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

[TrueTomHarley]

Apologies if I cut off the sentence wrong.

2 hours ago, Albert Michelson said:

Well once again "world" is just a term that  The organization uses in order to create a sense of separation and us versus them.

The Bible uses the term. The organization simply picks up on it.

 

2 hours ago, Albert Michelson said:

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.

Oh give me a break. How meaningful can life be in a system where ISIS, dementia, cancer, or simple human greed can snuff it out in a second? "Sayanara!" your longtime employer sings out, as he packs up for overseas. "Dust off that resume, why don't you?  And that family and financial obligations you have? FUGEDABOUDIT!" It is as Solomon says: he's seen footmen on horses and kings slogging though the mud. Of course you can get some satisfaction out of life today. More power to you if you have. But many ultimately find it is like chomping down hard on cotton candy - though it looked substantial, there was nothing much there.

The thing you are orgasmic about is that you have chosen a place where no one can tell you what to do. Fine. I think it's a poor trade-off but there's nothing to stop anyone from choosing it. Yet by immersing oneself in 'the world' (I am not reformed from saying it) you are likely to find that manipulation from human scheming in the form of Big Government, Big Business or Big Independent Wisdom ultimately take such a toll that the Governing Body will look positively like doddering and kindly old grandparents in comparison.

[Albert Michelson]

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

though it looked substantial, there was nothing much there.

Funny that's exactly how being a witness was/is for many people I know. 

 

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The thing you are orgasmic about is that you have chosen a place where no one can tell you what to do.

No the thing that I'm "all orgasmic about" is the freedom to do objective analysis of claims and to speak and believe honesty. As I said before the comfort you receive from the answers you get from your leaders is all fine and good but don't act like because you get to feel all warm and fuzzy inside that that says anything about the truthfulness of your beliefs or that someone else is going to see that as a fair trade for honesty. 

 

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

ou are likely to find that manipulation from human scheming in the form of Big Government, Big Business or Big Independent Wisdom ultimately take such a toll that the Governing Body will look positively like doddering and kindly old grandparents in comparison

Nope I find them equally manipulative ( except for big independent thinking idk what that is) however the difference at least in the country I live in is that I'm allowed to  openly criticize this corruption and pointed out.  As I said before you may feel that the warm feelies are a good trade off for intellectual honesty and freedom of thought/speech but I do not. 

[TrueTomHarley]

2 hours ago, Albert Michelson said:

( except for big independent thinking idk what that is)

'Big Independent Thinking' is a clumsy term I devised on the spot to supplement the other 'Bigs.'  It is simply the stupid memes that catch on as wisdom, but invariably fall apart, often causing great harm. Here is an example from a book that the domineering @The Librarianrefuses to stock in her library, though it should replace at least half the rubbish she has sagging the shelves:

I found another atheist on the internet. This one was also raised a Witness, as was Brian. He too, was still a kid. It’s unbelievable! In his heady days of breaking break free!!!!!!!!!! he gushed on about his newfound ‘rationalism’ for the benefit of everyone else:

"Rationalism for me means a life of pure freedom. ..... But this means that this life that you’re living now is the most precious thing you’ll ever have. .... Because there is no Big Daddy to appease or suck up to, or be afraid of, you should be nice to people because it’s nice! You should treat people like you want to be treated! You should not steal or murder because it hurts people, and hurting people is wrong. Always. No one needs a god to tell them this.....Being a rationalist....If you say something irrational or realize the error in your own thoughts, a red flag immediately raises. .....rationalism is a worldview with no drawbacks, and only positives. It encourages honesty and truth.....It promotes interest in the common good..."

The idiot! The young naïve idiot! Why does he leave? Because he wants to go where there is no Big Daddy to suck up to! It doesn’t occur to him that with the gamut of human governments, the casinos that are world economies, the health woes that lead straight to death, he will do so much sucking up that God and the Governing Body will seem like doddering indulgent grandparents in comparison....‘C’mon, Tom, don’t be so hard on him! That’s the nature of inexperienced youth. They make mistakes.’ ...Agreed. All is forgiven. But what about the experienced liars that have misled him?

How lofty and soaring his words of rationalism sound! How much crap they are in reality! ‘The Toxins Trickle Downward’ (Economist, March 14, 2009) examined fallout from the financial crisis triggered by the misdeeds of those at the top of finance and government. Credit markets were now closed to the third world poor, commodity prices vital to their survival had collapsed, and remittances from citizens working abroad had dried up. The World Bank reckoned the crisis would account for 200,000 - 400,000 African lives lost, all children.

