Jump to content
The World News Media

Disfellowshipping of relatives and space travels


ComfortMyPeople

Recommended Posts

  • Member

DISFELLOWSHIPPING OF RELATIVES AND SPACE TRAVELS

Grant me some moments with this regression: our former point of view about visiting, traveling or living in another planet. To show that the Bible disapproves this idea, we found good few of declarations quoting Ps. 115 in this way:

CHARGING Ps 115

  • ·        *** g73 5/22 p. 13 Is There Life Beyond the Earth? *** Of our planet alone the Holy Bible declares that God “formed it even to be inhabited.” (Isa. 45:18) And long ago God’s Word declared that the heavens belong to the Creator, “but the earth he has given to the sons of men.” (Ps. 115:15, 16) So the Bible shows that the earth is unique among planets.

This was an example of a verse “charged, loaded” with a greater meaning than the writer intended. The Psalm only says that Jehovah has given the earth to mankind. There is nothing discouraging space travels.

DISCHARGING Ps 115

I was very excited in the 1986 district convention when the book “Worldwide Security” was released. I browsed the book still sitting in the stadium and found this paragraph:

  • ·        *** ws chap. 22 p. 184 par. 10 *** To all eternity our earth will bear a distinction that no other planet throughout endless space will enjoy, though the earth may not be the only planet that will ever be inhabited.

In this way, the Psalm was discharged of an added meaning.

In other thread was showed proof as we’ve done the same with other passages:

https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/29940-our-problem-with-the-humility/?page=3

CHARGING Ge 9

Regarding the inappropriate of transplants of organs:

  • ·        *** w67 11/15 p. 702 *** […]  Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to you[…] Did this include eating human flesh, sustaining one’s life by means of the body or part of the body of another human, alive or dead? No! That would be cannibalism, a practice abhorrent to all civilized people.

DISCHARGING Ge 9

  • ·        *** w80 3/15 p. 31 *** Some Christians might feel that taking into their bodies any tissue or body part from another human is cannibalistic. […] They might not see it as fundamentally different from consuming flesh through the mouth. Such feelings may arise from considering that God did not make specific provision for man to eat the flesh of his fellowman when he made provision for humans to eat the flesh of animals  […]  While the Bible specifically forbids consuming blood, there is no Biblical command pointedly forbidding the taking in of other human tissue.

CHARGING Ro 1:24-32

Considering the appropriate intimacy inside the matrimony:

  • *** tp chap. 13 p. 150 par. 20 *** The inspired Bible writer did not have to explain the natural way in which the reproductive organs of husband and wife complement each other. Homosexual relations obviously cannot follow this natural way. So, male and female homosexuals employ other forms of intercourse in what the apostle refers to as “disgraceful sexual appetites” and “obscene” practices. (Romans 1:24-32)

DISCHARGING Ro 1

  • *** w78 2/15 pp. 30-32 [Footnotes] *** Reference has been made to the apostle’s statements at Romans 1:24-27 regarding “the natural use” of male and female bodies. As is evident and has been consistently acknowledged, these statements are made in the context of homosexuality. They do not make any direct reference to sexual practices by husband and wife.

The previous three examples are provided to show that we (the GB) many times, inadvertently, have loaded some verses to defend a particular, favorite, entrenched stand. Could this also be happened with our position regarding disfellowshipped relatives?

COMING BACK TO EXPULSION

First things first. Disfellowshipping has scriptural base. Some examples

  • ·        (Mat 18:17) “If he does not listen even to the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector”.
  • ·        (1 Co 5:11-13) “But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is […] not even eating with such a man. “Remove the wicked person from among yourselves”.
  • ·        (Titus 3:10)  “As for a man who promotes a sect, reject him after a first and a second admonition”
  • ·        (1 Ti 1:20) “Hymenaeus and Alexander are among these, and I have handed them over to Satan so that they may be taught
  • ·        (2 Jo 10, 11) “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him.  For the one who says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works. t by discipline not to blaspheme”.

So, without enter into the details about our dealings with these persons, the Bible clearly states we should cut off our relationship with expulsed people.

OUR POSITION WITH EXPULSED RELATIVES

Our present view is reflected in the next quotes:

  • *** w88 4/15 p. 28 par. 13,14*** Thus, a man who is disfellowshipped […] does not end their blood ties or marriage relationship, normal family affections and dealings can continue. […] The situation is different if […] is a relative living outside the immediate family circle and home. It might be possible to have almost no contact at all with the relative. Even if there were some family matters requiring contact, this certainly would be kept to a minimum, in line with the divine principle: “Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother […] not even eating with such a man.

Some exceptions and considerations that could arise:

  • ·        *** w81 9/15 pp. 28-29 pars. 14-17 *** But what if a close relative, such as a son or a parent who does not live in the home, is disfellowshiped and subsequently wants to move back there? The family could decide what to do depending on the situation. For example, a disfellowshiped parent may be sick or no longer able to care for himself financially or physically. The Christian children have a Scriptural and moral obligation to assist. (1 Tim. 5:8) Perhaps it seems necessary to bring the parent into the home […] Sometimes Christian parents have accepted back into the home for a time a disfellowshiped child who has become physically or emotionally ill.

And there are similar statements on other literature. So, there are two kind of possible deals with expulsed relatives:

  • ·        Indoors. Normal dealings, without spiritual contact
  • ·        Outdoors. As little as possible

First consideration. This difference, indoor/outdoor is arbitrary. I mean, there is no scriptural base to make this difference. When the GB stablishes that we can at home to have a normal life with our son or husband, but when they leave home this contact should completely stop (with some exceptions), the GB could well have chosen a more drastic approach. Or the opposite, less hard. Sure?

CHARGING “Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother” (1Co 5)

Apparently, this verse stablishes beyond doubt, that as my son (for example) enter into the expression “anyone called a brother”, I must stop relating to him, at least as soon as he leaves home.

But let me put one example. Have you ever preached to any person that firmly believes God is going to burn the earth? Perhaps this person quotes (2 Pe 3:7) “But by the same word the heavens and the earth that now exist are reserved for fire”. What do you usually answer? Perhaps something like: “well, you’ve taken out of context… we should consider the rest of the Bible… and so”.

Accordingly, What other verses would prove that our present understanding of 1Co 5, when is applied to relatives, even those who live outside the home, is excessively charged?

  • ·        (Ex 10:2) “...and in order that you may declare to your sons and your grandsons how severely I have dealt with Egypt”.

o   How could I show interest in my grandson if I never visit my son? Or I never allow him to visit me? Does my grandson cease to be my grandson because my son is expulsed? So, this verse should qualify our position about 1Co 5.

