JW Grandparents Who Shun Children Should Likewise be Banned from Contacting Grandchildren

[Space Merchant]

@Jack Ryan No one is being forced, for there are actually a great number of former JWs who are still cool with their JW relatives, they are covered by a thick blanket by former JWs who teach and preach another doctrine, luckily the Vegan spoke in behalf of former JWs who have to deal with disgruntled JWs of the faith.

This goes for all faiths, as well as people of race and or color.

That being said, shunning is indeed Biblical, so is Expelling, like it or not, be it the Takfir, the Herem, and or other, it remains because it is in regards to Binding and Loosening. Church ties are gone, but the Family ties reside.

[TrueTomHarley]

 

It is also worth noting that the European Court of Human Rights didn't buy the charge that Jack is spreading,  that Jehovah’s Witnesses break up families. It wrote in 2010:

“It is the resistance and unwillingness of non-religious family members to accept and to respect their religious relative’s freedom to manifest and practice his or her religion that is the source of conflict.”

They didn't buy the charge of "mind control," either:

“The Court finds it remarkable that the [Russian] courts did not cite the name of a single individual whose right to freedom of conscience had allegedly been violated by means of those techniques.”

"The Russian Supreme Court in 2017 was not chastened by this rebuke and saw no need to cite a name for the April 20th trial, either. They did, however, find every need to not hear representatives of foreign embassies who might, for all they knew, have sided with the European Court."

[Srecko Sostar]

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

It is also worth noting that the European Court of Human Rights didn't buy the charge that Jack is spreading,  that Jehovah’s Witnesses break up families. It wrote in 2010:

“It is the resistance and unwillingness of non-religious family members to accept and to respect their religious relative’s freedom to manifest and practice his or her religion that is the source of conflict.”

If people like/want to be neutral and objectively, then both side in some disagreement must accept Court decision, no matter is such gave favor to left or right side of a bench. 

So, when Court decide in favor for JW, all JW community is very happy and interpret decision how JHVH intervene and protect His people. When Court decide opposite of JW community expectation then JW have another interpretation why that happened.

This quote you gave from ECHR showing how that street is two way street. If someone want to use this quote only for JW religion members and not also for other religion or non religion members then all that is in vain.

If your family member (children) want to celebrate birthday and you as JW parent forbid them to express their  freedom to manifest and practice his or her religion  (or wish, or non religion attitude, or atheistic, or worldly ideas)  that is the source of conflict.”

:)) please, do see how every sword have two side

 

[TrueTomHarley]

3 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

If your family member (children) want to celebrate birthday and you as JW parent forbid them to express their  freedom to manifest and practice his or her religion  (or wish, or non religion attitude, or atheistic, or worldly ideas)  that is the source of conflict.”

Historically, people have recognized the right, even the responsibility, of parents to decide such things for their minor children.

There are many examples of authoritarian countries deciding otherwise: that children are the property of the state and not the parents,  to be molded by state views.

Increasingly that model is spreading to lands that once had greater respect toward parents and took a hands-off approach.

Don't go to town with the "hands-off"  phrase, JTR. Just don't. We know where your obsession lies. Please refrain.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

If your family member (children) want to celebrate birthday and you as JW parent forbid them to express their  freedom to manifest and practice his or her religion  (or wish, or non religion attitude, or atheistic, or worldly ideas)  that is the source of conflict.”

Historically, people have recognized the right, even the responsibility, of parents to decide such things for their minor children.

There are many examples of authoritarian countries deciding otherwise: that children are the property of the state and not the parents,  to be molded by state views.

Increasingly that model is spreading to lands that once had greater respect toward parents and took a hands-off approach.

Don't go to town with the "hands-off"  phrase, JTR. Just don't. We know where your obsession lies. Please refrain.

TTH:

With your level of reading comprehension you should appreciate my rants, not disparage them.

The perfect example of this is when you project or attribute to me the posting above, created by Sreko Sostar ..... not me.

"Don't go to town with the "hands-off"  phrase, JTR. Just don't. We know where your obsession lies. Please refrain." - TTH

If you don't want to read something  someone else has to say that might disagree with you .... you are on the wrong  venue.

Could be worse .... you could be deceased, and voting Democrat.

 

Helpfull Hint:  If you get tired at being sniped at by me, don't snipe at me.  I have the typical "engineers' personality" ...which is to say, not much at all, so I REFLECT other peoples' personalities.

You shoot at me ... I shoot back.

 

 

[TrueTomHarley]

2 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Helpfull Hint:  If you get tired at being sniped at by me, don't snipe at me. 

I don't recall having complained of that. Besides, I didn't even tag you.

