Jump to content

Guest Kurt

How Common is Shunning?

Recommended Posts

Guest Kurt

Is Shunning a Violation of Human Rights?
There is a quote routinely parroted by apostates accusing our organization of "violating" human rights when former members are shunned. Here is the quote they use from Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." - Emphasis Ours.
Basically, they claim that somehow shunning violates their freedom of conscience, thought, and religion. Let us briefly examine why shunning in the way Jehovah's Witnesses practice it does not violate human rights, or Article 18.

Understanding Article 18
To understand if shunning is a violation of Article 18, ask yourself these questions if your association with Jehovah's Witnesses has ended:
"How is shunning preventing me from exercising my freedom of thought and conscience?" 
"How is shunning preventing me from joining another religion?" 
"How is shunning preventing me from expressing or manifesting my beliefs, religious or otherwise, in public or in private"? 
Answering these questions honestly should lead you to the proper conclusion.
Diversionary Propaganda
The only time shunning runs afoul of human rights is when a group uses it to have an effect outside of its own membership. For example, if a group uses it to inflict financial harm or harassment through isolation, calling their employer, blacklisting them with businesses, spreading false rumors, threatening lawsuits or calling the police on them with anonymous phone calls, then it can conflict with human rights. However, former Witnesses have the same freedoms and powers as non-members of civil society. They can join another religion, freely express their opposing views with the public at large, and retain or acquire employment. In fact, once they leave, we have no interest in or concern with them whatsoever. (Heb 6:4-6)

Another factor to consider is that if a person makes it officially known verbally or in writing that he or she no longer wants to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses, they are shunning us, rather than us shunning them. We are obligated to honor this official declaration. Since we did not initiate such action, we cannot be accused of violating their human rights. 

But opposers never present that side. Instead, they focus on the possible effects of shunning in an attempt to distract you from the facts and manipulate how others perceive us. They use emotive, non-neutral language such as: "it breaks up families", "separates children from parents", and "causes emotional torture". While that may happen on the rare, extreme end, those are unintended consequences. How does shunning one member break up an entire family? It does not unless that member is permitted to poison other members against each other. 

Thus if they stick to shunning, it actually prevents family break-ups, as only an apostate's divisiveness and disregard of the shunning arrangement can cause friction in a family. How does it separate children from parents? Former members try to make it look like we kick under-aged children out of our homes, but that is a lie. Since the 1950's, we have made it clear that parents must take care of their children until they are adults by the law of the land, regardless of shunning. (De 6:6, 7; Pr 19:18; 22:6 ;Eph 6:4) Thus only adults are shunned by their parents. Inversely, children of disfellowshipped parents are expected to remain in subjection to their parents until they come of legal age to leave, so long as they are not asked to violate God's word or endanger their lives or their salvation. (Acts 5;29; Col 3:20)

How does it cause emotional torture? It does not. "Torture" implies intent. The only intent to torture emotionally is by the shunned individual when they keep trying to contact their families, knowing the pain they are causing, not only to their families. but to themselves. If they left their families alone, there would be no torture.

Our beliefs and practices

    Hello guest!
before they join. And just because one finds an experience traumatic, that is not necessarily a violation of human rights. For example, to some people, being kicked off a sports team is traumatic, but that does not mean their human rights have been violated. The team's coach has a right to choose who gets to be part of the team.

If you breach company policy and are fired from your job as a result, and you are no longer allowed onto the property, is that a violation of your human rights? Are you somehow being tortured? Just because it is painful does not make it torture.

A person can file a restraining order against a family member, does that mean the person is torturing the family member? Of course not. Just think about why the person needed to file the restraining order in the first place. It is because the family member was either physically dangerous or was harrassing them. We shun in order to keep ones from posing a spiritual danger and because those who leave often try to harass those who stay. It takes only a single internet search to verify this in the thousands of pages posted by our apostates.

The Courts Have Spoken
Though there is no clear violation of human rights, this did not stop Janice Paul from trying to sue us in the United States over the issue of shunning. In 1987, the US Court of Appeals for the 9th District upheld the Witnesses right to shun those who fail to live by the organization's standards and doctrines, upholding the ruling of the lower court.

    Hello guest!

 "Shunning is a practice engaged in by Jehovah's Witnesses pursuant to their interpretation of canonical text, and we are not free to reinterpret that text. . . . We find the practice of shunning not to constitute a sufficient threat to the peace, safety, or morality of the community as to warrant state intervention. . . . the defendants are entitled to the free exercise of their religious beliefs. . . Although we recognize that the harms suffered by Janice Paul are real and not insubstantial, permitting her to recover for intangible or emotional injuries would unconstitutionally restrict the Jehovah's Witnesses free exercise of religion" - Emphasis Ours.
We do not take the difficulties related to shunning lightly, and that is why we offer Witnesses who may be thinking of leaving, or those who break Bible principles, every opportunity to remain in the fold and offer them assistance in dealing with whatever issue they have. But at the end of the day, it is up to them to accept it.

As to the general accusation that Witnesses "break up families", the ECHR (European Court of Human Rights)

    Hello guest!
:
. . . that non-Witness family members often cause conflict by refusing “to accept and to respect their religious relative’s freedom to manifest and practise his or her religion.” - Emphasis ours.
Shunning is a free practice of our religious beliefs as well. As the ECHR stated, it is not so much about the belief itself, its more about respecting our rights to practice them, whether you agree with them or not.

Accept the Consequences
What this really amounts to is the disfellowshipped person's refusal to accept the consequences of their actions. Since they cannot openly dissent against the leadership and live their lives apart from Bible principles while maintaining active membership, they claim that removing them to protect the congregation from their influence is violating their conscience and freedom. However, before becoming a Witness, they agreed to live by the tenets of our beliefs and they agreed to accept the consequences of not doing so. We have the right to decide who can or cannot remain members. Neither the public at large nor former members have the right to tell us who can be members or whether we must communicate with them. That is our choice, not theirs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hehe, Violations of Human Rights is when WT JWorg and their representatives forbid  JW members to exercise their Personal Human Rights and talk, or make social contacts on all levels or to sit and eat and drink if wish, or even say simple "hello" on the street to ex-member. This WT command are with the threat of excommunication, disfellowshiping. If that not be with such extreme consequences many JW members will communicate with ex members. And many of them doing that. I am ex member of JW church and on my glad surprise more JW members find that is all right to speak with me. They "disobey"  WT interpretation on canonic text  but obey their god given Natural conscience instead Artificial "bible learned conscience" that is imposed and runned by WT Corporation.

And as Court say, "their interpretation of canonical text, and we are not free to reinterpret that text. . . ."

Perhaps Court (because of wisdom, ahaha) do not want to involve themselves in endless reasoning about what some bible text mean and how is to be understand. But all other people who want to tell something are Free to tell and comment. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kurt
On 2017-10-06 at 3:59 PM, Kurt said:

Is Shunning a Violation of Human Rights?
There is a quote routinely parroted by apostates accusing our organization of "violating" human rights when former members are shunned. Here is the quote they use from Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." - Emphasis Ours.
Basically, they claim that somehow shunning violates their freedom of conscience, thought, and religion. Let us briefly examine why shunning in the way Jehovah's Witnesses practice it does not violate human rights, or Article 18.

Understanding Article 18
To understand if shunning is a violation of Article 18, ask yourself these questions if your association with Jehovah's Witnesses has ended:
"How is shunning preventing me from exercising my freedom of thought and conscience?" 
"How is shunning preventing me from joining another religion?" 
"How is shunning preventing me from expressing or manifesting my beliefs, religious or otherwise, in public or in private"? 
Answering these questions honestly should lead you to the proper conclusion.
Diversionary Propaganda
The only time shunning runs afoul of human rights is when a group uses it to have an effect outside of its own membership. For example, if a group uses it to inflict financial harm or harassment through isolation, calling their employer, blacklisting them with businesses, spreading false rumors, threatening lawsuits or calling the police on them with anonymous phone calls, then it can conflict with human rights. However, former Witnesses have the same freedoms and powers as non-members of civil society. They can join another religion, freely express their opposing views with the public at large, and retain or acquire employment. In fact, once they leave, we have no interest in or concern with them whatsoever. (Heb 6:4-6)

Another factor to consider is that if a person makes it officially known verbally or in writing that he or she no longer wants to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses, they are shunning us, rather than us shunning them. We are obligated to honor this official declaration. Since we did not initiate such action, we cannot be accused of violating their human rights. 

But opposers never present that side. Instead, they focus on the possible effects of shunning in an attempt to distract you from the facts and manipulate how others perceive us. They use emotive, non-neutral language such as: "it breaks up families", "separates children from parents", and "causes emotional torture". While that may happen on the rare, extreme end, those are unintended consequences. How does shunning one member break up an entire family? It does not unless that member is permitted to poison other members against each other. 

Thus if they stick to shunning, it actually prevents family break-ups, as only an apostate's divisiveness and disregard of the shunning arrangement can cause friction in a family. How does it separate children from parents? Former members try to make it look like we kick under-aged children out of our homes, but that is a lie. Since the 1950's, we have made it clear that parents must take care of their children until they are adults by the law of the land, regardless of shunning. (De 6:6, 7; Pr 19:18; 22:6 ;Eph 6:4) Thus only adults are shunned by their parents. Inversely, children of disfellowshipped parents are expected to remain in subjection to their parents until they come of legal age to leave, so long as they are not asked to violate God's word or endanger their lives or their salvation. (Acts 5;29; Col 3:20)

How does it cause emotional torture? It does not. "Torture" implies intent. The only intent to torture emotionally is by the shunned individual when they keep trying to contact their families, knowing the pain they are causing, not only to their families. but to themselves. If they left their families alone, there would be no torture.

Our beliefs and practices

    Hello guest!
before they join. And just because one finds an experience traumatic, that is not necessarily a violation of human rights. For example, to some people, being kicked off a sports team is traumatic, but that does not mean their human rights have been violated. The team's coach has a right to choose who gets to be part of the team.

If you breach company policy and are fired from your job as a result, and you are no longer allowed onto the property, is that a violation of your human rights? Are you somehow being tortured? Just because it is painful does not make it torture.

A person can file a restraining order against a family member, does that mean the person is torturing the family member? Of course not. Just think about why the person needed to file the restraining order in the first place. It is because the family member was either physically dangerous or was harrassing them. We shun in order to keep ones from posing a spiritual danger and because those who leave often try to harass those who stay. It takes only a single internet search to verify this in the thousands of pages posted by our apostates.

