Jump to content

Jack Ryan

JW Lawyer on Disfellowshipping and Shunning

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

Jack Ryan -
Srecko Sostar -
102
2355

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

Jehovah's Witness Organization Redefines Shunning to Falsely.mp4

Every JW visiting this page should MORALLY comment below and publicly state that this JW Lawyer is LYING through his teeth to the Canadian Supreme Court.

If you don't, YOU participate in this gross sin. Because you ALL KNOW this is a false statement.

Remember as well that this JW Lawyer is also an Officer of the Court.

What the courts do not know is that JW's consider outright lying in court a part of "theocratic warfare" just like Muslims do. So it is a virtue to them.

nt1gfj243g821.jpg

vc2zljibgda21.jpg
    Hello guest!

SMH.

Can you spell P-E-R-J-U-R-Y?

Share this post


Link to post

Well, there were 2 inaccurate points that lawyer made, they have to seat in the second room or at the back of the hall and not allow to enter the hall before prayer and they have to leave the hall before the closinprayer er, also the only thing i know is that if the person lives at home they can still have some sort of interaction at home but if the disfellowshiped person lives not at home there will be not relationship at all till he is reinstated.

Share this post


Link to post

A disfellowshipped person is completely SHUNNED. AND any person that leaves the JW organisation is completely SHUNNED.

Grown up children are asked to leave the family home. Grown up children that do not live at home are completely SHUNNED. 

Any person can walk into a Kingdom Hall as it is for public to visit and listen to talks, BUT a person that is being SHUNNED will not be spoken to by anyone, and they are made to feel dirty and evil. They are put to shame by everyone else in the hall. It's horrible and definitely not Christian. 

But JW legal dept will of course believe that deliberately lying is part of serving God. Yes, it's called 'spiritual warfare', and they are told it is right. 

How low the JW Org has sunken. What shame it brings on God Himself. 

Share this post


Link to post

This lawyer is lying shamelessly. At the traveling overseer school, the subject of how to treat disfellowshipped ones was touched. We received instructions to remove elders and ministerial servants and pioneers who have any type of contact with disfellowshipped ones. Immediate action is to be taken especially if the Congregation lost respect for an appointed brother. 

Granted, only in extreme family emergencies such as death of family or legal matters are JW's allowed to have LIMITED contact with those disfellowshipped or disassociated. If anyone with privileges has a child living under their home that has been disfellowshipped, that is cause for removal of privileges. 

If the JW starts to justify and verbally defend his expelled relative perhaps even expressing that the decision was wrong, then after repeated counsel being ignored, a judicial committee may be formed.

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/13/2019 at 8:50 PM, Aaron Gallegos said:

This lawyer is lying shamelessly. At the traveling overseer school, the subject of how to treat disfellowshipped ones was touched. We received instructions to remove elders and ministerial servants and pioneers who have any type of contact with disfellowshipped ones. Immediate action is to be taken especially if the Congregation lost respect for an appointed brother. 

Granted, only in extreme family emergencies such as death of family or legal matters are JW's allowed to have LIMITED contact with those disfellowshipped or disassociated. If anyone with privileges has a child living under their home that has been disfellowshipped, that is cause for removal of privileges. 

If the JW starts to justify and verbally defend his expelled relative perhaps even expressing that the decision was wrong, then after repeated counsel being ignored, a judicial committee may be formed.

I agree with you that this lawyer is lying. I understand the policy as well and I think you stated it precisely how it is to be applied. The only problem I have is that Mr. Jackson didn't explain it as well as you just did when he was under oath in Australia. Mr. Jackson stated that normal family relations continue, just not spiritual ones. How is this not also lying? Mr. Jackson knows the truth, exactly as you stated it, since he approved it, but yet decides to lie in court under oath? How can an honest person follow the lead of such person(s)? 

Share this post


Link to post

@JOHN BUTLER So I guess that makes you an Anti-Pauline? Anti-Paulines reject whatever Paul's preaching, even removed or ignore it in the Bible itself. Disfellowshipped people are shunned by the congregation, not as much by family. Last I checked we are not of Judaisim where anything and everythi is 100% cut off.

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Equivocation said:

@JOHN BUTLER So I guess that makes you an Anti-Pauline? Anti-Paulines reject whatever Paul's preaching, even removed or ignore it in the Bible itself. Disfellowshipped people are shunned by the congregation, not as much by family. Last I checked we are not of Judaisim where anything and everythi is 100% cut off.

 You think that the gb is on par with Paul? 

Wow, just wow. They got you good

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, Equivocation said:

@JOHN BUTLER So I guess that makes you an Anti-Pauline? Anti-Paulines reject whatever Paul's preaching, even removed or ignore it in the Bible itself. Disfellowshipped people are shunned by the congregation, not as much by family. Last I checked we are not of Judaisim where anything and everythi is 100% cut off.

You would have read enough comments on here to know how JW's treat those that are d/fed and those that leave the org.

Some Witnesses have no feelings, they just go by the 'rules' of the JW Org. For instance :-

Our only daughter (H) that is still in the Org, 'grassed up' one of our other daughters, to the Elders. 

(H) didn't even consult us, mum and dad, even though I was still a JW and my wife was attending meetings with me and was an unbaptised publisher. (H) had some information and she just wanted to go straight to the Elders. She has no love, no mercy, she is just a robot JW. But other JW's see her as a really good person. 

The daughter that was 'in trouble' chose to leave the Org. But even though i was still a JW I stated to everyone that I would not shun my daughter. And my wife and I kept in contact with her.  So like I say it is an individual thing. 

However, when I left the JW Org of my own choice, because of the serious Child Abuse problem within it, I was completely shunned by the whole congregation, around 120 to 130 people. 

Now you show me 3 scriptures that directly state that congregants should shun me for leaving the Org for a good reason ? 

In my honest opinion the scriptures are written for the Anointed, not the earthly class. 

Much more is expected of the Anointed because they have a much closer relationship with God. (And i mean the true Anointed, not your GB) 

But your comment is about your worship of men, the GB. You are trying to protect their reputation. 

You are not looking for justice or mercy. You do not have 'the mind of Christ'. You are like our daughter (H), just a robot for the JW Org. 

Using silly expressions such as Anti-Pauline. Does it make you feel good ? I'm not impressed. 

God and Jesus Christ know everything about everyone. They know when people are falsely disfellowshipped, that is, disfellowshipped for non scriptural reasons, and they know when a person is shunned because that person takes an action in line with God's word. 

Your GB have placed themselves on high. They think they have the right to make non-scriptural rules to domineer people, just like the Pharisees did. 

If you are happy with that so be it, but be careful they may just turn on you some day. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/25/2019 at 12:34 PM, Shiwiii said:

 You think that the gb is on par with Paul? 

Wow, just wow. They got you good

Even outside of the faith this is the practice. Where do you think the practice originated from if you don't mind me asking and from whose congregation?

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/25/2019 at 2:11 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

You would have read enough comments on here to know how JW's treat those that are d/fed and those that leave the org.

Some Witnesses have no feelings, they just go by the 'rules' of the JW Org. For instance :-

Our only daughter (H) that is still in the Org, 'grassed up' one of our other daughters, to the Elders. 

(H) didn't even consult us, mum and dad, even though I was still a JW and my wife was attending meetings with me and was an unbaptised publisher. (H) had some information and she just wanted to go straight to the Elders. She has no love, no mercy, she is just a robot JW. But other JW's see her as a really good person. 

The daughter that was 'in trouble' chose to leave the Org. But even though i was still a JW I stated to everyone that I would not shun my daughter. And my wife and I kept in contact with her.  So like I say it is an individual thing. 

However, when I left the JW Org of my own choice, because of the serious Child Abuse problem within it, I was completely shunned by the whole congregation, around 120 to 130 people. 

Now you show me 3 scriptures that directly state that congregants should shun me for leaving the Org for a good reason ? 

In my honest opinion the scriptures are written for the Anointed, not the earthly class. 

Much more is expected of the Anointed because they have a much closer relationship with God. (And i mean the true Anointed, not your GB) 

But your comment is about your worship of men, the GB. You are trying to protect their reputation. 

You are not looking for justice or mercy. You do not have 'the mind of Christ'. You are like our daughter (H), just a robot for the JW Org. 

Using silly expressions such as Anti-Pauline. Does it make you feel good ? I'm not impressed. 

God and Jesus Christ know everything about everyone. They know when people are falsely disfellowshipped, that is, disfellowshipped for non scriptural reasons, and they know when a person is shunned because that person takes an action in line with God's word. 

Your GB have placed themselves on high. They think they have the right to make non-scriptural rules to domineer people, just like the Pharisees did. 

If you are happy with that so be it, but be careful they may just turn on you some day. 

 

 

Happy with what? I told you the same point last time, only this time you have an audience. Pops, if I didn't have the mind of Christ then why are you the one not explaining anything of Christ properly? I'm pretty sure you said before you dont know as much and want to learn more about God.

Bud, if I had no feelings for anyone I wouldn't be preaching to people. I've been teaching people about God and the Bible and not only it makes me feel good, but it makes the person I preach to feel good. There's one person in particular who is a special case whereas I made promise to meet with her at least 2-3 times a week. It is something that is both personal and private. 

Disfellowshiping or excommunicating was something others have spoken to you about on occasion. I can see how the application doesn't stick because it goes into one ear and out the other.

I don't worship men, I worship God alone. Christains just offer me to tools to be an effective preacher, reading the Bible, etc. Which is no different to how it was done in the past, theres actually historical works of how first century congregations and onward operate, which is no different with us today.

Anti-pauline is a legitimate expression, its only silly if you are ignorant about it, but allow me to explain. This is also ironic because you just said I don't have the mind of Christ. An Anti-pauline is a person who rejects anything Apostle Paul says, does or writes. Anti-paulines also reject Paul's word about excommunication also.