Perhaps I shouldn't do it. I'll think about it. But you routinely say the most vile things about those who I feel deserve the deepest respect, and you do it in the most juvenile manner, that it is almost a knee-jerk reaction for me.

Rise, for I too am a man, having feelings like those of many here.

[Srecko Sostar]

3 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

children.

My mentioned of children is for purpose of illustration. It is possible to use all other sort of examples too. :)))))   

[Noble Berean]

Sounds fair to me, but JWs will usually shun the grandchildren too. Even though they're innocents in the situation. I knew this woman who seemed liked the sweetest older lady, but she flat out told me she will have nothing to do with her worldly grandkids. 

[JW Insider]

11 hours ago, Noble Berean said:

Sounds fair to me

Maybe. To me it sounds like the original post is recommending that ex-JWs return evil for evil:

• (Romans 12:17-21) 17 Return evil for evil to no one. Take into consideration what is fine from the viewpoint of all men. 18 If possible, as far as it depends on you, be peaceable with all men. 19 Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but yield place to the wrath; for it is written: “‘Vengeance is mine; I will repay,’ says Jehovah.” 20 But “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by doing this you will heap fiery coals on his head.” 21 Do not let yourself be conquered by the evil, but keep conquering the evil with the good.

What some Witnesses do under the supposed umbrella of "tough love" is actually "evil" in the sense of showing no natural affection, or shutting off their true affections. It is hypocritical love if they are able to shut off love for family just to avoid contact with a disfellowshipped person. The paragraph in the Bible just before the one quoted above starts out:

• (Romans 12:9) 9 Let your love be without hypocrisy. . . .

Based on this idea, there is another way to read the entire idea about Biblical disfellowshipping:

• (2 Corinthians 6:3-13) 3 In no way are we giving any cause for stumbling, so that no fault may be found with our ministry; 4 but in every way we recommend ourselves as God’s ministers, . . .  by patience, by kindness, by holy spirit, by love free from hypocrisy, 7 by truthful speech,. . .  11 We have opened our mouth to speak to you, Corinthians, and we have opened wide our heart. 12 We are not restricted in our affections for you, but you are restricted in your own tender affections for us. 13 So in response—I speak as to my children—you too open your hearts wide.
• (Romans 1:28-2:1) 28 And just as they did not approve of holding God in accurate knowledge, God gave them up to a disapproved mental state, to do the things not fitting, . . . malicious disposition, . . . haughty, self-assuming, inventors of injurious things, . . . having no natural affection, merciless. 32 Although these know full well the righteous decree of God, that those practicing such things are deserving of death, they not only keep on doing them but also consent with those practicing them. 2 Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are, if you judge; for in the thing in which you judge another, you condemn yourself, inasmuch as you that judge practice the same things.

Remember, too, that Jesus said that Moses was allowed to give the law that Israelites could disfellowship their own wives only as a concession to their own hard-heartedness:

• (Matthew 19:7-8 ) : “Why, then, did Moses direct giving a certificate of dismissal and divorcing her?” 8 He said to them: “Out of regard for your hard-heartedness, Moses made the concession to you of divorcing your wives,. . .

It's true that Christians should not "share" with evildoers, for what sharing do believers have with unbelievers, what sharing does light have with darkness. But this cannot mean completely avoiding them, or even a complete lack of association with them. Paul made this clear in the central, pertinent discussion of the topic:

• (1 Corinthians 5:9-11) 9 In my letter I wrote you to stop keeping company with sexually immoral people, 10 not meaning entirely with the sexually immoral people of this world or the greedy people or extortioners or idolaters. Otherwise, you would actually have to get out of the world. 11 But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man.

When a person accepts their disfellowshipping, and is no longer presenting himself or herself as a member of our faith, they are no longer calling themselves our brother. The most vocal ex-JWs make it all the more obvious that they are not calling themselves our brother. So they become just as a person of the world to us.

• (Matthew 18:17) . . .. If he does not listen even to the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector.

Scripturally, however, that means that we are perfectly within our own rights to exercise the freedom of our Bible-trained conscience, to associate with them just as we would anyone else in the world. This does not necessarily mean close association, or "table fellowship" which was acceptance of these ones as an insider, related to us either as family or those related to us in the faith. Yet, we should consider that Jesus had "table fellowship" with sinners, tax collectors, prostitutes, gentiles, and unclean persons, without condoning their sin. People found fault with his ministry but Jesus did not give any cause for stumbling through such table fellowship. (2 Cor 6:3,4 quoted above.)