The Courts Have Spoken
Though there is no clear violation of human rights, this did not stop Janice Paul from trying to sue us in the United States over the issue of shunning. In 1987, the US Court of Appeals for the 9th District upheld the Witnesses right to shun those who fail to live by the organization's standards and doctrines, upholding the ruling of the lower court.

    Hello guest!

 "Shunning is a practice engaged in by Jehovah's Witnesses pursuant to their interpretation of canonical text, and we are not free to reinterpret that text. . . . We find the practice of shunning not to constitute a sufficient threat to the peace, safety, or morality of the community as to warrant state intervention. . . . the defendants are entitled to the free exercise of their religious beliefs. . . Although we recognize that the harms suffered by Janice Paul are real and not insubstantial, permitting her to recover for intangible or emotional injuries would unconstitutionally restrict the Jehovah's Witnesses free exercise of religion" - Emphasis Ours.
We do not take the difficulties related to shunning lightly, and that is why we offer Witnesses who may be thinking of leaving, or those who break Bible principles, every opportunity to remain in the fold and offer them assistance in dealing with whatever issue they have. But at the end of the day, it is up to them to accept it.

As to the general accusation that Witnesses "break up families", the ECHR (European Court of Human Rights)

    Hello guest!
:
. . . that non-Witness family members often cause conflict by refusing “to accept and to respect their religious relative’s freedom to manifest and practise his or her religion.” - Emphasis ours.
Shunning is a free practice of our religious beliefs as well. As the ECHR stated, it is not so much about the belief itself, its more about respecting our rights to practice them, whether you agree with them or not.

Accept the Consequences
What this really amounts to is the disfellowshipped person's refusal to accept the consequences of their actions. Since they cannot openly dissent against the leadership and live their lives apart from Bible principles while maintaining active membership, they claim that removing them to protect the congregation from their influence is violating their conscience and freedom. However, before becoming a Witness, they agreed to live by the tenets of our beliefs and they agreed to accept the consequences of not doing so. We have the right to decide who can or cannot remain members. Neither the public at large nor former members have the right to tell us who can be members or whether we must communicate with them. That is our choice, not theirs.

    Hello guest!

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/6/2017 at 9:59 AM, Kurt said:

To understand if shunning is a violation of Article 18, ask yourself these questions if your association with Jehovah's Witnesses has ended:
"How is shunning preventing me from exercising my freedom of thought and conscience?" 
"How is shunning preventing me from joining another religion?" 
"How is shunning preventing me from expressing or manifesting my beliefs, religious or otherwise, in public or in private"? 

Of course it doesn't apply to the one whose association has ended. They can do what they like obviously since they are no longer bound by the rules of the congregation.

But rephrase it to say "....ask yourself these questions if you are an active member of Jehovah's Witnesses" and see whether the prospect of shunning has an impact on your answers.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kurt said:

Accept the Consequences
What this really amounts to is the disfellowshipped person's refusal to accept the consequences of their actions. Since they cannot openly dissent against the leadership and live their lives apart from Bible principles while maintaining active membership, they claim that removing them to protect the congregation from their influence is violating their conscience and freedom. However, before becoming a Witness, they agreed to live by the tenets of our beliefs and they agreed to accept the consequences of not doing so. We have the right to decide who can or cannot remain members. Neither the public at large nor former members have the right to tell us who can be members or whether we must communicate with them. That is our choice, not theirs.

Very true. But what I find the problem is, is when someone no longer wishes to be a Witness after they have been dfd and after they are no longer practicing what they've been dfd for, so of course there is no chance of them being reinstated, which means they will be shunned forever with all it's implications (loved ones will not talk to them ever again)....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Anna said:

Ask any parent whose child (adult or otherwise) is disfellowshipped.

I know some JW members (family) with very sad experience. Family with few children. Parents are divorced. One parent stayed   with 4 minor children. The oldest was baptized in age of 6 as i recall. Then with time all other children was baptized but also in young teenage age. First child was df about in time of high school. Stayed under same roof, but  rest of "faithful" members reduce very much contacts. Elders made pressure on family to throw df child out of home. And child was gone after some time. One by one rest of children was also left JWorg. In one moment while they was been member of cong. elders made pressure and rebuke all them because they (children) spend few days in summer time with their df father. After such emotional torture of elders one minor kid cut vein on hands and must be hospitalized. After that "last drop" for her young mind and emotions, all went down. She is "damaged". And no one of elders take responsibility for her "soul".      

Is that good material for Court? Is that violation of Human Rights that was made under/because of Church Rules and Policy? Is it possible to separate so called "religious, doctrinal interpretations of Bible text" with "rules and instructions made by JW Clergy, Priesthood" vs Natural Law vs Secular Law?  

WT JWorg are private Company in the very core, in essence. And as such been legalized in various country as Company, Charity Society or similar entities. As such is under some General Law and Acts. Every JW member became member, get status of membership at the moment of baptism. And by that act  Contract was made between minor children or adult person and WT Company.   

Court have no interest to made decisions is some religious teaching or doctrine right or wrong, true or false. But when belief system produce "emotional torture" and other sort of torture, intellectual, spiritual, psychological - then that can be material for secular authorities.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Though some might say it is a matter of semantics, I say the Christian congregation does not tell Witness families not to associate with df'd children. What they do is point out that the principle of not associating with a df'd person is not negated merely because that one is a family member.

49 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

The oldest was baptized in age of 6 as i recall.

I doubt it. Not that you 'recalled' it that way, but that it was true.

 

50 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Elders made pressure on family to throw df child out of home.

I rather doubt this, too, if the child was the minor you imply he/she was. If I recall, when the subject of df'd family members was discussed in literature, it was a given that association would take place with a minor, but with an adult it might be possible to have almost no contact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

but with an adult it might be possible to have almost no contact.

This kid was in adult age at that time and rest of family has been couraged  to maximally limit contacts with him and "counseled" how spiritual health of family would be better if df kid find another place for living. "Counsels" was in all kinds of instructions, Bible, examples from WT publications and informations that elders have on such matters.  As to my knowledge, this df kid feeled this emotional coldness and spiritual pressure that was puted on rest of family and because such conditions lived the house. How was looked all that in everyday real life i do not know, but it is possible to imagine all tensions, fears, tears, inside battles of mind and heart...   

You can not believe that such young children were baptised in JWorg ? :)))      

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I say the Christian congregation does not tell Witness families not to associate with df'd children. What they do is point out that the principle of not associating with a df'd person is not negated merely because that one is a family member.

Very true. But we all know what would happen if it was found out you went on vacation with your dfd daughter or son. (Not yours literally of course!) It's one of these frustrating hard to pin down situations. There is a supreme court case going on in Canada right now where the dfd ex- brother is suing. But that's not what I wanted to say, but what is interesting is that the WT appealing the case mentions this in defense: "Disfellowshipping is not “a mandatory church edict” that removes family love. Family members decide according to their conscience the extent to which they will continue family discourse".  Page 9, par 31

How can that be reconciled with what really happens?

To illustrate:  If it was a conscience matter, then if someones conscience said it was ok for them to spend time with their disfellowshipped relative, perhaps even go on vacation with them, then it shouldn't be a problem, and no one should judge that decision, just like if someone decided their conscience allowed them to take minor blood fractions. For that reason, because minor blood fractions really ARE a conscience matter, we don’t have articles giving us advice on how to avoid them, and videos showing us how someone successfully refused them etc. like we do with disfellowshipping.

So really, all the articles and videos are “biasing” us to shun, rather than truly leaving it up to our conscience. I am not saying this is right or wrong, I am just pointing out  that stating that it is a conscience matter is not correct, (actually it is dishonest) and could be used against us if proved.

Here is the case, but I know you probably won't bother to read it, and I don't blame you, you will just have to trust me that the quote I posted is really there :)

    Hello guest!

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Anna said:

Family members decide according to their conscience the extent to which they will continue family discourse"

We're back to that problem again of trying to use the idea of conscience in a court of law as an obfuscation. You are right that very few Witnesses leave anything up to conscience. It's "spiritual" peer pressure to conform, where not conforming can result in anything from being looked down upon by peers, or a loss of privileges all the way up to being disfellowshipped yourself. I don't have a good solution, but I have seen the type of shunning of young family members that just seems childish on the part of the supposedly mature Witnesses who have to conform to the rule. 

I note that we no longer claim in court that corporeal punishment of minors is acceptable, and yet it obviously has Biblical precedent. I wonder if there's a way we would begin to conform to more modern norms of conduct, in obedience to the superior authorities in shunning cases, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it is one of those frustratingly hard to pin down situations, there is no reason not to pin it down your way, whatever you decide that is.

Among the reasons we are asked to respect the decisions of a judicial committee is that they have had opportunity to examine everything relevant and will know the situation better than us. In the case of a close family member, this is rarely true. Thus:

6 hours ago, Anna said:

Family members decide according to their conscience the extent to which they will continue family discourse". 

One factor a family member might know of is the one you suggested - a person who no longer practices anything wrong but declines to rejoin the congregation. Reasonably, that could have a bearing on one's conscience. 

 

6 hours ago, Anna said:

If it was a conscience matter, then if someones conscience said it was ok for them to spend time with their disfellowshipped relative, perhaps even go on vacation with them, then it shouldn't be a problem

Take the organization at their word. Go on vacation with them if your conscience permits it, perhaps because of the situation already described. If it raises eyebrows, and you wish to explain, do so. At worst there is some peer pressure. Perhaps one may not be considered 'an example' and as such, may lose or not be considered for privileges. So be it. They are voluntary things anyway. If they disappear over such a thing, they disappear. It is a choice you can make.

Some of the eyebrow-raising, in the above scenario of one who desists wrongdoing but does not wish to return, will have to do with separateness as much as prior congregation discipline. Separateness was a real concept in Hebrew times - there is no reason to think it is less so in modern times.  Our people are taught the Bible principle that separateness is a good thing - remain separate from the world lest its influence gradually seep back into us, and through us, the congregation. There is no reason for the GB to underplay that concept just because it is not popular. A person today might think it narrow-minded or judgemental, but there is no way it is not scriptural. 

One might get experience pressure (and who is to say that is such a horrible thing? - people have been meddling in each other's affairs since the beginning of time), but the point is, there is no actual sanction over it. Do it if you want to.