 

 

 

  • ·        (Eph 6:2)Honor your father and your mother” is the first command with a promise”.

o   How can accomplish with this basic command if I never visit or phone to my expulsed parents? Does this verse only apply when my disfellowshipped parents are sick? If so, what’s the scriptural base?

 

 

 

  • ·        (1 Ti 5:4) “But if any widow has children or grandchildren, let these learn first to practice godly devotion in their own household and to repay their parents and grandparents what is due them, for this is acceptable in God’s sight”.

o   According this words, I have a debt with my parents and grandparents. Also, taking care of my children and grandchildren is godly devotion. All of this is qualified as acceptable in God’s sight. Does 1 Co 5 override, cancel this fundamental truth regarding the familiar relationship?

 

 

 

  • ·        (Proverbs 23:22) “Listen to your father who caused your birth, and do not despise your mother just because she has grown old.

o   Now my mother and father are expulsed. They leave in their own home. Should I, according our present view of 1 Co 5 stop to ask them for counsel? Stop visiting them? Is it not a form of despise? Are 1co 5 and Pro 23:22 at odds, in contradiction?

 

 

 

  • ·        (2 Timothy 3:3) “having no natural affection”.

o    If I stop to visit or phone my relatives, how can I show natural affection? Does it invalidate our view of 1 Co 5 a feeling the Bible says it is natural?

What I’ve tried to proof with the previous passages is that, for correctly understand 1 Cor 5, we should take into consideration the entire Bible. And God’s Word is very clear indicating that my deals with my close family doesn’t perish if they, sadly, are disfellowshipped. And the difference concerning if these relatives live with me or not, does not appear anywhere.

THE “BENEFITS” OF OUR CURRENT UNDERSTANDING

Here and there, we can find or listen experiences indicating that former expulsed persons received encouragement to come back to the congregation because the family firmly avoid any deal with them. Obviously, this is true.

But, my own experience is that when the Christian family cuts the relationship, it generates feelings of resentment and bitterness. What I’ve seen is that these persons develop hate against the JW, because the congregation imposes this drastic behavior. Recently I’ve tried to approach to one ex-brother, expulsed. His parents are JW in my congregation. His fleshly sisters never visited or talked him in the last 20 years. He, bitterly, refused any contact with me.

Next are real situations I’ve personally seen in several congregations.

  • ·        Three fleshly brothers and their mother are JW. One of the brothers was expulsed and the family cut off all the contact. Over time, the mother developed a severe disease and now, the Christians brothers phoned the disfellowshipped to get his help taking care of the mother. Fortunately, he agreed. But who could reproach him if, in turn, he would have said to the other brothers: “it is your business.”
  • ·        One young witness is expulsed and leave his parent’s home. Over time, get married and has children. The father is JW but the mother is not. Fifteen years later, when visiting the parents, the father (the JW) stays in the kitchen while the rest of the family have the mail together. The wife (no JW) is a wonderful woman but doesn’t accept a religion with this extreme position.
  • ·        A young sister is expulsed. During 40 years! her parents have no contact with her. Only she sporadically phone home, but the father refuses to answer, only the mother. Who could reproach her if now, when the parents are getting older she in turn refuses to take care of them?
  • ·        A brother is an elder in the congregation. His son has been recently expulsed. For economic reasons the father has allowed his son and grandson to live with them. When our brother walk with his grandchildren sometimes his son (expulsed) walk with them and is seen by the congregation. The body of elders removed him because he has relationship with expulsed relatives. What should he do? When walk with his grandchildren and the father of them approaches, should he escape with the grandchildren?
  • ·        An expulsed son get married and has children. His mother is JW. When her son was a JW she used to phone him when he was on a work trip. As she continues showing this concern the elders refused to approve her as auxiliary pioneer. Sometimes our sister visit her son to see her grandchildren. The elders have informed her about the convenience to stay in the street when visiting the grandchildren. The wife of our ex-brother believes we all are fanatics.

And a lot more!

I repeat. I’m sure the experiences about expulsed people getting motivation to come back for our lack of contact are true. What It happens is that I’ve not seen any of these kind of situations, but the opposite.

Summarizing.

Why 1 Co 5 don’t say “stop keeping company with anyone called a brother, except when they are relatives”? Because it wasn’t necessary. Because there are plenty of verses teaching us the appropriate behavior with our families.

And the opposite is true. Why don’t mention, for example (Eph 6:2) “Honor your father and your mother, except if they are disfellowshipped”? Because God wait from us the use of “soundness of mind.” (Ti 2:12)

The verses, mainly 1Co 5, talking about our treatment with expulsed persons, should be understood at the light of many other verses, in this way indicating we should show natural affection to our relatives.

Well. I think so, but if any of you have any advice to focus this matter better, please, it’ll be welcome!

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 3k
  • Replies 44
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I am glad you brought this topic up CMP. It is something I has bothered me for a long time and a lot of the issues you raised I have also thought about. It is clear what purpose the disfellowshipping/

You covered a good portion of what we called the "pendulum swing." That's what I was going to bring up next. I think the general expectation is that we will sooner or later end up, not exactly in the

True Tom, I would agree for the most part, but I also think it is human nature (imperfect human nature) to problem solve. Things that work well are usually left alone and are taken more or less as mat

Posted Images

  • Member

 

5 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

DISFELLOWSHIPPING OF RELATIVES

Jesus helps us to get a balance on fleshly relationships in his handling of the incident recorded at Matt.12:46-50; Mr.3:31-35; Lu.8:19-21. My understanding of this sets spritual bonds at a higher priority to fleshly bonds without negating the latter. Jesus words at Mr.10:29-30 have a relevance here also.

Those who are unrepentant regarding a practice of serious sin resulting in disfellowshipping action bring great heartache and difficulty into the lives of their Christian relatives, both fleshly AND spiritual, such is their selfishness. In effect, the spiritual bond they enjoyed with their family in the truth, (which includes any dedicated, fleshly relatives), is broken. However, fleshly relationships are not necessarily broken. (Grand)parent-grandchild, sibling, husband-wife (unless an optional divorce results), degrees of kinship, human to human. All these fleshy bonds remain. They may be modified by variables relating to health, age, even economic or some other acute circumstance. But, nevertheless, they remain, and scripturally so. Dealing with a multitude of circumstance resulting from many variable factors in the case of a disfellowshipped relative involves the excercise of personal conscience.