Also good evening, or good morning where you are.

Can you give an example of non scriptural rules? Paul was up there with Clement, they gave a word in to the congregations too.

Share this post


Link to post

"Pops", "Bud," from a 15 year old that thinks he knows everything. Oh dear.

From a 'person' that uses a black ghost to identify with. Interesting, from a supposed JW. 

Quote "There's one person in particular who is a special case whereas I made promise to meet with her at least 2-3 times a week. It is something that is both personal and private." 

Um, are you a young man meeting up with a female in private ? That is a disfellowshipping offence you know. No two witnesses needed to accuse you of fornication. GB rules. 

Quote 'Anti-pauline is a legitimate expression'. Yes so is homophobia. What point are you trying to prove ? 

I love and believe Paul's writings to the congregations. However my feelings are that Paul was talking to those of the Heavenly Class / the Anointed, not to any of the earthly class. More is expected of the Anointed because they have been given more responsibility and have a greater reward. (Being in heaven with God and Jesus Christ is surely a greater award, even though a pure life here on Earth will be wonderful ).

Quote "Can you give an example of non scriptural rules ? "  

The two witness rule concerning Child Abuse. 

The misuse of the scripture about the Superior Authorities, from 1929 to 1962  I believe. 

The accusation of fornication if a man and woman enters a place with no other Witnesses with them. 

( But no accusation about two men or two women, which could be seen by others are homosexuality ).

The Blood Issue rules that keep changing. 

The shunning rules, when a person 'resigns' from the JW Org. 

Reasons the GB use for disfellowshipping. (This touches on other subjects but would make another topic).

So young person, I'm not your 'Pops' and I'm not your 'Bud'. 

You completely lost your side of this discussion by using those expressions, and yes, you showed yourself as Not having the Mind of Christ

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/25/2019 at 2:11 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

Using silly expressions such as Anti-Pauline. Does it make you feel good ? I'm not impressed. 

No. This simply shows that @Equivocation is well-read and that you, despite bolting from the Witnesses, have not compensated for that lack by becoming so.

It is pretty common outside of the JW world to refer to the “Pauline writings” and find uniqueness in them. After all, he wrote about half of the New Testament. 

Since the overall world cannot comprehend unity, (because it doesn’t exist for them) they focus on points of uniqueness and figure that each one is grounds for division and dispute. They cannot conceive of people smoothing over things because it doesn’t happen for them. (Of course, I am speaking in generalities)

Often it is said that Paul is essentially a “co-creator” of Christianity. It is he that put most of the Mosiac Law underpinnings to the Way, spelling them out in his letters. The Michael Hart book “The 100,” rating the most 100 influential persons who have ever lived, ranks Jesus (#3) after Mohammad (#1)largely for this reason—he reasons that Mohammad is fully responsible for founding his religion, but Jesus is only half-responsible for founding his. Paul is #6. Isaac Newton, @James Thomas Rook Jr. will be happy to know, is #2, since he is considered the father of science, which rivals religion in the eyes of many and is on the ascendency.

Hart also ranks Mohammad before Jesus on the basis that Mohammad’s followers by and large follow him, but Jesus’ “followers” by and large do not.

Of course, I view this co-creatorship between Jesus and Paul differently. To my mind, it is to be expected, given Paul’s background and education. He is “bringing his [scholarly] gift to the altar,” doing what the simple folks that comprised early Christian leadership, Peter, John, James, etc, could hardly have been expected to do.

Jesus could have done it, of course, but his course was not to suck up to the “educated people,” as though he needed their validation. His course was to appeal to the uncomplicated heart. Let others fill in the scholarly and (for the typical person) boring details—not boring to everyone, of course, but it is well known that Paul’s writings are not the synch to read that Jesus’ sayings are.

Share this post


Link to post

Someone in our congregation had recently been reinstated. Not going to go about the what she did because that is on a "What'chu talkin about Willis" type level. But even before that she always attended and whatnot. But yeah, we welcomed her back with open arms. For us Latinos it is, well some of us, it is as if it is a reunion party of some sort.

 

On 2/2/2019 at 11:10 PM, Jack Ryan said:

is it ok for a JW fireman to rescue people from a burning church?

This is how JW's constantly think..... get real folks...

What's wrong with that? Also you maaaaaaay wanna look at the article as a whole..... yeaaaahhhh jajaja.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

No. This simply shows that @Equivocation is well-read and that you, despite bolting from the Witnesses, have not compensated for that lack by becoming so

I see my name lol, but confused on how and why I am mentioned jajaja.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Equivocation said:

I see my name lol, but confused on how and why I am mentioned jajaja.

Goes back half-a-year ago to an old conversation where you used the term "an Anti-Pauline" (which up until then had been a fairly rare term, used a few times by only one other person).   

On 1/24/2019 at 10:53 PM, Equivocation said:

So I guess that makes you an Anti-Pauline?

On 11/17/2018 at 3:08 PM, Space Merchant said:

Take it up with him and become an Anti-Pauline in the process.

tmbwipute

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Anna said:

I haven't seen the rest of the video, but had the Judge asked specifically if he is referring to family living outside of the home, then the lawyer would have had to clarify this. However, if there was no further clarification established, then technically and legally the JW lawyer did not lie, but allowed others to assume something else, therefor it could be said that he was misleading.

 

2019-08-03_020942.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

@TrueTomHarley Or that. Pretty much anyone is does not like what Apostle Paul had to say. Believe it or not, those that do are often the ones to either ignore Paul's written, or tear it out from their Bible - ALL OF IT.

I remember one of my debates a group one, a long time ago, the other group had one of their speakers, a 19 year old year had the American Standard Bible, it was revealed that all that Paul had wrote, she had torn from her AS, it became evident because when the discussion revolved around The Promised Abrahamic Seed, she was not able to find anything in the New testament properly, until one of the onlookers check her Bible and had told each and everyone one of us what was discovered, and after being exposed, she left the debate with a bang by "bashing Paul" if you will. The judge of the time was clearly not as religious or an avid Bible reader, hence he said, I remember vividly, that Satan must've been eating the pages of the girl's Bible because I see little to nothing about what Paul wrote.

That being said, it was from there on out, well I would say days later, I wanted to know, even figure out if there was actually people out there who detests Paul, and I found out later on. It gets even worse when people tried to push the idea that Matthew, Jesus and others were somehow against Paul.

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, Anna said:

The lawyer is not lying if he is referring to family members STILL living at home. The problem is, most people understand family members to mean anyone who was originally born into the family, but not necessarily still all living together.

The legal definition of family (even immediate family) is: 

  • Father
  • Mother
  • Parent’s spouse, if a parent has remarried
  • Child (by blood, adoption, or marriage)
  • Brother
  • Sister
  • Spouse
  • Grandparent
  • Grandchild

Further, a person’s immediate family for legal purposes also includes the spouse of his child, brother, or sister, as well as the father, mother, brother, and sister of his spouse.

Obviously, rarely do all these members live together all of the time, with the exception of the spouse and underage children. 

I haven't seen the rest of the video, but had the Judge asked specifically if he is referring to family living outside of the home, then the lawyer would have had to clarify this. However, if there was no further clarification established, then technically and legally the JW lawyer did not lie, but allowed others to assume something else, therefor it could be said that he was misleading.

 

Someone's spouse, parents and grandparents, children and grand children, brothers and sisters, mother in law and father in law, brothers in law and sisters in law, daughters in law and sons in law. Adopted, half, and step members are also included in immediate family

Read more:
    Hello guest!

You’re being an apologist. It doesn’t matter if he didn’t technically lie (which I still believe he is doing). At best, it’s intentionally VERY misleading. Someone outside of the org will easily misunderstand this Bethelite lawyer’s  comments to believe the org is more tolerant than it actually Is.  It’s no different from the org saying similar things about disfellowshipped family in the JW.org FAQ section. They know what they’re doing. The org has a public and private voice and they’re very different. If the org has the truth, it should speak the truth instead of hiding behind legalese.

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/28/2019 at 7:51 PM, Equivocation said:

Even outside of the faith this is the practice. Where do you think the practice originated from if you don't mind me asking and from whose congregation?

That’s a very extremist interpretation of Pauls message. The only Christian religions that practice shunning on former members are regarded by most as thought controlling cults.

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, Noble Berean said:

At best, it’s intentionally VERY misleading.

I agree completely. I gave Anna a big up-vote on her comments because she pointed this out when she said: "then technically and legally the JW lawyer did not lie, but allowed others to assume something else, therefor it could be said that he was misleading."

I understand that the entire point was to mislead, and I hope everyone will see that this simply means that the Society's representative here knows that we should not be proud of our current practice. Therefore we are ashamed.

I know these things always take too long, but we (mostly the WTS leaders) have been shown to be ashamed about our stance on things before, and it has resulted in changes. I think we can now be almost 100 percent in agreement with our current stated stance on CSA procedures, for example. We have been shamed into admitting that corporal punishment of a violent nature against children is wrong. I think we will soon stop saying, as Brother Herd has said, that shunning our disfellowshipped children is analagous to casting out demons.

Also, I know it's another controversial topic that many will strongly disagree with, but in the last few years I have also come to realize that we are wrong to have a policy of "disfellowshipping" children, by allowing them to die, when their temporary life on earth could very likely be lengthened through blood-related medical treatments. In one recent case I know about, it has been clear that if those medical treatments can lengthen a child's temporary physical life on earth, we are to tell the parent that no matter what their own conscience says, their conscience is not allowed to allow the child to receive the treatment. The Biblical principle of pulling a small lamb out of a pit even on the Sabbath is too strong for me to think we should impose the WTS's rule on our own conscience and then on a child's conscience so that they are disfellowshipped through death. It's a way in which we practice having no natural affection, and is related to our acceptance of Brother Herd's comments. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Noble Berean said:

You’re being an apologist. 

