Patiently waiting for Truth

Thanks.  I appreciate how you said this!
" False prophets appeared in the past among the people, and in the same way false teachers will appear among you. They will bring in destructive, untrue doctrines, and will deny the Master who redeemed them, and so they will bring upon themselves sudden destruction.  Even so, many will follow their immoral ways; and because of what they do, others will speak evil of the Way of truth.  In their greed these false teachers will make a profit out of telling you made-up stories. For a long time now their Judge has been ready, and their Destroyer has been wide awake!"  2 Pet 2:1-3
 
 

TTH said, "Finally! Something that I can agree with Witness on—assuming that she does not throw good sense completely to the wind. (as she does in other areas)"
I get the feeling that you found your eureka and stopped reading my comment at that point. A trait of a good doctor is when he knows he’s gone too far pushing his own agenda and realizes the unfavorable result for doing so.  That is the case with my husband’s doctor, who made it clear CT scans will not be used on my husband for whatever reason, in the future.  He has the “good sense” to know when to change course.   This isn’t the case with your GB, is it.  They will pull another wild card from their sleeve – another David Splane with a chart.  Will JWs show good sense and finally realize they have been defrauded of truth…for years?
 
 
 

Going back to original topic here. The man should not have 'put all his eggs in one basket' it seems.. 
It is sad that his business suffered though (if true) as his being shunned might have been 'punishment' enough.
I would have thought he would have had legal contracts for his business which would mean that customers would be under legal contract to continue business as usual. It does show the lack of love from JW's though, if they deliberately caused problems to his business. 

Finally! Something that I can agree with Witness on—assuming that she does not throw good sense completely to the wind. (as she does in other areas)

To clarify, each person in our household left the organization for different reasons.  Can a disfellowshipped person influence another to lose their “faith” in the organization?  Yes; however, my spiritual decisions for leaving are not at all the same reasons why the other three left. And, I was not the first to leave.  Each one of us, saw specific flaws in a belief system that caused us to doubt God’s involvement in…hypocrisy, rules applied by men that went against sound reasoning, rules established according to men’s doctrine and not according to scripture. The result is, two in the house have no more belief in God or Christ.  One has retained a belief, but struggles in making it a central part of life. 
The organization’s record of unsound and failed/changed teachings, and failures in shepherding, are generally what bring forth doubt and lack of faith in God and Christ. Each one of these listed, causes spiritual ‘infection’.  To think JWs are immune to this, is fallacy. 
My husband had a CT scan a while back.  This was to be beneficial in finding the reason he was sick, by locating and identifying the disease.  Yet, the requirement of an iodine contrast which is used to enhance the scan’s ability to detect abnormalities, resulted in severe reactions.  The fluid flushed through his veins caused side effects that are still with him two months later. The CT scan had its advantages in targeting the disease, but the harsh reactions he experienced also left its visible mark, since his entire body is covered in large rashes – a form a dermatitis that doctors say needs to be fought with more drugs. We have chosen an alternative route to treat it, using natural remedies.
Who would have thought that something routinely prescribed as providing beneficial results, would also produce such harm?  Because the WT has targeted and explained a handful of false teachings in religions, the majority of JWs adopt the belief that all WT’s teachings must be fully beneficial, aiding one to recover from say, “christendom’s” lies.    Since we know a lie is a lie, and wrong teachings remain wrong teachings, and the organization has had its large share in wrong teachings (lies), a JW’s faith is not immune to experiencing spiritual infection from a bad dose of wrong information (rotten fruit/poisoned waters), accompanying a known truth.  God’s word does not condone building our faith on a little truth and a lot of lies.  (Matt 12:33,34; Luke 6:43-45)  Can you imagine Jesus saying to his apostles, “Oh, go ahead and partake of the leaven of the Pharisees…because they will still produce some truth”? (Matt 16:6,12;7:20; Luke 6:47-49)  For the most part, JWs will not notice how they are spiritually infused with paltry waters/teachings that had no advantage in beneficially aiding the growth of one’s faith; unless one  is putting faith and trust in an organization.  In that case, there is always a promise of good things that men will produce, and which places a bandaid over the 'infection' resulting from bad teachings.  (Jer 6:14; Ezek 13:10)  
Jesus spoke of “living waters” that would be evident in those anointed whom he sends.   No side effects, no ‘infections’, but only teachings that build upon teachings, and all are truth. (Matt 10:40,41; John 15:16)   
 