The various scenarios described above, imagined or real, all involve the excercise of conscience on the part of those relatives serving Jehovah. As such, no rules can be made. One has to act as one feels conscientiously is right. But, as with all matters involving excercise of conscience, the effect on onlookers is a consideration. (Rom.14:14). Consider Rom.14:21 "It is best not....to do anything over which your brother stumbles". Those onlookers include the congregation elders. And the reaction of onlookers will differ from place to place, circumstance to circumstance.

Many may feel too conflicted to decide what to do for the best when emotions cloud clear judgement and may seek counsel from trusted elders. Others may let their hearts rule, others act legalistically and unmercifully. Still others may feel they can make balanced decisions.

Elders have an additional burden in upholding Jehovah's standards and protecting the flock from spiritually weakening or contaminating influences. Individuals may make conscientous decisions in dealing with disfellowshipped relatives which then alarm elders in the discharge of their shepherding responsibility to ALL the flock. Elders may have to restrict privileges for those who in their conscientous view are setting an unwise example as a result. Each one will have to bear the consequence of decisions that they make and the manner in which those decisions effect the conscience of others. 

This all underlines a number of  factors for me:

  • the far reaching consequences of sin : Rom.5:12
  • the exceeding selfishness of those who unrepentantly violate Jehovah's standards and consequently the rights of all their relatives, spritual and fleshly
  • the need for discretion in the excercise of kindness and mercy. Comp Matt 6:3
  • the need for congregation elders to "carry on in a manly way" 1Cor. 16:13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:

part of those relatives serving Jehovah. As such, no rules can be made.

Eoin. You’ve pointed out some very valid points. For example, our spiritual relationships are more important than fleshly ones (according several verses you quoted).

The scenarios I’ve described are all reals. I’ve seen a lot more in decades. Sadly, I can’t remember no one in the line the Watchtower described, expulsed persons reacting favorably to the cessation of deals. Of course there have been many, but the fact I’ve seen so many negatives make me think that this later surpass the positives.

When you mention “no rules can me made”. The fact is that we have rules:

  • ·        *** km 8/02 p. 4 par. 9 *** “It might be possible to have almost no contact at all with the relative. Even if there were some family matters requiring contact, this certainly would be kept to a minimum,” in harmony with the divine injunction to “quit mixing in company with anyone” who is guilty of sinning unrepentantly. (1 Cor. 5:11) Loyal Christians should strive to avoid needless association with such a relative, even keeping business dealings to an absolute minimum”

Well, my whole point was, where in the Bible is said I can’t associate with my son, or my father, because he’s expulsed? How can the “quit mixing with anyone” command annul dozens of commands of equal weight when they say I MUST have deals with my father, son, and such ones? Would not it be unnecessary the mention of “quit mixing in company with anyone… except your family” because Jehovah considered these other passages would lead us to the correct and balanced view about how to deal with our disfellowshipped family?

Now, I’m going to elaborate this imaginary situation:

I have a close friend in the congregation which is expulsed for smoking. If I use to walk with him on the street, perhaps while he’s smoking, it isn’t true that observers perhaps will think I approve his behavior, or that I don’t care?

But now, the expulsed is my son, for the same reason. If I walk with him, perhaps also with my grandchildren, who will think that I’m approving the smoking? Everyone must think I’m, simply, walking with my son, because he is my son.

As elder, when these difficult situations arise, I usually emphasize the Bible commands ruling family life, more than the supposed necessity of cutting off any contact. Nevertheless, as you aptly mention, if the congregation is disturbed this brother will lose his privileges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
3 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

*** km 8/02 p. 4 par. 9 *** “It might be possible to have almost no contact at all with the relative. Even if there were some family matters requiring contact, this certainly would be kept to a minimum,” in harmony with the divine injunction to “quit mixing in company with anyone” who is guilty of sinning unrepentantly. (1 Cor. 5:11) Loyal Christians should strive to avoid needless association with such a relative, even keeping business dealings to an absolute minimum

(My bold above) "rules" I suppose I mean in the sense of legislating specific circumstances. These to me are more guidelines than rules.

As for your expanded scenario, once again it demostrates why there are no rules to govern that situation because there are too many variables unmentioned.

However, as you have quoted, there is a clear rule to govern what happens when a serious sinner is unrepentant and that is described at 1 Cor.5:11. Now, how individuals are to balance the respecting of a judicial decision with the aim of gaining a brother against any scriptural requirements to discharge familial responsibility is definitely for those individuals to decide.

There are guidelines on specific situations, as per km 8/02. Other balancing factors not included in your listing are provided by Jesus at Matt.10:37 and Lu.14:26. Considered counsel from competent older men might be helpful. Careful weighing of effects on the conscience of others in the congregation, mature or otherwise, would also need to be factored in of course. But in the end, the decisions on specific situations rest with the individuals involved.

Regarding the effectiveness of such a disciplinary measure, let us not forget that in respect of the actual case prompting Paul's instruction to the Corinthians, the necessary reaction in the case of the sinner was produced in that repentance was demonstrated and restoration accomplished. (2Cor.2:6-11).  

3 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

Sadly, I can’t remember no one in the line the Watchtower described, expulsed persons reacting favorably to the cessation of deals.

This I find a bit confusing. Are you saying you have never been involved in a reinstatement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
12 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

This I find a bit confusing. Are you saying you have never been involved in a reinstatement?

It’s my fault. My English level is less than acceptable. What I was trying to say has to do with the fine experiences in some Watchtower articles, indicating that some expulsed persons, in seeing their families had cut off all their relationship, this had contributed to move them to come back to the congregation.

Without any doubt this has been true in many cases, what I personally have seen is, rather, bitterness and resentment for this measure.

Eoin, I fully agree with your statement:

  • ·        “There are guidelines on specific situations, as per km 8/02. Other balancing factors not included in your listing are provided by Jesus at Matt.10:37 and Lu.14:26. Considered counsel from competent older men might be helpful. Careful weighing of effects on the conscience of others in the congregation, mature or otherwise, would also need to be factored in of course. But in the end, the decisions on specific situations rest with the individuals involved.”

And, we are both fully in line with the biblical arrangement of expulsion. The reasons for this and the resulting benefits. But, as in many other things, “the devil is in the details”. Regarding our issue about disfellowshipped relatives, I’ve seen the situation mentioned in the next quote:

  • ·        *** w81 9/15 p. 30 par. 19 *** “In our area some disfellowshiped ones with large families have been met, as they enter the lobby of the Kingdom Hall, with a fanfare of backslapping and handshaking (even though the disfellowshiped one was known by them to be still living immorally). I feel a deep concern that those who have been disfellowshiped need to see that their course is hated by Jehovah and by his people and that they should feel a real need to become genuinely repentant. What will help these disfellowshiped ones to change when they are continually greeted by all in their large families who know of their practices?”

