Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'shunning'.
Found 29 results
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: 'Tom Irregardless and Me'
- jw.org 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.
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. " http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/ Please share any thoughts you have on the reasoning used in this document. Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don't: Religious Shunning and the free exercise clause 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.
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 !!!