What is the main reason the Watchtower Society baptize their children so young?

by RULES & REGULATIONS 38 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  R. Jerome Harris

  Water baptism is NOT Christs baptism. It was the baptism of John the Baptizer. Jesus' baptism would be greater than John The Baptizers. His would be with Holy Spirit and Fire. (Matthew 3:11)

  Yes, Jesus allowed himself to get baptized with water by John but that was for a reason. Jesus was making a public display to all present who were getting baptized by John that from that day forward, discipleship will cease and so will his baptism. All discipleship will be to Christ and he will baptize with holy spirit and fire. Even John did not want to baptize Jesus with "his"baptism in water because he knew that his ministry was diminishing and another one was starting and it would have a GREATER baptism.

  So this tradition of water baptism today is all wrong.

  One should ask themselves: Why do we not see Jesus baptizing any of his disciples in water? Why do why not see Jesus' disciples baptizing each other or other who wanted to be disciples of Christ in water? Because they did not practice water baptism and would not have. They knew that Jesus' baptism would be with holy spirit and fire.

  Some will say what about the Ethiopian eunuch of Acts Chapter 8 got baptized in water. Acts 8:37 is missing in many Bible translations. I believe it was removed and a story was fabricated to push "water" baptism. I really believe this is what happened. Why? Because it is inconsistent with Jesus' baptism.

  This ploy has worked. What do people think about when baptism is mentioned? Water baptism, not baptism with holy spirit and fire (Jesus' baptism).

  While we DO NOT read of Jesus himself baptizing even the men he chose (The 12 Apostles) in water, we DO read of him sending and baptizing his disciples with holy spirit and fire. NEVER with water. This is consistent with his baptism. (Acts 2:1-4)
• 

  WTWizard

  The drinking age is 21.  So why shouldn't the age of baptism be at least that?  Where weed is legal, the legal purchase age is 21.  And for a high--why wouldn't the baptism age into a religion that is even more damaging to the soul be at least 21?  Remember, they are signing into a potentially legally binding contract--getting treated as dead is the least of their problems if they start suing and/or drugging people into submission when they decide the cancer is not for them or they start getting mistreated.

  And while they are at it, they need both sides of the story.  More accurately, they need all sides of the story.  They should be required, regardless of age, to read the washtowel material including that they could potentially be sued or drugged back into submission.  Also, they should be required to read and understand the whole of Crisis of Conscience.  Now, with the Internet, they should also be required to read in its entirety the Joy of Satan web site and its links so they can get a more balanced view of religion.  If they do not read and understand it, they cannot get baptized even if they are 120.
  
• 

  Separation of Powers

  Control.  
• 

  freemindfade

  Its as simple as becoming a tool for emotional blackmail

  You've checked into hotel california early...

  You've taken the pill from the matrix,

  You're committed and now they can use your friends and family as leverage
• 

  helpmeout

  freemindfade:  I agree 100%  This did not quite hit home to me until this past summer when my 15 daughter who has been an unbaptized publisher for several years was seen holding hands with a "worldly" boy.  An elder attempted to undermine my parental authority.  It suddenly struck me how much power he would hold if my daughter was baptized.  They would take the matter completely out of my hands and make it a congregational affair.  I can only imagine the irreparable damage done to so many individuals and families using this unscriptural authority. 
• 

  sir82

  When you have reached the age of responsibility, you are answerable to Jehovah for the way you act whether you are baptized or not.

  Yes, but "Jehovah" has never disfellowshipped anybody.

  The kangaroo kourt of 3 elders has disfellowshipped literally millions of people.

  If I were a kid, I'd take my chances with Jehovah.
  
• 

  blondie

  The WTS has never defined what the age of responsibility is....it varies and the elders have the job of deciding if a child is "responsible."  And that varies from congregation to congregation.  I can remember parents nagging the elders, the CO, the DO, and any visiting GB members as to an exact age.  The WTS has used the age 20 in some cases as an age of responsibility. 
• 

  Vidiot

  EndofMysteries - "They do it because the rules are they don't have to shun if they were never baptized, and they know many are waking up younger and want them baptized before they can really think and know what's going on and find out about the lies so when they inevitably do, then they can make their parents shun them and not risk them learning TTATT."

  Hard to argue with.

  Fits with the subtle (and maybe not-so-subtle) trend of "unofficially" shunning faders and inactives regardless of whether they're still technically baptized.
• 

  stuckinarut2

  CONTROL  !

  It fuels the "FEAR, OBLIGATION, GUILT" mentality from an early age