Obviously, this is not fair. But (this is my personal experience, perhaps in other areas is different) I’ve seen a lot more in the opposite direction: elders eagerly watching any approach between parents and sons and daughters when some of them are disfellowshipped. And then, warning the brothers with removal of privileges, adding in this way more pain to the already painful situation.

DISCHARGIN 1 Cor 5

In my previous post, I didn’t mention what I think is the real “load” or meaning in this part of the known verse:

  • ·        (1 Co 5:11) “But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother…”

I think the more basic meaning about the “anyone called a brother” sentence is simple. This man was a false brother, his behavior showed this. In spite of any affirmation in the sense that he was a brother, he wasn’t. So, the emphasis, the load, the charge, perhaps should be the BEHAVIOR of anyone in the congregation.

I think that in our literature, when we address the theme about disfellowshipping, we emphasized the “anyone” word, in the sense that It doesn’t matter if the person expulsed is my relative, I should treat it as such, as expulsed. The emphasis is, then, the WHO.

Finally, there is another possibility. To place the emphasis in the “called a brother” sentence. As I’ll try to prove, the “charge” would pass to the TIME factor. Let’s see.

YOU ARE DISFELLOWSHIPPED NOW AND FOR EVER

These are real situations. Persons are expulsed from us, perhaps when they were young ones. Over time, they get married, have children, and they behave more or less as any another person in the community. Now, time goes by. One year, five… decades. It doesn’t matter, they are disfellowshipped people. You can’t consider them as any not Christian neighbor you say hello in the elevator. Yes, perhaps you’re not going to fraternize with non-Christian neighbors, but you can salute them. Not to these persons.

And, what make this worst, in my opinion, is the fact I’ve personally seen, and the question on this post. The way this affects to the parents and fleshly brothers of this person. They are bound to maintain the deals at the minimum expression for decades.

And here it comes 1 Cor 5:11 to our rescue! The “called a brother” sentence and its TIME factor. If I’m expulsed ten, twenty, thirty (I have a case in my former congregation of more than 40 years)… am I still being considered or seen by others as “brother” or ex-brother? Why, then treat me as such?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

.

All of the discussions above are rational, reasonable, and make common sense .... on both sides ... and THIS is why the Russians, who are VERY VERY family oriented ... are about to expel all Jehovah's Witnesses from their lands .... because even by standards made common by the old Soviet Union ... what we do is petulent, cruel, unreasonable, unfair, and makes no sense whatsoever IN THE WAY IT IS DOGMATICALLY APPLIED.

It creates hatred born of self-defense, and destroys families !

The accusation they make against us is "Extremism".

And just like the Pharisees of old who HAD the law, and mis-applied it ... the shoe fits.

If we are expelled from the Russian Federation, it will be BECAUSE WE DESERVE IT.

.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
On 2/17/2017 at 6:50 AM, ComfortMyPeople said:
  • ·        (Mat 18:17) “If he does not listen even to the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector”.
  • ·        (1 Co 5:11-13) “But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is […] not even eating with such a man. “Remove the wicked person from among yourselves”.
  • ·        (Titus 3:10)  “As for a man who promotes a sect, reject him after a first and a second admonition”
  • ·        (1 Ti 1:20) “Hymenaeus and Alexander are among these, and I have handed them over to Satan so that they may be taught
  • ·        (2 Jo 10, 11) “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him.  For the one who says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works. t by discipline not to blaspheme”.

I believe the problem is completely resolved by the Bible itself. You gave several examples of the ways in which situations either become an kind of announcement that we are fanatics, or that we have no natural affection, or that situations are created where we would need pharisaic rules to deal with all the many different possibilities. And I agree that many do come back after disfellowshipping, but that's just as much due to a method that any psychiatrist knows is the same as emotional blackmail. The combination of emotional blackmail, guilt, and personal ego, end up playing as much of a role as spiritual concern. There is also the factor of how humans love to judge and love the feeling of superiority and self-rightousness that they get through judging. The opportunity to shun a disfellowshipped person is something that some might even gloat about to themselves. 

(Luke 18:11) . . .The Pharisee stood and began to pray these things to himself, ‘O God, I thank you that I am not like everyone else—extortioners, unrighteous, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 
 

Yet, the Israelites were given a law that supposedly provides the foundation for the Christian practice of expelling someone from the congregation. I don't think we are starting in the right place if we think like this. We need to start with the words of Jesus himself. Remember that it was Jesus who said that expelling one's wife for any reason was a concession that Moses gave due to their hard hearts.

(Matthew 19:7, 8) . . .They said to him: “Why, then, did Moses direct giving a certificate of dismissal and divorcing her?” 8 He said to them: “Out of regard for your hard-heartedness, Moses made the concession to you of divorcing your wives, but that has not been the case from the beginning. 
 

But Jesus did not preach that we should have hard hearts. The Jewish law said that there was to be no punishment for a man who beat his slave to death as long as the slave suffered for more than one day before dying. (Exodus 21:20, 21)  The Jewish law allowed for the beating of children with a literal rod. The Jewish law allowed for chopping off hands and gouging out eyes and knocking out teeth.

But now we have a different kind of law that is written on our hearts. The entire law itself can be summed up in just a few words:

(Matthew 22:37-40) . . .“‘You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.’ 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 The second, like it, is this: ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, and the Prophets.” (Also, Luke 10:28)  . . .  keep doing this and you will get life.”

(John 15:17)  “These things I command you, that you love one another.

(Romans 13:8-10) . . .Do not owe anything to anyone except to love one another; for whoever loves his fellow man has fulfilled the law. 9 . . . whatever other commandment there is, is summed up in this saying: “You must love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does not work evil to one’s neighbor; therefore, love is the law’s fulfillment.

(Galatians 5:14) . . .For the entire Law has been fulfilled in one commandment, namely: “You must love your neighbor as yourself.”

 (1 Timothy 1:5) . . .Really, the objective of this instruction is love out of a clean heart and out of a good conscience and out of faith without hypocrisy. 

(James 2:7, 8) . . .Do they not blaspheme the fine name by which you were called? 8 If, now, you carry out the royal law according to the scripture, “You must love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing quite well. 

(Matthew 7:12) 12 “All things, therefore, that you want men to do to you, you also must do to them. This, in fact, is what the Law and the Prophets mean.
 

