Should JW's punish, disfellowship, or shun members who disagree with certain teachings?

[Albert Michelson]

2 minutes ago, Nana Fofana said:

he chooses to leave, and his father has no choice,

Compareing a carefully made decision to a  prideful rebellion doesn't really work. The two aren't remotely analogous. 

[Albert Michelson]

3 minutes ago, Nana Fofana said:

You could have had and could still have a wrong impression of what the 'world' is really like.

It doesn't exist. It's a false dichotomy. The world is everyone and guess what, it's full of wonderful people and it's also filled with a$$holes just like the organization. The difference being that I'm no longer constantly being blackmailed and guilted into doing things and believing things that the organization requires. It may not mean much to you but that freedom of mind and of conscience is invaluable to me.

 

ps this is my last post of the day. 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

20 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

It doesn't exist. It's a false dichotomy. The world is everyone and guess what, it's full of wonderful people and it's also filled with a$$holes just like the organization. The difference being that I'm no longer constantly being blackmailed and guilted into doing things and believing things that the organization requires. It may not mean much to you but that freedom of mind and of conscience is invaluable to me.

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

On 8/27/2017 at 10:23 PM, Albert Michelson said:

My issue isn't with the doctrines. Believe whatever you want I don't care, my issue is with the fact that those who can't keep teaching what they know to be false are punished. 

Nothing unusual about that .. the Catholics have been doing that for 1700 years ...once ANY human organization reaches a certain size, money, power, and position (or fear of losing it ..) becomes the controlling factor.  This is especially true of those claiming divine approval.

It was even true of the Japanese Empire, during WWII, with the Emperor of Japan as their god.

It "comes with the territory".  It did in Jesus' time, and it does now.

Nothing new.

Samo Samo.

There never have been any exceptions ....

There are none now.

[JW Insider]

14 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

Anyway, in Romans 14 he still kept the "burden" imposed by the council in Jerusalem.

• (Acts 15:19, 20) 19 Therefore, my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God, 20 but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from what is strangled, and from blood.

Note that it doesn't say abstain from idolatry, murder, and theft, but focuses first on "things polluted by idols." Thayer's Greek Lexicon says that the word  ἀλίσγημα here, refers to "pollution from the use of meats left from the heathen sacrifices." Obviously this meat could have been strangled, or otherwise improperly bled, and therefore contained blood. So 3 out of 4 counts from the "burden" could have been broken just by eating ἀλίσγημα.

In fact the NWT footnote on the word strangled shows that this isn't really the only idea here. It says "Or, 'what is killed without draining its blood.'" When the "burden" is repeated in verse 29, the intention is obviously the same:

• (Acts 15:29) 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. . . .

But this time the word "pollution" (implying the ritual uncleanness of the meat) is made even clearer by using the word εἰδωλόθυτος, which is translated as "meats sacrificed to idols" in some translations (KJV) or just "things sacrificed to idols." All the meat-related items are now listed next to each other and sexual immorality is pushed to the end. Notice that the NWT cross-references both "things polluted by idols" and "things sacrificed to idols" with the verse at 1 Corinthians 10:14 which says "flee from idolatry." But the verse isn't about idolatry, it's about abstaining from improperly bled meat which could be bought at a Gentile meat market. Would Gentile Christians now have to go to a Jewish meat market to get their meat? Would they have to inquire as to whether something had been strangled or otherwise bled improperly?

Just look down from 1 Cor 10:14 to verse 25-27

• (1 Corinthians 10:25-27) Eat whatever is sold in a meat market, making no inquiry because of your conscience, . . .  27 If an unbeliever invites you and you want to go, eat whatever is set before you, making no inquiry on account of your conscience.

In fact it was only if someone else with a weaker conscience was there and pointed out:

• (1 Corinthians 10:28, 29) 28 But if anyone says to you, “This is something offered in sacrifice,” do not eat because of the one who told you and because of conscience. 29 I do not mean your own conscience, but that of the other person. . . .

