aqaba.

    After tweny odd years in engineering I also tend to think -if something looks designed it probably is; without this assumption almost every archeological finding would be dismissed as accidental; what are the chances of a ring of large stones forming by accident -fairly high compared to life.

    I you have ever worked with a troublesome design trying to get it right and working, then maybe you might see – things dont’ happen by chance -unless a mind notices.

    There will come a time when something proves God, for instance maybe the twinkling will be just as public as the verses would suggest, videoed in some otherwise forgotten place and be world wide minutes later. Constipation will be cured at short notice and those who have preached evolution and doubt will make themselves as rare as hens teeth. Because those who have lived lives out of harmony with scripture will be out looking for who to blame, because its never themselves.

    I will agree there is a micro-evolutionary factor in breeding, but no more. “Natural selection” is only proof that selective breeding can occur in the wild – not just in man’s breeding projects.

    Here is a page from my website…….begin quote………

    Thinking Chances and Ducks with Degrees

    So take out the Creator. It seems to me many do not consider the then exposed questions. A mind can with attention to the job estimate/calculate the next step to be undertaken or where there are opportunities for development or problems (although it’s seldom easy). An evolved system as proposed for Earth’s Nature would have no mind, though misleadingly (carelessly?) is often explained as though it or some organism thinks (Darwin’s Fairies?). A chance system will keep dutifully bashing away at all the available possibilities tirelessly, because it cannot see where it is, cannot see what is productive, cannot see what is not productive, it learns yet again and again, nothing plus nothing.

    THE ARTISAN

    Whereas: the artisan learned Pythagoras and Newton at school, aspired to IKB in his teens, read his trade journal yesterday, combining lessons moments & millennia apart for a prepared mind today. What has always been possible but ethereal, now by a mind made effective. So a thought is wrought in metal, ideas made manifest in chosen materials, the parts exactly fixed in place. For in luck he puts not trust, to chance nothing queathed. The time passes as industry consumes long hours until the machine beast stands grande before its artisan. The community comes see, set to the task for which it was made worthiness is established. Local leaders with no understanding of its workings but an accurate concept of the impact carefully introduce and meet as is right, with diligent thought select the fine words. A little boy, ‘ the gurgles make me laugh’ , ‘ they did me to’ whispers the Artisan, ‘wow’! Older ones in a quiet moment comment to the Artisan about the changes to come, it will be so good for the young. Mother anxiously watches the boy, pretending with respect to understand the explanations while forgetting not a word, remembering for her offspring the lessons he misses for now. A cover is removed and a man is silenced, he will not emerge greasy hands and all till he also understands the cogs and wheels. To the front a group who talk only among themselves, then all quiet and a question directed only to the Artisan whose comments are listened to with absolute attention, then back to more excited chatter. Another has checked out the storeroom comes to ask on maintenance. “I must ask about our bridge” says one who has already calculated the roads and gateways are all bar one enough. And in time all leave. A young man but for mother a ragamuffin coached to say thank you. All quiet as the Artisan savours the recognition while wiping finger marks, for the doing of good a goal in itself. As pretty polished stones in trinkets of silver, a mere word of credit, accolades as different as people can be, there are those who gather gratitude for their gold, to whom eyes of appreciation ignite brighter than fire of diamonds.

    So the creations of the creative are.

    It may be tempting to ‘ get by’ diluting the reason base of a theoretical evolutional work, with popular analogy as evidence rather than do the work on the numbers. How can some female bird choose the DNA of a male bird by its feathers, when human technology with all its advances only found that out in the last century? Is there a university all these primitive organisms are attending to get an education to make the choices? Think of the time & work saved if Crick, Watson, Franklin & Wilkins had gone to Duck University*. All theory presented in such a manner is therefore severely flawed. Only in the case of some human females is there a remnant of evidence that these may select a mate by the jeans. It would seem large numbers of the scientific community have not observed sex drive, in the real world how many think of DNA during arousal? Get a grip, Parents, Religion & social customs have fought hard to get some/any order into passion, and DNA evaluation has not been noted as a problem. The romantic and exquisite and animal pleasure of sex drives this.