That is a sin?

1 hour ago, Noble Berean said:

It doesn’t matter if he didn’t technically lie

Actually, it makes all the difference in the world

1 hour ago, Noble Berean said:

At best, it’s intentionally VERY misleading

To the extent that this is true, do you know people who lead off with their worst PR take instead of their best? Of course, it is proper to present it as the lawyer does. Parents re minor children is a proper subject for Court concern. Do you think the Court should weigh in on the various reasons that ADULT family members not see eye to eye?

1 hour ago, Noble Berean said:

Someone outside of the org will easily misunderstand this Bethelite lawyer’s  comments to believe the org is more tolerant than it actually Is.  

Anyone who knows anything about Witnesses knows that they practice disfellowshipping for those unrepently opposed in deed or word. Nobody has to explain to them that those subject to this ultimate discipline might not like it.

1 hour ago, Noble Berean said:

If the org has the truth, it should speak the truth instead of hiding behind legalese.

To the extent they “hide behind legalese, it is because their opponents make use of it over various issues, in this case, disfellowshipping.

 

1 hour ago, Noble Berean said:

They know what they’re doing.

Do you prefer it when people don’t?

I mean, really there is nothing here in this comment other than you grumbling that people exist who are different than you.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Noble Berean said:

You’re being an apologist. 

I hope I was being a 'factualist'. JW Insider understood what I was saying.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I understand that the entire point was to mislead, and I hope everyone will see that this simply means that the Society's representative here knows that we should not be proud of our current practice. Therefore we are ashamed.

Bold mine.

Not sure I quite agree with you there. In my opinion I do not think we are ashamed, but we think others will simply not understand our, what appears to be a loveless stance.

8 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I know these things always take too long, but we (mostly the WTS leaders) have been shown to be ashamed about our stance on things before, and it has resulted in changes. I think we can now be almost 100 percent in agreement with our current stated stance on CSA procedures, for example. We have been shamed into admitting that corporal punishment of a violent nature against children is wrong.

 Again, I am not sure shame should be credited for this. With regard to CSA I think it was recognized that certain procedures we had in place (eg. having to speak in front of the accused) were not only traumatizing for the victim but essentially unnecessary, and because there was no direct Biblical principle stating otherwise, we were able to 'bend' some of these procedures to be more in line with current more empathetic ways of doing things. As regards corporal punishment, that has always been dependent on the child. Some were thought to need it, others not. Unfortunately we both know that Br. Jackson denied that as an organization we ever practiced corporal punishment. So I will agree with you on this one, that perhaps his denial stemmed from shame, perhaps he never personally liked the idea of corporal punishment himself. But it could also stem from the fact that we do not want to be misunderstood and seen as an unloving organization in this uber sensitive society (especially western society). This might also apply to the shunning of relatives, especially close family members (not living at home). Although Tom has a point point when he says: (underscore mine)

7 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Parents re minor children is a proper subject for Court concern. Do you think the Court should weigh in on the various reasons that ADULT family members not see eye to eye?

 

8 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Also, I know it's another controversial topic that many will strongly disagree with, but in the last few years I have also come to realize that we are wrong to have a policy of "disfellowshipping" children, by allowing them to die, when their temporary life on earth could very likely be lengthened through blood-related medical treatments. In one recent case I know about, it has been clear that if those medical treatments can lengthen a child's temporary physical life on earth, we are to tell the parent that no matter what their own conscience says, their conscience is not allowed to allow the child to receive the treatment. The Biblical principle of pulling a small lamb out of a pit even on the Sabbath is too strong for me to think we should impose the WTS's rule on our own conscience and then on a child's conscience so that they are disfellowshipped through death. It's a way in which we practice having no natural affection, and is related to our acceptance of Brother Herd's comments. 

I am not quite sure I understand your reasoning about "disfellowshipping" children by allowing them to die. Disfellowshipping is always a disciplinary action, how does that relate to this situation?

I agree it is a very difficult situation when we are told what our conscience should be in the case of a minor child receiving blood treatment. And then impose that imposed conscience on the child. Emotions aside, it gets increasingly difficult when as guardians we are responsible for the child before Jehovah (and before the law), and the child is too young to make decisions of it's own. This is why courts will overrule the rights of the parents to make decisions in this case. Have you seen the movie with Emma Thompson 'The Children's Act'? In this movie she played the judge that overruled the parents wishes, AND the child's wishes although he was just months away from being an adult. (Although this movie sounds like it revolved around this issue, it wasn't really about that, but rather about a young man's obsession with an older woman. But it did highlight the fact that this young man's stance may have been because of the influence of his parents, rather than his own conviction). 

Unfortunately, (or should I say fortunately?) Br. Herd's comments are something to do with his age. That's not to say much younger persons cannot adopt the same stance. I have known elders tell a young woman she should be happy she is not living in Israelite times as she would have been stoned. 

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, Anna said:

I have known elders tell a young woman she should be happy she is not living in Israelite times as she would have been stoned

Normally this would be a soul destroying irrational statement, sucking every drop of happiness and common sense out of the life of gullible people, buuuuut it is inculcated into us that it doesn't.

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

*** w17 October p. 12 The Truth Brings, “Not Peace, But a Sword” ***

The Truth Brings, “Not Peace, But a Sword”

It is my considered opinion, BTK46, that the corruption of that scripture is YOURS.

The Truth is not a license to slice up your family members, fathers, daughter, sons, mothers, etc, and cut their tongues out with shunning ...  it is an advisory that those on the OUTSIDE of the Christian Congregation will wage war against you with both figurative and literal swords ( or bayonets and rifles, etc....) .... much as is the case in how we are being currently treated by the Russian Federation, with their police power to enforce their edicts.

That scriptural advisory is a warning to us about what to expect, and why.  It is not a license for disrespecting your Mother and Father, and abandoning your Family for their  reasons of conscience, for in doing so you show that Love Always Fails, when confronted with the option of revenge and vindictiveness, and cruelty for the sake of consolidating assumed authority in order to suppress rebellion.

It does NOT suppress rebellion ... it just creates bitter enemies where before there was none before, and fills them with a terrible resolve for being cast off and treated unfairly, and with contempt.

Disfellowshipping is necessary ... but HOW it is currently done is like being hit hard with a felt lined silk glove, with a steel fist inside.

Remember ... it's the ENEMIES swords we need to be aware of ... not our own.

We today do not have the right to stone someone to death ...or maim and cripple them the way we do it now.

Love Never Fails.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Anna said:

In my opinion I do not think we are ashamed, but we think others will simply not understand our, what appears to be a loveless stance.

If we believe that Christianity fully calls for what appears to be a loveless stance, then we should be proud of it, and express it clearly to the highest courts in every land. Yes, we think we are being cautious as serpents, but to ALSO be innocent as doves we can have no dishonesty and no guile. If we think this is part of Christianity in the method we practice then we are denying Christ if we hold back from telling out all that is profitable.

I'm using "shame" in the sense of having something to hide. When I pass up a gas station that doesn't have its prices on display, I also assume that they are "ashamed" of them.

8 hours ago, Anna said:

Again, I am not sure shame should be credited for this. With regard to CSA

Yes. I don't expect that shame was the only factor. There are and were definitely other factors, too. I don't think these other factors discount what I meant by the part that shame has played. And I think it is much stronger than you think, especially in the way all of us wish we didn't have deal with such a topic. The best and most critical point in the recent articles on the topic correctly move the shame to its proper targets, but there are still several potential pitfalls related to shame. A full warning to elders about the importance of the updated processes should include the ARC hearings, for example. The elders will understand the importance of such shame as a motivation to do the right thing. Some of those elders should have been "shamed" at the time when they thought more about reputation than protection of children.

8 hours ago, Anna said:

I am not quite sure I understand your reasoning about "disfellowshipping" children by allowing them to die. Disfellowshipping is always a disciplinary action, how does that relate to this situation?

Yes. A provocative stretch. I'm using the term disfellowship with the sometimes ambiguous idea that comes from Leviticus in the expression "he should be cut off from the congregation." Sometimes you can't help but see this as a euphemism for the death penalty, especially when the full punishment is stoning.

I think you are already aware of older Watchtower articles that also say, effectively, that it is a good thing we don't live in the time of the Israelite law, when one would be stoned to death. And of course the more infamous one about disfellowshipping children in a household that says, effectively, that it is too bad that we don't live under the Israelite law when we would have been able to stone our disfellowshipped children.

*** w52 11/15 p. 703 Questions From Readers ***
In the case of where a father or mother or son or daughter is disfellowshiped, how should such person be treated by members of the family in their family relationship? . . . Being limited by the laws of the worldly nation in which we live and also by the laws of God through Jesus Christ, we can take action against apostates only to a certain extent, that is, consistent with both sets of laws. The law of the land and God’s law through Christ forbid us to kill apostates, even though they be members of our own flesh-and-blood family relationship.

On the issue of the range of acceptable and unacceptable medical therapies involving blood, this is probably too touchy a subject to get into right now. I'll make it a bit easier by going back to our position with respect to pets:

*** w64 2/15 pp. 127-128 Questions From Readers ***
Would it be a violation of the Scriptures for a Christian to permit a veterinarian to give blood transfusions to a pet? And what of animal food? May it be used if there is reason to believe there is blood in it? Also, is it permissible to use fertilizer that has blood in it?
 . . .
How, then, must we answer the question, Would it be a violation of the Scriptures for a Christian to permit a veterinarian to give blood transfusions to a pet? By all means, to do so would be a violation of the Scriptures. . . .
In harmony with this, surely a Christian parent could not rationalize to the effect that a pet belongs to a minor child and thus this unbaptized child might, on its own, authorize a veterinarian to administer the blood. No. The baptized parent bears the responsibility, for that parent has authority over the child and over the pet and should control the entire matter. That is the parent’s obligation before God. . . .
What, then, of animal food? May it be used if there is reason to believe there is blood in it? As far as a Christian is concerned, the answer is No, on the basis of principles already mentioned. Therefore, if a Christian discovers that blood components are listed on the label of a container of dog food or some other animal food, he could not conscientiously feed that product to any animal over which he has jurisdiction. . . .
But now, what about fertilizer that has blood in it? . . .  Hence, no Christian farmer today could properly spread blood on his fields to fertilize the soil, nor would he use commercial fertilizer containing blood. . . . It would be a violation of God’s Word.