6 hours ago, Anna said:

and no one should judge that decision, just like if someone decided their conscience allowed them to take minor blood fractions

One reason no one would be judged over yes/no on fractions is that they would not know about it. I know of no one else's stand on fractions other than my own and my wife's. It is the same with your conduct with a df'd family member. Discretion helps the medicine go down. 

Admittedly, the tone of theocratic counsel is toward firmness. It is: 'Consider that the counsel of df ones applies to a relative, unless you can think of why it wouldn't' - instead of the other way around. Nonetheless, based upon factors that only a family member would know, one might adhere to avoiding association with a df'd relative to a lesser extent than a non-related congregation member.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Anna said:

Here is the case, but I know you probably won't bother to read it, and I don't blame you, you will just have to trust me that the quote I posted is really there :)

Hmmm. Not only what you say, but also this description of the plaintiff:

"He contended his wife was a messy housekeeper and that caused his angry explosions of verbal abuse."

Today one does not pass Go nor collect $200 after such an incident. Abuse is a big no-no. With but minimal fabrication, one can imagine his favorite Elvis song: "Get out in that kitchen and rattle those pots and pans!"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Anna said:

But that's not what I wanted to say, but what is interesting is that the WT appealing the case mentions this in defense: "Disfellowshipping is not “a mandatory church edict” that removes family love. Family members decide according to their conscience the extent to which they will continue family discourse".  Page 9, par 31

How can that be reconciled with what really happens?

Natural God given Conscience vs Artificial, so called "bible trained conscience", imposed and ruled by GB

I hope that, giving like, upvote and approval on your perception ability, given by me to your comments would not insult you :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I say the Christian congregation does not tell Witness families not to associate with df'd children.

2016 Convention movie program rejects, disproves such yours conviction. At 6:15 phone ringing but mum ignored daughter call.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

2016 Convention movie program rejects, disproves such yours conviction.

It disproves nothing. It is entirely in harmony with what I stated:

 

13 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Admittedly, the tone of theocratic counsel is toward firmness. It is: 'Consider that the counsel of df ones applies to a relative, unless you can think of why it wouldn't' - instead of the other way around. 

It is an example in a given drama, one in which the young woman portrayed is decidedly unrepentant over wrongdoing, and she even says that for her parents to have resumed contact would have been to her detriment spiritually.

It does not negate:

 

13 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Nonetheless, based upon factors that only a family member would know, one might adhere to avoiding association with a df'd relative to a lesser extent than a non-related

Not everyone is like the 'typical' example portrayed at the convention. Admittedly, there is no encouragement to consider that your df'd child (if he or she is) is atypical, but a parent will know the child best and can make whatever stand they think appropriate, given any atypical facts or circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

It disproves nothing. It is entirely in harmony with what I stated:

 

Apologize, did I not understand this sentence quite correct?  "...Christian congregation does not tell Witness families not to associate with df'd children."....

I based my comment on this particular sentence. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I can believe age 10 or early teens without a problem. But not 6.

If you "believe" in something what you see or hear directly that is not faith or "believing". You need to reconsider  the concept of belief, believing.

If you not want or if you can not accepting reality how that is possible and more of that, how that happened in some JW congregations, your personal attitude and opinion, not deleting reality of life events. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Apologize, did I not understand this sentence quite correct? "...Christian congregation does not tell Witness families not to associate with df'd children."....

I based my comment on this particular sentence. :) 

TTH i get it now.... i think :)))) double negations in sentence make my conclusion as it was. In other words you said, paraphrasing; "Christian congregation tell Witness families they must to avoid any association with dfd children." ... are instructed to avoid any association with a disfellowshipped family member.

Give me like symbol, pleeeease :))))

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

:)))) perhaps i need "simplified edition" 

Perhaps, but it will have to come from someone else. I consider the reconciliation of the two statements plain as day, unless someone is deliberately trying to twist things to support a conclusion he has already come to. 

It might also be incomprehensible for someone just plain stupid, but I do not regard you as stupid, so I am reduced to the first possibility. At any rate, it is a game I do not feel able to play - repeating what I have already said.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Take the organization at their word. Go on vacation with them if your conscience permits it, perhaps because of the situation already described. If it raises eyebrows, and you wish to explain, do so. At worst there is some peer pressure. Perhaps one may not be considered 'an example' and as such, may lose or not be considered for privileges. So be it. They are voluntary things anyway. If they disappear over such a thing, they disappear. It is a choice you can make.

I love your take on this. Can I quote you? Just kidding. Honestly, this is how I view things already, which is great because it eliminates all that stress of feeling guilted etc. If you are going to do something, or not do something, then don't blame others for your choice.

But not everyone has this kind of inner conviction in them. They're the ones that get hurt and begin to feel like victims, and then they turn against the org. If you are going to do something, then do it because you are convinced it's the right thing to do, but as you say, don't become antagonistic about it and go ahead of yourself blowing a trumpet.

My mother (strong in the truth) is expert at doing exactly what she wants and never being questioned about it. ..she would have been one to call the police on a pedophile no questions asked. Maybe I just inherited it...

P.S. She would never go on vacation with a dfd relative though even if they were a saint and even if the Slave said it was OK.  But that's because it's her conviction from the Bible, not because anyone says so....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

I hope that, giving like, upvote and approval on your perception ability, given by me to your comments would not insult you :)

No. I like to be fair, so I hope my perception was fair too. I generally try not to defend something that is obviously wrong or indefensible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/6/2017 at 1:59 PM, Srecko Sostar said:

Is it possible to separate so called "religious, doctrinal interpretations of Bible text" with "rules and instructions made by JW Clergy, Priesthood" vs Natural Law vs Secular Law?  

"At any rate, it is a game I do not feel able to play," I said. I will play this one, though, with regard to your statement about law:

If you are a former Witness, you were once concerned about Divine Law. You have listed Natural Law and Secular Law. Where is Divine law in your discussion? Granted, you have come to think the Witnesses did not capture it, but where is it? Why do you not search for it, mention it, or lament its disappearance? 

Might it might simply be a matter of putting God in last place? You are big on 'Natural' requirements. You are big on secular requirements. But when it comes to God's requirements - blow it off! It is just "doctrinal interpretations of Bible text." - who can say what it means? - do whatever you want,' notwithstanding that it makes for one hash of a world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Where is Divine law in your discussion?

Divine Law is above our philosophizing. Or also, will said, above speculation by GB. 

None of us, mostly nobody, has any difficulty understanding the basic moral provisions that are the content in Divine Law. Some of the basics are presented in the 10 commandments. Jesus' 2 commandments are essence on all 10 and all 1110 or more if you like. And this is the closest to, what i have named, Natural Conscience, because the Source of Human conscience is WHO? GOD! We as some kind people of "faith", "believers" would normally be in harmony on that and such reasoning and statement. Would we? Bible said so.

"Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the Law, do by nature what the Law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the Law, since they show that the work of the Law is written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts either accusing or defending them." - Rom 12

God is the source of Perfect conscience in Adam and Eve, but He is also Source of Imperfect conscience in all people after them. If God have no problem to accept imperfect human conscience and products of such conscience,  by what license, by whose permission, GB have, GB takes the right to have authority over Conscience of JW members. How he acquired such a right? He named himself (self-appointed) as Distributor of "food" and an Official interpreter of "words" ("Guardians of doctrine" according to G. Jackson  testimony in front ARC)

So because of the fact how all people around the Earth have very close, similar moral standards. And that is the core of that part of my comments and discussion. And because that state of Conscience which is common to all humans,  it is not natural how GB making "interpretations on some Bible text" and by interpretations create rules that directs, channeled/ing people's emotions, mind and deeds.

Directed criticism at the policy of the WT does not include discussion of the basic moral demands we are obliged to do! Obligated as Human, not as Members of this or that.

:) 

  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Scripture that can be applied to Natural Law!

1 Samuel 14:31-35New International Version (NIV)

31 That day, after the Israelites had struck down the Philistines from Mikmash to Aijalon, they were exhausted. 32 They pounced on the plunder and, taking sheep, cattle and calves, they butchered them on the ground and ate them, together with the blood. 33 Then someone said to Saul, “Look, the men are sinning against the Lord by eating meat that has blood in it.”

:)))))) and going to toilet for small or big need is also natural.....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

1 Samuel 14:31-35New International Version (NIV)

31 That day, after the Israelites had struck down the Philistines from Mikmash to Aijalon, they were exhausted. 32 They pounced on the plunder and, taking sheep, cattle and calves, they butchered them on the ground and ate them, together with the blood. 33 Then someone said to Saul, “Look, the men are sinning against the Lord by eating meat that has blood in it.”

:)))))) and going to toilet for small or big need is also natural.....

 

So what does this mean? Is it JW you claim to have seen through? Or is it the Bible?

 

22 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Divine Law is above our philosophizing

This is unclear.

 

22 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

None of us, mostly nobody, has any difficulty understanding the basic moral provisions that are the content in Divine Law.

Do you think there should be any consequences for ignoring Divine Law, as there is for ignoring human Secular Law?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:
22 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Divine Law is above our philosophizing

This is unclear.

 

I think it is clear. Bible wrote that God has said, "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways,"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Do you think there should be any consequences for ignoring Divine Law, as there is for ignoring human Secular Law?

As it is written in Bible, we have this: 

1)God made execution or some kind of punishment for ignoring/disobeying Divine Law

2)Religious people made execution or some kind of punishment for ignoring/disobeying Divine Law

3)Secular authorities made execution or some kind of punishment for ignoring/disobeying Divine Law principles that are incorporated in Secular Law

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

As it is written in Bible, we have this: 

1)God made execution or some kind of punishment for ignoring/disobeying Divine Law

2)Religious people made execution or some kind of punishment for ignoring/disobeying Divine Law

3)Secular authorities made execution or some kind of punishment for ignoring/disobeying Divine Law principles that are incorporated in Secular Law

Do you think there should be more capital punishment, then? If so, why is there not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/6/2017 at 10:59 AM, Srecko Sostar said:

One by one rest of children was also left JWorg. In one moment while they was been member of cong. elders made pressure and rebuke all them because they (children) spend few days in summer time with their df father. After such emotional torture of elders one minor kid cut vein on hands and must be hospitalized. After that "last drop" for her young mind and emotions, all went down. She is "damaged". And no one of elders take responsibility for her "soul".  