There is sometimes an in-between step where a person still calls himself our brother, and we should still admonish him as our brother. Yet they are not fully walking in accordance with Christian teachings. These are the ones we "mark" --to withdraw our close association from them-- even though they are still considered brothers. Apparently, Paul especially had in mind greedy persons who wanted to remain in association for what they could get, not what they could share. They wanted the free food, as a key feature of Christianity was its open-hearted table fellowship, providing material food for the poor, the orphans, the widows, etc:

• (2 Thessalonians 3:6-15) 6 Now we are giving you instructions, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to withdraw from every brother who is walking disorderly and not according to the tradition that you received from us. 7 For you yourselves know how you should imitate us, because we did not behave in a disorderly way among you, 8 nor did we eat anyone’s food free. On the contrary, by labor and toil we were working night and day so as not to impose an expensive burden on any one of you. 9 Not that we do not have authority, but we wanted to offer ourselves as an example for you to imitate. 10 In fact, when we were with you, we used to give you this order: “If anyone does not want to work, neither let him eat.” 11 For we hear that some are walking disorderly among you, not working at all, but meddling with what does not concern them. 12 To such people we give the order and exhortation in the Lord Jesus Christ that they should work quietly and eat food they themselves earn. 13 For your part, brothers, do not give up in doing good. 14 But if anyone is not obedient to our word through this letter, keep this one marked and stop associating with him, so that he may become ashamed. 15 And yet do not consider him an enemy, but continue admonishing him as a brother.

It must have been frustrating, that some would just be no more than meddlers, taking and not finding ways to share, but Paul admonishes the Christians not to give up in doing good. [Good works included giving, sharing and distributing material goods.] I think that many ex-JWs are frustrated at the unchristian conduct of some Witnesses, but ex-JWs, too, should not give up in doing what is good if they wish to "heap fiery coals" and conquer evil with good. Most Witnesses probably need to "get out more" as it is, and seeing one's grandkids can only help to have a good effect in general, and help to open the hearts wider. Even if the ex-JW being shunned believes the Witness is a bad influence, the fact of a grandparent spending any time at all with a grandchild can only be a good influence on the grandparent.

[JW Insider]

11 hours ago, Noble Berean said:

JWs will usually shun the grandchildren too. Even though they're innocents in the situation.

This is a case of being "righteous overmuch" or "self-righteous" and "haughty" like the Pharisees. Paul put the ideas together in Romans quoted above:

• (Romans 1:28-2:1) 28 And just as they did not approve of holding God in accurate knowledge, God gave them up to a disapproved mental state, to do the things not fitting,  . . . haughty, self-assuming, inventors of injurious things, . . . having no natural affection, merciless. 32 Although these know full well the righteous decree of God, that those practicing such things are deserving of death, they not only keep on doing them but also consent with those practicing them. 2 Therefore you are inexcusable . . .

The haughty, self-righteous Pharisees and scribes, too, were "inventors of [such] injurious things" as Jesus pointed out:

• (Matthew 15:5, 6) . . .‘Whoever says to his father or mother: “Whatever I have that could benefit you is a gift dedicated to God,” 6 he need not honor his father at all.’ So you have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition.

They found ways to avoid the merciful treatment of relatives by trading it for evidence of how righteous they looked in front of others.

• (Matthew 6:2) . . .So when you make gifts of mercy, do not blow a trumpet ahead of you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be glorified by men. . . .

It's directly related to the issue of "table fellowship," too:

• (Matthew 9:10-13) 10 Later as he was dining in the house, look! many tax collectors and sinners came and began dining with Jesus and his disciples. 11 But on seeing this, the Pharisees said to his disciples: “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” 12 Hearing them, he said: “Healthy people do not need a physician, but those who are ill do. 13 Go, then, and learn what this means: ‘I want mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came to call, not righteous people, but sinners.”

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

I sure hope that someone calls these things to the attention of the Governing Body ... but I fear all that would happen is they would take names, and stack firewood below our feet.

The lawyers and accountants are now running the Society.

... and the Kings "have no clothes".

[Space Merchant]

23 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

I sure hope that someone calls these things to the attention of the Governing Body ... but I fear all that would happen is they would take names, and stack firewood below our feet.

The lawyers and accountants are now running the Society.

... and the Kings "have no clothes".

The thing here is, it won't be the churches people will call into question, no, they wouldn't even gun for the 1 of 3 forms of excommunication used by all denominations when only 1 form is the right one. If we are going to attack expelling and shunning, one has to attack what Jesus had said in Matthew 16:19, of which Jesus himself entrusted the Church to do, beginning with his Apostles.

The verse does say the following:

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Then we can move on to Apostle Paul and what he has said, after all, Paul is a follower of the Christ and is the type of person to honor Jesus' God and Father.

That being said, such things are not easy, and it is tough being cut-off from the church, but it is not impossible to return to it, the same way as being cut-off from the scriptures and returning to it.

 

But you and I both know, I agree with Jesus and I agree with Paul, I do not pick one for the other because these two are of God and serve God.