Ann O'Maly

A knotty problem is whether religious belief should infringe on the freedoms of others, e.g. when men enjoy certain freedoms denied to women, as outlined in the article. 

Another problem is how animals are slaughtered and how to make this the most humane. It is alleged that Kosher and Halal methods fall short of the standards put forward by animal welfare advisory bodies.

Is there any sound religious basis to insist on certain practices? Or are those practices just traditions that could be changed without compromising foundational beliefs?

But Giannis is asking why a person, who was disfellowshipped for having a kidney transplant, should repent of something that the Org. no longer believed was wrong. 

8 hours ago, AnonymousBrother said:

Let's see for a short list: ... ...

OK.

I notice that you do not give specific references or quotes to support your point. This makes it harder to verify your claim. Perhaps you just threw out names hoping some might stick. It's appears you didn't bother to actually check what they said.

Barnes refers the reader of 2 John 7 to his notes on 1 John 4:2 where he says,

"It is quite probable that the apostle here refers to such sentiments as those which were held by the 'Docetae;' and that he meant to teach that it was indispensable to proper evidence that anyone came from God, that he should maintain that Jesus was truly a man, or that there was a real incarnation of the Son of God."

Alford neither agrees nor disagrees. He doesn't mention the Docetists in his commentary.

A.E. Brooks - The Johannine Epistles, I presume. While he questions whether John was specifically pinning down Docetism as the 'false teaching,' he does say that the "connection of the [first] Epistle with Gnostic ideas is quite apparent" (p. xliii). He also acknowledges that the recognized connection between John's First and Second Epistles with Docetism has had a long history and, while he finds it unfortunate that the term 'Docetism' has both a "wider and narrower signification," he says it can be applied in a more popular sense,

"to characterize all teaching which denied the reality of the Incarnation, and therefore the reality and completeness of the Lord's humanity." (p. xliv) 

This application is still pretty specific and again is not meant to be a catch-all for any infraction of an ecclesiastical authority's policies and teaching.

W Hall Harris - Are you referring to his book, 1, 2, 3 John - Comfort and Counsel for a Church in Crisis? P.211 - "There is no indisputable evidence for docetism in the Johannine letters." Well, that's one scholar so far.

The Pulpit Commentary:

"These seducers deny 'Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh,' or they deny 'Jesus as Christ coming in the flesh.' The present participle ἐρχόμενον seems to indicate exactly the position of some of the Gnostic teachers. ... The Gnostic denied that the Incarnation could take place: no such Person as the Christ coming in the flesh was possible; that the Infinite should become finite, that the Divine Word should become flesh, was inconceivable. The teacher who brings such doctrine as this 'is the deceiver and the antichrist' about whom the elder's children had been so frequently warned."

Docetism was a form of Gnosticism.
 
FB Hole neither agrees nor disagrees with the idea that John was targeting Docetists because he doesn't mention them. He applies John's words to 'Modernism.'

William Kelly -  neither agrees nor disagrees. He doesn't mention the Docetists but talks in generalities.

J R Dummelow - his introduction to 2 John discusses the historical context of the letter and how the Docetist view, which denied Jesus' true nature, was a threat to the Christianity that John held dear. No disagreement from Drummelow.

Leon Morris - did he do a discussion of John's letters? I cannot find one among his listed works.

James Macknight -  A New Literal Translation, from the Original Greek, of all the Apostolical Epistles, with a Commentary, and Notes, Philological, Critical, Explanatory, and Practical. To which is added, A History of the Life of the Apostle Paul, Vol VI - an old 18th century commentary. MacKnight says that the purpose of the 2nd epistle to John was 

"to confute the error of Basilides and his followers, who affirmed that Christ was not a real man, but only a man in appearance; consequently, that he neither did nor suffered what he appeared to do and suffer." (P. 134)

MacKnight was mistaken in attributing the heresy to Basilides as he lived after John's letter was supposed to have been written, but it's clear that MacKnight thought John was targeting Gnostic heresy.

Coffman's commentaries:

"The heresy of the false deceivers was that of denying the Incarnation. Various scholars have identified such teachers as Docetists, Cerinthians, and Gnostics."

