How Common is Shunning?

[Srecko Sostar]

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 :))))

 

[TrueTomHarley]

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.

 

[Anna]

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....

[Anna]

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.

[TrueTomHarley]

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.

[Srecko Sostar]

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.

 

  

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

One man's fantasy and belly laugh is another man's cause for fear,  grief and tears.

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

Those who can’t understand how a bad apple can decompose good apples in a barrel

This sounds like an example of 'natural' law to me.

[Srecko Sostar]

11 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

The Wisdom of Amish Parenting 2015

By your opinion, in this matter - Who is closer to Bible truth? JW or Amish?   

[Srecko Sostar]

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.....

 

[TrueTomHarley]

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?

[Srecko Sostar]

3 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

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

just counting natural things of human life, nothing more or less.