    What is already known as ‘ phenotype and genotype’ is so very often conveniently missed out! It would further reduce the effectiveness of any selection process, as natural selection can only work on the phenotype.

    Fundamental Understanding of Utility.

    We could say in enterprises of this sort there is a; “fundamental understanding of utility”, that is why ‘this’ is worth doing. Creator and Man can function with a fundamental understanding of utility, but animals, plants etc seem lacking in this department. Evolution cannot see where its going, we keep being told things think or achieve -this requires mental function. Such sci-fi is nonsense.

    We live on a planet with Nature and Man’s works. We know of the works of Man, efforts, achievements along with catastrophic losses here and there. It has been a long hard road to today and has cost us dearly. Then we compare Man’s work with Nature and sigh. After all our efforts are we put to silence by an accident or a Master?

    If a Creator taught the spider how to spin the webs, that is OK. If the spider worked it out itself, the Engineers would like to know how. Do not get our eyes rolling on “millions of years” there are enough machines with a million parts, we can handle the zeroes.

    Man is a creator, we understand our creations and have the bruises to prove it. Works of human creation abound on Earth, – of accidental creativity we have no demonstrable routines.

    [additional: There is some sloppy work about passed off as science, because the Biological world lives without our help. The demands of ‘ making the thing work’ of other disciplines can be avoided it seems. The mechanic without the aid of Darwin’s Fairies must excise the gremlins in his/her machine, before it even works. The crankshaft thinks ..no …… while you wait for the fairies, I will get a spanner!]

    *[Reference to the water bird ‘ duck’ here, my apologies if there is a place named Duck, with a university.]

    ……………end quote.

    So sorry to be so blunt but for me ‘all things bright and beautiful’ is still just what it is, tiny insects up to a planet tilting in the sunlight to balance the temperature, its too good to be an accident because its so fantastic a masterpiece as a Creation. To me Evolution theory is just plain daft.
    B

      (Quote)

    • Charles says:

      You couldn’t understand natural selection any less. There’s really no place to start with such an ignorant
      Diatribe. Since no one can prove god in any possible way, folks use the old spider web to prove god. It’s just circular reasoning jws use time and time again. Stop wasting your life with nonsense.

        (Quote)

  30. Frank says:

    Viola! Mutating virus:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3dSYA64ZRc

    Finding this took 30 seconds.

    Frank

      (Quote)

  31. Reader says:

    Frank, let you into a secret, the video shows a diagram simulating mutating virus not a virus itself mutating on cue. My doubts here are based on what was explained to me years ago; for electron microscopy the target is frozen or chilled to near freezing -of course they may have changed the method now.

    Here’s another quote from my site……….

    Millions of years does sound a lot, but is it really anywhere near enough?

    Over “millions of years” it does sound a lot doesn’t it! When Darwin’s The Origin of Species was published perhaps it seemed ample time, for some factor to be selected over millions of years.

    Say we have the favourable mutation in a single individual in a population:-

    Note, for evolution the population resets to one at each mutation, time would be required for numbers to increase.

    Note, that while numbers are very low survival is at risk from minor local events, a local fire for instance. Risks become more normal when a population has spread out over a wider area. The individual faces death/elimination by normal causes which probably have nothing to do with the mutation, worst cases are for prey species. Every new mutation runs the risks of low population, this means every specie at risk today because of low numbers, would have been in that situation at least once before!

    Whatever the amount of offspring required to produce a pair for the next generation breeding.

    For example; 100 offspring produce only two for next breeding, then the mutation being on one sex or the other has only a one in 50 chance of survival (50 male or 50 female). So the mutation needs to occur (on average) 25 times for one to produce the next generation (for one in 50, could be any number between one or 50, Ave 25). The mutation may improve these odds or not, however it demonstrates the logic; many beneficial mutations would be lost.