“On the last and most important day of the festival, Jesus was standing in the temple courtyard. He said loudly, “Whoever is thirsty must come to me to drink. 38 As Scripture says, ‘Streams of living water will flow from deep within the person who believes in me.’” 39 Jesus said this about the Spirit, whom his believers would receive.”  John 7:37-39a 
 Many in the organization are becoming alert and keenly aware of painful results from the absolute “bitter” waters they have been ingesting and seek other means to remedy the resulting effects.  In my household there are four examples of how one leaves the WT and pursues relief from spiritual “infection”.  Not all of them are on a right path; but neither are those tolerating contaminated waters in the WT.  (Jer 23:14-22)  If the GB truly adhered themselves to the teachings of Christ, as they say they do, they would undoubtedly, and continually, produce “living waters” -  pure, and trustworthy. (John 4:14; 6:63; 2 Cor 4:7; 1 Cor 3:16; Eph 2:21,22; Rev 22:17) If excuses are made for their falsehoods, then there is total disregard for the promise Jesus gave us, that he would provide reliable Truth in those whom he sends. (Matt 21:33-45)  There would be no need for a persuasive ‘lecture’ about whom we should trust, as Gerrit Losch felt necessary to convey. John 15:5
 “Pursue peace with all people, and holiness, without which no one will see the Lord: 15 looking carefully lest anyone fall short of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up cause trouble, and by this many become defiled”  Heb 12:14-15
“Bitterness” - acridity (especially poison), literally or figuratively:—bitterness.
“Defiled” -   contaminate 
The root of the “trouble” and divisions caused among disgruntled members who leave the WT, falls on the shoulders of the GB, and the elder body that dispenses the GB's “waters”.  (Rom 16:17;Jude 1:17-19; Rev 8:10,11; 13:11,12,16,17; 17:15)  If we continue to apathetically believe we can spiritually thrive on WT’s infected waters, then our spiritual outcome falls on our shoulders.  (Heb 4:12; Rev 18:4-8)
 
 
 Of interest - " Locust - Scorpions " / " Abaddon " / " fallen star " / " Wormwood "
Pearl Doxsey,  4womaninthewilderness blogspot
 
 
 

Going back to original topic here. The man should not have 'put all his eggs in one basket' it seems.. 
It is sad that his business suffered though (if true) as his being shunned might have been 'punishment' enough.
I would have thought he would have had legal contracts for his business which would mean that customers would be under legal contract to continue business as usual. It does show the lack of love from JW's though, if they deliberately caused problems to his business. 

Point 1. I really do laugh at this term "Only game in town"   As I've said before the JEWISH RELIGIOUS LEADERS would have said that serving God by obeying THEM and the Mosaic Law, was the only game in town. Jesus however proved those Religious leaders to be wrong. Jesus and his disciples carried over the good points of the Mosaic Law and discarded the bits no longer needed. (Such as animal sacrifices, circumcision etc). 
Russell & Co came out of former religions. I presume they must have carried over some good points from those former religions, then made adjustments or changed doctrines.
So why would it not be possible for people that have left the JW Org to form a new religion ?  Carrying over the good and disposing of the bad, of which there seems to be plenty....
I'm not saying it will happen but it does dispose of this idea of 'the only game in town' brainwashing. JW's seem to be taught that there cannot be anything else ever. What if Russell had believed that, the Bible Students would have never been formed. 
Point 2.  The 'Truth' / JW Org.
As I read more and more on here I am finding out that the Governing Body / Writing Dept'  / Legal Dept' et al,  have deliberately told many lies.
The latest I'm reading (on a new topic on here) but the info stems back a while, seems to contain information whereby the 'Org' / those in charge at the time, implied, that children cannot get baptised, and that blood transfusions were acceptable to the Organisation. It seems that this was written in order to get favours from a certain government. 
Both of those things are lies but seem to be deliberately used for some form of dishonest gain.
Then of course we have lawyers telling lies in court about shunning. 
And C.S.A court cases have proved that elders and others have deliberately lied. And the American 'section' of the JW Org deliberately withholding information regarding such matters.
Link this to misuse of scriptures, such as, Superior Authorities, which deliberately took away people's conscience / freedom of choice, in WW2.
And I'm sure people here can come up with lots more examples of lies, deliberate wrongdoing, mistakes, misinterpretations, 'new light' corrections et al.
Why am i writing all this ?  Well I am proving two points. 
1. If it's your 'only game in town' then it's not a good one. 
2. That calling it 'The Truth' is totally deceptive.
I do not think you would like it if I gave you a meal that was three quarters yummy, but a quarter poison. The poison might well contaminate the good food !
So, saying that the Org / GB are three quarters right does not help. 
 