So I think we need to keep that primary point from all those verses in mind, when we try to understand what was going on in the earliest Christian congregations. So I'll give it a try: 

  1. Matthew 18:7 as you quoted above says that the "expelled" person becomes just like a man of the nations and a tax collector. In other words, they are no longer thought of as "family" (brothers) or as "someone related to us in the faith." But they are now just like everyone else in the world that we generally might avoid except when necessary to speak with hospitably, or do business with. But does this refer to a temporary or a final situation? Of course, Jesus set the perfect example by associating with tax collectors, and spoke with persons who rejected him. Ideally, a person of the nations would be someone that we would continue to see as our neighbor. Within months after this comment by Jesus in Matthew 18, people of the nations would now be desired to join with them again as those related to them in the faith. Also note that Jesus used the same pairing of "tax collectors" and "people of the nations" in the following way:
    • (Matthew 5:43-48) 43 “You heard that it was said: ‘You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 However, I say to you: Continue to love your enemies and to pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may prove yourselves sons of your Father who is in the heavens, since he makes his sun rise on both the wicked and the good and makes it rain on both the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 For if you love those loving you, what reward do you have? Are not also the tax collectors doing the same thing? 47 And if you greet your brothers only, what extraordinary thing are you doing? Are not also the people of the nations doing the same thing? 48 You must accordingly be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
  2.  When we consider the logistics of disfellowshipping in the first century congregations, we should remember that some met in homes where the social consideration of hospitality was the key, where one could invite many people in, but if you were not invited you would not dare to "invade" the house. The size of the houses of most Christians would probably result in a much closer, more intimate atmosphere, and were probably usually timed to include the meal, with an exception made for the Memorial celebration. Therefore, if a person was invited in, it would be quite impossible not to associate in a close and friendly manner, which might provide the reason that some would not be invited into the house, "not even eating with such a one." Note this situation at Matthew's house (which may have been bigger than average, of course):
    • (Matthew 9:10-13) . . .Later as he was dining in the house, look! many tax collectors and sinners came and began dining with Jesus and his disciples. 11 But on seeing this, the Pharisees said to his disciples: “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” 12 Hearing them, he said: “Healthy people do not need a physician, but those who are ill do. 13 Go, then, and learn what this means: ‘I want mercy, and not sacrifice.’ . . .
  3. As congregations began to use larger facilities, people could just come through the door and take a seat:
    • (1 Corinthians 14:23) . . .So if the whole congregation comes together to one place and they all speak in tongues, but ordinary people or unbelievers come in, will they not say that you have lost your minds? 
    • (James 2:2, 3) . . .For if a man with gold rings on his fingers and in splendid clothing comes into your meeting, but a poor man in filthy clothing also enters, 3 do you look with favor on the one wearing the splendid clothing and say, “You take this seat here in a fine place,” and do you say to the poor one, “You keep standing” or, “Take that seat there under my footstool”? 
  4. With those last two points in mind, now think about a key point that is rarely, if ever, explained according to the context. It's the point about the "rebuke given by the majority:" 
    • (2 Corinthians 2:5-11) 5 Now if anyone has caused sadness, he has saddened, not me, but all of you to an extent—not to be too harsh in what I say. 6 This rebuke given by the majority is sufficient for such a man; 7 now you should instead kindly forgive and comfort him, so that he may not be overwhelmed by excessive sadness. 8 I therefore exhort you to confirm your love for him. 9 For this is also why I wrote to you: to determine whether you would give proof of your obedience in all things. 10 If you forgive anyone for anything, I do also. In fact, whatever I have forgiven (if I have forgiven anything) has been for your sake in Christ’s sight, 11 so that we may not be overreached by Satan, for we are not ignorant of his designs.
  5. The interesting point here in 2 Cor 2:5-11 is that the context is about how Paul says that "we [Paul and fellow apostles, we could assume] are not masters [governors] over your faith." (1:23-2:4) Paul says that he expects that most would agree with him in the matter of forgiveness, and that this is why he mentioned the word "obedience" (see verse 9). I think this should remind us that there would be certain situations where Paul might expect everyone to agree but that this might also mean that everyone was NOT always expected to agree. In fact Paul had already dealt with this same idea of how not everyone would be in agreement with direction that came from letters from Paul:
    • (2 Thessalonians 3:14, 15) 14 But if anyone is not obedient to our word through this letter, keep this one marked and stop associating with him, so that he may become ashamed. 15 And yet do not consider him an enemy, but continue admonishing him as a brother.

In 2 Thessalonians, the issue was withdrawing from those who were walking disorderly (3:6) and not in agreement with the instructions given by Paul in this same letter which we now know is inspired Scripture (and by extension, any apostles with the same authority to instruct). 

There is never any talk about the specific amount of time that goes by between giving a rebuke for an offense by withdrawing our hospitality and when the person is received back. A rebuke has nothing to do with trying to judge whether the person is repentant, or how much time had gone by. A rebuke can be a one-time thing. Perhaps it was never up to the elders to judge repentance. Perhaps it was not up to the elders at all, but was a matter of every individual's conscience, after hearing the instruction and guidance that Paul gave. (And no doubt the elders would provide good guidance based on showing the same spirit Paul was showing and which he made clear in his letters.) But these things give us the idea that it was still up to each individual as to whether they might agree with the need to withdraw their hospitality. That's the most likely reason, I'd think, that Paul would speak of the "rebuke of the majority." It could also mean that by the time that a majority of people in the congregation had heard about it and had an opportunity to indicate to the wrongdoer that they were now aware of his or her wrongdoing. If either case, this could just as well be something that was over and done with in a matter of a week or so, or however long it took for a majority of the members to learn of the problem. Also on this matter of timing, some were evidently too willing to continue their withdrawal of hospitality without considering the sadness of the person affected. So Paul had to remind them.

And Paul wasn't all that concerned with the fact that not every conscience would be in agreement, even when Paul knew he was right, and that he was giving the correct counsel for the situation. Paul was writing a letter that was inspired scripture (2 Thess) and he said to continue admonishing someone as a brother if they decided not to follow those instructions. How often do we hear anything like that from any of the governing authorities of religions today?  And they aren't even apostles, and are not even inspired.

It wasn't specifically about whether they were "repentant" but whether they were still practicing the wrongdoing:

(1 Corinthians 5:9, 10) 9 In my letter I wrote you to stop keeping company with sexually immoral people, 10 not meaning entirely with the sexually immoral people of this world or the greedy people or extortioners or idolaters. Otherwise, you would actually have to get out of the world.
 