    Population increase may be slow due to close competition from the original form, the same in all but the one detail, competing and in numbers filling the available specie echo niche.

    Just assuming each beneficial one survives grossly underestimates natural risk.

    Then the favourable gene needs to be on a chromosome without another unfavourable gene on it, requiring elimination. There are several hundreds or thousands of genes on a chromosome and often several chromosomes in the make up of an individual, this favoured gene will be bundled with many thousands of others together. The whole bundle survives or not on the fortunes of the individual life form. This cannot work with experimental cleanness, if the situation is confused no effective result could be obtained, therefore if it ever works it must be with all non harmful plus one beneficial. Natural selection would need to be sequential, one at a time and this would maximise the timeline.

    After the success of a single implementation, the new form must increase in numbers to occupy the specie eco niche, if it does not increase significantly there will not be the chances for another mutation. If the chances required for a single mutation without a bad, are ten million to 1, then the population needs to increase to that sort of scale. One wonders how small populations or recessive genes ever manage?

    [additional: The chances are mutations are many more times likely to be harmful than beneficial, therefore this means in practice large portions of time to eradicate lodged harmful and useless clutter from the genetic system. If a mutation were a common event then a good mutation on a clean genome would be rarer, because if two are on the same package chances are one is bad, therefore the event is wasted. The imbalance that causes a mutation in the first place must fortuitously cause just the one without a harmful on the same DNA packet. Just one gets less likely as the gene quantity increases. In how many cases will the size of the life forms gene pool be greater than the whole population of a generation (genes/individuals)? Therefore evolution would slow as the genome increased in gene numbers.

    [additional: I am not entirely content as yet with the notion of DNA chromosomes being the final secret of life, suspecting that the life functions in control during meiosis nearer that secret, the chromosome DNA may be for the adaptive and backup data structure. These could turn out to be same/similar/separate so wait and see, there is another box to open yet. However it does give us a way to quantify and scale.]

    [additional: Similar to the above, I do not have the expertise to do other than suspect; is the virus a life form? Believers and Evolutionists are predisposed to different answers (‘ I perceive the elephant is like a tree’ Indian story) . Evolutional thinking would look for the smallest life form to solve the sourcing mysteries, believers may find the smallest life form of interest as to, what is its place in the arrangement?

    Because of the cellular attack nature of the virus; 1/ it is dependent on higher life forms existing, 2/ so far, it seems to give little evidence that, an independent life form can be that small. 3/ Is this nature of the virus similar to other functions in Nature?

    Could it be the virus is a particle issued by a larger life form, the ultimate antibody, an immune system smart bomb? The changing nature of virus forms would then not be mutation but another issue by another individual life form. Perhaps the plan being the virus works locally; individual or ‘ touch company (a brood)’ and then after killing off the target bacteria/parasites/intruders/tumour, the virus expires as no longer able to reproduce?

    Just following my own logic. If created can we suggest why? I do not know the answer as fact but can see a potential why.

    And maybe we should consider the logic for the blind men in the Indian proverb: All start asking All the questions. Does this make sense created? Why? Does this make sense evolved? Why? Is this a single item or part of a larger whole?]

    next: 12/ Of all the Stars in all the galaxies in all the Time,

    end quote
    B

      (Quote)

  32. Frank says:

    I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove here, Reader. Are you saying that viruses don’t mutate, because if they do, then adaptation, and by extension, evolution, exists.

    The expression is “Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.” The distinction is important as evidence leads to proof. A virus has no purpose other than to survive even though it is not conscious it’s even in a fight. There is no need for God to cause it to do anything, it does it on its own even it’s under a time-lapse electron microscope.