And you can probably guess, now, what the Greek word was for "something offered in sacrifice." It was the exact same word that the "Governing Body" at Jerusalem put in the "burden:" εἰδωλόθυτος. So what do you think Paul was saying about the 3 meat-related items in the list?

And we don't have any evidence that Paul only said this before the Jerusalem council met, but would have complied afterwards. It was more likely already about 6 years after. For one thing the Insight book times Acts 15 to about 49 CE. And it times 1 Corinthians to about 55 CE.

• *** it-1 p. 257 Barnabas ***
• In about 49 C.E., Barnabas and Paul took the burning question of circumcision of non-Jews up to the governing body in Jerusalem, and with that settled, they were soon back in Antioch preparing for their next missionary tour. (Ac 15:2-36)
• *** nwt p. 1663 Table of the Books of the Bible ***
• 1 Corinthians      Paul     Ephesus     c. 55[C.E.]

Paul, therefore, appears to have knocked out two or three items from the very list that came from the "Governing Body." And I don't think Paul was ever disfellowshipped for this.

[JW Insider]

1 minute ago, Nana Fofana said:

confronted by  2 witlesses

Good thing Rutherford didn't have a sense of humor.

[Albert Michelson]

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Paul, therefore, appears to have knocked out two or three items from the very list that came from the "Governing Body." And I don't think Paul was ever disfellowshipped for this.

So I'm assuming you do believe the Jerusalem Council was a Governing Body and not a one time meeting to address a specific issue.

[TrueTomHarley]

10 hours ago, Albert Michelson said:

It doesn't exist. It's a false dichotomy. The world is everyone and guess what, it's full of wonderful people

I will partially agree on this one. It's true. Not everyone is the guide leading the blind men into a pit. Some are merely the blind men.

We have a video of someone who left the truth and came back, cautioning others to not do it. "The world will chew you up and spit you out," he says. I don't care for that video. It is not true. Sometimes 'the world' chews you up but does not spit you out. Sometimes it spits you out but does not chew you up. A prime example of the latter lies in the hospital geriatric wing, where a relative works as a nurse. She tells of people experiencing severe letdown at the curtain call, who look around and say (not literally) "is this all there is?" These are not losers. These are persons who have had successful careers and have raised caring families. But as the end draws near and their bodies ungracefully fall apart, they say "is this all there is?"

Why anyone would throw away the freedom derived from Bible knowledge for the petty freedoms this world has to offer is beyond me.

10 hours ago, Albert Michelson said:

and it's also filled with a$$holes just like the organization.

You know, I kind of like this guy. He does not hide what he is. He is not like one who comes in positively cooing love for God and all his witnesses, if only...if only....it does not come out at first....if only they would assassinate those leaders of theirs. I can't stand people like that.

10 hours ago, Albert Michelson said:

and it's also filled with a$$holes just like the organization.

It reminds me of my ill-advised aborted experience at the apostate website. There was one idiot who would give only short 'sound byte' comments, always with insulting graphics, and whenever he mentioned Jehovah's Witnesses, he would 'dollar-sign' every 'S'. Okay. Got it. He thinks we should be like John, subsisting on honey and locusts. In time, whenever I referred to him, I would dollar-sign every 's' within a two millimeter radius. (this is not to call AM an idiot - believe me, the two are poles apart in presentation, though there is some overlap)

[Albert Michelson]

28 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

We have a video of someone who left the truth and came back, cautioning others to not do it. "The world will chew you up and spit you out," he says. I don't care for that video. It is not true. Sometimes 'the world' chews you up but does not spit you out. Sometimes it spits you out but does not chew you up. A prime example of the latter lies in the hospital geriatric wing, where a relative works as a nurse. She tells of people experiencing severe letdown at the curtain call, who look around and say (not literally) "is this all there is?" These are not losers. These are persons who have had successful careers and have raised caring families. But as the end draws near and their bodies ungracefully fall apart, they say "is this all there is?"

