Should JW's punish, disfellowship, or shun members who disagree with certain teachings?

[TrueTomHarley]

Besides,

2 hours ago, Albert Michelson said:

Don't get me started on all the other type and anti-type BS that The organization has pushed on people over the years

they changed that.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

Only because they burst out in laughter while explaining it.

[Albert Michelson]

7 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Besides,

9 hours ago, Albert Michelson said:

Don't get me started on all the other type and anti-type BS that The organization has pushed on people over the years

they changed that.

The 1914 doctrine is a type and anti-type and is the most fundamental doctrine that they have and they have yet to get rid of that.  Oh  and their belief  that Isaiah encouraging the people to return to Jerusalem was a type and the new world that God would establish would be the anti-type.  Oh and that Charles Russell was the anti type of John the Baptist and was the one clearing up the way in Malachi.  I can't think of anymore off the top my head but there are a ton more where Jehovah's Witnesses still have type and anti-type teachings that don't match the Bible whatsoever or that at least require huge leaps of faith with absolutely no evidence to support them.

 Sure they got  rid of most of what Fred Franz had concocted  but they still have a lot left over.

7 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

No. They're not.

Why harp on them, then? Who cares?

 

 The 10 that I listed are fundamental doctrine's but  The long list of unimportant doctrines I don't feel need to be included.  I ended with one example but there's probably a lot more that I can think of.  Oh like how they teach that animals didn't die before Adam and eve sinned even though they accept that the earth is billions of years old and that animal life has been on the planet for much longer than human life.   They don't stress that doctrine but it still is technically what they believe, look up the wt  references to genesis 2:4 

 

 Oh and as far as who cares apparently they do considering the fact that if you don't believe these doctrines you can be cast out of the congregation and shunned by all of your friends and family.  They're especially concerned with the 1914 doctrine for the reasons that I mentioned before.  And you really don't see anything wrong with teaching a false gospel (good news) do you?  In my experience JW's will rationalize everything away.  Well at least we don't teach the Trinity, hellfire, or immortality of the soul

 

[Albert Michelson]

13 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

 Sure they got  rid of most of what Fred Franz had concocted  but they still have a lot left over.

Oh and  I always find it hilarious whenever the organization tries to claim that they've provided wonderful spiritual food throughout the years.  I don't know how anyone examining the material that the organization has produced could in good conscience call it good food. 

[JW Insider]

10 hours ago, Albert Michelson said:

The teaching of Christ's millennial year reign. In reality the Bible says nothing about Jesus ruling for only 1000 years. The scriptures that they point to to support this say that the ones "executed with the ax for the witness they bore to Jesus" would come to live and rule for 1000 years. It is their rule that lasts a millennium not Jesus. Revelation 20:4

FWIW, I think you have at least a partial point on all the other pieces of the puzzle you mentioned. But I'm not sure how you manage the beliefs surrounding Armageddon and the Millennium. I know there are a lot of options, but I was wondering how you work out "next the end, when he hands over the Kingdom to his Father." (1 Cor 15:24)

 

 

[JW Insider]

8 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

they changed that.

For some reason they brought one back. (Malachi 3:1)  I think after realizing that they had demoted Russell from the FDS, they realized they needed him again for some kind of continuity attached to the "Watch Tower" name.

[Albert Michelson]

10 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

FWIW, I think you have at least a partial point on all the other pieces of the puzzle you mentioned. But I'm not sure how you manage the beliefs surrounding Armageddon and the Millennium. I know there are a lot of options, but I was wondering how you work out "next the end, when he hands the Kingdom back to his father." (1 Cor 15:24)

 Sorry I was rushing through my breakdown of some of these things so I didn't explain it very well.  I think you included this in your list of issues with the 1914 teaching but I personally believe that the Bible makes it pretty clear that Jesus took the throne after ascending to heaven  in the first century.  So his rulership continues for an  unspecified amount of time and at some point during that rule the 144,000 would be resurrected  and they would begin to rule with him but only for 1000 years.  So what I was trying to say is that it is their rulership that is only 1000 years not his. 