    I find it interesting that you use the word “selective” breeding when describing Natural Selection. Actually, this expression is almost oxymoronic as Nature doesn’t ‘select’ anything. Again, like the virus whatever survives is what is best capable of surviving under any set of environmental circumstances at any time in prehistory or modern history. There is no need for external guidance for this to happen.

    The British Peppered Moth proliferated based on whether a grey or black breed survived when birds picked off the ‘weaker’ depending on the pollution of the chimney stacks nearby. No divine guidance here either.

    Your Sinai comment doesn’t progress your argument unfortunately because it is a good example of absence of evidence. Merely asserting that there could be an alternative situation fails to give evidence of that alternative. Do you have alternative evidence, Reader?

    But as you are in the mood for research, perhaps you could help me with some other ponderables:

    1 Why can individual humans trace their prehistorical ancestral lineage through their mitochondrial DNA (female)back, not to the Middle-East but to Africa, even to which Neanderthal tribe their line emanated from?

    2 Why does the fossil record show that 99.99% of Earth’s species have been destroyed, not by man as the Bible specifies, but by nature itself?

    3 Where is the Bible’s claim left that the Earth will last forever when anyone can observe stars going supernova through a telescope? Our sun is a star that is estimated to burn up its nuclear fuel in about 5 billion years.

    4 If humanity is the apex of God’s creation, why are we physically only half a chromosome away from Chimpanzees and share the same number of genes as a mouse (23,000)?

    Frank

      (Quote)

  33. Frank says:

    Oh, and one more question”

    Why did the Canaanites have a god called Yahweh?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y.....e_deity%29

      (Quote)

  34. Frank says:

    Reader, I’ve been reading some of the stuff from your site. Tell me, are you a novice or are you qualified in some way to make the claims you are?

    Mutations are neither good nor bad when survival is the only criterion. A creature does not have to be optimum to survive, merely have the physical capacity to stay ahead of the environment and produce offspring that can do the same.

    Science-faction mutations are different from science-fiction mutations.

    As to the time required for evolution to take place; Stephen J. Gould posited punctuated equilibrium – comparatively quick succession of mutation. This may or may not be true, but science only posits and move the theory on to fact when sufficient evidence becomes proof.

    Frank

      (Quote)

  35. Reader says:

    Dear Frank;
    Punctuated equilibrium is a way of getting round the problematic fossil record, which shows leaps. As Creation would.
    I suspect you wish me to convert to your thinkings of doubts perhaps to excuse you from Jehovah’s obligations.
    In any exploation of available information somethings have to be rejected and choices made, though opinions may vary.
    As I said before for me ‘all things bright and beautiful’ is still just what it is, tiny insects up to a planet tilting in the sunlight to balance the temperature, its too good to be an accident because its so fantastic a masterpiece as a Creation. To me Evolution theory is just plain daft.
    B

    Read more at http://www.jwstruggle.com/2013.....ment-23299

      (Quote)

  36. Frank says:

    Creation doesn’t ‘leap’ anywhere, Reader. It is called ‘special creation’ because the claim is that all life was created in its final version (barring natural assortment within the ‘kinds’). How do we account for polar bears on a planet that was never meant to have extreme climates? Why do Lions and tigers have teeth obviously for tearing meat? Why are animals desirous of having us in their stomachs? And why is so much of Earth’s fauna dangerous for humans to consume?

    Why do humans need an immune system on a planet that was custom-made for their existence? This system is needed to fight an environment that can be hostile to the host!

    You talk of loving a planet and universe that you see as created with you in mind, but why cannot it just be the opposite: that we came about because the environment was propitious for our appearance? And evolution is not “a theory,” it is “theory” (like music is theory.

    It is a pity that you think I am trying to convert you. I have no other wish than someone reason with me from the book of nature and what we can know about science without resorting to divine mystery. It is not that either of us has to ‘pull a rabbit out of a hat,’ just merely find consensus in what evidence shows us rather than assume that ancient minds can understand things they couldn’t possibly know.