 
 
 

YEAH!!!
The old hacks are wearing out, becoming far too tiresome!
Time for fresh malcontents!

Sorry for butting into your conversation, but I feel like I need to comment on this. I am assuming you are at a stage what ex JW's call "waking up" . This is very misleading though because it implies you have been asleep, and now, by finding out all the stuff they have to say, you are getting "real" facts, whereas really, all it is (in the majority of cases) is them letting go of spirituality, and embracing a me only attitude. If that is the way someone wants to go, then they will find many "excuses" which make this transition easier. These people are no longer concerned about what God thinks, this is why the large majority of them have become atheists, because that's so much easier; they don't have to take God into account in what they do in life at all. That's what it's really about. So don't be mislead in thinking you will find enlightment, unless of course you prefer to forget about God, in which case you will agree with everything they say. But if you are concerned about what God thinks, then do your research and you will find that Jehovah's Witnesses, despite their failings and mistakes, are the only true religion, or as even a die hard critic like JTR would say: "Jehovah's Witnesses are the only game in town". 

Thank you @Anna I totally agree with this point. 

Thank you @Anna I totally agree with this point. 

I am sorry, you misunderstood what I meant. I understand your concern about what the GB think, as they are supposed to be providing food at the proper time, and we are supposed to trust that this food is faultless. But sometimes it isn't. We know that although doing their best, the GB can still make mistakes. In that case, what is ultimately more important than what the GB says or thinks, is what Jehovah says and thinks. This is what I had in mind. By reading several related scriptures it becomes evident that the answer to your concern is that we have to leave it in Jehovahs hands, fully trusting that he is the reader of hearts and is perfectly just and loving, and would NEVER destroy anyone unjustly, even if in our opinion they did the most horrible things. So within this framework, it really doesn't matter what the GB think. Again I apologize, I really did not mean it to sound unloving, just factual. 
So when you mention that we have to be in line with the orgs. thoughts, yes, but first and foremost we have to be in line with Jehovah's thoughts.

I remember the second instance you mentioned, and vaguely the first.  Would you please cite your references ro remind me, and of course "the fourth wall"?
It's always helpful to PROVE assertions that most Jehovah's Witnesses are unaware of, or you lose all credibility.
If memory serves, they lied to some European Government about forbidding blood transfusions, but I don't remember the details. If memory serves, they told that government that there were no congregational sanctions if a JW willfully accepted a blood transfusion.
Of course the lie about the shunning is on video to the Australian Royal Commission on Child Abuse Case No. 29 and 54, which is still on-line.
My mind is like a steel trap, but after 73 years, it's rusty, and  full of old fur and fat.

I acknowledge how i don't know what they know and think.
But what i know in general, is that Christendom talking about going to Paradise after death and having wonderful life there, i didn't hear they expected to be Kings and Priests  :)))

Church ‘shuns‘ 15-year-old, then father – ends up in court
Posted by SDD Contributor on November 9, 2019 at 4:20 am  
The Supreme Court of Canada heard arguments Thursday in a lawsuit against a religious congregation’s “shunning” practice, but the congregation and several other groups contend the justices had no right to even take part in the case.
Randy Wall, a real estate agent, filed the suit against the Highwood congregation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses organization in Calgary, Alberta.
Wall was expelled from the congregation for getting drunk and not be properly repentant, court records said. He pursued an appeals process through the Jehovah’s Witnesses then went to court because he said the Witnesses’ “shunning” — the practice of not associating with him in any way — hurt his business.
He explained his two occasions of drunkenness related to “the previous expulsion by the congregation of his 15-year-old daughter.”
A lower court opinion said: “Even though the daughter was a dependent child living at home, it was a mandatory church edict that the entire family shun aspects of their relationship with her. The respondent said the edicts of the church pressured the family to evict their daughter from the family home. This led to … much distress in the family.”
The “distress” eventually resulted in his drunkenness, Wall said.
 