 

On 11/6/2017 at 10:59 AM, Srecko Sostar said:

WT JWorg are private Company in the very core, in essence. And as such been legalized in various country as Company, Charity Society or similar entities.

 Srecko, how well you have revealed Watchtower's hypocrisy.

“How horrible it will be for you, experts in Moses’ Teachings and Pharisees! You hypocrites! You are like whitewashed graves that look beautiful on the outside (a charity organization! ) but inside are full of dead people’s bones and every kind of impurity.  So on the outside you look as though you have God’s approval, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness."  Matt 23:27,28 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Witness said:

Srecko, how well you have revealed Watchtower's hypocrisy.

We are just humans, and we all have our good and bad. And must be able, have courage to say it.

This afternoon i was recal one simple and "not important" behaviour in some other every day circumstances. Let me tell you.  The brother from the former assembly often parks his car on the parking lot, near the school where I work. This is a parking lot for my colleague school staff and two other institutions in the same building. He has no right to park there, but he still does. But what is ironic is this. After I left JWorg, he did not want to greet me on the street when we met  each other once, twice. But when his car was "trapped" in the parking lot because the ramp was down, he sent me an SMS message and asked me to help him get out. :)) Hypocrisy or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

....there’s only two possibilities in life......

Comparison of religious system is not so bad to do. You respond on my question, asking "Who is closer to Bible truth? JW or Amish?" with one more example of Scientology. Thanks. But, if i agree with you in statement about "only two possibilities"  would i hear your opinion on  the issue Who is closer to Bible instruction about treatment, handling with "sinners" inside congregation?? JW, Amish or Scientology?

I will ask you the same 3 times. 3 is symbolic number :))))) This is second time asking. hehe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

We are just humans, and we all have our good and bad. And must be able, have courage to say it.

Be careful in high-fiving @Witness is my caution to you. She tirelessly presents herself here as Jehovah's true annointed - which would make her your new boss.

Isn't that the 'Who' song?  Meet the new boss - Worse than the old boss!

 

31 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

But when his car was "trapped" in the parking lot because the ramp was down, he sent me an SMS message and asked me to help him get out. :)) Hypocrisy or not?

Outrageous disgusting blatant hypocrisy!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you for calling our attention to this!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Be careful in high-fiving @Witness is my caution to you. She tirelessly presents herself here as Jehovah's true annointed - which would make her your new boss.

Isn't that the 'Who' song?  Meet the new boss - Worse than the old boss!

Matt 10:24,25

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

If you want stricter rules? Look at, Scientology.

While reading again your comment i found some parallel in OT rules and NT rules. About sinners. If OT congregation found you guilty and found reason to sentenced you in finally way, all congregants would stone the sinner to the dead.

But in 1 century NT congregations introduced new rules on sinners. They are not using stones any more. They using new the type of weapon. After some judicial process, similar or not to the original way of investigation and judging given by Law, congregant was using in first place - words (to judge person) and after that silence, ignoring, dfd (to stone person).  

Of course this observation is in err if WT interpretation on NT reports are mistakenly representing how to be applied this or that bible verse. Like their explanation on excommunication was  in 1947 Awake, totally opposite to later standpoint which came to power and is until now. :)    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

But, that's what makes freedom of speech

:))) hehe, not only freedom of speech. That makes ground for my own "old light" and "new light".  (A new view of truth never can contradict a former truth. "New Light" never extinguishes older "light" but adds to it…" Zion's Watch Tower 1881 Feb pp.3,188.)

Or as WT magazines proves "Lights get brighter" ---- not only for WT but for me also :))))))))))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • By Srecko Sostar
      In the age of this Corona contagion, the term "social distance" emerged. In recommending how to protect their health against this virus, health care providers have introduced some measures regarding the behavior of people in their interactions with each other. One of them is famous "social distance".

      What does it mean first of all to have "social distance" in this Corona context? This means that the physical distance between persons must not be less than 1 meter, or 2 meters or similar. This is actually about physical distance, not social distance. Because, no one forbade people to talk and exchange thoughts. By any means, directly or virtually, using technology.

      From this we could conclude that the term/word and the means used to prevent infection is deficient in clarity, is wrong. Having a "social distance" would mean refraining from making intellectual and emotional contact with other people. It would mean that we do not want to talk to them, that we do not want to accept them as people belonging to a particular "social" group. It would mean that don't want to see them, literally and transmitted. Specifically, we see that these disease measures primarily seek to reduce physical contact between people. This is about "close physical contact". Anything less than 6 feet. :))
      What is interesting about Corona measures? WTJWorg using both sort of measures to control "disease" inside Organization for very long time, and without possibility to "relax" this measures. With "shunning" policy JW's members using social and physical distance on people who are not JW members any more. That could mean how "Corona" existing constantly inside WTJWorg, long before Wuhan :)).
    • By Albert Michelson
      What is the good news?
       
      The Bible is clear that even if someone had been clearly selected by god if they deviate from the truth they are to be rejected. 
       
      Galatians 1:8-9 However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to YOU as good news something beyond what we declared to YOU as good news, let him be accursed.  9 As we have said above, I also now say again, Whoever it is that is declaring to YOU as good news something beyond what YOU accepted, let him be accursed.
       
      This holds even more weight for ones like the GB who are not clearly selected and who's claim to authority rests solely on a demonstrably false interpretation of scripture.
      The organization claims that the 1914 teaching is necessary for salvation and even goes as far as to claim that the 1914 teaching is the good news spoken of in the Bible.
      *** w67 12/15 pp. 753-754 pars. 3-4 What Now Distinguishes the Good News to Be Preached ***
      "What a joy-inspiring addition or enlargement to the good news now to be preached! Now has come the victorious kingdom of our God together with the authority of his Christ, his Messiah! As for Satan the Devil and his demons, they have only a short period of time until they are bound and imprisoned in the abyss after the “war of the great day of God the Almighty” at Armageddon. All this additional wonderful information has been true since the end of the “appointed times of the nations” in 1914, and particularly since World War I closed in the year 1918. Not before the “appointed times of the nations” ended in the fall of 1914 could the good news be preached of the newborn, established heavenly kingdom of God and of his Messiah. This, then, must be the good news that Jesus Christ in his prophecy said had to be preached first in all the nations. (Mark 13:10) This generation of human society that has seen and experienced the world events since the Gentile Times closed in 1914—this is the “generation” that will not pass away until all the things foretold have happened, including the preaching of the good news first in all nations.
      4 Jesus’ prophecy in Mark 13:10, “Also, in all the nations the good news has to be preached first,” has not been undergoing fulfillment during the past nineteen centuries. It is only since the second decade of our twentieth century that this prophecy has been undergoing fulfillment. This began to be realized by the International Bible Students Association and the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society since the end of the second decade of our century. In the magazine issue of July 1, 1920, of The Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence the article was published entitled “Gospel of the Kingdom” and based on the theme text, “‘And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.’—Matthew 24:14.”
       It is for this reason that the organization is chained to the 1914 teaching. As the scripture I quoted above demonstrates the Bible says that one who teaches a good news that is false is cursed. If the organization admits that the 1914 and 1919 teachings are false they will have to admit that not only were they not selected as gods channel but that they have been teaching a false good news for the majority of their existence. It is for that reason that they disfellowship and shun people who cannot conscientiously remain in the faith. It's easier to just eliminate the opposition then to actually address the real issues with your theology. 
      *** w86 4/1 pp. 30-31 Questions From Readers ***
      Why have Jehovah’s Witnesses disfellowshipped (excommunicated) for apostasy some who still profess belief in God, the Bible, and Jesus Christ?
       
      "Approved association with Jehovah’s Witnesses requires accepting the entire range of the true teachings of the Bible, including those Scriptural beliefs that are unique to Jehovah’s Witnesses. What do such beliefs include?
       
      That the great issue before humankind is the rightfulness of Jehovah’s sovereignty, which is why he has allowed wickedness so long. (Ezekiel 25:17) That Jesus Christ had a prehuman existence and is subordinate to his heavenly Father. (John 14:28) That there is a “faithful and discreet slave” upon earth today ‘entrusted with all of Jesus’ earthly interests,’ which slave is associated with the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses. (Matthew 24:45-47) That 1914 marked the end of the Gentile Times and the establishment of the Kingdom of God in the heavens, as well as the time for Christ’s foretold presence. (Luke 21:7-24; Revelation 11:15–12:10) That only 144,000 Christians will receive the heavenly reward. (Revelation 14:1, 3) That Armageddon, referring to the battle of the great day of God the Almighty, is near. (Revelation 16:14, 16; 19:11-21) That it will be followed by Christ’s Millennial Reign, which will restore an earth-wide paradise. That the first to enjoy it will be the present “great crowd” of Jesus’ “other sheep.”—John 10:16; Revelation 7:9-17; 21:3, 4."
       
      This is supposedly a list of the fundamental doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses that all are required to believe. You will in most cases be disfellowshiped for not believing in one or more of them. Unfortunately the truth is most of them are false.
    • By Jack Ryan
      If the love you have for your children is predicated on their beliefs, you don't love your children you love YOUR beliefs
    • By Jack Ryan
      Jehovah's Witness Organization Redefines Shunning to Falsely.mp4
      Every JW visiting this page should MORALLY comment below and publicly state that this JW Lawyer is LYING through his teeth to the Canadian Supreme Court.
      If you don't, YOU participate in this gross sin. Because you ALL KNOW this is a false statement.
      Remember as well that this JW Lawyer is also an Officer of the Court.
      What the courts do not know is that JW's consider outright lying in court a part of "theocratic warfare" just like Muslims do. So it is a virtue to them.

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. SMH.
      Can you spell P-E-R-J-U-R-Y?
    • By Jack Ryan
      "Sunday, December 30
      Asa’s heart was complete with Jehovah all his life.—1 Ki. 15:14.
      Each of us can examine his heart to see if it is fully devoted to God. Ask yourself, ‘Am I determined to please Jehovah, to defend true worship, and to protect his people from any corrupting influence?’ For example, what if someone close to you has to be disfellowshipped? Would you take decisive action by ceasing to associate with that person? What would your heart move you to do? Like Asa, you can show that you have a complete heart by fully relying on God when you are faced with opposition, even some that may seem insurmountable. You may be teased or ridiculed at school for taking a stand as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Or colleagues at work may taunt you for taking days off for spiritual activities or for not often working overtime. In such situations, pray to God, just as Asa did. (2 Chron. 14:11) Remain firm for what you know is right and wise. Remember that God strengthened and helped Asa, and He will strengthen you.
      w17.03 3:6-8 "

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
    • By Jack Ryan
      This was a case where in June 1987, the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld the Witnesses' right to shun those who fail to live by the group's standards and doctrines, upholding the ruling of a lower court.