    Please re-post your URL, Reader. The one above stays on this page. I would like to look at your site.

    Thanks

    Frank

      (Quote)

  37. Reader says:

    Dear Frank;
    The World does not owe any of us answers, your reading of those given which may take time to answer is somewhat cursory. You are generally operating outside the site remit;

    “This site is setup to help you keep faith in God and Christ, and maintain spiritual balance as you wake up to the “truth about the truth”

    Some questions which style seems to imply you imagine the person has no answer(s), sometimes show a lack of basic science [on your part or care] for example :Why do humans need an immune system on a planet that was custom-made for their existence? This system is needed to fight an environment that can be hostile to the host!

    The answer: because nature is a total recycle system and bacteria are the main operatives.

    ……

    I always enter the URL when posting and all you need do is pass your mouse over the word “Reader” you will see reader is just a slightly different colour, click on; as you can with anybody else who enters their URL -try JJ.
    B

      (Quote)

  38. Frank says:

    “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”

    – Galileo Galilei

    “The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go.”

    – Galileo Galilei

    First of all, Reader, I would like to thank you for coming up with the most compelling answer to my enquiry about the human immune system thus far (actually pretty much the only answer). Unfortunately, while your answer confirms the purpose of recycling the results of defecation as well as all of Earth’s material bodies post-mortem, it says nothing of the necessity for blood-borne anti-bodies to fight germs, viruses and bacteria that would surely have had no place within a ‘perfect’ environment. Nice try, though.

    The theist Galileo would not have agreed with you that “the universe owes us no answers.” His relationship with the Catholic Church is about the same as mine with the general populace of this website. Is Galileo saying (second quote) that science and faith are separate majesteria? He obviously didn’t believe so as he felt that his studies should have confirmed Holy Scripture. This is the reasonable and justified missionary statement of science. Right up until today we find not only that, (particularly archaeological science, biological science, and astronomical science), this discipline serves to disconfirm Biblical claims but actually contradicts them!

    It seems to be a particular failing of the agenda of those on this site to rid themselves of pestiferous heretics as apparently “belongintojah” proclaims:

    http://christian.forumatic.com.....038;p=1122

    I would be very happy to debate the Trinity with this person if he/she was willing. Any and all here should not be afraid to have a spotlight put on their long-cherished beliefs; “the Truth about the Truth.”

    Cont…

      (Quote)

  39. Frank says:

    In fact, my conversations, as you yourself deny, have everything to do with ‘the truth.’ If all here believe that Christ is the Creator then surely it is fundamental to discuss his very existence and the “works of his hands,” and all here should not be afraid to talk to an agnostic. What is everyone so afraid of if they “have the truth”?

    Galileo also said:

    “Facts which at first seem improbable will, even on scant explanation, drop the cloak which has hidden them and stand forth in naked and simple beauty.”

    and finally:

    “By denying scientific principles,one may maintain any paradox.”

    Shunning those who ask awkward questions is probably not the way to discover the “truth about the truth,” surely Reader.

    Frank

      (Quote)

  40. Reader says:

    Frank;
    A reply to the above two has got lost somehow.
    You seem to have another agenda as your message seems incompleted.

      (Quote)

  41. Reader says:

    number 40 was interupted continued;
    You have been throwing all sorts of darwinian doubts yet you want to discuss the trinity with “belongintojah” number 38
    Why would an athestic person want to debate trinity/unitarian deism?
    This does not make any sense.
    Are you anti jw and see this as an easier target group than a local organised group?
    In which case as those leaving have gone in many directions you could go to those of any persuasion you wish?
    B

      (Quote)

  42. Frank says:

    This is what I like about you, Reader; you give me so much to say about your obvious confusion about my position. What you state confirms the solipsistic attitude of modern Christianity. You people really are fragile, aren’t you. Bringing ANY challenge against your precious beliefs, scientifically-irrational or occasionally sensible, make you break out into an anxious sweat.