Wall submitted to the court arguments that about half his client base, members of various Jehovah’s Witnesses congregations, then refused to conduct business with him. He alleged the “disfellowship had an economic impact on the respondent.”
During high court arguments Thursday, the congregation asked the justices to rule that religious congregations are immune to such claims in the judicial system.
The lower courts had ruled that the courts could play a role in determining whether or not such circumstances rise to the level of violating civil rights or injuring a “disfellowshipped” party.
The rulings from the Court of Queen’s Bench and the Alberta Court of Appeals said Wall’s case was subject to secular court jurisdiction.
A multitude of religious and political organizations joined with the congregation in arguing that Canada’s courts should not be involved.
The Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms said in a filing: “The wish or desire of one person to associate with an unwilling person (or an unwilling group) is not a legal right of any kind. For a court, or the government, to support such a ‘right’ violates the right of self-determination of the unwilling parties.”
Previous case law has confirmed the right of religious or private voluntary groups to govern themselves and dictate who can be a member.
But previously rulings also reveal there is room for the court system to intervene when the question centers on property or civil rights.
The Association for Reformed Political Action described the case as having “profound implications for the separation of church and state.”
It contends the court should keep its hands off the argument.
“Secular judges have no authority and no expertise to review a church membership decision,” said a statement from Andre Schutten, a spokesman for the group. “Church discipline is a spiritual matter falling within spiritual jurisdiction, not a legal matter falling within the courts’ civil jurisdiction. The courts should not interfere.”
John Sikkema, staff lawyer for ARPA, said: “The issue in this appeal is jurisdiction. A state actor, including a court, must never go beyond its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court must consider what kind of authority the courts can or cannot legitimately claim. We argue that the civil government and churches each have limited and distinct spheres of authority. This basic distinction between civil and spiritual jurisdiction is a source of freedom and religious pluralism and a guard against civic totalism.”
He continued: “Should the judiciary have the authority to decide who gets to become or remain a church member? Does the judiciary have the authority to decide who does or does not get to participate in the sacraments? Church discipline is a spiritual matter falling within spiritual jurisdiction, not a legal matter falling within the courts’ civil jurisdiction. The courts should not interfere. Here we need separation of church and state.”
The Alberta Court of Appeal, however, suggested the case was about more than ecclesiastical rules.
“Because Jehovah’s Witnesses shun disfellowshipped members, his wife, other children and other Jehovah’s Witnesses were compelled to shun him,” that lower court decision said. “The respondent asked the appeal committee to consider the mental and emotional distress he and his family were under as a result of his duaghter’s disfellowship.”
The church committee concluded he was “not sufficiently repentant.”
The ruling said “the only basis for establishing jurisdiction over a decision of the church is when the complaint involves property and civil rights,” and that is what Wall alleged.
“Accordingly, a court has jurisdiction to review the decision of a religious organization when a breach of the rules of natural justice is alleged.”
 
               

What do think of a country where Doctors can be forced to do abortions?
I can't accuse the country, Doctors can quit or take their business elsewhere. Criminals of war were just following orders because they thought sh:t rolled up hill, but you see, it doesn't.

Lol, no, just realistic 😀
I've learned in life, that most decisions, no matter how noble or spiritual they appear, revolve around sex or money or both. Now call me cynical, lol.

Well that is what I had in mind. I agree, we are not ready to have terms like this applied to us. That is why I think that kind of situation is "glossed over" with other terms, such as "Jehovah is guiding this" and "it's for our spiritual benefit to cooperate".
On the other hand, to be fair, I bumped into a couple of single sisters from said KH and they seemed to be pretty happy in their new one. But who knows what the reason is....new hunting grounds perhaps? 😀

Well, aren't you the cynical one?