People at the top had used their “pure freedom,” to grind others into the dirt, and not to “treat people like you want to be treated!” (an exclamation mark, no less; oh, the joys of rationalism!) They were not “nice to people.” They “hurt people,” even though “hurting people is wrong.” Not only did they “hurt people” – they killed them, two to four hundred thousand of them!” All children! Plainly, we do need a “Big Daddy to appease” and a “god to tell us how to live.”

If you had had a son or daughter high up in the banking world back then, who was devising the complex financial instruments that would ultimately ruin us all, even killing the poor, you would have carried on about how well Junior was doing for himself, how respected he was in his career, and so forth. You wouldn’t have said ‘too bad he killed a few hundred thousand in Africa.’ You wouldn’t even have known about it. There is sufficient disconnect in this world’s construction so that the players on top can remain oblivious to the havoc they wreak below, oblivious to any need for soul-searching, until Eisenhower comes along and rubs their noses into it like the German mayor and the concentration camp.

The failure of human rule could not have been shown in more stark relief as in that article, with consequences so directly traceable to the human wisdom running the show. Russian President Vladimir Putin was both blunt and harsh: “Everything happening now in the economic and financial sphere began in the United States. This is not the irresponsibility of specific individuals but the irresponsibility of the system that claims leadership.” In 2016 America, all that remained was to Photoshop Putin with horns, gleefully pecking at his keyboard, doing his level best to hack the American election, but it was he who nailed it about unrestrained greed.

The 2011 film ‘Inside Job’ expressed dismay that no “specific individuals” were brought to justice: Charles Ferguson (film director): “Why do you think there isn’t a more systematic investigation being undertaken?” Nouriel Roubini (professor, NYU Business School): “Because then you will find the culprits.” Culprits and regulators alike belonged to the same social set and were members of the same country clubs; they had no desire to turn on one another.

Humans were not designed to rule themselves. It’s not an ability they have, the same as they cannot flap their arms and fly. Whether through greed, ignorance, pride, cowardice, or some mix of the four, the record of human rule aptly illustrates Jeremiah’s words:

I well know, O Jehovah, that to earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step. (Jeremiah 10:23)

[Noble Berean]

16 hours ago, JW Insider said:

And, of course, shunning and punishment should never be used for persons who have questioned a doctrine for Biblical reasons.

That's really the crux of all the problems with the organization. Rank-and-file JWs do not have the right to question any doctrines--even with Biblical support. Only the GB can correctly interpret the Bible. Only the GB can make "refinements" in doctrine. If we have a disagreement with a doctrine, we must quietly wait with the hope that it might get changed someday.

A Governing Body taking the lead is not a bad thing. It keeps our organization...organized. But the Governing Body has no external auditor to scrutinize its ideas. The Bible should be that external auditor, but the Bible and the GB are intertwined. The Bible can't stand apart from the GB. Only the GB's interpretations of Scriptures are correct. Therefore, they can always discern the Bible in a way that supports the status quo.

I believe that's the case with the "two overlapping generations" theory. For decades, the organization said the generation was one group that saw Jesus' presence in 1914--it was apostasy to suggest otherwise. It's clear now that that idea was wrong. I guess a combination of ego and a fear of losing credibility means the GB won't let go of 1914 and the generation. So, they force the square peg in a round hole. They use weak Biblical evidence to make the old idea "work" while maintaining a sense of urgency (the second group is older now so we must be close!!). It's not about a Bible interpretation that makes the most sense anymore. It's about maintaining the facade that the org knows what it's doing and that we are still on the threshold of the new system. No doubt in a few decades (if this system persists) another "refinement" will come along that will have the same purpose (wash, rinse, repeat). If you type random numbers in a keypad it may eventually unlock, and eventually this system will end. So, if the org exists at that time of the end maybe they can say they were right to keep us on the edge--even if the evidence was incorrect. (I believe they use this justification currently in God's Kingdom Rules! paraphrasing from memory: "We were wrong on this but it kept everyone zealous at that time.")

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

17 hours 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?"

This is SO TRUE .... especially in Toontown.

 

 

[Albert Michelson]

9 hours ago, Noble Berean said:

On 8/28/2017 at 9:11 PM, JW Insider said:

And, of course, shunning and punishment should never be used for persons who have questioned a doctrine for Biblical reasons.

That's really the crux of all the problems with the organization. Rank-and-file JWs do not have the right to question any doctrines--even with Biblical support. Only the GB can correctly interpret the Bible. Only the GB can make "refinements" in doctrine. If we have a disagreement with a doctrine, we must quietly wait with the hope that it might get changed someday.