    I would argue the Bible because I know the Bible, thoroughly. Where is the Biblical support for a 4th century doctrinal invention? Besides this, as I have stated over and over again for mind that refuse to accept, that I lean towards belief in God because of some very basic questions science seems not to be able to make headway on – origin of life and universe.

    No. 40 didn’t break off, I just like a little irony, don’t you?

      (Quote)

  43. Frank says:

    Reader: “Today some think the earlier archeologists got Sinai wrong and the crossing was over a then hidden shallow reach in the Gulf of Aqaba.”

    Reader, I think you might find this interesting:

    “At least on the basis of modern tourist maps of the Sinai Peninsula, there seems to be no special difficulty in identifying the most important places mentioned in the biblical stories of the wandering and the giving of the law. Mount Sinai and other biblical places have been visited since medieval times and even earlier…”

    Appendix B ‘Searching for Sinai,’ page 656, The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts, by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman.

    and:

    “The consensus among biblical scholars today is that there was never any exodus of the proportions described in the Bible, and that the story is best seen as theology, a story illustrating how the God of Israel acted to save and strengthen his chosen people, and not as history…

    “According to Exodus 12:37-38, the Israelites numbered “about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children,” plus many non-Israelites and livestock.[15] Numbers 1:46 gives a more precise total of 603,550 men aged 20 and up…

    “No evidence has been found that indicates Egypt ever suffered such a demographic and economic catastrophe or that the Sinai desert ever hosted (or could have hosted) these millions of people and their herds…

    “A century of research by archaeologists and Egyptologists has found no evidence which can be directly related to the Exodus captivity and the escape and travels through the wilderness,[3] and most archaeologists have abandoned the archaeological investigation of Moses and the Exodus as “a fruitless pursuit”‘

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus

    Frank

      (Quote)

  44. Frank says:

    Run out of puff, Reader?

    Frank

      (Quote)

  45. JJ says:

    Site policy states that “off-topic comments may be removed.”

    Reader and Frank, I ask that you please take this evolutionary debate to the JWStruggle Forum, not an article on baptism.

    Thank you,
    Eric

      (Quote)

  46. Reader says:

    My Apologies Eric;
    Really reminds me of those field service calls that you thought were interesting but turn out to be time wasters, delete or use content as you see fit. B

      (Quote)

  47. Frank says:

    Eric, it is obvious where your bias lies. Are you ever going to bring this legendary article out?

      (Quote)

  48. DS211 says:

    Great article. And great debate by frank and reader (sorry JJ). It’s quite obvious I was baptized into the idol known as the WtBS as I was baptized 3 years ago. And it only took 3 years to realize TtATT. Raised a free thinker, as the jw mind control mechanisms began to take effect there was a battle, malfunction starting in my mind. At the time I imagined this was the “struggle” discussed in the scriptures on fighting the “fleshly” past I knew. But I quickly realized all was not well and honky dory in the org. I now realize that not only was my baptism not valid, but was not really a baptism at all. The baptism isn’t just dunking a fellow in the water and raising them up. The idea is baptism is where the dedication lies, and baptizing belongs to God and Christ ( and the Holy Spirit). Anyways I know I’m all over the place but I was just thinking….cont

      (Quote)

  49. DS211 says:

    are frank and reader going to debate on the forum now? If so I need a link as I have a few simple but thought-provoking questions for them.

    DS

      (Quote)

  50. Frank says:

    Ask away, DS211.

    Frank

      (Quote)

  51. Frank says:

    Hi DS211.

    You could start a forum discussion on Struggle and send put the URL on this page. This is better so Reader can join if he wants and I prefer a public debate to a private one.

    Failing that, I will be happy to email you.

