Srecko Sostar

Avoidance and ostracism (shunning) of former family members is a mandatory rule in WTJWorg. The same rule must be applied to all other former JW members.

quotes:

"Despite our pain of heart, we must avoid normal contact with a disfellowshipped family member by telephone, text messages, letters, e-mails, or social media."

- https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-study-october-2017/truth-brings-not-peace-but-sword/

"If, however, a baptized Witness makes a practice of breaking the Bible’s moral code and does not repent, he or she will be shunned or disfellowshipped."

-  https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/shunning/

Article from Baptist Standard

Jehovah’s Witnesses sue Norway after registration revoked

JANUARY 18, 2024

https://www.baptiststandard.com/news/world/jehovahs-witnesses-sue-norway-after-registration-revoked/

quote from article:

Clarifying stance on disfellowship

In an email to RNS, Jehovah’s Witnesses spokesperson Jarrod Lopes said Witnesses only disfellowship an unrepentant member who “makes a practice” of serious violations of “the Bible’s moral code.”

Even then, Lopes added, Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t force members to limit or cease association with former congregants, whether they’ve been disfellowshipped or withdrawn voluntarily—that’s up to individuals.

“Congregation elders do not police the personal lives of congregants, nor do they exercise control over the faith of individual Jehovah’s Witnesses,” Lopes wrote.

----------------------------

The behavior of the official representatives of JWs is more and more riddled with deceptions with which they lie to the public and to the courts. Obviously, the time will come for "clarification" within the congregations as well, like these "clarifications" for these poor "godless people" who live "without God" in this "satanic" world.

7 hours ago, George88 said:

Perhaps you and JWinsider could elucidate to the visitor how the figurative Jew incurred God's disfavor by failing to uphold their commitment to serve Him. In a similar vein, certain individuals among the witnesses tend to exhibit this habit of self-contradiction as they identify themselves as witnesses. Or has this intriguing piece of information somehow slipped away from our awareness?

Personal responsibility is not in question here. But rank and file members do not generate theology. Religious leaders (GB) are the creators of doctrines and they are the ones who change these doctrines and introduce the direction of how the members will worship God and what practices they will apply. So, we know who bears the greatest responsibility, that is, the blame for the downfall of the "herd".

7 hours ago, George88 said:

Let's focus on the subject you initially addressed and refrain from derailing your post by implying that there is justification for Norway receiving subsidies from the Watchtower.

Agree.

1 hour ago, George88 said:

Examine and comprehend various passages explaining why the Pharisees and anyone who advocates for God with insincere intentions would not find favor with God. Matthew, 1 John, 2 Peter, 2 Corinthians, 2 Timothy, Romans, Mark, Colossians, Galatians, Jude, Acts, Deuteronomy, lamentations, Jeremiah, Ezekial, Revelations, etc.

Do you believe that JWs are being led astray and are being encouraged to worship false Gods? The passage "testing the spirit" is meant to discern the spirit of insincere individuals, not those who faithfully uphold God's words and commands. Such as the Pharisees. Engaging in such critical thinking is a grave offense against God, as His faithful ought to discern the spirits that require examination.

If that were true, we would be forced to scrutinize Christ, the apostles, and even Paul. However, it is inconceivable that Christ, who is seen as a flawless figure, would have allowed such suspicion to overshadow their authority. This would not have been accepted even in heaven, let alone by God. Rejecting these chosen individuals, who have been appointed to guide his flock, would resemble the treatment that ancient Israel showed to the prophets.

The Jewish system of worship was established by God (the Jewish God). JWs say his name is YHVH. Thus, Judaism is at its root a correct, true religion.
People who want to become members of the JW religion must renounce their previous religion, if they were believers of any church. As far as I know, Jesus never renounced his Jewish religion.

Jesus, like you in your commentary, condemned the corruption of the religious leaders within his Jewish religion. Jesus did not despise Judaism and own belonging to Judaism, the religion/faith of his fathers, but he despised the religious hypocrisy of the people of his time.

As far as I know, Jesus kept all the customs of his Jewish faith. He never told his followers to stop keeping the "law of Moses". Moreover, he taught them to do everything the "Pharisees" told them, but not to act hypocritically like the Pharisees.
This tells us that Jesus was not advocating the rejection of Judaism as the true religion. The establishment of the "new covenant" does not exclude the very essence and truth, truthfulness of the Jewish religion.