If I buy butcher's bones for a large dog that still have bloody bits of meat on them, and of course, the marrow filled with whole blood cells, I can't feed them to my dog. I'm told that my conscience won't allow it. And if my cat or pet snake loves live mice, can I buy them and feed them to the cat or snake, without first draining the blood from them? Can I use live minnows on a hook while fishing without first draining the blood from those minnows? Do we keep a country dog from picking at roadkill, or snapping at mosquitoes or ticks?

And since the blood (and fat, and even remaining portions of a carcass) of an animal had to be poured out upon the ground during the time of the Mosaic Law, then what if an olive tree grew over that spot some day? Was that spot fertilized by blood, and becomes forbidden?

Should we be told what our conscience can and can't allow in all these cases? Should we impose our conscience on children, or on their pets? And if a circumstance comes up where a one-year-old child will most likely die without an available white cell, plasma or red cell hemoglobin treatment, and will most likely live if she receives one, then must our "conscience" be imposed on that child?

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Anna said:

I am not quite sure I understand your reasoning

I may have weighed in too quickly on this one, without having read the whole context, just like the ol pork chop says I do. 

Like Herod, I was in “a fighting mood” at the time. Unlike Herod, I have the worldnewsmediaforum as an outlet whenever I am punchy like that. That way I don’t have to go shooting up any public place, which is all the rage in these insane days.

Since the JWI comment immediately follows mine, and then your remark,  I am not sure if I have made a faux pas or hit a home run, but I will cover myself in any event.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Since the JWI comment immediately follows mine, and then your remark,  I am not sure if I have made a faux pas or hit a home run, but I will cover myself in any event.

I expect that we are just on two different wavelengths here. I'm also guessing that I see more that's right in your answer than you will see in mine. These are just opinions for consideration, even if they seem to get a bit too serious.

Share this post


Link to post

...

2019-08-05_010910.jpgOh, I dunno, Billy.

Sometimes when my mind wanders to evil things, I think about Adolph Hitler, sometimes to Donald Trump, sometimes even to how you are doing ... and sometimes even to that spawn of Earthly Evil, Watchtower Lawyers, who pervert Justice in order to win their cases, as documented in many court transcripts.

Think of those court transcripts as scripts for the diabolically challenged.

Of course, with the  posting of your devil emoticon, and how you process logic and reasoning skills, it's clear you don't need them.

However, you could probably use a self-help book for the satirically challenged.

You might enjoy this video of a Watchtower Lawyer explaining how we DO NOT SHUN disfellowshipped members, which ( and this is a VERY important point ...) because he truly believes this HE IS NOT A LIAR, but what he is saying itself ... is a bald faced lie, distorted by WDS.

1161273524_JehovahsWitnessOrganizationRedefinesShunningtoFalsely.mp4.85f4c020c9531a829adfda4cd5d6d92f.mp4

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Anna said:
13 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I understand that the entire point was to mislead, and I hope everyone will see that this simply means that the Society's representative here knows that we should not be proud of our current practice. Therefore we are ashamed.

Bold mine.

Not sure I quite agree with you there. In my opinion I do not think we are ashamed, but we think others will simply not understand our, what appears to be a loveless stance.

Perhaps it can be said in this way.

When JW members defending "the truth", in such or similar issue, inside own private or congregational circle than they are proud on temporary doctrines.

But when JW member have to defend some sorts of practice before "worldly people" (for example, not pick up the  phone to dfd daughter or let baby to die because of blood and fraction policy)  caused by accepting official doctrines and interpretations of Bible verses, then i can be sure how some shadow of shame is possible to come on face of some (maybe not all) JW's. Perhaps some very good observer and reader of micro facial expressions, mimics and gestures, would be able to see that. And even that same JW member would feel some sort of short term discomfort.

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Anna said:

Unfortunately, (or should I say fortunately?) Br. Herd's comments are something to do with his age. That's not to say much younger persons cannot adopt the same stance. I have known elders tell a young woman she should be happy she is not living in Israelite times as she would have been stoned. 

Br. Herd's comments are something to do with his age

As GB member and in a special position as one who Take a Lead of God's People on Earth, Br. Herd obviously, in that particular moment when gave this speech, was not Led by Spirit or  Guide by Bible and Angels .... but he was Led by his Age. :))

Another thing. While reading comments, one think, one thing, came on my mind. About not going to army service and "learning to fight". I made parallels with another sort of "weapon, gun". That is words. It looks to me, because people can "learn" good and bad things, it is not always good to send people in school to learn how to read and write and giving talk. :))) Because sometimes, when some of such people wrote and/or said something from position of Teacher (spiritual in our example) then he can make more "killings"(spiritual stoning) than some soldier on battle field.   

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

As GB member and in a special position as one who Take a Lead of God's People on Earth, Br. Herd obviously, in that particular moment when gave this speech, was not Led by Spirit or  Guide by Bible and Angels .... but he was Led by his Age. :))

It is revealing to me that those who taunt us endlessly over just how “inspired” are the ones at the helm today seem to take for granted that there should be ones who are that way. It gets even more crazy when words such as “infallible” are thrown in. “Perfect” is even worse. 

“Look at what Brother Jackson said,” they gloat. “Guess he’s not so infallible after all, is he?” they say. They take for granted that for the Christian life to have validity in modern times, there should be ones who ARE infallible, who can and SHOULD spoon-feed members, so there is a lessened need for faith, and hopefully (from their point of view) none at all.

These ones wouldn’t have lasted two minutes in the first century, when the ones taking the lead were manifestly not that way. A local speaker with a dramatic flair enacted a fictional encounter from back then with an irate householder, a forerunner of today’s “apostates.” “What! You’re going to tell me about love?” he tells the visiting brother. “Look, I was there at that meeting of Paul and Barnabas after John took a leave of absence! You see those two kids there? [motioning to his young children playing on the floor] They do not fight as I saw those two grown men of yours fight! Why don’t you learn love yourself before you come here to lecture me about it!”

For that reason, I shy away from such loaded words as “infallible.” Maybe the insistence on infallibility is a holdover from the Catholic Church, which for centuries insisted that the Pope was that way. “Inspired” will also blow up in your face, because you end up doing backflips in translating just what the word should effectively mean now—or even then, when the “leading men” fought like kids. (I even put the word “apostates” in quotes, increasingly, because it comes in many varieties and it means different things to different people.)

It is enough to say that the written record, which includes the dealings and interactions of imperfect ones at the first-century helm, is deemed “inspired.” “All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness,  so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.” This is so even though it includes the account of Peter’s astounding cowardess (given his leadership role at the time) of changing his association once the Jewish-based brothers came on the scene—before they did, he mixed freely with the Gentile-based Christians; after they did, he “withdrew” from them.

It is still “inspired.” It is enough for us to go on. It is enough to make us “fully competent” and “completely equipped for every good work.” Even though it includes the blunderings of the “uneducated and ordinary” ones that were the leaders back then—and the leaders today hold to that pattern—that is still the case. It is not at all what Srecko or John thinks it should be—a true “anointed” to wipe away every tear and smooth the path, (sorry, Witness) removing all pebbles so that the people of God can sail along blithely without really having to develop faith. 

 

Share this post


Link to post

 

Expect noting from anybody, and you will seldom be disappointed.

"Murphy's Laws" have many variants .... Murphy's Laws for Combat, Murphy's Laws for Table Manners, Murphy's  Laws for Babies with Poopy Diapers, Murphy's Laws for Business, Murphy's Laws for Engineers, etc.

Learning many of these as might apply to your lifestyle is a way to have realistic expectations.

Fortunately, Mr. Google can help you with that.

Good mental health BEGINS with seeing the world, and the things in it, as they REALLY are ...... not how we WISH they would be.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, JW Insider said:

If we believe that Christianity fully calls for what appears to be a loveless stance, then we should be proud of it, and express it clearly to the highest courts in every land.

I agree. What I meant about an apparently loveless stance obviously does not appear loveless to Christians (JW) but it does appear loveless to the world. Therefor if we try to "hide" a certain policy, which we believe is Biblical,  it means we are seeking favor with the world, or compromising. Generally, throughout the history of JWs, individuals have put their well being and even life on the line for expressing clearly their loyalty to Bible principles to the highest courts in the land, no matter how they were viewed by the world. But we both know that the term 'theocratic warfare ' means we can find ways of obfuscating in order not to endanger other JWs, and we do not have to say anything to those who are not entitled to it, for the same reason. Obviously this principle can be misused as it appeared to be by the JW lawyer in question. (I don't really like to base my opinion on partial information, as is the short clip of the video. I mentioned that in my first comment. What if the issue really was exclusively about a family member living at home).

12 hours ago, JW Insider said:

A full warning to elders about the importance of the updated processes should include the ARC hearings, for example. The elders will understand the importance of such shame as a motivation to do the right thing. Some of those elders should have been "shamed" at the time when they thought more about reputation than protection of children.

Agree. I did in fact send a link to the ARC hearings to an elder who was involved in an issue I mentioned to you privately.

12 hours ago, JW Insider said:

*** w52 11/15 p. 703 Questions From Readers ***
In the case of where a father or mother or son or daughter is disfellowshiped, how should such person be treated by members of the family in their family relationship? . . . Being limited by the laws of the worldly nation in which we live and also by the laws of God through Jesus Christ, we can take action against apostates only to a certain extent, that is, consistent with both sets of laws. The law of the land and God’s law through Christ forbid us to kill apostates, even though they be members of our own flesh-and-blood family relationship.