    Frank

      (Quote)

  52. DS211 says:

    Ill start it on here because my phone has issues posting on forums….weird. I was just thinking, why is it that Gods creation doesn’t leave room for evolution. Not the sense that we all mutated from a pool of goo or ‘big banged’ out of thin air….but you see mankinds ability to adapt to his/her environment (mental disorders and birth defects, etc) despite imperfections. I guess I just don’t see how Evolution would disprove Gods existence. Perhaps I’m not educated enough on the theories that attempt to disprove the origin of life but I fail to see how anyone has disproved gods existence or the creation of life. If they had, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Thanks for replying and let me know how I can get on the forum if we are going to gt really in depth.

      (Quote)

    • Amos says:

      DS211:
      Ill start it on here because my phone has issues posting on forums….weird. I was just thinking, why is it that Gods creation doesn’t leave room for evolution. Not the sense that we all mutated from a pool of goo or ‘big banged’ out of thin air….but you see mankinds ability to adapt to his/her environment (mental disorders and birth defects, etc) despite imperfections. I guess I just don’t see how Evolution would disprove Gods existence. Perhaps I’m not educated enough on the theories that attempt to disprove the origin of life but I fail to see how anyone has disproved gods existence or the creation of life. If they had, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Thanks for replying and let me know how I can get on the forum if we are going to gt really in depth.

      DS211,
      You can access the forum with the link at the top of this page marked “Forum”…..not sure if this is what you were asking.
      Indepth discussions such as these are better suited to the forum.
      If you go to the forum, you will need to start a new account as it’s a different system.

      Amos.

        (Quote)

  53. Frank says:

    Hi DS211.

    The Bible makes no apologies for explaining life’s origins as a father to an infant son, and I don’t think there was a Hebrew/Aramaic word for “allegory.” Fundamentalist religion cannot make room for less-than-simple word-pictures. It’s a 2 plus 2 equation. If there was no literal Adam then how could Jesus pay the ransom?

    The need for modern humans to see things literally and have archaeological evidence to ‘prove’ that something took place is entirely down to the advent of modern science. Ancient Jews were less likely to have wondered whether there was actually a parting of the Red Sea than to exegete the meaning of a jolly good story.

    Fundamentalism is exposed when one genuinely believes the literal truth of the Bible without ever showing willing even to discuss the possibility that its writer may have had to experiment a little to get things ‘very good.’

    I have absolutely no idea how the extinction of 99.99% of all living things fits into a divine purpose or that the religious mind is diseased with stories that ultimately cause them to act like psychopaths. All I do know is that the ‘alternative’ explanations presently, for me, make more sense than an ancient scrumping expedition in pre-iron-age Mesopotamia.

    What keeps me hanging on like a thread to the greater possibility that there is a divine intelligence rather than a “creator” mulitverse is that science presently has nothing useful to say about how information gets into cells.

    211, please be as deep as you like. I look forward to your comments.

    Frank

      (Quote)

  54. Reader says:

    Dear All and DS211;
    These things are really up to JJ, it is his site -he is paying for this.
    I wasn’t aware Frank’s and my comments had an audience, or how interesting or useful that audience might find them or maybe equally irritated by us taking the space?
    Perhaps the audience should comment more? [to steer things a bit]
    I’ve been faded nearly twenty years, so perhaps I’ve ‘got over it’ on some things. I have continued to study and believe, my website was started 2002 and work continues.
    So I drop by, read the comment links and follow if curious.
    And I comment if I think I might contribute something.
    B

      (Quote)

  55. Charles says:

    There was no Adam. No Moses. No Abraham. No new world, no Armageddon . The movement led by Jesus ended with his death. Paul or Saul turned this defeat into a victory with all the random baloney and 2000 years later we continue to pay the price. Judaism , Islam and Christianity have created misery.
    A pimple on the [removed by admin] of this misery is the watchtower . It’s tiny and pious but it’s our particular poison.
    As my late uncle used to say,”it’s all a bunch of [removed by admin] but it’s the truth!”

      (Quote)

    • JJ says:

      Charles I’m glad that you are awake to TTATT but I do ask that you keep your comments civil and refrain from using expletives here.