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. Has there been any cases after this, where DF cases went to court? Have there been cases in other countries were DF decisions were challenged and reversed?
    • By James Thomas Rook Jr.
      Here in the United States we have Cable TV with such things as "History Channel", "Discovery Channel", "Scifi Channel", and "A&E" the "Arts and Entertainment Channel".  Apparently around November 13 of this year they had a famous (?) TV star, Leah Remini,  who had been a Scientologist since she was eight years old turn Apostate, and she has done at least two TV seasons exposing the ills of the Church of Scientology", do an Expose' of Jehovah's Witnesses.
      I do not watch TV as a rule, and missed it, and I spent a few days looking for it and trying to download a copy.  It was not on YouTube, but I did find it under "Aftermath Jehovah's Witnesses" on the Russian equivalent of YouTube, "Rutube.ru". It would not download with my usual download software, so I had to find a free screen capture software, which took about four hours to get the settings just right, and I was able to download the two hour program from my monitor, as it was playing.
      Therefore, I watched the TV program three times, as I experimented with the settings to get a good screen copy to my hard drive..
      I could see both sides of the program viewpoints presented, and did not find us to be misrepresented in any way whatsoever ... but if there was EVER a clear example of the Law of Unintended Consequences, the horror the Governing Body has caused in disfellowshipping the way that it is currently done ... by ripping families apart, and creating  irreparable damage that can never be corrected with reinstatement, was chilling, and puts us in the same class as Scientologists ... which completely disregarding the horror and hardsip, and cruelty without any mercy whatsoever it creates locally, shames Jehovah's Name and Reputation over the whole planet.
      I don't believe there is anything a local Jehovah's Witness could do ... rob a bank ... have a harem ... have sex with horses ... etc., ad nauseum ... that would besmirch Jehovah's name and reputation globally as much as our current blatantly cruel public policies of destroying whole families for the sins of one person.
      I am very glad to have the education I have to know that the TRUTH is still the truth .... even though the 85% drivel has rotted and fermented into rotten sewage.
      Most JWs do NOT have this educational advantage ... so their lives are permanently destroyed.
      I don't expect much from people, and almost NOTHING from groups of people .... so for me, like getting one of those great salads at the Olive Garden Restaurant, and finding a big chunk of solid sewage in it ... I hold my nose, and eat around it.
      This TV Special is global news .... what could I possibly say to the average person that would clear the Name of God, that the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, NOT THE TELEVISION PROGRAM, has corrupted by its Pharisaic policies that have real world consequences?
      The exact same thing happened in ancient Israel, and a system that God blessed and supported for a thousand years and more was abandoned by God.
      The exact same thing.
       
       
       
       
    • By Jack Ryan
      from 2016 the year that they started the return to Jehovah brochure.
    • By Jack Ryan
      a heartbreaking video has emerged online showing how far reaching and deeply ingrained this shunning policy is; a video showing JehovahÂ’s Witnesses clapping in applause as a little girl announces she is shunning her own sister.
      Little Melody, and the sister she doesnÂ’t have.
      The incident appears to take place at one of this years Watchtower conventions. The video was posted on youtube by the girls parents, apprently eager to share with the world how they had trained one of their children to pretend her sister didnÂ’t exist purely on the basis of religious dogma.
      The video was comment-protected once viewers began expressing concern and displeasure at what they saw, but at the time of writing the video itself is still live and can be viewed below on the family’s youtube page. (EDIT 11/09/2017 – The video has been removed, but we have linked to an alternate site which has a copy)

      t shows a little girl called Melody. She is ten years old, and was apparently baptised when she was 9. This means that Melody is now committed to the religion for life, and will be shunned if she ever leaves, or “unrepentantly” breaks any of its vast array of detailed rules.
      During the interview, Melody explains that she has a sister who was “disfellowshipped,” which is the Witness term for one who is excommunicated; someone who was thrown out of the faith rather than leaving of their own accord. We are not told the reason for the disfellowshipping, but one can be subjected to it for a wide range of reasons such as pre-marital sex, celebrating Christmas or birthdays, voting, taking a blood transfusion, joining the military, or simply questioning any of the doctrines of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
      Melody states that her sister was trying to contact her, and asking her to stay in contact despite Watchtower decreeing that she be shunned. Remember, MelodyÂ’s sister has probably lost all her family and friends at this point; everyone she ever knew and loved.
      Melody admits that she misses and loves her sister, but states that she was afraid that if she didnÂ’t cut her sister off completely, she might be tempted to keep some form of relationship going. Thus, she has decided to shun her completely, as Watchtower demands. She claims that this was to protect her relationship with Jehovah.
      The audience of JehovahÂ’s Witnesses watching this announcement applaud.

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
    • By Jack Ryan
      This comes from the final talk at the Birmingham, AL Convention. Herd talks kind of low and there is some background noise, so here is a transcript starting at about 1:25.
      I thought this was interesting because it doesn't appear to be in the talk outline. Admittedly, I just skimmed through the outline quickly, so it might be in there. Either way, there is something twisted about comparing the shunning of children to casting out demons from heaven.
      Edit: For those wondering, this talk is from August 5. The part before when the transcript starts is Herd talking about King Asa removing his grandmother from her position.
    • By Jack Ryan
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. Updated 6:11 p.m. ET Feb. 16, 2018 Keego Harbor Â— A quiet residential street became a horrific crime scene Friday with news that four people — a couple and their adult children — died in what police are describing as a triple murder-suicide.

      By late afternoon, some yellow police crime scene tape remained around the two-story wood frame bungalow in the 2300 block of Cass Lake Road where police were sent about 8:10 a.m. on a welfare check after a relative became worried about the family, Keego Harbor Police Chief John Fitzgerald said.
      One of four bodies is removed from the home of the 2300 block of Cass Lake Road. (Photo: Clarence Tabb Jr., The Detroit News)
      “A relative had concerns and asked us to look into it,” said Fitzgerald. “It’s tragic and our thoughts and prayers are with the family.”
      Inside the house officers found four bodies who neighbors identified as Daniel Stuart, 47, his wife, Lauren, 45, and their children, Bethany, 24, and Steven, 27.
      Fitzgerald said the “perpetrator” was among the dead but would not provide details other than to stress “we think we know what happened here and there is no danger to neighbors.”
      Fitzgerald said police have recovered what is believed to be the murder weapon but would not elaborate. He said all the deaths remain under investigation.
      Keego Harbor Police Chief John Fitzgerald briefs the media on the murder-suicide. (Photo: Clarence Tabb Jr., The Detroit News)
      Neighbors John and Jackie Tristani said they awoke Friday to learn police were outside the victimsÂ’ home.
      “My son said police were repeatedly calling out ‘Lauren, come outside,’ " said John Tristani. “When she didn’t respond they (police) went inside. A few minutes later, they came back outside, shaking their heads.”
      Tristani said he had been watching television late Thursday night and never heard anything from the Stuarts' home.
      Sources close to the investigation said the family pet, a dog, was also slain by the killer. Investigators also found a note which may help explain what led up to the deaths. They would not discuss its contents.
      The deaths puzzle the Tristanis, who knew Lauren Stuart as a “hard-working” neighbor who could often be seen working in her yard and remodeled the house largely on her own.
      “She would often come over and borrow tools – a saw, a pickaxe – whatever,” said Tristani. “She was always doing something.”
      The Tristanis said in one of their first meetings with Lauren Stuart a few years ago she attempted to “recruit” them into the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
      “I said we were Catholics and weren’t interested,” he said. “She accepted the answer and it was the end of that.”
      Lauren Stuart worked at an area gym, he said, and her husband was involved in some form of medical business in the Ann Arbor area.
      Darlene and Dennis Buck, who live a block away on Cass Lake Road, said they were enroute home from a trip to northern Michigan when they learned of the murder-suicide.
      “We have lived here since ’74 and nothing like this has ever happened in our neighborhood — not even close,” said Darlene Buck.
      Jackie Tristani said she found it all “scary” – not just the deaths but that something might have been going on in a neighbor’s home without her knowledge. She had tried to get Bethany a job at her workplace and her son knew both Bethany and Steven. There was never any mention or indication of trouble inside the home, she said.
      “I would hope that if there was a problem inside there someone would have reached out, we would have tried to help,” she said, her voice quaking. “Maybe we could have done something.
      “But you never really know everything there is about your neighbors, do you?”

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
    • By Witness
      “JehovahÂ’s Witness kids grow up knowing that if they ever mess up, their parents will leave them — and thatÂ’s scary,” Sawyer, now 38, said in a recent interview from her home in Pascagoula, Miss. “The shunning is supposed to make us miss them so much that weÂ’ll come back. Â… It didnÂ’t work.”
      Sawyer and many others like her are now denouncing the church's shunning practices in the wake of a recent murder-suicide in Keego Harbor that killed a family of four ex-Jehovah’s Witnesses who were ostracized after leaving the faith. The deaths sparked outrage among scores of ex-JWs nationwide who took to Facebook, online forums, blogs and YouTube, arguing the tragedy highlights a pervasive yet rarely-publicized problem within the church: Shunning is pushing the most vulnerable people over the edge, they say, and tearing families apart.
      In the Michigan case, a distraught mother shot and killed her husband, her two grown children and herself in their Keego Harbor home, shocking the small and quiet Oakland County community.
      The shooter was Lauren Stuart, a part-time model and personal trainer who struggled with depression and spent much of her time working on her house, her friends say. She and her husband, Daniel Stuart, 47, left the JW faith more than a decade ago over doctrinal and social issues. Among them was their desire to send their kids to college, which many ex-JWs say is frowned upon by the church and viewed as spiritually dangerous.
      “University and college campuses are notorious for bad behavior — drug and alcohol abuse, immorality, cheating, hazing, and the list goes on,” a 2005 article in the Watchtower, the church's official publication, stated.
      But the Stuarts sent both their kids to college: Steven, 27, excelled in computers, just like his father, who was a data solutions architect for the University of Michigan Medical School. Bethany, 24, thrived in art and graphic design.  After the parents left the faith, the Stuarts were ostracized by the Kingdom Hall — the churches where Jehovah's Witnesses worship — community in Union Lake and their families, friends said.
      Lauren Stuart, whose mother died of cancer when she was 12, struggled with mental illness that went untreated; isolation and fears that the end was near, said friends and officials familiar with the case. One friend who requested anonymity said she believes the killing was the result of depression, not religion.
      "This is a tragedy that has to do with a disease. Depression is so prevalent, and when it goes untreated this is what happens," the friend said. "She needed medical help."
      Longtime family friend Joyce Taylor believes depression, shunning and religion-based doomsday fears all played a role. She said that about six weeks before the killings, Lauren started getting religiously preoccupied and telling her "'It's the end times, I know it is.'"