I don't think they're hiding that we need money, (periodic reminders of how much things cost). I just think that sometimes creating new ways of saving money is put forward as a spiritual benefit, rather than what it is, a financial benefit. There's a rumour going round where I live that 25 elders have been demoted because they wouldn't cooperate with the arrangement. I wonder what was on the elders minds? The spiritual benefit, or the financial?
Interesting
@JW Insider let me illustrate what I mean, I have mentioned this on here before. After the fall of communism the brothers of one small town in Europe got together and with their own hands and own resources built a beautiful Kingdom Hall. The congregation was thriving well for the next 30 years. Then two years ago, one night at the midweek meeting, it was announced that the KH would be put on the market. No one knew anything about it and it came as a shock. There was a lot of upset, not only about the KH but also about the logistical aspects. There were many old timers there, who did not drive, and relied on the friends in the town to swing by and pick them up for the meeting. Now, the KH everyone was assigned to was 1 hour away.....
This is not an isolated case. I have heard of many other cases similar to this here in the US. We just had a married couple move into our hall for the same reason. They were given a choice where they wanted to go, but every KH was 2 hrs away, so they moved into our territory. It wasn't too much trouble for them as they are a young couple and both pioneers. Not so sure what the older ones did....by the way, the territory this pioneer couple lived in was very country. I guess now it will become one of those once a year worked territories.
PS. I wanted this last bit to be separate, but it still got merged with the previous reply...

Um, empty K H's when the Governing Body say we are so close to the 'end of this system'. I thought there was supposed to be a massive influx near the end, not empty K H's. 
Actually it is quite difficult for a private person to get insurance for a minibus here in the UK.  The government seem to think it has to be for business use. And congregations will not support the running of a minibus, and elders make that clear. 
As for 'true Christians' travelling as far as it takes. That is not a loving thought. I know of older brothers and sisters that cannot drive in the dark. I think that here in the UK half of every congregation is old people. So where is this love that should abound in the 'truth' ?  

Wow, Having missed only two hours on here, I am now 3 pages behind. Makes it rather difficult to keep up and even more so when the subject changes so much on each topic. 
I do think there is a vast difference in what the 'early Christians' said and did as opposed to what the J W Org / GB say and do now.  Someone mentioned about  'those not with us now that were formerly with us', as part of a scripture (you see i do find it difficult to relate to it all ) . But the scripture was concerning those 'early Christians' which were inspired of God and of the Anointed. They would have known 'pure' truth from the Hebrew scriptures, and also have been guided directly by God through Christ and through Holy Spirit. 
How can anyone relate that to a Governing Body that admit that they are not inspired of God ? How can you relate that to an Organisation that is so big, that the Governing Body is totally out of touch with it ?  A Governing Body that admit that they do wrong (err), as well as make mistakes.  
Having followed this 'blog' for a long time, I've seen / read, many here that have given proof of 'mistakes' / wrong doing by the Governing Body, the Writing Department, Elders et al.  So how can a person compare a scripture which relates to the pure worship of God through Christ, of those first century Christians. It makes no sense. In the time of the disciples/ apostles, true worship was direct, because the 'group of people' involved was small. The Greek scriptures were written directly by those actually hands on, doing daily work, and having direct guidance. What can we say now ? No one is inspired by God. No one is pure. The Governing Body give themselves the tittle of F & D S, but it proves nothing, because they get so much wrong.  We've also seen by written examples here on this blog , that the elders do not show the love and care for the 'flock'. 
I do however like the idea of the 'Apostasy spectrum' because the word apostate is banded about by those in the J W org just as an excuse not to talk to or mix with someone, even if said J W knows nothing about the reason someone is no longer attending meetings or has left the Org. 
I would talk personally with Arauna when she says, a person can only be an apostate to the truth. My answer is, But truth changes week by week in J W Org. 
Mr Rook, I thought the Charity Commission here in the UK were thinking of stopping the 'allowances' too, but it hasn't happened yet. 
 

Norway is the great catalyst that will force the GB to start thinking about basic human rights, as currently there is a lot of discussion in the Norwegian Government about " ... Why are we giving the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society Norwegian dollars (Kroners) every year from Tax money for their charities ... for EACH and every of the approximately 112,000 JWs in Norway (paraphrased), when they prohibit their members to vote"... which THEY consider to be an inalienable, and non-negotiable human right of all peoples, everywhere.
The WTB&TS is currently being governed by the Lawyers, Accountants, and the Finances department, with the GB not admitting being personally responsible for ANYTHING.
What we consider "reasonable", they consider EXTREMIST, and many European nations give tax money to ALL legitimate churches, without restriction on how they spend it.
By violating what these governments' and peoples' basic understanding on what constitutes extremism, soon, if not already, it is going to affect the flow of cash into the Society's Treasury.
One of several major concerns of the Governing Body is to not hemorrhage money, as it has been doing for years in the constant Child Sexual Abuse court cases.
THIS is what will drive any change .... not love ... not justice ...not fairness .... MONEY!
By the way .... has the Society recently decided that voting is a matter of personal conscience?
What I have read is so "weasel worded", I cannot tell.
 