      Thanks,
      Site Admin

        (Quote)

  56. Charles says:

    Sorry bout that. Some words just work better than others. It was an actual quote, if you heard my
    Cantankerous uncle spewing ironies you might get the humor intended. I will behave in any case.

      (Quote)

  57. Axrover says:

    This post of yours is full of disinformation. We are not baptised into the organization. The baptismal speech, is just a speech. Those questions are asked, because people need to know what they are about to do. But in no way can you enter into contract with the JW organization, without exchange of money. For a contract to be valid, there must be consideration. As none exists, that point is moot and the accusation lacks legal foundation. Two, the baptismal formula IS used. When the elder that actually baptises you does you actual baptism, he says, “I baptise you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.” You maybe do not hear it, because you are under water, but it is said. That is because the person that gives the speech, is not the one baptising you. So he is not authorized by scripture to use it. However, the person who dips you, is.

      (Quote)

  58. Frank says:

    Quote for us, Axrover, what the second question for baptism is.

    Frank

      (Quote)

  59. JimmyG says:

    I notice Axrover has written 4 comments in quick succession. This indicates the typical approach of JWs coming onto ‘apostate’ sites (who flout the WT GB’s orders in doing so) of ‘ring the doorbell and run’. What I mean is, they react to what they read, hastily comment to get a reaction and then disappear. I hope Axrover is not another time waster.

      (Quote)

  60. Frank says:

    Yes, Jimmy, Axrover is like most typical JW apologists, ring-and-run. Where is his evidence that baptism elders say, “I baptise you….” when we’re under the water.

    We all know the answer to what the second question is in the baptism talk. Cannily worded, but it’s obvious that candidates ARE baptised into the religion because anyone listening to the recordings of judicial cases will note the pattern of ‘salvation’ coming through ‘recognising the authority of the governing body’ to be the final arbiter of ‘truth,’ way above recognition of anything or anyone higher than them.

    Frank

      (Quote)

    • JJ says:

      True Frank. The questions become a verbal contract that WT lawyers can use later in defending themselves against the many lawsuits that are contemplated by those harmed by WT policies and traditions.

        (Quote)

  61. JimmyG says:

    Where have you gone Axrover? The silence is deafening………

      (Quote)

  62. Frank says:

    Yes, JJ, America, like most Western countries view religion as a ‘buyer beware’ concept. This means that anyone is viewed as making their own informed decision before the commit and get consecrated. Of course, the reality is that most do not know the full implications of their decision and thus have to make their disappointment plain behind an enforced self-anonymity. There is no freedom in this.

    Frank

      (Quote)

  63. rupunzelsawake says:

    Elders I have had dealings with have likened the organisation to a “club”. You break a club rule (NOT necessarily a Bible rule) then you’re OUT. They cancel the contract with you. Yes, so that proves we are contracted to the organisation. (I think they used this illustration to appease their consciences. Somehow it makes it ok to them.) How many baptismal candidates are really aware of this?

      (Quote)

  64. Frank says:

    That’s true, Rupunzelsawake. In the Matthew Barrie judicial hearing the victim is told that if he doesn’t want to ‘comply’ with the ‘club’s’ rules, including confessing the Governing Body as the only source of ‘true truth’ on Earth today, he will be ‘bounced’ from before their righteous eyes!

    Frank

      (Quote)

  65. annie oakley says:

    I was baptized in 1969 and yes I said yes to both questions then and most assuredly still feel the same way today as I did on July 28, 1969. The changes since 1985 have bothered me so much that when I was still “active” I could not sit through the baptism talk. Where does the “society” get off on usurping CHRIST and inserting a bunch of ego driven, imperfect men to take my saviors place? I can only think Jesus and Jehovah both shake their heads and say REALLY??????????

      (Quote)

Leave a Reply to Axrover Cancel reply

Website Apps