And the other idea from the verse is that the persons they withdraw from are not entirely out of their lives, otherwise they would have to get out of the world, but that they would not mix with them in a friendly hospitable manner as if they were sharing with them in an approving way regarding their conduct.

The point from 2 John about not even saying a greeting is similar, but appears to be taking it even a bit farther because of a specific, dangerous teaching that there never was a real Jesus on the earth. What reason would Christians have to be friendly and hospitable with this person. It was the most insidious teaching that the entire religion was based on a lie. That all of this was being made up by liars and impostors. We might expect that after the apostles died out, but as long as the apostles were alive, they knew that this was the most dangerous of all teachings when all the eye-witnesses of Jesus were dead. The testimony of eye-witnesses and the writings of the literate associates of those eye-witnesses is the very basis for what would be accepted as Christian Scripture. That verse, according to 2 John applies only to that particular form of apostasy or falsehood where Jesus himself is being denied:

(1 John 2:22) . . .Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.

(2 John 7-10) 7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8 Look out for yourselves, so that you do not lose the things we have worked to produce, but that you may obtain a full reward. 9 Everyone who pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God. The one who does remain in this teaching is the one who has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

I was trying to comment under JTR Jr comments

22 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

. what we do is petulent, cruel, unreasonable, unfair, and makes no sense whatsoever IN THE WAY IT IS DOGMATICALLY APPLIED.

 

Hello JTR Jr

Yes, “devil is in the details”.

As always, your comments are full of vivid feelings reflecting your worry about injustice. I personally ignore if our position regarding disfellowshipping has to do with the hate Russian authorities have against us. Certainly, the world under the wicked one hates us, this is true, but you’re right in mentioning that, sometimes, we add to this hate.

For example, when I was a child I learnt the truth without my parents. I grow up alone as JW. As soon I learnt about idols I took some family photos, scissors and I just left the heads, removing medals, crosses and other religious symbols. Well, obviously, I “won persecution” for myself. But this persecution wasn’t for defending the truth, but for my fanatical behavior.

In the same way, perhaps some sufferings we’re experiencing could have its roots in some dogmatic position. I repeat, JTR Jr, I have no reason to think this is the case in Russia.

Regarding we’re reflecting some pharisaic attitude… well, this deserves a complete new topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
8 hours ago, JW Insider said:

There is never any talk about the specific amount of time that goes by between giving a rebuke for an offense by withdrawing our hospitality and when the person is received back.

Thanks JWI to take the time for your extended answer, as always with quite interesting points. Above all, I wish to focus my concerns, my worries:

·        1. I’m afraid that our present position about disfellowshipped relatives are based in a way of interpreting some passages that violates many important Bible principles.

 

·        2. The idea that, my behavior when a disfellowshipped relative is living under my roof should change when the same relative is living by his means has no biblical basis, no one verse could be pointed out to support this division -without extending (forcing) its meaning-.

·        3. I think that, to consider a person as disfellowshipped regardless of the length of the elapsed time, violates the sentence (1Co 5:11) “...with anyone called a brother”, because no one in the community could call as a brother whom leave the congregations years, decades ago. And if this is so, to force parents, children and other close relatives to cut off their relation for so long is, simply, cruel.

All other principles you, JWI have mention are indeed very valid. But at this moment, the above three ideas consume me. If someone could help me to think I am wrong, he or she would make me very happy, because as elder I’m continuously living with this kind of contradictions. I mean, to teach and defend a position that personally don’t believe is the best one (is it correct in English: “falling between two stools”). But, as I’ve mention many other times, I obey to the “slave”.

What I do is trying to charge more one side over the other. For example, this real situation in my previous congregation (I’ve mention about the sister before).

A sister has a young son about 25years old. When this young man was on working trips, the mother used to phone him to care about his well-being (you know, mothers). Now, he’s disfellowshipped, leaves the home, and other elders in the congregation inform her about the necessity to cut off any contact. She gets depressed. My wife and me, when visiting her and she explains her sorrows, I simply said:

  • ·        “Dear sister X, imagine (yes, it isn’t going to happen!) that your loved son perishes in this trip and you haven’t phone him, would not you feel terribly wrong?

In this way, I try to accommodate the SPIRIT of God’s Word and the LETTER of the GB instructions *** km 8/02 p. 4 par. 9 *** “It might be possible to have almost no contact at all with the relative. Even if there were some family matters requiring contact, this certainly would be kept to a minimum

By the way, our sister wasn’t allowed to be pioneer. But she is very happy serving Jehovah and, at the same time showing “natural affection” to her son.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
55 minutes ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

1. I’m afraid that our present position about disfellowshipped relatives are based in a way of interpreting some passages that violates many important Bible principles.

Sorry about the long post. I didn't even get to some of the things I wanted to say. But what I had hoped to do is show that we can't avoid interpreting, and it's always our "foundational" views that color just how we interpret them.

I didn't want to make too much of the distinction between relatives in the flesh and relatives in the faith, because we are all brothers, and that expression should truly mean what it sounds like: that all of us are relatives, now. 

I think that our "foundational" views that color our interpretation are from the Mosaic Law, and based specifically on how nearly we can get to the harshness of that Law. We interpret by first considering the "sacrifice" side of the legal equation, and not the "mercy" side. I'm sure you already know it but our foundation for interpretation is easily seen by one of the first discussions of disfellowshipped relatives in the Watchtower. It first reminds us that we are not allowed to kill our disfellowshipped children because the law of the land forbids it:

*** w52 11/15 p. 703 Questions From Readers ***
In the case of where a father or mother or son or daughter is disfellowshiped, how should such person be treated by members of the family in their family relationship?—P. C., Ontario, Canada.
We are not living today among theocratic nations where such members of our fleshly family relationship could be exterminated for apostasy from God and his theocratic organization, as was possible and was ordered in the nation of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai and in the land of Palestine. “Thou shalt surely kill him; thy hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him to death with stones, because he hath sought to draw thee away from Jehovah thy God, . . . ”—Deut. 13:6-11, AS.
Being limited by the laws of the worldly nation in which we live and also by the laws of God through Jesus Christ, we can take action against apostates only to a certain extent, that is, consistent with both sets of laws. The law of the land and God’s law through Christ forbid us to kill apostates, even though they be members of our own flesh-and-blood family relationship. However, God’s law requires us to recognize their being disfellowshiped from his congregation, and this despite the fact that the law of the land in which we live requires us under some natural obligation to live with and have dealings with such apostates under the same roof.