Well once again "world" is just a term that  The organization uses in order to create a sense of separation and us versus them.  I think it's commendable that you haven't bought into this nonsense and propaganda that the organization is pushing, at least not fully. However  you still seem to think that it's the world that's going to do the chewing up and spitting out.  In my experience you are more likely to be emotionally abused and psychologically harmed  in the organization than out of it.  But I suppose that's just a personal opinion and it's subjective.

 you also keep asserting that somehow by leaving the organization you've lost all hope which again is another aspect of the JW propaganda.  

First off I'd like to point out that just because you have a sense of hope for the future doesn't necessarily mean that your beliefs about the afterlife or what comes after death are correct.   Asserting that the emotional cushion that a belief  system provides is proof of its accuracy is fallacious.  I will agree with you that most people when facing death probably have a sense of regret and sadness.  You may personally feel that the comfort that you derive from your belief system is an adequate trade for  A clean conscience  but when I faced death I know for a fact that had I remained in the organization the sense of regret I would feel would be far greater and the sense of wasted time and a wasted life would be crippling.  For someone who knows the truth about the truth there is no comfort that can be derived from remaining a member of the organization. 

 

35 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

7 hours ago, Albert Michelson said:

and it's also filled with a$$holes just like the organization.

You know, I kind of like this guy. He does not hide what he is. He is not like one who comes in positively oozing love for God and all his witnesses, if only...if only....it does not come out at first....if only they would assassinate those leaders of theirs. I can't stand people like that.

 The way you cut that sentence makes it appear as though I was saying something I wasn't.  Perhaps you just misunderstood or perhaps I didn't punctuate it properly.  The point I was making was not at the organization is filled with assholes.  The point I was trying to make is that both the organization and the world have a mixture of good people and bad people and you're not going to find a uniquely  kind and loving atmosphere in the witnesses( no matter what their propaganda says). You can find the same love, attention and affection anywhere else but without the emotional blackmail and without the extremely conditional love. 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

7 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

You must be thinking of when the beast dumps Babylon-the -Great in favor of tech-surveillance , social-media confessional producing supposed blackmailability/controlability to the unforgiven.  We'll even have "pre-crime" -mimicing Babylon's false "predestinator" god.  Clownish peeps will have to acknowledge their "shadow-side" then, won't they ? confronted by  2 witlesses , 0's & 1's

NOPE

None of those ideas ever occurred to me, and since I am the one who created the edited graphic.... I ought to know.

I made it as a reaction to the tens of thousands of Bethel Layoffs and Special Pioneers being "shown the door" in the "Red October" Meltdown of 2015, after many years, and sometimes a lifetime of faithful service to the Corporation.

 

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

I made it as a reaction to the tens of thousands of Bethel Layoffs and Special Pioneers being "shown the door" in the "Red October" Meltdown of 2015, after many years, and sometimes a lifetime of faithful service to the Corporation.

Had they not been "shown the door," then you would have bitched about them living a life protected from the wild, where MEN have to struggle EVERY SINGLE DAY for existence, and one MISSTEP means INSTANT DEATH!!!

You're not the easiest guy to satisfy.

1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

None of those ideas ever occurred to me, and since I am the one who created the edited graphic.... I ought to know.

Did you also create the child baptism one with the misspelled word? Look, I have misspelled many a word here, as it is a here-today, gone-tomorrow thread. But if I were to design a graphic for posterity, I would get the spelling right.

I could design graphics, too. For example, I could picture the ten who jumped from the plane during a choppy flight. Eight are far below, with shoots open, and when the land they will resume their prior life. But two have grabbed hold of a wing, and, with tangled hair, sleet, fumes and dead birds slapping them in the face, they are desperately trying to unfurl a banner for the remaining passengers, who are barely noticing: "Jump off before it's too late! Join us!"

I could do that. But it is simply too juvenile. This from me, the guy who wears out his welcome clowning and who even kidnapped @The Librarianto make a point. (but handed her back - holy moly! that woman is obnoxious)

[JW Insider]

4 hours ago, Albert Michelson said:

So I'm assuming you do believe the Jerusalem Council was a Governing Body and not a one time meeting to address a specific issue.

