Some good points there Srecko. It was obviously God who decided when it was ok to kill, based on laws that superseded the command not to kill. The question then is, when it comes to shunning, who decides when it's ok to shun and when it is not ok? Or is there something that supersedes the command to shun? First I want to address this comment you made: I understand the parallels you are trying to draw. There are many examples in history of family members disowning other family members, cutting them off as if the other person no longer exists. In these instances it is humans that make their own personal law. Sometimes it's based on understandable reasons, (extreme evilness on the part of the one who is being disowned) and sometimes on purely frivolous grounds (used as blackmail). Of course there are many many different reasons, too many to mention. I suppose this sounds reasonable. Usually when this situation occurs, the person is not in a disfellowshipped state. I have often thought about this problematic and I have still not found satisfactory justification for some of these actions. I can understand that a person guilty of breaking the Bible's commands and not repenting, or changing, should not be a part of the congregation. The congregation must be kept clean, otherwise Jesus "could vomit it out of his mouth". (Rev 3:16) He says "All those for whom I have affection, I reprove and discipline. So be zealous and repent" (Rev 3:19). And  "‘Therefore remember from where you have fallen, and repent and do the deeds you did at first. If you do not, I will come to you, and I will remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent". (Rev 2:5) and “‘Nevertheless, I have a few things against you, that you have there those adhering to the teaching of Baʹlaam......  So repent. If you do not, I am coming to you quickly, and I will war against them with the long sword of my mouth"  I think just those few scriptures in Revelation show clearly Jesus' feelings about keeping the congregation morally and spiritually clean. We also have Paul's counsel. However, we know that those who have not repented are not thrown out of the congregation literally, but symbolically. They can still attend the meetings if they want. But they cannot participate and speak to anyone. Why? Because they have been disfellowshipped. So in this sense they have been "removed" BUT by being able to still go to meetings they are able to receive Jehovah's instructions and come to repentance, and then be welcomed back. Now imagine if this person had literally been thrown out, and was not allowed to put foot inside the KH. How would they be able to "repent and come back"? How would that work in practice? So in this sense, disfellowshipping is a merciful and loving provision, because the person is still able to receive spiritual instruction. But if they weren't disfellowshipped, and everyone would speak with them, then there would be no difference at all would there? Now the questions I ask is, it makes sense for the congregation, but how is it outside the congregation? This is where I find the difficulty. There are several things to consider. One is; are we Christians only inside the congregation, or are we Christians 24/7? Obviously we are Christians all of the time. So we could argue that whatever applies inside the congregation should also apply outside of it. Then there is the family. Frequently there is a misunderstanding in what family means. The broad definition is "a group of people who share common ancestors" a more usual definition is "group of people that may be made up of partners, children, parents, aunts, uncles, cousins and grandparents" then the classic definition, and the ones JW mean when they say family is; "a group consisting of parents and children living together in a household" It's also called the nuclear family. We know that members of a household or nuclear family are not shunned. Only those living outside the household.  I am ok with that, but I think that associating with family living outside the household should be left up to conscience, (your first conclusion). That is just my opinion. So is there something that supersedes the command to shun? (this is for anyone to answer, not just Srecko)         The basics are in the Bible, for anyone to see

The great thing about that, being Jesus, he  did not have to use a 2x4" timber upside the mule's head to get him to talk!

...... some days you pick the strawberries ...... ...... some days the strawberries pick you ....

there really shouldn't be, especially if you read the whole sentence I wrote. Here, I'll save you the time from searching for it: I find jw's foolish because they follow the ideas of men, which changes to suit those in the power tower.  lol,   we......lol

It means he got a mule at 31 😆😆😆