 Now I know there are some technicalities here because technically the organization teaches that there are two kingdoms.  The whole kingdom of the son of his love thing that they instituted in order to explain how Jesus could have taken kingdom power in the first century and then taken it again in 1914 

[Albert Michelson]

4 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

For some reason they brought one back.

 Yeah I haven't really done a sweep of all the doctrines to see which ones are type and anti-type still but I'm sure there are more than just the three that I listed.

[TrueTomHarley]

31 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

For some reason they brought one back

Maybe they will send it packing again someday.

 

1 hour ago, Albert Michelson said:

They don't stress that doctrine but it still is technically what they believe, look up the wt  references to genesis 2:4 

Come now - it is not a 'doctrine' every time they blow their nose, far less one you have to repeat. 

34 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

Yeah I haven't really done a sweep of all the doctrines to see which ones are type and anti-type still but I'm sure there are more than just the three that I listed.

You get almost as much bang for the buck, with no downside, saying "this reminds us of that." Isn't that a good way to do it, so as not to get certain people going?

It reminds me of when I once conducted the Watchtower Study and one of the titles for the review was 'How would you answer?' I used to point out that one could not go wrong here. Even if you said the most ridiculous thing in the world - well - that is how you would answer.

1 hour ago, Albert Michelson said:

Oh and  I always find it hilarious whenever the organization tries to claim that they've provided wonderful spiritual food throughout the years.  I don't know how anyone examining the material that the organization has produced could in good conscience call it good food. 

It is good food because it makes you nicer over the years. See? Aren't they all nice here?

[Albert Michelson]

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

It is good food because it makes you nicer over the years. See? Aren't they all nice here?

You are, the witnesses telling my wife and I that we're going to die and calling us horrible names because we aren't going to meetings aren't. 

 

23 minutes ago, Nana Fofana said:

some opposers are demagoguing it up -insinuating,

Nope that's not what we say that's strait from the leadership (see picture below)

 

23 minutes ago, Nana Fofana said:

supposedly 'naive' or 'false' claims that it's voluntary,

Um it isn't, not for many at least. And it's just as much an issue of information control and maintaining authority as it is keeping the group "unified".

[Noble Berean]

27 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

You are, the witnesses telling my wife and I that we're going to die and calling us horrible names because we aren't going to meetings aren't. 

That's horrible. I can assure you that many JWs would not do something that insensitive. 

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, Albert Michelson said:

You are, the witnesses telling my wife and I that we're going to die and calling us horrible names because we aren't going to meetings aren't. 

I was actually being facetious. We aren't, in many cases, and that's especially demonstrated online. 

Granted, it is not easy. Online conversations everywhere about anything are seldom more than screamfests. However, I suspect there are some Witnesses who go online because they can dispense with the manners that would get them kicked off the doorstep in a heartbeat.

It is the human condition - certainly not primarily true of Witnesses. it is the same situation as persons 'nice as pie' publicly who let down all restraint at home. Witnesses should be better, for they represent Jehovah - that's all I am saying - and that is not always true.

Again, I backtrack a bit. To some extent this forum is fake news, in that it bills itself as a Witness-friendly site, drawing people in from Twitter (which is how I got here). Whether that is right or wrong, who can say? This is the internet and people can do what they want. But many of our people come aboard under false expectations, rove around a little, discover some poisonous people (not you) who are as in-your-face obnoxious as can be - and they lose it! They reach for the spear like Phinehas, not realizing they leave a permanent online trial. (which is quickly buried, however) 

If they anyone spoke mean to you and your wife, I apologize. Not that it matters that I do, but I do anyway. On the other hand, when my daughter was asked whether one had to be a Witness to survive Armageddon, she said: "Well, I'm not Jesus. And I don't know."