It's not that simple. I believe that if persons completely agree with the doctrines of a religion, that they wouldn't be at all concerned that a "governing body" was helping to guide the decisions of that religion. Therefore, I'm sure that most people who speak out against the concept among Jehovah's Witnesses are primarily speaking out against the doctrines that are promoted through this governing body.

So I do believe that the Jerusalem Council acted in a very similar capacity to the Governing Body in several of its current activities and services.  

I don't favor the terms "governing body" or even "elder body"/"body of elders". I don't believe there is any "body" within the "body of Christ" which is his whole congregation. And "governors" is pretty much the opposite of the idea at 2 Cor 1:24

• (2 Corinthians 1:24) 24 Not that we are the masters over your faith, but we are fellow workers for your joy, for it is by your faith that you are standing.

That said, I cannot say that I find anything wrong with the service of such a body of elders who handle matters for the entire worldwide congregation, any more than I would find anything wrong with the service of such a body of elders in any local congregation. (Or even an ad hoc committee of elders from multiple congregations if a situation warrants that.) As a large group performing a worldwide activity, we will always find ourselves in need of decisions that no one person could easily make, especially because that one person might not be in a position to hear input from everyone. Remember Jethro's counsel to Moses about appointing capable men as chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens.

One brother at Bethel, who was defending the leadership style of Rutherford at the time, likened it to picking a carpet color for the Kingdom Hall. If everyone showed perfect love and humility, then everyone would want to unselfishly defer that decision to someone else, and no one would decide. But there are always some who are willing to just decide. These may not come across as the most loving and humble, but they are necessary to the efficient running of a large enterprise among an association of persons.

In Jerusalem, I think it was initially a local problem, a problem started by the Jerusalem congregation, so that made it appropriate for the Jerusalem congregation to decide what they ought to do to fix their own mess. They discussed it and asked for the holy spirit to guide them. It was a body of respected elders, associated with, but not equal to, the apostles who had recently devoted themselves to matters of teaching and studying. This is surely a useful model for something like the group we call the "governing body." Questions come up on a wide scale and centralized direction on these issues is a welcome service.

The problem, of course, is not the idea of "service" but with the "authority." This is surely what Jesus meant when he said:

• (Matthew 23:10-12) 10 Neither be called leaders, for your Leader is one, the Christ. 11 But the greatest one among you must be your minister. 12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Of course, Paul wanted to make sure that no one thought these particular men in Jerusalem had some kind of "authority" such that he was commissioned by them, or took assignments just because of them, or accepted their word as law. But he showed respect and followed their counsel to the extent that he could. (See Galatians & 1st and 2nd Corinthians, in general.) I don't think he would have gone to such lengths to diminish the appearance of authority of the Jerusalem council if there wasn't some kind of "appearance of authority" that seemed obvious and even correct to most Christians at the time.

In 2013 the NWT changed the word "tutor" to "guardian" in a few places, and the GB began describing their own role as "guardians of doctrine" with its ill-advised acronym. And this resulted in 1 Cor 4:15-17 offering the following idea:

• (1 Corinthians 4:15-17) 15 For though you may have 10,000 guardians in Christ, you certainly do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus, I have become your father through the good news. 16 I urge you, therefore, become imitators of me. 17 That is why I am sending Timothy to you, because he is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord. He will remind you of my methods in connection with Christ Jesus, just as I am teaching everywhere in every congregation.

Paul saw himself as a kind of "father" in spite of Jesus words that no one is to be called "father" as a title of authority. So he clearly didn't mean it as a title but as a reminder of his love and concern and guidance. But just as important is that the Law had been a guardian or tutor leading to Christ, but now there were at least 10,000 Christians in the overall "world-wide" organization of the time, and all of them were guardians. (Based on the number of baptisms mentioned in Acts.)

Paul looked for a way to get his methods and teaching spread, not just for initial conversion to Christianity, but to remind current Christians in each and every congregation of the proper methods and teaching. But note that all Christians were guardians of each other, or tutors of each other. The role of guardian is not therefore a position of "authority." But there is a "service" that such a committee of elders can provide. For the most part I see them trying to fill this role. I also think they try, at present, to go beyond that role into a role of governing or authority.