On the issue of the range of acceptable and unacceptable medical therapies involving blood, this is probably too touchy a subject to get into right now. I'll make it a bit easier by going back to our position with respect to pets:

*** w64 2/15 pp. 127-128 Questions From Readers ***
Would it be a violation of the Scriptures for a Christian to permit a veterinarian to give blood transfusions to a pet? And what of animal food? May it be used if there is reason to believe there is blood in it? Also, is it permissible to use fertilizer that has blood in it?

Both WT you quoted are thankfully rather dated. 

12 hours ago, JW Insider said:

If I buy butcher's bones for a large dog that still have bloody bits of meat on them, and of course, the marrow filled with whole blood cells, I can't feed them to my dog. I'm told that my conscience won't allow it. And if my cat or pet snake loves live mice, can I buy them and feed them to the cat or snake, without first draining the blood from them? Can I use live minnows on a hook while fishing without first draining the blood from those minnows? Do we keep a country dog from picking at roadkill, or snapping at mosquitoes or ticks?

I think the difference between your scenarios and the examples in the WT is that the WT examples were about  processing blood, therefor misusing it. Buying products where blood was added as an ingredient or was specially processed would be tantamount to supporting the misuse of blood.

12 hours ago, JW Insider said:

And if a circumstance comes up where a one-year-old child will most likely die without an available white cell, plasma or red cell hemoglobin treatment, and will most likely live if she receives one, then must our "conscience" be imposed on that child?

I think that an underage child does not really have a say in the matter, so don't think there is an issue of imposing conscience on the child.

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes ago, Anna said:

Obviously this principle can be misused as it appeared to be by the JW lawyer in question. (I don't really like to base my opinion on partial information, as is the short clip of the video. I mentioned that in my first comment. What if the issue really was exclusively about a family member living at home).

In that case, I think how JW layer had enough time to explain before Court ALL and EVERY SMALL DETAILS on SHUNNING POLICY.

But he didn't. WHY? Why not to explain all about JW way of living and how they practice Bible principles, to all this people involved in case? It would be Great Witnessing ... and he will make JHVH to be very proud.

:))

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

“All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for

First of all, thank you TTH that you did made this big answer on my reaction comment.

You may think about my comments as "tauntingly". If i or somebody else ("apostate") told you, how this or that in WT Society is wrong, with more or less evidence, you would not accept it, because that is apostate lies. If some making "sarcastic" comments, that also will not help you because such "approach" is not good for you, too. Maybe you are right how this way is not "spiritual enough", "loving enough", "theocratic enough", "legalistic enough" to be acceptable to you or to some other person from JW Church.  But this is how it is. I can't change you, and you can't change me. :))

About quote above. I am not sure, but thinking how Paul was talking about Scriptures that was considered "inspired" and God's Word, in their point/period of time. Well, i think he spoke about Pentateuch, Prophetic books, Psalms as ..... Scriptures.  

So, what he had in mind with terminology/word -  Scriptures - it is/was not some other Letters or Writings in HIS TIME. But ONLY WHAT WAS WRITTEN BEFORE HIM. MANY YEARS BEFORE HIM. 

So, when we today going to use his words, "All Scripture" than we must be more precisely. Because,  His Idea and Our Idea about what is CONTENT and MEANING of wording "All Scripture" IS NOT The SAME. :))

Nothing Ironic, Sarcastic, Taunting in comment i didn't put. Just tried to be more explicit. 

Well, if people today quoting something from Bible, it would be correct and fair to know how people in past (Paul in this case) had some OTHER THINGS in his/their mind when they used word (and quotes from) "Scriptures".  

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Anna said:

I think that an underage child does not really have a say in the matter, so don't think there is an issue of imposing conscience on the child.

Disagree. Their say is the fact that their blood cries out from the ground over any injustice imposed upon them in this life.

(Genesis 4:10) . . . Your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground.

(Revelation 6:9, 10) . . .the souls of those slaughtered because of the word of God and because of the witness they had given. 10 They shouted with a loud voice, saying. . .

A sheep bleats and bleats to be saved after falling into a pit on the Sabbath. A strict Sabbath-keeper will sacrifice the life of that sheep by imposing his conscience over the life of that sheep.

(Deuteronomy 19:10)  In this way no innocent blood will be spilled in your land that Jehovah your God is giving you as an inheritance, and no bloodguilt will come upon you.

(Deuteronomy 27:25) . . .“‘Cursed is the one who accepts a bribe to kill [a soul of innocent blood] an innocent person.’ (And all the people will say, ‘Amen!’)

(Matthew 12:11, 12) . . .“If you have one sheep and that sheep falls into a pit on the Sabbath, is there a man among you who will not grab hold of it and lift it out? 12 How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! . . .

4 hours ago, Anna said:

Both WT you quoted are thankfully rather dated. 

Herd of the Governing Body? He recommended that we go back and read "Angels & Women," a very interesting book from the 1870s/1920s that he found in the Bethel Library.

4 hours ago, Anna said:

the WT examples were about  processing blood, therefor misusing it.

The only type of blood that we are "conscientiously" allowed to use without consequence is processed blood, fractions processed from whole blood. For human blood, processing is the only way NOT to misuse it. Also, notice that the article indicates that the only correct way for a pet to eat blood is if it "helps itself" to [whole] blood after killing another animal. A direct act by us makes us responsible. (My wife put up a bird feeder that inadvertently made it easier for our cat to kill and eat birds, but that is an indirect act, I think.)

*** w64 2/15 p. 127 Questions From Readers ***
for this would not be a case of an animal killing another animal and helping itself to the blood of that creature. No, this would be a direct act on the part of the Christian, making him responsible for feeding blood to a pet or other animal belonging to him.

4 hours ago, Anna said:

Buying products where blood was added as an ingredient or was specially processed would be tantamount to supporting the misuse of blood.

As indicated above, when any of us use conscientiously "approved" blood products with or without insurance or tax based health care, we are "buying products where blood was . . . specially processed." No such products would be available to us if that blood had been properly poured out upon the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

My wife put up a bird feeder that inadvertently made it easier for our cat to kill and eat birds, but that is an indirect act, I think.)

Tell her to put up one in which the pole is encased in a Slinky. They are unbeatable. As the squirrel (or maybe cat) climbs up the pole, he gets almost to the top, and his paws grab the Slinky, at which point he abruptly slides to the ground and lands on his squirrelly rear end. She (and the birds) will laugh so hard about this that whatever project she undertakes that day will succeed. 

Share this post


Link to post

...

 

2019-08-05_210138.jpg

Now that Toys-R-US is  bankrupt, and closed, I do not know where to buy a Slinky.

So I use a precariously balanced red brick at the platform level, or a large beat up tall black hat, like desperadoes used to wear.

  I understand if a squirrel gets in one it is trapped forever, and it attracts more squirrels.  Then, when a cat shows up and gets trapped, ... well ... let's just say watching the hat owner has entertainment value, that can't be beat!

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

As indicated above, when any of us use conscientiously "approved" blood products with or without insurance or tax based health care, we are "buying products where blood was . . . specially processed." No such products would be available to us if that blood had been properly poured out upon the ground.

That one little piece of logic makes it crystal clear that Jehovah's Witnesses management had it right to begin with, "no blood or blood fractions", but then they caved to rescue their money and real estate from lawsuits.

The Lawyers and Accountants are now running the show, and deciding what is proper theology, based on money.

We had it right .... and THEN, screwed it up.

Mammon would be pleased. (Matthew 6:24)

Share this post


Link to post

@James Thomas Rook Jr. 

The term itself is accurate however.

  • Think not that I am come … - This is taken from Micah 7:6. Christ did not here mean to say that the object of his coming was to produce discord and contention, for he was the Prince of Peace, Isaiah 9:6; Isaiah 11:6; Luke 2:14; but he means to say that such would be one of the effects of his coming. One part of a family that was opposed to Him would set themselves against those who believed in him. The wickedness of men, and not the religion of the gospel, is the cause of this hostility. It is unnecessary to say that no prophecy has been more strikingly fulfilled; and it will continue to be fulfilled until all unite in obeying his commandments. Then his religion will produce universal peace. Compare the notes at Matthew 10:21.
  • But a sword - The sword is an instrument of death, and to send a sword is the same as to produce hostility and war.

Also see for commentary - 

    Hello guest!

On 8/4/2019 at 7:34 PM, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

If you cannot forgive your enemies, the most you should do is forget them.

We should always forgive them, despite how vile some of them are. But not everyone takes into account forgiveness and repentance of sin, instead consider it nothing more as a game, for endless relapse into sin and err.

So as imperfect ones, some among us, are truly not all that forgiving, nor some of us are all that repentant, thus throwing away of what the Bible says regarding such.

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/5/2019 at 2:37 PM, JW Insider said:
On 8/5/2019 at 12:43 PM, Anna said:

I think that an underage child does not really have a say in the matter, so don't think there is an issue of imposing conscience on the child.

Disagree. Their say is the fact that their blood cries out from the ground over any injustice imposed upon them in this life.

(Genesis 4:10) . . . Your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground.

(Revelation 6:9, 10) . . .the souls of those slaughtered because of the word of God and because of the witness they had given. 10 They shouted with a loud voice, saying. . .

A sheep bleats and bleats to be saved after falling into a pit on the Sabbath. A strict Sabbath-keeper will sacrifice the life of that sheep by imposing his conscience over the life of that sheep.

(Deuteronomy 19:10)  In this way no innocent blood will be spilled in your land that Jehovah your God is giving you as an inheritance, and no bloodguilt will come upon you.