Quote

need more?

Nah. Your "most scholars" that "disagree" John was targeting the Docetic heresy amount to ... let me get my calculator ... a grand total of ... one.

13 hours ago, AnonymousBrother said:

There were *many* others in addition to the Docetists, so I still think you want to be too specific, when most scholars also disagree.

Many other what? Groups/people who believed Jesus was an apparition? Who?

Which scholars disagree that John was targeting the Docetic heresies?

14 hours ago, AnonymousBrother said:

I see the need to be sure someone is repentant, which the scriptures indicate takes place. You just want to take their word for it, which the scriptures do not indicate is adequate. 

Where is there scriptural precedent for a congregational policy that has the person attending every meeting for a year or more, and all the while family and friends not conversing with him until the elders finally deem him repentant and reinstate him?

14 hours ago, AnonymousBrother said:

How do you know it was "enough" if you cannot observe change? Take your eyes off the publications you seem to find so much fault in and tell me: How do you know? Wait for another abuse case to be reported? Then DF again?

How do you know that the person seeking reinstatement is not putting on an elaborate act of repentance? Maybe the person just wants to be able to talk to/associate with their family again. Maybe it's part of the plan to have a new (adulterous) marriage accepted, given enough time (I know two cases where that happened). How can an elder body really know either way before making a decision?

We've been talking generally but you bring up abuse cases - crimes rather than sins. The way you framed the question suggests to me that you may not be aware of how an abuse case would be handled as a matter of course. As JW policy stands now, an alleged abuser can only be dealt with if there are two witnesses to the crime. If there aren't two witnesses to the crime, another child or young person would have to have been abused and come forward before the elders would do anything - like e.g. disfellowship the abuser.

If the abuser is disfellowshipped for child abuse, one would hope that he has also faced justice in the courts. If he has faced the courts and been convicted, he would then be put on the sex offenders' registry and monitored by the authorities. If he was then reinstated into the congregation, whether he was genuinely repentant or not, the elders and congregation members would be alerted to the fact that there is a convicted sexual predator in their midst and take precautions to protect their children from becoming another victim.

17 hours ago, gfnslave said:

Love.....love was the teaching of Christ. 

... Among a few other things, including that he would be killed (Mark 10:32-34). And he was killed. That's why John found the Docetists' teaching so offensive.

Returning to the wider thread theme, AnonymousBrother stated:

On 2/27/2016 at 11:58 AM, AnonymousBrother said:

In those case where an expulsion has not taken place, but just discipline has been carried out, Paul advises us:

2 Cor 2:5~11 (ASV) 

Now if anyone has caused pain, he has caused it not to me, but in some measure—not to put it too severely—to all of you. For such a one, this punishment by the majority is enough, so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him. For this is why I wrote, that I might test you and know whether you are obedient in everything. Anyone whom you forgive, I also forgive. Indeed, what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ, so that we would not be outwitted by Satan; for we are not ignorant of his designs.

But this Scripture is talking about after an expulsion has taken place and welcoming the man back.

*** w10 6/15 p. 13 Keep Building Up the Congregation ***

“Kindly Forgive and Comfort Him”
13 The first-century Corinthian congregation faced the situation of a man who unrepentantly practiced fornication. His conduct threatened the purity of the congregation and was a scandal even among nonbelievers. Hence, Paul rightly directed that the man be removed from the congregation.—1 Cor. 5:1, 7, 11-13.

14 That discipline had a good effect. The congregation was protected from a corrupting influence, and the sinner was brought to his senses and to sincere repentance. On the basis of the man’s works befitting repentance, Paul indicated in his second letter to that congregation that the man should be reinstated. This was not all that was required, however. Paul also directed that the congregation “kindly forgive and comfort [the repentant sinner], that somehow such a man may not be swallowed up by his being overly sad.”—Read 2 Corinthians 2:5-8.
 

Again, there is no hint that the congregation's policy was (to adapt Giannis' words): "Neither we nor your family will speak to you until you prove you are remorseful and attend every congregation meeting for at least a year." 