      Weeks later, Taylor saw her friend again. Lauren had a vacant look in her eyes. She was emotionally distressed.
      A week later, with her home decorated for Valentine's Day, Lauren Stuart killed her family. She left behind a suicide note.
      "She said in the suicide note that she felt that by killing them it was the only way to save them," recalled Taylor, who said police let her read the letter. "She said she's sorry that she has to do this, but it was the only way to save them all." 
      Taylor, a former Jehovah's Witness herself who left the faith in 1986, explained: "Jehovah's Witnesses believe that if you die on this side of Armageddon, you'll be resurrected in paradise."
      In Lauren Stuart's case, Taylor believes her friend never deprogrammed after leaving the church — a state she describes as  "physically out, but mentally in." She believes that Lauren's indoctrinated doomsday fears never left her, and that the shunning helped push her over the edge.
      Had she not been excommunicated by her tight-knit community that was once her entire support system — left with no one to share her fears with — Lauren Stuart may not have done what she did, Taylor believes.
      "People do things when they are desperate," Taylor said. "And that was an extreme, desperate act."
      Shunning "can lead to great trauma among people because the Jehovah's Witnesses are a very tight-knit community," said Mathew Schmalz, a religious studies associate professor at the College of Holy Cross in Worcester, Mass.
      "If you're separated out, you're really left to your own devices in ways that are very challenging and very painful," Schmalz said. "Once you leave a group that's been your whole life — letting that go is a kind of death."
      Police have not yet disclosed details about the death of the Stuart family besides calling it a murder-suicide.
      The tragedy has emboldened many once-quiet ex-JWs to speak up. Many say they suffered quietly on their own for years until they discovered an online community full of isolated, ostracized people like themselves — people who had lost someone to suicide or attempted suicide themselves because their families, friends and church community had written them off for making mistakes, for being human. 
      The church calls it being "disfellowshipped." Members can return if they repent, change the behavior and prove themselves worthy of being reinstated. But unless or until that happens, members are encouraged to avoid the sinners, especially those who leave the faith.
      Mothers go years, even decades, without talking to their children. Siblings write off siblings. Friends shun friends.
      An estimated 70,000 Jehovah’s Witnesses are disfellowshipped every year — roughly 1% of the church’s total population, according to data published by the Watchtower. Their names are published at local Kingdom Halls. Of those, two-thirds never return.
      Within a faith representing 8.4 million people worldwide, however, many members believe the religion is pure, good and loving. Those who are speaking against it, current members argue, are disgruntled and angry people who have an ax to grind because they were disfellowshipped. Or, they are lost souls who have misinterpreted the meaning and love behind the faith. Members say they believe the shunning accusations are exaggerated and that the suicides are often more about mental illness than ostracism.
      The departed disagree.  
      In the world of ex-Jehovah’s Witnesses, they maintain, the shunned are considered dead to their families, just like the suicide victims. 
      These are their stories:
      ‘A dangerous cult’
      It was a difficult conversation to wrap her 8-year-old brain around.
      “‘You know your sister was being bad, right?’“ Sawyer recalled her mother telling her after her sister's suicide.
      “ ‘And what she did was stupid, right?’ … To take your own life is very wrong,' " the mother continued.
      “I didn’t understand what was going on … and I said, ‘Oh. OK,,’ “ recalled Sawyer. “In my 8-year-old brain I was thinking, ‘When I mess up, my mom’s going to hate me.’ "
      And so began her painful journey with the Jehovah’s Witness faith, the religion she was born into and grew up in in Pascagoula, Miss., where her fears of abandonment took hold at the age of 8. 
      Sawyer believes the shunning drove her sister to suicide. After the church disfellowshipped her for getting engaged to a non-JW, the fiancé left her sister, who was thrown into depression. Her sister tried turning to her mother for consolation, but her mom would read scripture and tell her, "until you start acting right, you’re going to have these bad things happen to you.“
      Bad things happened to Sawyer, too. At 30, she sought a divorce from her husband because he was abusive and cheating on her, she said. But the church elders and family pressured her to save her marriage.
      “I showed them the holes in my walls,” Sawyer said, referring to the damage her ex-husband did to the home during fights. “They told me to pray more … and sent me back home to him.”
      Sawyer took up smoking to handle the stress, which got her disfellowshipped because smoking is not allowed. She also went through with the divorce. She ended up losing her home to foreclosure and turned to her mother for help as she had two children to raise.

        Her mother took her in temporarily, but when the church elders found out, they threatened to disfellowship Sawyer’s mother — who let the grandkids stay, but not the daughter. 
      Sawyer ended up homeless for six months, living out of her car in a community college parking lot. She landed on her feet with the help of a student loan. She got an apartment, a job as a hospice nurse and her children — now 10 and 18 — back. She found herself, but lost her family along the way.
      Her mother doesnÂ’t speak to her; she said she canÂ’t recall the last time they spoke.
      Her sister in Alabama hasnÂ’t spoken to her since Sawyer got divorced in 2010.
      “She was on my porch, with my parents … My sister looked at me and said, ‘You’re abandoning me just like Donna did’ And left. And that's the last thing she ever said to me."
      Sawyer has kept silent about her pain for decades.
      “This is a dangerous cult,” she said of her former religion. “It’s important for people to realize —  this is serious.” 
      Read the rest of the story here:

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
    • By Srecko Sostar
      Quotations from JWorg. It can be on other issue also, but this is also interesting: my comments are in red color.
      "While the Bible disapproves of homosexual acts, it does not condone hatred of homosexuals or homophobia. Instead, Christians are directed to “respect everyone.”—Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. , Good News Translation.
      Question: How JW show respect to everyone if are not willing to say even hello on street to person who is: everyday sinner, in process of cleaning from sin, in the state of repentance and not doing sin, in a process of fighting against own bad desires with more or less success?  
      Can a person be born homosexual?
      The Bible doesn’t comment directly on the biology of homosexual desires, though it acknowledges that we are all born with a tendency to go against what God commands. (
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. ) Rather than focus on the cause of homosexual desires, however, the Bible prohibits homosexual acts. the Bible speaks of “those who are sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, men who submit to homosexual acts,” and then it adds: “That is what some of you were.”—
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. . In saying “that is what some of you were,” does the Bible mean that those who stopped engaging in homosexual acts never again experienced any homosexual desires? That could hardly be the case, because the Bible also exhorts: “Keep walking by spirit and you will carry out no fleshly desire.”—Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. .
      As to my knowledge from JWorg publications, person who is homosexual is allowed to be baptized and to become member of JW cong as long as he/she not practicing such behavior. In other words, Bro John Doe is a gay, but because he is passive gay or pedophile or ...  (he can have desire, and he have desire) because he have good self control and not practicing sinful desire, he can be invite for lunch in some family with ...minor kids.!?   
      Note that the Bible does not say that a Christian will never experience an improper desire. Rather, it says that he or she will choose not to carry out that desire. Christians learn to bring such desires under control, not dwelling on them to the point of acting on them.—Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. . Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
      The Bible thus makes a distinction between inclinations and practices. (
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. ) A person who has homosexual leanings can control what he allows his mind to dwell on, just as he would control any other wrong desire, including leanings toward anger, adultery, and greed.—Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. . While Jehovah’s Witnesses uphold the moral code set forth in the Bible, they do not force their views on others. Nor do they try to reverse laws that protect the human rights of those whose lifestyle differs from theirs. The message that Jehovah’s Witnesses bear is a positive one, and they eagerly share it with all who will listen.—Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. .
      But Jesus said, someone who have sinful thoughts, desires he already made a sin. No matter did he engaging in act or not. So, this is somehow in opposition to explanation we read before in text by JWorg. So, did someone who have just desire and never done nothing to realized it (he is made sin in mind and heart, and by Jesus words, he is wrongdoer) braking the unwritten law said by Jesus.                 Mat 5:27,28  "You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ 28 Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. " 
      Does JW members take a stand about this (statement from Jesus) according to Bible or they need to reconsider rules about this matter? 
    • By James Thomas Rook Jr.
      Melody's Interview at 2017 "Don't Give Up" Regional Convention". 
      Last year my wife and I attended an Assembly in Orangeburg, SC, where a brother in an interview on stage was proud that he had not said a single word to his disfellowshipped father in over 20 years.   We were sitting up close and could see his face in person, and on the large monitors. His declaration of cruelty was followed by intense applause from the audience. 
      We were stunned and horrified.
      This video was originally posted on YOUTUBE by the mother of Melody, at a Regional 2017 Convention where she is proud of having shunned her sister, who is disfellowshipped, but many adverse comments on YOUTUBE made her ashamed .....  and she took the posting down.  
      I got this video copy from the  Russian equivalent of YOUTUBE web site,  RUTUBE.COM.
      After she details her cruelty to her sister, the audience reaction is vigorous applause.
      THIS IS WHY the Russian government and most of the people HATE Jehovah's Witnesses.
      Oblivious, clueless, extreme cruelty, in the name of righteousness.
      Melody's interview @ the Regional Convention 2017 _Don't Give Up_.mp4
      .
      .
       
    • By Outta Here
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. Even the highly regarded BBC cannot resist the  temptation to indulge in gutter-press standard reporting when it comes to Jehovah's Witnesses.
      This report on the Jehovah's Witnesses disfellowshipping process is rather misleading. It associates the disfellowshipping action with totally unrelated experiences and leaves the impression that this action is taken: 
      1. when a person leaves an abusive relationship 
      2: when a person does not attend the annual memorial celebration of Christ's death.
      Nothing could be further from the truth. Even the most inexperienced researcher could easily find out the circumstances leading to this serious and scriptural measure by looking at
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
      It is unlikely that the interviewees would reveal the real reason for their disfellowshipping which would probably cause personal embarrassment, and there is no way that the official organisation would comment or reveal the details of an individual case.
       