2 hours ago, George88 said:

Did Jesus not embrace the synagogues as places of worship and God's house? Why would you condemn Jesus and God for establishing places of worship? Matthew 21:13, Genesis 28:16, Exodus 23:19, 1 Kings 9:6 etc.

So, didn't JWs reject Judaism?

10 hours ago, George88 said:

Are you suggesting that the Watchtower is the sole publisher of spiritual content?

No.

10 hours ago, George88 said:

Do you think that Christian sects, who openly express their support for gay rights and endorse acts of violence through war, are still considered to have God's approval?

No.

10 hours ago, George88 said:

Are you suggesting that only God has that authority, and he can't delegate it to someone on earth?

What does the "delegation" process look like?
When did it start?
Who were the first people whom God "delegated" to interpret his Word?

10 hours ago, George88 said:

Didn't God give Joseph the ability to interpret the pharaoh's dream?

Joseph did not found/establish a religion like WTJWorg did. I don't recall any record of him imposing his interpretations on other people.

4 hours ago, George88 said:

Who possesses the superior ability to accurately interpret the publications of the Watchtower?

This is how I could answer the matter.
GB claims to be the "guardian of the doctrine" and the only one who correctly interprets the Bible.
The lawyer claims that only GB can correctly interpret WTJWorg's publications.

First thing. If anyone could agree that GB is the only one who can relevantly explain what is the meaning of what is written in the WTJWorg editions, because at the end of the day, all the text within 140+ years is nothing but the product and imagination of the people at WTJWorg. So it can be said that they are, also, the intellectual owners of what was written in WTJWorg publications. Of course, a bunch of theology has long since been discarded by themselves, so that speaks volumes for the intellectual and spiritual value of a large number of WTJWorg publications.
 
Another thing, GB has no authority to interpret the Bible because they are not the ones who wrote the Bible.

According to the previously presented logic, only God has the right to interpret his Word aka the Bible. "Do Not Interpretations Belong to God?", Gen 40:8.

I think we have clearly rounded up the result, that is, GB is not authorized to interpret the Bible. And if GB still wants to explain the meaning of the biblical text, it only means that their interpretation is not binding on anyone.

14 hours ago, George88 said:

Are we now changing the subject to something unrelated to interpreting scripture from the NWT?

Not. We only used the new illustration. Mr. lawyer who is apparently the head of the legal team representing WTJWorg (in the photo 3rd person on the right) made the claim that only the JW organization is authorized to interpret the content of its publications that were presented in court by the defense attorney of the Norwegian state.
So we know two things; 1. GB considers itself the only one authorized to interpret the Bible and 2. GB is the only one who can correctly explain the meaning of its own interpretations.
Consequently, this would mean that no one in this world has the right to think and say that WTJWorg's interpretations are wrong. That's nonsense.

Just now, Srecko Sostar said:

While some may question the superiority of the NWT, the fact remains: if it were truly flawed, why would God allow it to persist?  

WTJWorg literature answers this type of question as well. Are you really unfamiliar with that?

4 hours ago, George88 said:

Numerous Bibles offer similar interpretations, but the Watchtower's commitment to capturing the essence of the ancient scrolls and God's words without error is unparalleled. While some may question the superiority of the NWT, the fact remains: if it were truly flawed, why would God allow it to persist? In the end, it is not human opinions that hold weight, but rather the will of God.

The obligation to report the hours and pieces of literature that JWs were supposed to take in order to prove and show their "spirituality" to the elders and other members of the WTJWorg has no basis in the Bible. It took WTJWorg 100 years to change this doctrine. It's the same with beards.

Well please, about whose Bible and about whose interpretations are we talking about?

Has the influence of the ex-JW population led to a change in WTJWorg theology?

"Watchtower's commitment to capturing the essence" ??.... This is humorous. 

On 1/23/2024 at 8:55 PM, George88 said:

Moreover, while you are challenging witnesses' statements, what makes you consider your behavior to be nonsensical as you seem to deny yourself the fact you are persecuting witnesses with your anti-watchtower rhetoric here?

Indeed, I consider this kind of claim to be imprudent and bordering on paranoia. Since when was criticism considered persecution?
Since when is confrontation regarding dogmas and ideas, regarding religious interpretations and practices within a religious community considered persecution?
JWs are free to believe whatever they want (and they prove such an approach to religion on a daily basis, as they change their theology almost daily), and current and former church members and other interested observers are free to comment on it in their own way.