 

The rest of the article showed some additional cases where the law of the land and/or God's law requires certain types of contact with relatives. For example: not being able to throw minors out of the house, not being able to divorce due to disfellowshipping/apostasy, marriage partners living and eating under the same roof, etc. 

*** w52 11/15 p. 703 Questions From Readers ***
God’s law does not allow a marriage partner to dismiss his mate because his mate becomes disfellowshiped or apostatizes. Neither will the law of the land in most cases allow a divorce to be granted on such grounds. The faithful believer and the apostate or disfellowshiped mate must legally continue to live together and render proper marriage dues one to the other. A father may not legally dismiss his minor child from his household because of apostasy or disfellowshiping, and a minor child or children may not abandon their father or their mother just because he becomes unfaithful to God and his theocratic organization. The parent must by laws of God and of man fulfill his parental obligations to the child or children as long as they are dependent minors, and the child or children must render filial submission to the parent as long as legally underage or as long as being without parental consent to depart from the home. Of course, if the children are of age, then there can be a departing and breaking of family ties in a physical way, because the spiritual ties have already snapped.

 

Because of cases mentioned such as these certain verses are said not to apply, which appears to be the correct interpretation: 

*** w52 11/15 p. 704 Questions From Readers ***
Because of being in close, indissoluble natural family ties and being of the same household under the one roof you may have to eat material food and live physically with that one at home, in which case 1 Corinthians 5:9-11 and 2 John 10 could not apply; but do not defeat the purpose of the congregation’s disfellowship order by eating spiritual or religious food with such one or receiving such one favorably in a religious way and bidding him farewell with a wish for his prosperity in his apostate course.

 

When the Watchtower said: "we can take action against apostates only to a certain extent, that is, consistent with both sets of laws" it gives away the foundation. We are looking for the extent of "sacrifice" that is possible, not the necessary minimum. We are not looking for loopholes to show how much mercy is possible.

I suspect that Percy Chapman (the branch servant in Ontario) wrote this question so that Fred Franz could submit the answer with an already written article. I have no evidence in this case, but I saw evidence in the 1970's that something like this was done for other other QFR's. So it's a bit difficult for me not to read between the lines and see the attitude of Fred Franz coming through. I could just see him giving a talk on he subject and adding "perhaps if we lived in Saudi Arabia" to that first paragraph. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I think that our "foundational" views that color our interpretation are from the Mosaic Law, and based specifically on how nearly we can get to the harshness of that Law. We interpret by first considering the "sacrifice" side of the legal equation, and not the "mercy" side.

THERE WAS AN ATTEMPT

JWI, what a pity that I have to give you the reason!

When we, the JW established the expelling arrangement we put an emphasis in Moses Law that scares, as you’ve quoted:

  • ·        *** w52 11/15 p. 703 Questions From Readers *** In the case of where a father or mother or son or daughter is disfellowshiped, how should such person be treated by members of the family in their family relationship?—P. C., Ontario, Canada.

  • ·        We are not living today among theocratic nations where such members of our fleshly family relationship could be exterminated for apostasy from God and his theocratic organization, as was possible and was ordered in the nation of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai and in the land of Palestine. “Thou shalt surely kill him; thy hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him to death with stones, because he hath sought to draw thee away from Jehovah thy God, . . . And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is in the midst of thee.”—Deut. 13:6-11, AS.

  • ·        Being limited by the laws of the worldly nation in which we live and also by the laws of God through Jesus Christ, we can take action against apostates only to a certain extent, that is, consistent with both sets of laws. The law of the land and God’s law through Christ forbid us to kill apostates, even though they be members of our own flesh-and-blood family relationship. However, God’s law requires us to recognize their being disfellowshiped from his congregation, and this despite the fact that the law of the land in which we live requires us under some natural obligation to live with and have dealings with such apostates under the same roof

Yes, the spirt behind these lines was “what a pity, we can’t stone these persons”. Also, the irony in your last line “perhaps if we lived in Saudi Arabia”, sadly, I think that also fits.

What results there were with this kind of spirit? In 1974, about 22 years later, the Watchtower gave us a clue:

  • ·        *** w74 8/1 p. 467 par. 6 Maintaining a Balanced Viewpoint Toward Disfellowshiped Ones ***

  • ·        Congregational elders, as well as individual members of a congregation, therefore, ought to guard against developing an attitude approaching that which some Jewish rabbinical writers fomented toward Gentiles in viewing them as virtual enemies.

  • ·        But consider a less extreme situation. What if a woman who had been disfellowshiped were to attend a congregational meeting and upon leaving the hall found that her car, parked nearby, had developed a flat tire? Should the male members of the congregation, seeing her plight, refuse to aid her, perhaps leaving it up to some worldly person to come along and do so? This too would be needlessly unkind and inhumane. Yet situations just like this has developed, perhaps in all good conscience, yet due to a lack of balance in viewpoint”

I know someone will cry: “the fault is in the brotherhood, not in the ‘slave class’ on charge of teaching”. As a contrast, in this very article THERE WAS AN ATTEMPT in the direction of mercy:

  • ·        *** w74 8/1 p. 471 par. 21 *** As to disfellowshiped family members (not minor sons or daughters) living outside the home, each family must decide to what extent they will have association with such ones. This is not something that the congregational elders can decide for them. What the elders are concerned with is that “leaven” is not reintroduced into the congregation through spiritual fellowshiping with those who had to be removed as such “leaven.” Thus, if a disfellowshiped parent goes to visit a son or daughter or to see grandchildren and is allowed to enter the Christian home, this is not the concern of the elders. Such a one has a natural right to visit his blood relatives and his offspring. Similarly, when sons or daughters render honor to a parent, though disfellowshiped, by calling to see how such a one’s physical health is or what needs he or she may have, this act in itself is not a spiritual fellowshiping.

 

Sadly, as some problems arose due this article, in the sense that in some congregations relatives attending meetings exchanged greetings with other Christian relatives, a new turn of the screw in the direction of firmness and stiffness came soon:

THE IN/OUT RULE

  • ·        *** w81 9/15 p. 27 par. 8,18-19 If a Relative Is Disfellowshiped *** We need to examine two distinct situations. The first is where a Christian lives in the same household with a disfellowshiped or disassociated family member. The second is where such a relative is not in the immediate family circle.

  • ·        The second situation that we need to consider is that involving a disfellowshiped or disassociated relative who is not in the immediate family circle or living at one’s home. Such a person is still related by blood or marriage, and so there may be some limited need to care for necessary family matters. Nonetheless, it is not as if he were living in the same home where contact and conversation could not be avoided. We should keep clearly in mind the Bible’s inspired direction: “Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person . . . , not even eating with such a man.”—1 Cor. 5:11. Consequently, Christians related to such a disfellowshiped person living outside the home should strive to avoid needless association, even keeping business dealings to a minimum.