 

Forgive me, but I cannot read this expression “apostasy spectrum” without thinking of the newfound “autism spectrum” that is all the rage today, as moderns try to come to grips with the fact that, for whatever reason, autism is off the charts today, and so they try to normalize it.
In both cases—apostasy spectrum and autism spectrum—is not the emphasis on what is actually the least helpful? Is not the emphasis on symptoms, whereas it would be both more useful and revealing were it on causes?
With autism, there is vehement disagreement as to causes. Some suggested causes are thought absolutely taboo to the established world view, and so it is symptoms that dominate the discussion. Symptoms are easier than causes to get one’s head around. You can argue till the cows come home about causes, but symptoms are straightforward. Easier to talk about symptoms, therefore, even if less valuable.
So we can talk about the “apostasy spectrum,” and it is all very nice—I do appreciate the insight and work that has gone into writing of it, but it is more helpful to speak of the causes—for there is where one might do something so as to not fall victim to incessant and even bitter complaining.
Most discussions on this forum about congregation discipline consider it from the standpoint of human rights. As such, I will concede that some of them make valid points. But they will never make too much headway with the GB, I think, because the latter are primarily concerned with, as Tom Henry puts it, “God’s rights.” That expression is a little off-base because he is God—his rights are anything he wants them to be, It is better to speak of “God’s requirements,” the way Witness publications do.
God’s requirements are that there should be a people for his name that is absolutely separate from the world—“no part of the world.” This concern of his almost never factors in to discussions here—almost always it is “human rights,” and the unspoken assumption is that if human rights are cared for, God’s rights will be. It is a humanist view that prevails, divorced from spiritual concerns. 
In fact, observing God’s requirements will ultimately work out best for even “human rights” but we do not necessarily recognize that because we are short-sighted. We want what we want now. We are like kids in the car incessantly whining, “Are we there yet?” and at last father whirls around and says, “If you kids don’t stop crying back there, I’m going to stop this car and give you something to cry about!”
No, I think there will be little fundamental change on disfellowshipping because the GB dares not neglect “God’s right’s” to a people for his name separated from the world. Disfellowshipping is the wall to keep alien views out. That is not to say it will not be tweaked, and it is being tweaked. The word itself is not used in congregation announcements for many years. Associating with a disfellowshipped family member, while it may trigger counsel and may exclude one from being viewed as “exemplary” and thus ineligible for congregation office, will not bring the same sanctions as associating with a non-family disfellowshipped person. The situation of those baptized when young is handled by simply cutting them a bit more slack when they err. 
Human rights will never be the driving factor in the Witness organization. God’s requirements will be the focus. The whole concept of human rights is a bit pretentious anyway. For someone to be said to have “rights,” ought you not be able to DO something about it if those rights are violated? Yet, violated “rights” are the norm in today’s world. Even “holding people accountable” and making them “take responsibility” do little to close the gap. They are more media talking points than there are substantial reality. They are too feeble to get all hopped up about.
And yet when we focus on disfellowshipping HERE, we are primarily obsessed with “human rights.”