The confirmed practice of WTJWorg lawyers is to distort the real situation and tell untruths in the courts. In Norway, they use exactly the same tried and tested practice to obscure the facts.

The above text from the JW magazine clearly shows the hatred shown by the religious leaders of the WTJWorg in 1952.
Their desire to kill ex-JWs is very strong. Allegedly, they are only prevented from doing so by secular law and the law of Jesus.

5 hours ago, George88 said:

 I found it puzzling that you were asserting he had engaged in political activities as a Watchtower representative in that hearing. I'm attempting to connect the dots here.

To me, it is a striking non-neutral attitude that he shows at the beginning of his presentation. My observation, my impression is based on comparing the official teaching of the JW church that they are politically neutral and Ben Elder's introducing expose.

If this is indeed the case, then political neutrality does not allow the freedom of any JW to comment on any political aspects among EU member states. If JWs comment on politics and politicians in a private circle, that is their choice. But if they do so in public then they are not consistent with what they preach about themselves as non-political members of society who exclusively follow a non-political Christ.

5 hours ago, George88 said:

Based on Ben's presentation, it seems that the Norwegian government has prioritized apostate views over the fundamental rights of its citizens, who contribute through taxes and abide by the same obligations as the general population. This situation raises concerns about potential discrimination within the European Union, therefore requiring a thorough evaluation by The Hague.

I wouldn't conclude it that way. In addition, in the mentality of WTJWorg, all former JWs and all those who are not JWs are supposedly "enemies" of the so-called God's organizations and God himself.
In such a fanatical context that the JW religion wants to portray, no country is inclined to WTJWorg. WTJWorg wants to portray themselves as martyrs and persecuted. That's complete nonsense.

Well, the world does not revolve around the JW religion. Such an unrealistic view of themselves is held by members of those religious organizations who consider themselves to be the only light bearers of truth and justice in this world. So, such self-evaluation is unrealistic and can create difficulties.

Norway has NOT banned JWs, nor their activities. State is denying them money. Just that. (Ok and registrar jobs for newlyweds) Precondition for receiving government money is the fulfillment of certain conditions. Due to changes in legislation or conditions for obtaining money, the status of an organization changes. If an organization does not meet the new criteria, it does not receive money. Plain and simple. Another organization in Norway does not meet the conditions and may not receive state financial support.
There is no conspiracy, no hatred, no persecution.

JWs have the freedom not to talk to people of their own choosing. Like everyone else. The problem with WTJWorg is that this ban is institutionalized. So WTJWorg determines who you can and can't talk to.

The lawyer representing JW in this case, claims in this court how "shunning" is a private choice, and that it was not imposed by the JW organization. Anyone who knows reality can see that this lawyer is LYING.

9 hours ago, George88 said:

Not all legal representatives are Jehovah's Witnesses. They have the freedom to be activists to their heart's content.

As I said, the legal team in Oslo is paid to "represent" JWs and most likely there are no JWs among them. This legal team is/are not activists. They are paid for legal job, business in court.

Activists shouldn't be activists for money, but you never know.

Massimo Introvigne would be one of the "activists", for cults and sects and other religious communities, who often defends JW.

9 hours ago, George88 said:

Your conclusion would be incorrect. Is that the only reason why you believe that legal counsel is a baptized JW? Not all legal representatives are Jehovah's Witnesses.

How can you and I have a meaningful discussion on the topic when you notoriously ignore the words of JW representative Ben Elder who claims for himself, in the court in Oslo, that he was baptized at the age of 13 and then became an official member of the JW religion.
Ben Elder clearly declared himself a JW in his opening remarks.
As for the legal team, I don't have complete information, but most likely it is a team outside the JW milieu.

14 minutes ago, George88 said:

Srecko, where is your source of information coming from?

I conclude from your questions that you did not watch the video I uploaded.

11 hours ago, George88 said:

Maybe he was referring to infants, instead of spiritually developed young individuals.

He was talking about himself.

11 hours ago, George88 said:

The government's stance on gay rights is clear to the world, and it aligns with the Vatican's acceptance of it. However, the Organization will base its decision on scripture rather than conforming to the popular beliefs upheld by human courts.

What should be before the court is, does the government favor certain religions by granting subsidies without considering their bylaws, while imposing new laws to restrict a religion when they disagree with its bylaws? Is this a matter of financial priorities or a question of the government discriminating against specific religious groups?