And this has been our position since then.

One final thought. I heard once, or read in one of our biographies, a very sound counsel one brother used to say: “if any doubt, better the side of love” or something similar. I hope our GB, someday, will consider again his position regarding this thorny matter. In the meantime, let us continue showing love and mercy to these families.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

And this has been our position since then.

You covered a good portion of what we called the "pendulum swing." That's what I was going to bring up next. I think the general expectation is that we will sooner or later end up, not exactly in the middle of the two extremes, but a little closer to "erring on the side of love." One reason might even be due to concerns with our reputation and legal issues. It's a shame if that's what shames us into no longer using shaming techniques in the same way we have been. But I do know that it is true that when Judah Ben was at the head of the Public Relations department, he admitted that "shunning" was one of the worst policies we had in terms of the way in which it helped create and give a voice to a community of ex-JWs. Ex-JWs could now correctly claim an injustice even when their only reason for not coming back was that they disagreed with specific policies including, ironically, the policy of shunning. 

9 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

·   2.  The idea that, my behavior when a disfellowshipped relative is living under my roof should change when the same relative is living by his means has no biblical basis, no one verse could be pointed out to support this division -without extending (forcing) its meaning-.

·  3. I think that, to consider a person as disfellowshipped regardless of the length of the elapsed time, violates the sentence (1Co 5:11) “...with anyone called a brother”, because no one in the community could call as a brother whom leave the congregations years, decades ago. And if this is so, to force parents, children and other close relatives to cut off their relation for so long is, simply, cruel.

It's of interest that we would notice the contradiction and therefore had to make exceptions for eating with disfellowshipped spouses or minor children. Yet, we would not notice (as quickly) the issues you pointed out, or that what we recommended often contradicted the example of Jehovah and Jesus and the counsel about "showing no natural affection." This does not mean that there is only one definitive way to read the specific expression "anyone called a brother." But in general, overall, I think you are making a correct point.

Personally, I agreed with Judah Ben and also believe that we would be as large as Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists (who started out defining themselves at about the same time) if we had abstained from the shunning policy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It appears to me that this is a key aspect of the 2030 initiative ideology. While the Rothschilds were indeed influential individuals who were able to sway governments, much like present-day billionaires, the true impetus for change stems from the omnipotent forces (Satan) shaping our world. In this case, there is a false God of this world. However, what drives action within a political framework? Power! What is unfolding before our eyes in today's world? The relentless struggle for power. The overwhelming tide of people rising. We cannot underestimate the direct and sinister influence of Satan in all of this. However, it is up to individuals to decide how they choose to worship God. Satanism, as a form of religion, cannot be regarded as a true religion. Consequently, just as ancient practices of child sacrifice had a place in God's world, such sacrifices would never be accepted by the True God of our universe. Despite the promising 2030 initiative for those involved, it is unfortunately disintegrating due to the actions of certain individuals in positions of authority. A recent incident serves as a glaring example, involving a conflict between peaceful Muslims and a Jewish representative that unfolded just this week. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/11/us-delegation-saudi-arabia-kippah?ref=upstract.com Saudi Arabia was among the countries that agreed to the initiative signed by approximately 179 nations in or around 1994. However, this initiative is now being undermined by the devil himself, who is sowing discord among the delegates due to the ongoing Jewish-Hamas (Palestine) conflict. Fostering antisemitism. What kind of sacrifice does Satan accept with the death of babies and children in places like Gaza, Ukraine, and other conflicts around the world, whether in the past or present, that God wouldn't? Whatever personal experiences we may have had with well-known individuals, true Christians understand that current events were foretold long ago, and nothing can prevent them from unfolding. What we are witnessing is the result of Satan's wrath upon humanity, as was predicted. A true religion will not involve itself in the politics of this world, as it is aware of the many detrimental factors associated with such engagement. It understands the true intentions of Satan for this world and wisely chooses to stay unaffected by them.
    • This idea that Satan can put Jews in power implies that God doesn't want Jews in power. But that would also imply that God only wants "Christians" including Hitler, Biden, Pol Pot, Chiang Kai-Shek, etc. 
    • @Mic Drop, I don't buy it. I watched the movie. It has all the hallmarks of the anti-semitic tropes that began to rise precipitously on social media during the last few years - pre-current-Gaza-war. And it has similarities to the same anti-semitic tropes that began to rise in Europe in the 900's to 1100's. It was back in the 500s AD/CE that many Khazars failed to take or keep land they fought for around what's now Ukraine and southern Russia. Khazars with a view to regaining power were still being driven out into the 900's. And therefore they migrated to what's now called Eastern Europe. It's also true that many of their groups converted to Judaism after settling in Eastern Europe. It's possibly also true that they could be hired as mercenaries even after their own designs on empire had dwindled.  But I think the film takes advantage of the fact that so few historical records have ever been considered reliable by the West when it comes to these regions. So it's easy to fill the vacuum with some very old antisemitic claims, fables, rumors, etc..  The mention of Eisenhower in the movie was kind of a giveaway, too. It's like, Oh NO! The United States had a Jew in power once. How on earth could THAT have happened? Could it be . . . SATAN??" Trying to tie a connection back to Babylonian Child Sacrifice Black Magick, Secret Satanism, and Baal worship has long been a trope for those who need to think that no Jews like the Rothschilds and Eisenhowers (????) etc would not have been able to get into power in otherwise "Christian" nations without help from Satan.    Does child sacrifice actually work to gain power?? Does drinking blood? Does pedophilia??? (also mentioned in the movie) Yes, it's an evil world and many people have evil ideologies based on greed and lust and ego. But how exactly does child sacrifice or pedophilia or drinking blood produce a more powerful nation or cabal of some kind? To me that's a giveaway that the authors know that the appeal will be to people who don't really care about actual historical evidence. Also, the author(s) of the video proved that they have not done much homework, but are just trying to fill that supposed knowledge gap by grasping at old paranoid and prejudicial premises. (BTW, my mother and grandmother, in 1941 and 1942, sat next to Dwight Eisenhower's mother at an assembly of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Eisenhower family had been involved in a couple of "Christian" religions and a couple of them associated with IBSA and JWs for many years.)
  • Members

    • lrramey

      lrramey 23

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Pudgy

      Pudgy 2,380

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Anna

      Anna 5,079

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      158.9k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,669
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Miracle Pete
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.