It sounds like a lot of JWs are treating all of you as if you were all apostates.
I've seen situations in households that sounded similar where the persons who were not disfellowshipped were still associated with as a way to continue to keep tabs on other persons. I've see situations where the non-disfellowshipped members had the exact same views as the disfellowshipped but family members continued to associate with the non-disfellowshipped ones as a means to continue having the semblance of some kind of family: especially to see children, grandchildren, etc. Also, I have seen cases, and this includes one of my now deceased uncles, who was baptized young, and disfellowshipped when he left as a teenager. Long before I was born, he would say stupid and terrible things about JWs and Jehovah, just to get a rise out of my mother and grandmother (his sister and mother). But over the years he settled down, got married, raised kids, took good care of his wife and his share of taking care of his mother and other elder aunts and uncles of his. But he couldn't come back to the JWs if he wanted to, because he was now an "affirmed" atheist/agnostic with no interest in religion - but no interest in speaking out against religion, either. By the time I was growing up, we never went out of our way to visit him and his family, but they were often over at my grandmother's house.
So, a disfellowshipped person, who is now an atheist and who doesn't focus on JWs is somewhere near the middle of this spectrum.
Some of the groups on the spectrum therefore include:
JWs in good standing who apostasized from other religions. Former JW's who were not DF'd, but who drift away because they have no interest in speaking out against JWs. These would not really be distinguishable from those who drift into inactivity for unknown reasons. Former JW's who were disfellowshipped and or who left because they couldn't live up to moral standards. Former JW's who were disfellowshipped for any known reasons but so long ago that a kind of unwritten "statute of limitations" has run out, especially for purposes of associating with family and relatives. Former JW's who were "stumbled" by something they saw, or experienced: abuse, 1925, 1975, changed teachings, etc. Former JWs who didn't want to be disfellowshipped, but who were "cast out of the synagogue" because they felt a conscientious need to speak out against one or two specific teachings or practices. (Those who did not "push" away but who were "pushed.") Former JW's who speak out against specific teachings or practices, but for whom their confusion is chalked up to a mental illness they have no mental capacity to overcome. (I'm talking about an obvious mental illness handicap of some kind, not merely an accusation.) Those DF'd for apostasy, but who we never hear from again. Those DF'd for apostasy, but who continue to make noise against JWs. Those NOT DF'd for apostasy, but who make a lot of noise and accusations specifically against JWs Then we also have a category, of those who are truly apostate, but who are not found out and remain in full association. Perhaps they find ways to undermine fellow JWs or manipulate, sometimes in a more subtle way, perhaps by a haughty attitude, perhaps by giving them a bad reputation in the way they take advantage of others. Some may find semi-anonymous settings in which to create contentions, and make strong judgments to "curse" others. Some may get away with their own immoral practices and defend themselves in ways that draw in the vulnerable. These are like the rocks/reefs in Jude 1:12:
When these people eat with you in your fellowship meals commemorating the Lord’s love, they are like dangerous reefs that can shipwreck you. They are like shameless shepherds who care only for themselves. They are like clouds blowing over the land without giving any rain. They are like trees in autumn that are doubly dead, for they bear no fruit and have been pulled up by the roots. (New Living Translation)
 
There are some who do speak up and offer false or confusing teachings, or maybe even true teachings but in a way that creates disorder and confusion.
We should remember that there were those who would speak up in the early Christian congregation with a saying or a bit of knowledge or a tongue, or a translation for someone who had been moved to speak in a tongue. Not all of these bits of knowledge would make sense to everyone. Paul knew that. John knew that. Not everything would build up. Sometimes the utterance would be worthless, or worse, might appear to have been from a demonic spirit. These gifts were causing confusion, and Paul wished to bring some order to the congregations. Ultimately, a simple solution was apparently implemented. If it promoted Jesus Christ as Lord, let it stand.
(1 Corinthians 12:1-3) . . .Now concerning the spiritual gifts, brothers, I do not want you to be uninformed. 2 . . .  3 Now I would have you know that nobody when speaking by God’s spirit says: “Jesus is accursed!” and nobody can say: “Jesus is Lord!” except by holy spirit.
(1 John 4:1, 2) . . .Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired statement, but test the inspired statements to see whether they originate with God,. . .2 This is how you know that the inspired statement is from God: Every inspired statement that acknowledges Jesus Christ as having come in the flesh originates with God.
(Revelation 19:10) . . .For the witness concerning Jesus is what inspires prophecy.”
Because of the wide variety of persons both inside and outside the congregation to watch out for, I think a lot of the onus is on individual Christians to decide who is good or bad association for themselves. The apostate may feel himself under no obligation to stand off from us, so we have to "apostasize" from them, especially those who continue to associate. We "mark" them. But if they have not stood away from us, and still want to associate, then technically they might not even be "apostates" and we should not judge them so harshly. But if we feel they are not building us up spiritually, and we seem not to be able to offer them anything, then they can be to us like a man of the nations or a tax collector. We can therefore associate as needed, but always, as with anyone, we keep a view to how this association might build us up or tear us down, and therefore we are very careful of such associations.
When we use the expression, "they went out from us because they were not of our sort," we have to be careful that we are referring to the sort of people we should be. We should be the sort of persons who will continue to show love to all kinds of persons, even our enemies. We have to be careful that we have not become the sort who judge harshly, or who push people away just because we don't understand them, or because we are too haughty to be questioned.