(Deuteronomy 27:25) . . .“‘Cursed is the one who accepts a bribe to kill [a soul of innocent blood] an innocent person.’ (And all the people will say, ‘Amen!’)

(Matthew 12:11, 12) . . .“If you have one sheep and that sheep falls into a pit on the Sabbath, is there a man among you who will not grab hold of it and lift it out? 12 How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! . . .

I am sorry, I realized it sounded like I was telling you what you should be thinking. There were a lot of people coming and going out of the house and talking to me, so I found it hard to concentrate, I changed the sentence around a bit and forgot to put the I back. It should have read " so I don't think..."

Of course the child has rights, and one of those rights is the right to live. I think I am beginning  to understand the angle you are looking at it from. Like what right do the parents have to say that a child is to die as a result of their (the parents conscience). It's complicated, because it's true that no one has the right to decide over the life (as in life or death) of another human. On the  other hand the parents are responsible in Jehovah's eyes to uphold the law.  I understand now why you brought up the parallel example with the pets. So in effect persons are upholding the law not only for themselves but also for others in their care, whether it be children or pets. (Or as you call it imposing their conscience). I can see that a part of the problem is that both children and pets are dependent on the adults and that both children and pets are not able to make informed decisions like the adults are, and therefor the adults in charge of them make the decisions for them.
But I think the main misunderstanding in our dialogue has been because we have both been approaching the issue from different angles, for example the Bible says children belong to Jehovah, and that they are merely in the parents care. So assuming Jehovah really means that the law on blood includes all forms of manipulation with blood, and all forms of ingesting blood whether by mouth or intravenously, what would HIS decision be regarding the treatment of the child?   In that case, aren't the parents merely trying to uphold what they believe would be Jehovah's decision, rather than anything to do with imposing their conscience onto a dependent child? So I think that's the angle I was coming at it from. But you were looking at it from the point of view of the rights of a dependent child (or pet) per se. Am I understanding it right?

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/5/2019 at 1:35 PM, Srecko Sostar said:

But he didn't. WHY? Why not to explain all about JW way of living and how they practice Bible principles, to all this people involved in case? It would be Great Witnessing ... and he will make JHVH to be very proud.

The problem is, we were only show a small clip of the video...

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, JW Insider said:
On 8/5/2019 at 12:43 PM, Anna said:

Both WT you quoted are thankfully rather dated. 

Herd of the Governing Body? He recommended that we go back and read "Angels & Women," a very interesting book from the 1870s/1920s that he found in the Bethel Library.

Yes indeed, lol. And we also know of another quote about 'cows in heat' (from an old publication) that was quoted recently by a member of Bethel :S. I guess I am just hoping that in this case, the case under discussion, it IS dated....but then again I would have hoped the same for the cows. That was rather surprising, and shocking!

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/5/2019 at 2:37 PM, JW Insider said:
On 8/5/2019 at 12:43 PM, Anna said:

the WT examples were about  processing blood, therefor misusing it.

The only type of blood that we are "conscientiously" allowed to use without consequence is processed blood, fractions processed from whole blood. For human blood, processing is the only way NOT to misuse it.

I know, sounds like a paradox. But what I meant by the term processing was not the taking it apart, but using whole blood and putting it into something else instead of pouring it out onto the ground. Of course if you are centrifuging blood to separate it into fractions, you are not pouring it onto the ground either. So I guess that's where it becomes a conscience matter... because you are not doing the processing, but you are just accepting the finished product, which are the fractions. Just like when you are paying taxes, you are not concerned with what this money is ultimately being used for (weapons for example). Of course the same could be said about using whole blood as an ingredient in a product, you are not the one that made the product, and with regard to fertilizer, you would actually be putting it back into the ground!

edit:

P.S. There is no doubt in my mind, that ultimately, the revised stance on blood fractions, i.e. them being a matter of conscience, derived from the recognition that many life extending medical treatments, and vaccinations involve the manipulation of blood in some way.

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, Anna said:

I am sorry, I realized it sounded like I was telling you what you should be thinking.

I really didn't notice anything like that. So there's nothing to worry about or defend.

44 minutes ago, Anna said:

Am I understanding it right?

Yes. You understood me. Thanks for the explanation. I'm not worried about whether anyone agrees, but I'm glad you understand.

15 minutes ago, Anna said:

I know, sounds like a paradox.

Yes. You are seeing the issues. The article that said no blood transfusions for pets was written at a time when we were still being told that our conscience doesn't allow certain fractions, which our consciences are now allowed to allow. So where does this leave our pets? Can we get a medical therapy for a dog that allows hemoglobin as long as it is not in the form of full red blood cells, but just the portions of that cell from which someone squished out the hemoglobin? And if we do allow it, can we still associate with the dog, if we are disfellowshipped for giving unsanctioned blood to our pets? 😉

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

And if we do allow it, can we still associate with the dog, if we are disfellowshipped for giving unsanctioned blood to our pets?

More like will the dog's conscience allow him to associate with US xD

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, Anna said:

I can see that a part of the problem is that both children and pets are dependent on the adults and that both children and pets are not able to make informed decisions like the adults are, and therefor the adults in charge of them make the decisions for them.

both children and pets are not able to make informed decisions like the adults are,

If you allow me to say, I see a little problem here. WT Society looking with happiness when 7 - 17 years old children making "informed decision" to be baptized.

Also, Organization are proud when Court making decision to allow minor children to make own "informed decision" on medical treatment (refuse blood).

This two sort of examples making issue more complicated. Because, will you allow or not allow - that children making own "informed decisions"? And should that be general rule for all children? Or  you put final decision on adult (Judicial Committee .... Worldly  Court) does  children  enough "mature" to make own "informed decision" or not? Etc.  

 

35 minutes ago, Anna said:

So assuming Jehovah really means that the law on blood includes all forms of manipulation with blood, and all forms of ingesting blood whether by mouth or intravenously, what would HIS decision be regarding the treatment of the child?   In that case, aren't the parents merely trying to uphold what they believe would be Jehovah's decision,

Here i see some theological issue. If God who see things in advance not gave clear command to his people about blood and say - do not eat, do not drink, do not transfuse blood, how is possible that people interpret blood ban as ban about blood transfusion or some other medical treatment that will come in the future?

If we try to explain how his people (or people in general) didn't know nothing  about transfusion, so God didn't want to made his command  unclear or incomprehensible to them, than i see another proof how GB explanation about need to obey their command and instructions despite the fact how such "Life Saving" instructions are not reasonable or understandable from "human standpoint" is just human interpretations and manipulation. 

If God not want to burden people more than it is needed, and he was done that with clear and sound commandants, readable in Law - ......

Why would He allow and be agreeable, with GB ideas .... who  giving obscure and questionable instructions, to His people about way of worshiping?    

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

do not eat, do not drink, do not transfuse blood, how is possible that people interpret blood ban as ban about blood transfusion or some other medical treatment that will come in the future

I am sure you've heard the illustration using alcohol. If the doc tells us do not drink alcohol, would he have to be specific and say do not transfuse it into your veins either?

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

This two sort of examples making issue more complicated. Because, will you allow or not allow - that children making own "informed decisions"? And should that be general rule for all children? Or  you put final decision on adult (Judicial Committee .... Worldly  Court) does  children  enough "mature" to make own "informed decision" or not?

Yes, I agree, it gets very complicated...I think what JWI and I were talking about is babies and very small children with similar decision making capabilities as a dog (sorry if it sounds weird :S. I did read somewhere though that a dog's intelligence is comparable to a 3 year old child) but also those who might be older but considered 'immature' by worldly courts.

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

While the blood is led out in the slaughter house, no meat is completely free of blood byproduct in a cellular level.

I don't think anyone was saying this was an issue.

Also, if you are insinuating that the command on blood should be obeyed because of health benefits, then you are missing the point entirely.

 

Share this post


Link to post

BTK46 :

I will give it a try, to summarize the dialect correctly .....

Phinias T. Bluster   .jpg

Your predilection for irrelevancy seems to have a New York, probably Eastern New Jersey flavor, tinged with a bit of Scottish Brogue, and a bouquet of Midwestern, but obviously fake woody attempt at John Waynism.

The Hollywood version, not the Texas version.

There is an overview of pronounced bluster that cannot be disguised, but it is clear you are not even trying, so that bespeaks a tinge of Masachusettsism, faintly reminiscent of Harvard Law School, or a very good imitation thereof. From the bouquet and aroma it hints of association with Warwick New York Lawyers.

Did I get that dialect right?

 

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Interesting. I guess everyone here is vegetarian.

I abstain from blood in every way possible but, like many of us have stated in the past, it's not possible to get every bit of blood out of slaughtered meat. It's a matter of doing what we can within reason. You don't have to be a vegetarian to abstain from blood. You seem to agree with this point, and I agree with most of the points you made here, too.

14 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Any meat still contains a small amount of blood by product (Fraction). The red liquid juice is not blood. That’s a misconception because it is red. It’s a myoglobin protein. That helps oxygen storage.

Ironically, it can be compared to the hemoglobin in blood.

I absolutely agree that the red liquid juice is the protein called myoglobin which is "distantly" related to hemoglobin, as it handles the same purpose in muscle tissue (oxygenation) that hemoglobin handles for many parts of the body by carrying oxygen through the bloodstream.

The only thing you say here, which I think could be misleading is when you say that "Any meat still contains a small amount of blood by product (Fraction)." In actuality, just as was pointed out in previous conversations, any meat still contains a small amount of whole blood, not so much any "fractionated" blood. By the way, your wording here is almost the precise wording that Allen Smith had used when I pointed this out, right down to the misspelling of "by product" followed by the word "Fraction." Coincidentally, my own response in the previous conversation used the word "ironically" too, but I had chosen the word for less serious reasons, because I was talking about how hemoglobin carries oxygen and iron, too. Deja vu!