    • Guest Nicole
      By Guest Nicole
      Did Christians in the 1st century disfellowship / shun wrongdoers?
    • Guest Nicole
      By Guest Nicole
      What were Jesus’ instructions regarding shunning wrongdoers (disfellowshipping)?
    • By Jack Ryan
      "Why is it necessary, when someone feels that they can no longer abide the organisation and has to disassociate - why is it necessary to shun them? Why can't they keep having social contact
      with those people who happen to remain in the organisation?"
      - Australian Royal Commission to Jehovah's Witnesses 
    • By INTREPID TRAVELLER
      On the 10th of this month, the Australia Royal Commission held Case 54 which was a review of the responses of Jehovah’s Witnesses to the Commission’s findings.  The representatives from the Australia branch swore on the Bible “to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”.  Did they comply with this solemn oath before God?  You be the judge after watching this video:
       
    • By TrueTomHarley
      There are quite a few of them out there – some shunned, some not. Some go online. They’re not necessarily wrong as they relate their experiences and viewpoints. Some have had run-ins with Tom Pearlsnswine, who never met a fly he didn’t counsel. Some caught the consumer mentality of religion and could “no more imagine a church disciplining them than they could a store that sells goods disciplining them. It is not the place of the seller to discipline the consumer.” Others lost their balance as standards of child-rearing veered more sharply than ever before. ‘If you kids don’t stop crying, I’ll give you something to cry about!’ my non-Witness Dad would holler, a phrase that was no idle threat – every child knew that phrase, as they did “I’ll kill you for that!” It was a commonplace ‘threat’ bestowed almost lovingly on a mischievous child – I can’t tell you how many times my mother said it to me - but the deed itself was rare. Today the deed is commonplace but you’ll have to explain your words before the judge. Lightning-like shifts in morals and mores caught youngsters and parents alike flatfooted. Besides – let’s face it – a lot of Jehovah’s Witnesses are nuts. Probably in no greater proportion than the world in general and certainly without the baggage of violence that can so easily attach itself to non-Witness nuts, but that doesn’t mean they’re not nuts. Sometimes your best option is to hit the reset button.
      From:Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
    • By The Librarian
      Shun your inactive family members and report them if you suspect they are sinning 
       
       
       
    • By Jack Ryan
      I was reading this week's study article on remaining loyal to Jah. Found an interesting contradiction on shunning. They cite two experiences. In one a JW shuns her mom and her example is posted as a positive one of someone doing the right thing. The second example however of a JW being shunned by his non-JW family is labeled as an injustice. Here's first one:

      So, the example above demonstrates the supposed loyal faith of a daughter that refused to talk to the woman that gave birth to her, raised her and surely sacrificed so much for her. This, the Watchtower claims, is an example of love and loyalty. Now let's see the second example cited in the same article in a latter paragraph:

      In this example, the non-JW family members were cruel, because they "opposed his association" and "forbid him to visit them for years". Yet, isn't this exactly what the JW daughter from the first experience was doing to her mother? only in reverse?
      - Sanchy
    • By Jack Ryan
      -
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. When I compare that official quote with the following official headline:
      http://www.jw-archive.org/post/117601618528/disfellowshipping-arrangement-has-changed
       
      I get the idea that JW.org will soon stop the practice of shunning former believers into compliance.
      How much time until this new light comes out..... I'm not sure.
       
       
       
    • By Jack Ryan
      The following link is to a PDF file found on the Penn Law Legal Scholarship Repository website.
      " The Penn Law Legal Scholarship Repository is the institutional repository of the University of Pennsylvania Law School. Its purpose is to collect and preserve the scholarly output of Penn Law. "

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. Please share any thoughts you have on the reasoning used in this document.

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
      If you don't trust my link, which would be fair enough, simply Google the following search term as I write it:
      'religious shunning tax exempt'
      It should be the very first page that comes up.
    • By Γιαννης Διαμαντιδης
      Because my question became argument for out of topic subjects I would like to refine this question: why someone who disfellowshipped for a reason that no longer exist must come back to the congregation ask for forgiveness and wait some time to be reinstated? I will give you the reason of the offense, because I am sure you will not understand me otherwise. There is this brother called Kotsos a Greek brother (and later immigrant in Germany because he lost his job here) who needed kidney transplant around 1975 and in 1978 had been disfellowshiped for making the kidney transplant. Around 1985 he came back to the congregation and the elders did not accept him without some kind of punishment ( by punishment I mean to come for some time in the congregation nobody to talk to him so he will show remorse for his action). There are also other examples too. In the Greek Watchtower of 1970 page 766 we read about a homosexual brother who disfellowshipped for 3 years in advance. So in that 3 years he had no right to repent !!!




  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Posts

    • Another important piece of context about famines in China even before Mao was in power, based on Wikipedia's list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines_in_China   1810, 1811, 1846, 1849     Unknown (45 million decrease, unknown how many emigrated or avoided census to evade taxes)[4]   1850–1873   Nian Rebellion, Taiping Rebellion and drought Primarily caused by famine, lower li
    • I appreciate the thoughtful response. You hit upon the basic problem of what we can "know" for certain, especially about a topic for which the waters have definitely been muddied. The very fact that "experts" give ranges from 10 million to 40+ million deaths, already shows there is huge margin of error involved. And the range of reasons for it are inconsistent, too. (Varying amounts of human error vs. drought, or willful disregard for life, or even murderous intent.) I put the number 4
    • When you see such shenanigans in the present human interactions of entirely different spheres, you don’t assume that you are seeing it for the first time ever. Rather, you figure that this is but the latest example of what humans will do in pushing their own point of view. Thus, everything you say is plausible. Exaggeration, over-promotion, running the other side off the road, muddying the waters so the other side will give up, outright denial, seeing only what one wants to see: these are the st
    • There's a 1960's era joke about a family in their car just pulling out of their driveway in sweltering heat with the all the windows up. The kids ask why they can't roll down the windows to get some air, and the father says: "What? And let the neighbors know we don't have air conditioning?" This reminds me of one of the claimed blunders of Mao Zedung, who continued to export wheat during a famine so as not to appear weak to the rest of the world. (And Stalin similarly wouldn't import wheat
    • Mao, while alive, had already purged Deng twice. In doing so, Mao sullied his reputation by bringing up past disloyalty and an unexplained military defection, and asked Deng to self-admit his own (Deng's) failings. He had been critical of Mao, but had also been used by Mao and the party for his leadership abilities. After Mao, the "Gang of Four" wanted to continue Mao's legacy and leadership style, and thought of Deng as a political threat to their continuance. Deng's choice to gain political po
    • Why did it do this? Why not proceed as though building on the fine foundation that had been laid? This smacks a lot of like “putting lipstick on a pig.”  
    • There was one more point I should have highlighted from the article I referenced above. Based on the time period of the Great Leap Forward it is useful to make some comparisons with other nations around this time. Even now, I was reading in an online newspaper from India that says they count about 4,000 children a day in India who die from malnutrition. I don't know how accurate this is, but it is admitted in a globally-facing paper where one might expect a positive spin on Indian news.
  • Topics