Who is worse in the eyes of God? Now, why should the organization promote apostate theories?

JW representative, Ben Elder, is involved in politics because he comments on political relations within EU countries. It is not his job because he is a follower of the JW religion and as such should be politically neutral and not comment on things that are not in his domain of religious activity. If he wants to be an internal or external political commentator, then he should go into the journalism profession or maybe run for some social and/or political function.
WTJWorg formed a body called "Office for religious freedom", of which Ben Elder is the director. He is a director working in Germany for an American corporation. And now in Norway he is giving lessons to the Court there. Really out of place.

Because you will not find nothing on JWorg breaking news, as usual, about this perhaps this will help.

https://avoidjw.org/news/norway-trial-violation-childrens-rights-shunning/

It is all about money, firstly.

JW Ben Elder presentation:

He says "I've been one of the JWs probably longer than I can remember". Here, WTJWorg himself refuted the claims that are being made in this court in Oslo, that children are not baptized, but only "adult children". lol

He is the Director of an office called "Freedom of Worship" based in Germany.
In conjunction with that is his role as the EAJW Representative (European Association of Jehovah's Witnesses).

When asked by the Judge what his professional background is, he answers with the words that he is the Office Director and Office Manager. The judge actually asks him about his educational background, and we learn that he is actually a tradesman in building construction.
We learn that EAJW as a "Charitable Body" exists to consider and respond to threats and apparent threats especially within the 46 EU countries.
And right at the beginning this JW representative starts to engage in politics. This is clear from these words:

"So firstly I would like to provide The Court with a brief comment on European context in which the Norwegian government's actions are taking place. Then I would like to address the influence of the Norwegian government's actions elsewhere. And then lastly I'd give the Court an overview of how courts in other countries have handled allegations against JWs." ....
 

He says that the Court should protect the Rights and Freedoms, especially of all those persons who have unpopular views and who belong to minorities.
How absurd. Ex-JWs (how many in EU?) are the Minority who are persecuted in this way by the JW Majority (1,4 mil in EU). WTJWorg Brethren filed a lawsuit in Spain against former JWs. And now the Brethren are suing the Norwegian state because Norway is empathetic towards few ex-JWs who are victims of the JW shunning policy.

Ex-JWs left the JW religion or were excommunicated (or are PIMO), from the JW clergy because of their "unpopular views". By doing so, they became a "despised minority" in the eyes of most JWs. The JWs call that minority "enemies of God" and "their enemies". So what is Ben Elder talking about? His arguments in Court are directed against himself and against his JW brothers. He confirms that WTJWorg is in the "Persecutor" position/mode.

JW Ben refers to a "pluralistic society" that should allow WTJWorg to have whatever religious dogma it wants, but at the same time should prohibit any criticism of its dogma from ex-JW or other secular individuals and institutions. He is indeed deluded in his own wisdom.

He warns that the state has no right to "State Morality", because it is dangerous for citizens. But, he forgets that WTJWorg is also a "Government" that requires its followers to adhere to the so-called "biblical morality" but only such as interpreted by GB.

This video clip was preceded by a presentation by the main JW attorney.

The General Counsel for JW, Anders Ryssdal (a secular person), objected to the use of the WTJWorg publication in the Court. The reason for this lies in the possibility that the Court interprets it in its own (wrong) way, and not in the way GB and JWs interpret it. Imagine the stupidity of such a claim. On the one hand, GB is the only authority to interpret the Bible. But we already knew that. Now we find out that GB is the only authority to interpret its own interpretations of the Bible interpretations. lol

A. Ryssdal claims that there is no institutional obligation of shunning towards ex-JW. He claims that it is the personal choice of each individual JW. The lawyer is saying something that is not true. Is this at the behest of WTJWorg? Or is a new doctrinal clarification being prepared? lol

Enjoy the video!

In the "basement video" you will notice how the doctrine regarding the "Great Tribulation" is Outdated. Kevin, from the drama, left the JWs just few minutes before GT, but that doesn't mean he won't "survive" Armageddon. That's what they "promised" now in "new clarification", at least.

Whether the picture is fake or not, I don't know.

But be that as it may, religious leaders are expected to set a proper example for their followers by their own actions. Have your beard, which you personally, as a member of GB, banned for decades. And now you still allow it. Have a beard.

lol