14 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

While the blood is led out in the slaughter house, no meat is completely free of blood byproduct in a cellular level.

Therefore, when scripture states let the blood spill out, it’s not saying to get your wash rag and scrub the carcass. You can bleach it out, and still have micro blood product left over.

I think everyone would agree with that, as stated above.

The rest of your points are more related to health considerations and the medical dangers of blood transfusions, including the historical development of understanding dangers, limitations, and transfusing blood types (which were figured out by 1901). This is all interesting information but likely has very little to do with the reasons that Christians were told to abstain from blood in Acts 17, etc.

14 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Then fraction blood was introduced to give the recipient the choice to choose their conscience instead of some delusional ideology about it being about monetary or lawsuits. If a person dies due to their conscience, then they made that choice.

I cannot claim that it was about money or lawsuits, but there are some historical indications about the timing of various statements the WTS made with respect to doctors, patient rights, our use of term "martyr," the JW Bulgaria blood transfusion announcements, medical articles for journal publication from M. Gene Smalley and J. Lowell Dixon, MD (Bethel Doctor). I have looked over these developments from 1989 to 1994 especially, and compared them to later discussions since 1998. Our "public" language about the topic became quite different in 1998, and updates came quickly between 1998 and 2000, which was the same year (rumored) that the number of attorneys at Bethel apparently doubled (no verification on this) and the same year that the Governing Body changed their roles and stepped away from their roles as WTS corporate directors (verified).

For anyone interested in a challenge from an obviously apostate source on the topic of changes to our blood policy, they can look at this page, written in the year 2000:

    Hello guest!

 

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, JW Insider said:

By the way, your wording here is almost the precise wording that Allen Smith had used when I pointed this out, right down to the misspelling of "by product" followed by the word "Fraction."

You know, if it wasn’t so cumbersome a process requiring yet another email address, I think I would introduce a character AllenSmith2000, or maybe even (taking inspiration from the postal service) AllenSmithForever

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

When, Meat is processed as kosher, then you have to understand the term fraction.

When meat is processed as kosher, then you do NOT have to understand the term fraction. There are no blood fractions in kosher processed meat, only very small quantities of WHOLE blood.

6 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

The point being missed is, while whole blood had many complications and was misunderstood by the science community, fraction blood byproducts have been studied.

The point might have been missed because it's not part of the Watchtower's doctrine. The publications have put a lot of emphasis on potential health risks of accepting and health advantages of abstaining. We shouldn't care so much that whole blood has been studied and has had a history of many complications, nor the fact that fractions, too, have been studied and has had a history of many complications. We don't abstain from blood for health reasons, that's just a potential advantage of abstaining from blood. It's also a potential advantage of abstaining from blood fractions.

*** w91 6/15 p. 9 par. 5 Saving Life With Blood—How? ***
Yes, the central reason why they were to avoid taking in blood was, not that it could be unhealthy, but that blood had special meaning to God.

*** w04 6/15 p. 29 Questions From Readers ***
Do Jehovah’s Witnesses accept any minor fractions of blood?
. . .
Those practices (even if some Romans did them for health reasons) were wrong for Christians

6 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

I would say a byproduct, by comparison would be safer than a regular whole blood transfusion.

I'd say so too, but your idea looks like a tacit admission that the WTS changed its doctrine to allow fractions for the wrong reasons. Making temporary health benefits more important than God's law. 

6 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Therefore, it was beneficial to voice the dangers of whole blood as the early Watchtower did, due to health complications rather than how it is now, leaving “fraction blood” to the individual’s conscience.

And here you state it more explicitly, that this was the reason: "Therefore, . . . due to health." And, in fact, your entire post is about health and cost considerations, among the various therapies.

Share this post


Link to post

To bring this blood discussion more directly in line with the topic, one should consider that almost the exact same thing was done by WT lawyers in the Bulgaria case, where the WTS legal team came up with a way to appease the officials who were determining the status of our work in Bulgaria (by publicly denying that there would be religious repercussions for accepting a blood transfusion). Then, to clarify, internal communications from the WTS to the congregations stated that nothing had changed, and that there would definitely continue to be religious repercussions for accepting a blood transfusion.

    Hello guest!

Share this post


Link to post

If he “technically” told the truth, as NB put it, that means that he “actually” did. That may be good enough when dealing with someone who is going after your jugular. Jesus, when dealing with someone who was going after his jugular, gave such a “complete” witness that Pilate said: “What! Are you not speaking to me?!”

Nonetheless, it is not a bad question from Srecko:

On 8/5/2019 at 1:35 PM, Srecko Sostar said:

Why not to explain all about JW way of living and how they practice Bible principles, to all this people involved in case? It would be Great Witnessing ... and he will make JHVH to be very proud.

I can think of two reasons (besides what is in the first paragraph about Jesus) why they might show restraint, assuming they did.

First, the complexion of courts have greatly changed since the days of Hayden Covington, when you could read a scripture that would be considered an answer putting the matter to rest. These days, where atheism is all the rage, a scripture might be seen as intensifying the problem. Some portions of Scripture are widely considered “hate speech.” That wasn’t so back in the day. In this case, we find ourselves defending a type of discipline to a system-of-things that has largely cast off discipline as outmoded, and deservedly so, as it can stifle “self-esteem.”

A second reason is that the Christian could once caution about the “low sink of debauchery” (1 Peter 4:4) and the judges would say: “Yeah, we don’t want to go there.” Today they are as likely to say: “Water’s fine in the low sink—who are you to judge?” Moral standards have changed, and even the things that are still frowned upon are frowned upon to a much lesser degree.

So it is a judgment call, and I don’t go there, having no qualifications as a lawyer. I learned long ago in my twenties, when someone ran head-on into my Dodge Dart that I had spent much time “restoring,” finding a rare unrusted body, towing it 70 miles, and dropping a working engine in it, that even in small claims court, a lawyer is an asset. The other side represented himself with one, and my argument that my car was a “classic” that merited more than the usual remuneration, since I had worked so hard on it, went nowhere. He knew all the catch phrases and secret lawyer hand signals, and when I reached to hand a document to the judge without first “asking to approach the bench” it was the beginning of the end for me. These days, when I have any legal matter to attend to, I hire a lawyer, cross my fingers that he is smarter than the villain’s lawyer, and hope for the best. In a dispute with the city, my lawyer said that, in his opinion, submitted documents only had to “weigh enough” to carry the day.

Should the Watchtower lawyer defend disfellowshipping by quoting 2 Timothy 2:17 about how unsavory speech will “spread like gangrene” and how on that account, certain ones in the first century were “handed over to Satan” with the possible outcome that they would be taught “not to blaspheme?”

There is a part of me that says ‘yes’ to this, but it is their call, not mine, and they are the ones in the trenches, not me. I do try to be “complete” in my own writings, where I make the argument that doctrines from on-High that are voluntarily followed cannot survive if there is not some mechanism to eject those who insist on contradicting AND remaining in close proximity. One can do one or the other, but not both.

People of this world are often tripped up by their own faulty assumptions, not to mention their pride. I think of “Parkinson’s Law,” from the satirical book of the same name, that offers a mathematical formula to the effect that, in organizational matters, the amount of time spent on an item varies inversely to its expense. The author illustrates it with a company board meeting at which the first item on the agenda is approval of the proposed $10 million dollar fission plant. Only one on the board has the slightest qualifications on this topic—some of them don’t even know what a fission plant is—and he distrusts the proposal. He is sure that they will just be throwing money down the toilet, but he does not know how to start to explain it to the others. He knows that he would have to refer to the blueprints, and he knows that not one of them would admit that they cannot read blueprints. So he concurs, and the project goes forward after a consideration of 4 minutes. Some on the board, however, are having twinges of conscience that they have not really “pulled their weight,” and they resolve to make up for it with the next item.

(The next item on the agenda is a proposed bicycle shed for the employees, that will cost $4000, and everyone weighs in as to whether the roof should be aluminum or composite shingle, which costs less. For that matter, do the employees need a bicycle shed at all, since they are eternally ungrateful no matter what is done for them. This discussion is resolved in 45 minutes. The third item on the agenda is the brand of coffee that should be served in the office and its means of preparation, and here the board argues away 3 hours, with a possible savings of $15, because each of them has strong opinions as well as considerable knowledge about coffee.)

Now, with modern thinkers enamored with “critical thinking,” their blind side is to imagine that critical thinking carries the day—that it enables them to withstand outside societal pressures. The doctrine of “self-determination according to ones internal compass” is very strong today, and it is almost a hopeless task to convince such persons that their internal compass is defective and at times almost useless in the face of a heart that “is desperate.” I mean, there is a lot of educating that has to be done to convince such persons, and it may be as hopeless a task as was trying to persuade the board members who cannot read blueprints but would never admit to it. One would think you could start with the fact that advertising assumes that people are not that way, that they are not the critical thinkers they claim to be, and that its widespread adoption and success shows that persons can be easily molded, no matter their assertions to the contrary. But this means battling the pride of humanists, which is a very difficult thing to do.

It is what I try to do in TrueTom vs the Apostates. And I do think for all the facts to be laid out clearly does “make JHVH to be very proud.” 

    Hello guest!

Whether this can be done in the courtroom is another matter. I am not even sure of this observation from Srecko:

On 8/5/2019 at 1:35 PM, Srecko Sostar said:

In that case, I think how JW layer had enough time to explain before Court ALL and EVERY SMALL DETAILS on SHUNNING POLICY.

Did he? It may be so, but my recollections of courtroom procedure is that an opposition lawyer can keep the focus extremely narrow when desired, and declare as irrelevant to the Court material that would clarify matters. It once was considered the height of wisdom to carefully consider context. Today, critical thinkers are likely to ban it as an attempt to “raise a straw man argument.”

Share this post


Link to post

 

2019-08-07_103423.jpg

Everything I have noticed about BTK46's post is spiteful, arrogant, hateful ... but most importantly ... duplicitous.