I can't make sense of your objection here, AnonymousBrother . John does not allude to the issue of circumcision in his 2nd letter. Surely we are agreed on that? I also said that John talks about staying in the teaching of Christ. So we are agreed on that. I made no interpretation regarding 'the teaching of Christ' but I did ask a question about what actually was the 'teaching of Christ.'

There are some weaknesses with the 'two destinies' idea, however.

If all true Christians in the 1st century were 'anointed,' what changed?

Regarding the weaknesses that center on Rev. 7 ...

1. Rev. 7's numbers 12 x 12,000 are understood to be symbolic, but it is insisted that the total number 144,000 is literal. This is inconsistent.

2. When Rev. 7 is read more closely, the 144k group are on earth; otherwise, why are the four angels told to hold back the destructive winds until the 144k are sealed? Cp. Rev. 9:4.

3. When Rev. 7 is read more closely, the envisioned 'great crowd' is seen in the same heavenly location as the four living creatures, angels and 24 elders. On what contextual basis can we argue that the 'great crowd' is in a different location to the four living creatures, angels and 24 elders?

One viable interpretation is that the 144,000 and 'great crowd' is the same group seen from a different perspective. John hears a schematic number (7:4) but sees the reality (7:9). Cp. Rev 5:5, 6 (John hears a description of Jesus but sees Jesus' appearance).

I'm so glad she made it home, but it's heartbreaking to see her so ill. My thoughts are with her, her family and friends.

1 hour ago, AnonymousBrother said:

So, you are saying that as long as you believe Christ came in the flesh and was resurrected, but that you had to adhere to circumcision to be saved, that was *not* John's intent?

I can't remember Jesus teaching anything about circumcision, the question was long resolved by the time John wrote his letter, and he didn't allude to the circumcision issue here, so no, warning against the pro-circumcision lobby was not John's intent

1 hour ago, AnonymousBrother said:

Or that you believed that Jesus was flesh and blood but forbade Jews from being Christians, that was OK?

Again, banning Jews from Christianity is not the issue that John alludes to. 

The doctrinal threat to Christianity was more fundamental: if Jesus didn't really die, then there was no resurrection. If Jesus wasn't resurrected, Christian faith has no basis (as Paul said in 1 Cor. 15).

1 hour ago, AnonymousBrother said:

You want to say that John *only* had *1* specific target for his warning?

John talks about love, warns about those who teach that Jesus didn't come in the flesh and urges Christians to remain in Christ's teaching (and what exactly was Christ's teaching?). Any other perceived target is eisegesis, pure speculation. 

7 hours ago, Joe Smith said:

My reference to time-counting being an obsession within the JW ORG still stands though

Lol. Absolutely! And the beans JWs have to count are getting smaller and smaller - every tract, every JW video shown, every pdf sent. I think of Matt. 23:23, 24.

Enjoy your hot, sunny, late summer afternoon. Hmpf. I'm not jealous. Honest.

6 hours ago, AnonymousBrother said:

The particular scripture is definitely not about DF and reinstatement. It is about not associating with those who are basically wicked.

But the 'wicked' in this context was specifically about a kind of Gnostic Christian who taught Jesus was not a flesh-and-blood person which went against the fundamentals of the Gospel. It wasn't a generic 'any who an ecclesiastical authority deems wicked, for any number of reasons, do not speak to them at all.' If we were to shun all 'basically wicked' people we wouldn't speak to anybody at all. Cp. Luke. 11:13 (Matt. 7:11). 

15 hours ago, Anke Adolphi said:

THE  WAY  TAKES  210  DAYS !

Now yes.

Possible future technology?

http://www.space.com/32026-photon-propulsion-mars-three-days.html

15 hours ago, Anke Adolphi said:

Science-fiction....  Maybe a nice dream for all these freaks ;o)

Maybe not in our lifetime. Little steps. They'll likely try out a small colony on the Moon first. 