That reminds me of the Walsh trial

[Albert Michelson]

10 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Humans were not designed to rule themselves. It’s not an ability they have, the same as they cannot flap their arms and fly. Whether through greed, ignorance, pride, cowardice, or some mix of the four, the record of human rule aptly illustrates Jeremiah’s words:

I well know, O Jehovah, that to earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step. (Jeremiah 10:23)

Um yeah people are shitty and government and power always  have at least some level of corruption. How does that prove you have the true religion again?, or are we back to the warm feelies?

[TrueTomHarley]

7 hours ago, Albert Michelson said:

How does that prove you have the true religion again?, or are we back to the warm feelies?

I do get warm feelies here. I don't think that's a bad thing. (I don't mean here, with @The Librarianand all; I mean in Jehovah's organization)

I am like most Witnesses who do not have to have every single duck lined up to declare this the truth. Actually, every duck is lined up, but I will concede there are a few chicks that have yet to straighten out and fly right - they being chicks.

@JW Insiderhas listed the main ducks, and he has appended a few more. In response to someone asking why I remain a Witness when bad things happen in the organization, I have written some additional reasons:

https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/42302-why-remain-a-witness-when-bad-things-happen/

Each of these desirable tenets is rare today. The combination of them in one faith is unique to Jehovah's Witnesses and that is why I have chosen the faith and am not likely to leave, especially for the greater world described in the last post. If you think your glorious freedom to engage your critical thinking without check has resulted in such a wonderful world, you are welcome to remain there.

When one has assembled the jigsaw puzzle and reproduced the box cover mountain vista, you are not easily put off by the critic who insists you have it all wrong. This is especially true if his own puzzle lies unassembled in the box.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

TTH:

You REALLY SHOULD read the above partial transcript of the "Walsh Trial". posted by Albert Michelson .... as we saw with the Australian Royal Commission on Child Abuse No. 29, when those that govern us are required to testify under oath, and can be put in PRISON for lying, they speak with a truth that we do nor see outside a courtroom ... or are so weaselly, it's embarrassing to watch.

Be a sport ... get educated.

[TrueTomHarley]

57 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

You REALLY SHOULD read the above partial transcript of the "Walsh Trial". posted by Albert Michelson .... as we saw with the Australian Royal Commission on Child Abuse No. 29, when those that govern us are required to testify under oath, and can be put in PRISON for lying

Like I really should watch CNN to learn the truth about Trump or Breitbart to learn the truth about Obama?

I'll choose what I choose to see in proper context, neither cherry-picked nor skewed.

If tiny sound-byte snippets appeal to you - I have never known you to post anything else - they do not to me. I prefer comments well-rounded, in appropriate context, and not thrust upon me by someone who so pleadingly and pathetically has an agenda. I'm not opposed to looking at things, and I have looked at things. I will just not allow opponents to focus the lens for me. I'll do that myself.

57 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

when those that govern us are required to testify under oath, and can be put in PRISON for lying,

Nobody is in prison, are they? You are trying to bake some acknowledged grains - even if they be more than grains - into a seven layer cake.

Please don't harp on this with me. There were two or three very long threads on this subject not long ago. I participated fully and you even threw in some cartoons. I don't want to re-invent the wheel throughout eternity. Go back and revisit those threads. Add to them if you think there is anything not covered.

I don't view this forum as your own personal courtroom, to cross-examine people at will. In any real courtroom, the judge eventually tells a lawyer to shut up when he does nothing but hurl accusations, repeat his same questions, and takes no note of the answers.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

TTH:

I remember when you refused to look at a youtube video of Kermit the Frog singing "Forever Young" I posted,  so that you could maintain your plausible ( hahahaha) deniability of the contents.... which was just a Muppett singing a song.

I have never in my life seen such DETERMINATION to stay ignorant ... but to help you out without using one of my five Kermit Muppet puppets, and crayons ... I enlarged the header portion of the Official Court Transcript fragment that Albert posted ... and no ... it will not melt your face off if you read it ..... so unless you actually turn your head away ... you will get the general idea of what was said under sworn testimony in court. .... and you can go back to Albert's post if you have ANY intellectual integrity AT ALL.

 

.

 

 

[TrueTomHarley]

20 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

I remember when you refused to look at a youtube video of Kermit the Frog singing "Forever Young" I posted

In that case, it was just too juvenile. There is such a thing as adulthood, you know.