  • Members

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Eric Ouellet

      LA FOI D'HANNA ENVERS DIEU APPORTE SA RÉCOMPENSE
      UNE femme de foi adresse une prière à Jéhovah. Convaincue que c’est Dieu qui l’a relevée de la poussière, transformant son abattement en exultation, elle le loue à haute voix.
      Cette femme, c’est Hanna. Qu’est-ce qui explique son spectaculaire changement d’état d’âme ? Pourquoi est-elle à présent si joyeuse ? En quoi ce qu’elle a vécu peut-il nous être utile ? Intéressons-nous à son histoire.
      Une famille sous pression
      Hanna est l’une des deux femmes d’Elqana, un Lévite de la région d’Éphraïm (1 Samuel 1:1, 2a ; 1 Chroniques 6:33, 34). Bien que n’entrant pas dans le dessein originel de Dieu pour l’humanité, la polygamie est autorisée et réglementée sous la Loi mosaïque. Elle est néanmoins une source fréquente de discorde. La vie de cette famille, qui pourtant adore Jéhovah, en témoigne.
      Hanna est stérile, tandis que Peninna, l’autre femme d’Elqana, a plusieurs enfants. Peninna se comporte en rivale. — 1 Samuel 1:2b.
      Pour une Israélite, la stérilité est un déshonneur, et même un signe de la défaveur divine. Mais, dans le cas de Hanna, rien n’indique que son incapacité de procréer soit liée à la désapprobation de Dieu. Peninna ne la console pas pour autant ; elle se prévaut au contraire de son statut de mère pour l’humilier.
      Au sanctuaire de Jéhovah
      Malgré ces tensions, la famille entreprend le voyage annuel en direction du sanctuaire de Jéhovah, à Shilo, pour y offrir des sacrifices. L’aller-retour de quelque 60 kilomètres se fait vraisemblablement à pied. Cet événement doit être particulièrement pénible pour Hanna. En effet, Peninna et ses enfants reçoivent plusieurs portions du sacrifice de communion, alors que Hanna, elle, n’en reçoit qu’une seule. Peninna trouve là une opportunité supplémentaire de la blesser et de la mettre dans l’embarras ; il semble que Jéhovah ait “ fermé sa matrice ”, et elle ne manque pas de le lui rappeler. Tous les ans, c’est le même calvaire. Tous les ans, Hanna pleure et cesse de manger. Ces voyages qui normalement devraient la mettre en joie la plongent dans une profonde détresse. Hanna se rend néanmoins chaque année au sanctuaire de Jéhovah. — 1 Samuel 1:3-7.
      Voyez-vous en quoi Hanna est un bel exemple ? Comment réagissez-vous lorsque vous êtes déprimé ? Vous isolez-vous et évitez-vous les contacts avec vos compagnons chrétiens ? Ce n’est pas ce qu’a fait Hanna. Les rassemblements avec les adorateurs de Jéhovah étaient pour elle une habitude de vie. Même face à des circonstances éprouvantes, il devrait en être de même pour nous. — Psaume 26:12 ; 122:1 ; Proverbes 18:1 ; Hébreux 10:24, 25.
      Elqana tente de réconforter Hanna et il l’amène à exprimer ses sentiments profonds. “ Hanna, pourquoi pleures-tu et pourquoi ne manges-tu pas ? Pourquoi ton cœur a-t-il mal ? lui demande-t-il. Est-ce que je ne vaux pas mieux pour toi que dix fils ? ” (1 Samuel 1:8). Peut-être n’a-t-il pas conscience de la malveillance de Peninna. Et peut-être Hanna préfère-t-elle se taire plutôt que de se plaindre. Quoi qu’il en soit, cette femme spirituelle se tourne vers Jéhovah dans la prière pour retrouver la paix intérieure.
      Le vœu de Hanna
      Les sacrifices de communion étaient consommés dans le sanctuaire. Après avoir quitté la salle à manger, Hanna prie Dieu (1 Samuel 1:9, 10). “ Ô Jéhovah des armées, implore-t-elle, si tu ne manques pas de regarder l’affliction de ton esclave et si vraiment tu te souviens de moi, si tu n’oublies pas ton esclave et si vraiment tu donnes à ton esclave un descendant mâle, oui je le donnerai à Jéhovah pour tous les jours de sa vie, et le rasoir ne viendra pas sur sa tête. ” — 1 Samuel 1:11.
      La prière de Hanna est précise. Elle demande un fils, et elle fait le vœu que cet enfant sera toute sa vie un naziréen de Dieu (Nombres 6:1-5). Ce vœu nécessite l’approbation de son mari, et certaines actions ultérieures d’Elqana montrent qu’il approuve l’engagement pris par sa chère femme. — Nombres 30:6-8.
      À cause de la manière dont Hanna prie, le grand prêtre Éli la croit ivre. Il voit effectivement ses lèvres frémir, mais il ne l’entend pas parler. C’est qu’en fait Hanna prie dans son cœur, avec ferveur (1 Samuel 1:12-14). Imaginez ce qu’elle ressent lorsque le grand prêtre l’accuse d’être ivre ! Pourtant, elle lui répond respectueusement. Comprenant alors que Hanna était en train de prier “ dans l’abondance de [son] inquiétude et de [son] dépit ”, il lui dit : “ Que le Dieu d’Israël accorde ta requête. ” (1 Samuel 1:15-17). Sur ces paroles, Hanna s’en va ; elle mange et “ son visage ne par[aît] plus soucieux ”. — 1 Samuel 1:18.
      Que nous enseigne tout cela ? Lorsque nous prions Jéhovah à propos de nos inquiétudes, nous pouvons lui exprimer ce que nous ressentons et lui adresser des requêtes sincères. Si nous avons fait tout notre possible pour résoudre le problème, alors nous devrions laisser les choses entre ses mains. C’est ce qu’il y a de mieux à faire. — Proverbes 3:5, 6.
      Après une prière fervente, il est fréquent que des serviteurs de Jéhovah ressentent une sérénité comparable à celle que Hanna a éprouvée. Voici ce qu’a écrit l’apôtre Paul au sujet de la prière : “ Ne vous inquiétez de rien, mais en tout, par la prière et la supplication avec action de grâces, faites connaître vos requêtes à Dieu ; et la paix de Dieu, qui surpasse toute pensée, gardera vos cœurs et vos facultés mentales par le moyen de Christ Jésus. ” (Philippiens 4:6, 7). Après nous être déchargés de notre fardeau sur Jéhovah, nous devons le laisser s’en occuper. Puis, comme dans le cas de Hanna, il n’y a plus lieu de s’inquiéter. — Psaume 55:22.
      Un fils “ prêté ” à Jéhovah
      Dieu se tourne alors vers Hanna. Peu après, elle porte un enfant. Elle met au monde un garçon (1 Samuel 1:19, 20). C’est l’une des rares fois où la Bible fait état de la responsabilité de Dieu dans la naissance de l’un de ses serviteurs. L’enfant d’Elqana et de Hanna, Samuel, deviendra effectivement le prophète de Jéhovah, un prophète qui jouera un rôle important dans la mise en place de la monarchie d’Israël.
      Il est certain que Hanna parle de Jéhovah à Samuel dès sa petite enfance. Mais oublie-t-elle le vœu qu’elle a fait ? Absolument pas ! “ Dès que le garçon sera sevré, je devrai l’amener ; il devra paraître devant Jéhovah et habiter là pour des temps indéfinis ”, déclare-t-elle. Et en effet, une fois l’enfant sevré — peut-être à l’âge de trois ans ou un peu plus —, elle l’amène au sanctuaire, comme elle l’avait promis. — 1 Samuel 1:21-24 ; 2 Chroniques 31:16.
      Après avoir offert un sacrifice à Jéhovah, Hanna et son mari présentent Samuel à Éli. Hanna tient certainement la main de son petit garçon lorsqu’elle dit à Éli : “ Pardon, mon seigneur ! Par la vie de ton âme, mon seigneur, je suis la femme qui se tenait près de toi, en ce lieu, pour prier Jéhovah. C’est à propos de ce garçon que je priais, pour que Jéhovah m’accorde ma requête, ce que je lui demandais. Et moi, à mon tour, je l’ai prêté à Jéhovah. Oui, tous les jours qu’il sera, c’est quelqu’un de demandé pour Jéhovah. ” Ainsi commence, pour Samuel, une vie au service de Dieu. — 1 Samuel 1:25-28 ; 2:11.
      Le temps passe ; bien sûr Hanna n’oublie pas son fils. Les Écritures relatent : “ Sa mère avait coutume de lui faire un petit manteau sans manches, et elle le lui montait, d’année en année, quand elle montait avec son mari pour sacrifier le sacrifice annuel. ” (1 Samuel 2:19). Hanna prie sans aucun doute pour Samuel. Tous les ans, lorsqu’elle lui rend visite, elle l’encourage à coup sûr à demeurer fidèle dans son service pour Dieu.
      Pendant l’une de ces visites, Éli bénit les parents du garçon. Il déclare à Elqana : “ Que Jéhovah t’assigne une descendance de cette femme, à la place du prêt qui a été prêté à Jéhovah. ” C’est ainsi que le couple est récompensé par la naissance de trois autres fils et de deux filles. — 1 Samuel 2:20, 21.
      Quel formidable exemple pour les parents chrétiens ! Beaucoup de mères et de pères se montrent, eux aussi, disposés à prêter, figurément parlant, leurs enfants à Jéhovah ; en effet, ils les encouragent à entreprendre une forme de service à plein temps, même si cela implique que leur fils, ou leur fille, vive loin d’eux. De tels parents aimants méritent des louanges pour les sacrifices qu’ils font. Jéhovah les récompensera.
      Une prière qui déborde de joie
      Comme Hanna est heureuse, elle que la stérilité affectait tant autrefois ! Les Écritures ne contiennent que peu de prières faites par des femmes. Mais, en ce qui concerne Hanna, elles en rapportent deux. La première expose ses sentiments alors qu’elle est humiliée et affligée. La seconde exprime son exultation et son action de grâces ; elle commence par ces mots : “ Oui, mon cœur exulte en Jéhovah. ” Hanna se réjouit ensuite que ‘ même la stérile ait mis au monde ’. Et elle loue Jéhovah, celui “ qui élève [...], qui relève le petit de la poussière ”. Vraiment, il est celui qui “ de la fosse aux cendres [...] fait remonter le pauvre ”. — 1 Samuel 2:1-10.
      Cet épisode de la vie de Hanna, dont le récit a été inspiré par Dieu, montre que les imperfections, voire la malveillance, des autres peuvent nous blesser. Toutefois, nous ne devons pas permettre à ce genre d’épreuves de nous priver de notre joie de servir Dieu. Jéhovah est, par excellence, Celui qui entend la prière, qui répond aux appels à l’aide de ses fidèles et qui les délivre de l’affliction. Il leur accorde une paix profonde et de nombreuses autres bénédictions. — Psaume 22:23-26 ; 34:6-8 ; 65:2.

      · 0 replies
    • Eric Ouellet

      1 Samuel 2 : 1-10
      Hannah pria Dieu en ces mots:
      Mon cœur se réjouit au sujet de Jéhovah
      ma force grandit grâce à Jéhovah.
      Ma bouche s’ouvre toute grande contre mes ennemis,
      car je me réjouis de tes actes sauveurs.
      Il n’y a personne qui soit saint comme Jéhovah,
      il n’y a personne qui soit comme toi,
      il n’y a pas de rocher comme notre Dieu.
      Arrêtez de parler avec orgueil ;
      que rien d’arrogant ne sorte de votre bouche,
      car Jéhovah est un Dieu qui sait tout
      et il juge les actions avec justice.
      Les arcs des hommes forts sont brisés,
      mais les hommes faibles reçoivent de la force
      Ceux qui mangeaient bien doivent trouver du travail pour avoir du pain,
      mais les affamés ne souffrent plus de la faim.
      La femme stérile a donné naissance à sept fils,
      mais celle qui avait beaucoup de fils est devenue stérile.
      Jéhovah tue et il garde en vie,
      il fait descendre dans la Tombe et il en fait remonter.
      Jéhovah fait devenir pauvre et il fait devenir riche,
      il abaisse et il élève.
      Il relève le petit de la poussière
      et fait remonter le pauvre du tas de cendres
      pour les faire asseoir avec les princes
      et leur offrir une place d’honneur.
      À Jéhovah appartiennent les fondations de la terre ;
      sur elles, il pose le monde
      Il veille sur les pas de ses fidèles,
      mais les méchants seront tués dans l’obscurité,
      car ce n’est pas par la force que l’homme triomphe. 
      Jéhovah anéantira ceux qui combattent contre lui ;
      pour exprimer sa colère, il fera gronder le tonnerre dans le ciel.
      Jéhovah jugera jusqu’aux extrémités de la terre,
      il donnera du pouvoir à son roi et il fera grandir la force de son oint.
       
       
       


      · 1 reply
    • anniemsbelle@gmail.com  »  Queen Esther

      Do you have the print out for the regional convention 
      · 1 reply
    • anniemsbelle@gmail.com  »  Queen Esther

      Do you have the print out for the regional convention 
      · 0 replies
    • Claud's Lst  »  misette

      Bonjour Misette comment ça va. Merci beaucoup pour ton travail que tu as fait et continue de faire. 
      Nous avons pas reçu le joyau pour cette semaine, dis nous si il y a un problème. 
      Merci que Jéhovah continue de te benir. 
      · 2 replies
  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      62,920
    • Total Posts
      123,162
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      16,677
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Patxi
    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.