4 hours ago, AnonymousBrother said:

2 John 9~11 (ESV)
Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.

2 John 10 explains not to associate with those who are basically wicked.

This Scripture was particularly targeting the Docetists. Christians considered them heretics because they believed Jesus only appeared to have a human body but wasn't actually a physical being: therefore, Jesus didn't really suffer and die as a human but just gave the illusion that he did. The context of John's words makes it clear who he was warning about:

2 John 7 - "For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist."

Those who promoted Docetist views were wicked, according to John. This is NOT a text about judicial action, disfellowshipping and all infractions of Bible principles as perceived by the JW organizational hierarchy.

On 2/25/2016 at 4:39 AM, Joe Smith said:

You see Jay - the focus is all skewed. here you are obsessing about the TIME ...

You may have missed where Jay Witness said he didn't agree with his friends counting time for this. So it's an open question he's asking rather than an 'obsession.'

From http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/clergypriest-privilege.html

Quote

No third parties may be present (unless they too are clergy you are confessing to).  You cannot make a confession in front of other people and still expect the conversation to be secret. 

I think this is part of the problem in the JW system and with this case. Another part of the problem is who initiated each meeting with the elders and for what purpose. 

The judgment denying the Congregation's motion to exempt the elders from disclosing the crime (because of their claim to clergy-penitential privilege) makes some notable observations. See http://courts.delaware.gov/opinions/download.aspx?ID=235880

20 minutes ago, admin said:

But why not fracking etc?

Use up Earth's resources for commercial gain and then start on Mars? It doesn't sit right.

If the Bible teaches that YHWH is God and God is our Father, is it appropriate to address Him with His name all the time? If I addressed my parents by their names, I would have been told off!

Depends what you mean by 'colonize.'

Scientific outposts like in Antarctica, sure.

Rich tourists, frackers and commercial geology surveyors? No.

Anyone know what the 'Youth Emergency Assistance' group stands for? Is it similar to the one in CA that helps homeless youths whose families have kicked them out?

'Jehovah' is just the anglicized version of the Name which was adapted from the Latin version of it. Many other languages don't have the hard English 'J' sound anyway - they have a 'Y' (ya) sound instead (like the Hebrew letter 'yod'). The 'W' is from the Hebrew letter which is pronounced 'vav.'

Whether the original Hebrew Name consisted of two or three syllables, and which are the correct vowels ... that's for people with far better knowledge than I to debate. But what we have is an approximation.

Imho, sometimes people can become too obsessed with trying to figure out the 'correct' pronunciation. If pronouncing the Name 'just so' was that important, you'd think the method would have been preserved in the Bible for posterity.

19 hours ago, Γιαννης Διαμαντιδης said:

thank you dear brothers and all the Jehovah's witness comunity worlwide for trying to protect us from bad cats !

Indeed. 

Are Cats For True Christians? - http://www.jmm.org.au/articles/13394.htm

@Ross Tinney

Quote

Politics (from Greek: πολιτικός politikos, definition "of, for, or relating to citizens") is the practice and theory of influencing other people. Politics involves the making of a common decision for a group of people, that is, a uniform decision applying in the same way to all members of the group. It also involves the use of power by one person to affect the behavior of another person. More narrowly, it refers to achieving and exercising positions of governance — organized control over a human community, particularly a state. Furthermore, politics is the study or practice of the distribution of power and resources within a given community (a usually hierarchically organized population) as well as the interrelationship(s) between communities. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics

The Org. cannot help but be political. It has fought for religious and conscientious freedom before governments and in the courts. It exercises positions of governance and has organized control over a human community (JWs). It has lobbied for zone changes in Brooklyn. This is all 'politics.'

JTR - It sounds like you need a jw-archive/internet break. Go walk in the countryside, visit with flesh-and-blood friends, enjoy reading a real paper book on something not JW.

Hopefully, you'll be back to your impish self before long. 

On 2/17/2016 at 6:14 AM, Manuel Boyet Enicola said:

I totally agree with you brother.  Going over your posts, I noticed some concerns of yours are global, some local.  But just like in he first century, the apostle Peter said: “Lord, whom shall we go away to? You have sayings of everlasting life..."  (John 6:68) Today, no other organization is as close to Jehovah than the JWs.  

Wait a minute. When did the 'whom' become a 'what'?