He weasels this way, then that way, then refuses to comment on main issues, and wallows in irrelevancy .... and gets MAD about it!

*************************************************************************************************

Billy, if I can give you a small piece of insight ....

You being you completely destroys your credibility for those times when you have important points to make.

I have evolved to the point that credibility is VERY important when considering someone elses' ideas.

Fairy tales are much more believable if they come from a real, bonifide fairy.

If you can't flutter around on gossamer wings and make chocolate from thin air using a sparkly star on a stick .... try reason and logic, and basic human courtesy, and non-vitriolic conversation.

Otherwise, you just become background noise.

I apologize for not having the patience to bury this idea in several thousand melodious words with 15 scriptures, and use the word "Commendable" 9 times.

 

Share this post


Link to post

The WTB&TS is systematically destroying any credibility they have on any subject.

Anyone that finds out about all this is of course of diseased mind ... like a Deer in the headlights that recognizes the Toyota, does not have the decency to stand there and be hit, and jumps off the road, until the danger passes.

Jesus' mother and stepfather did the same thing by escaping to Egypt, for awhile .......

The following Bulgaria reporting excerpts are THREE photos that can be downloaded and read quite easily ... they are from the link that JWI posted, that I almost missed.

Read them and weep.

 

Bulgaria JWI comment.jpg

Bulgaria 1 of 3.jpg

Bulgaria 2 of 3.jpg

Bulgaria 3 of 3.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

 

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Should the Watchtower lawyer defend disfellowshipping by quoting 2 Timothy 2:17

WT Lawyer would use only such Bible verses about dfd to not put WT Society in more worse position. I guess, how using 2 Tim 2:17 will open another issue, about doctrines, and that is not of interest to Court. Court is not interested to waste their time on "empty talking about doctrines and teachings"    Do not get involved in foolish discussions about spiritual pedigrees or in quarrels and fights about obedience to Jewish laws. These things are useless and a waste of time. Titus 3:9    :))))

But if WT lawyer would like to explain and give Scriptural evidence, for example, WHAT Bible verse said, how is completely justified for JW member/parents, and that it is LEGAL to refuse to answer on daughter phone call ....that will be very interesting.

After all, Scriptures was made for one particular nation in one particular time. Some General principles on human behavior, how we as people must respect other people, can be found on other places too (in human conscience as first place, for example). Religious matters, doctrines and similar theological questions is not of prime interest for Courts,..... maybe in Russia it is :)))  

Shunning on private level is understandable. Shunning on Organizational level in forms of Organizational Dictate and with rules in details (under treat of punishment if you disobey) call on alarm. And that is something that WT lawyer would not be able to defend so easy - with or without Bible verses.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

But if WT lawyer would like to explain and give Scriptural evidence, for example...that it is LEGAL to refuse to answer on daughter phone call ....that will be very interesting.

You’re joking! In your eyes it should be illegal for them to not answer the phone?

Recall from the video that this is not a child we are speaking about. Also recall that, far from “throwing her out,” her parents did not want her to leave.

Not too long ago this sort of thing—holding to principle—was called “tough love” and it was widely praised, even if not universally so. Not too long ago parents—Witness or non-Witness—really put their foot down with regard to premarital sex. It wasn’t like today, when many simply buy a package of condoms and tell their daughters to go at it in the upstairs bedroom, where they will be “safe.”

The GreatCourses lectures I have been reviewing lately tells of the changing sexual mores of the 60s. In 1960, it was absolutely shocking for an unmarried young woman living at home to be with child. Fifteen years later it was unremarkable routine. You just are mad that the Witness world is practically the last holdout in embracing the “new morality.”

In fact, the young woman in the video did eventually make her way back to the congregation, child and all, the lowlife she shacked up with having taken off, and she was warmly accepted. It doesn’t always happen that way, but it happens that way often enough so that you should be able to check your outrage at congregation discipline being applied to what doesn’t concern you anyway, as you have departed from it.

Not only could the situation be framed as it was framed in my last comment, as one people being easily swayed—it could also be recognized as the refusal of enemies to recognize the separation of church and state. Practically speaking, the congregation can only fulfill its mandate of staying “separate from the world” if it is allowed to shut the door on ones like yourself who would insist upon bringing the “new and improved morality” of the modern age into it.

The Christian congregation is required by God to stay no part of the world. You are arguing that the stand should not be allowed, and you are using the obvious discomfort of those who have been disciplined and remain resentful of it as a pretext.

I think all that has to be done is to argue that such disciplinary tools as disfellowshipping are essential to a church’s survival with teachings untainted by changing morals. One way to do this (which I have tried to do in my book) is to establish that no religion has been able to do it in the absence of such tools. The book “Secular Faith,” by Mark A Smith, points to moral positions that have changed in religious bodies with regard to 5 separate categories, and concludes that contemporary church members have more in common with atheists today than they do with members of their own denomination from 100 years ago.

    Hello guest!

Jehovah’s Witnesses want to withstand that trend. You will not allow them to. It is an attack of the irreligious on religion. It is an insistence that we are “come together” on terms of those who would disdain worship.

Most people today, if my guess is correct, would hold that disfellowshipping is pretty harsh, certainly by today’s standards and perhaps by the standards of yesterday. But they also know that it is not inevitable, that it is easily avoidable, that the disfellowshipped person had more than a little to do with his or her discipline, and that, once suffered, it can be reversed, as the WT lawyer pointed out. Depending upon their regard for the morality of the Bible, even those thinking it harsh will give Witnesses begrudging respect for not swaying in the wind, as have others.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Not too long ago this sort of thing—holding to principle—was called “tough love” and it was widely praised, even if not universally so. Not too long ago parents—Witness or non-Witness—really put their foot down with regard to premarital sex. It wasn’t like today, when many simply buy a package of condoms and tell their daughters to go at it in the upstairs bedroom, where they will be “safe.”

Too true!

xx.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

her parents did not want her to leave.

I know. Both side spoke of their demands and condition to stay at home. They not found common, compromised solution, so they have had separate, left each other in bad emotions.  

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

You’re joking! In your eyes it should be illegal for them to not answer the phone?

As long someone has father and mother, he/she is their child. Minor or Adult. Well, in that sense Public Lesson gave in video drama on Convention is not question of legal or illegal stuff. It is question/issue of religious doctrine inside family circle. And about choice of what sort of moral standards is good for members of particular religion. JW are not unique in this standard of shunning.

But here we can see how moral standards are softer today, even in JW religion which is based on Bible Standards. One of standards for true worshiper, for many centuries, was to neutralized all those inside who are not living by Law. Children or adults. Today JW Church does not apply some of those parts of Bible Law. But they apply some other parts from same books of Bible and find some basics or principles in such commands with some modifications that can be used in Modern Societies and under Modern Laws. With possibility how those measures, that is in some sort of moratorium for now, will be in power in the future, perhaps. Some past quotes in WT magazine giving such impressions, or at least gave sound of sorrow how such way of punishment is not possible to practice because of Secular Laws in this Millennium. 

What was Legal in Moses period is not today (perhaps in some Sharia law lands it is). So, Legal is changeable stuff, also as Moral is too.

Blood Issue and Fraction rules (even for Public Daily use before Secular authorities) mentioned in comments, proves how terms - Moral and Legal - is/are not Firm Standard even in JW Church. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

There are many generous people that go help, but how many do you think will welcome such a person in their home.

I guess how JW Mother want to help her Daughter too, but after she and her husband decide to not give daughter a room in their house, also decide not to talk to her by phone. So, one punishment (physical) is not enough. After, they decide to continue with emotional and psychical penalty.

Or, perhaps you would go with idea to forming Ghetto for JW dfd people who failed in sexual morality. Drug addicts JW can be in separate Ghetto, etc etc.  

:))

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

I know. Both side spoke of their demands and condition to stay at home. They not found common, compromised solution, so they have had separate, left each other in bad emotions.  

Let’s face it. There once was a time when it was not required for parents and at-home daughter to find “common compromised solution” when the daughter insisted on violating moral standards as old as time. Not only was it not required, but parents were though dupes if they did it.

It is as I said before. Srecko represents the irreligious who would demand that religion accommodate his “new morality.”

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Let’s face it. There once was a time when it was not required for parents and at-home daughter to find “common compromised solution” when the daughter insisted on violating moral standards as old as time. Not only was it not required, but parents were though dupes if they did it.

It is as I said before. Srecko represents the irreligious who would demand that religion accommodate his “new morality.”

Yes, ok. JW son who is in fact homosexual, but maybe say how he does not practicing homosexuality, can stay with his JW parents in their home and be full JW member in congregation as any other. You speaking and about such things too ? :)) JW Church made that to be Legal. What would his parents decide out of congregation? Or if they are out of JW Church?

 

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

It is as I said before. Srecko represents the irreligious who would demand that religion accommodate his “new morality.”

In fact, so does @Jack Ryan, who started this thread. His outrage is palpable. JWs have a “moral obligation” to hear him out, he says. What is he outraged over? That he thought he had laid a trap for our guy, but our guy sidestepped it, giving an answer that, as NB put it, was “technically” true. If it was “technically” true, then it was “actually” true. That may be enough when dealing with someone who is going for the jugular. Let Jack sputter in fury that his efforts to force his “new morality” upon the Christian congregation didn’t work this time. He is busy cooking up another scheme as we speak.

If you take away the tools by which religion can stay separate from the world and its moral relativism, then it can’t stay separate, and that is his aim. His attitude toward his former faith? Like that of the Edomites, who screamed: “Lay it bare!”

So he does not come here as a reformer. He comes here as a destroyer. If not of the faith itself (a big if) then of its insistence upon the biblical morality that makes it acceptable in God’s eyes. He is clearly up to no good, as is @Srecko Sostar, with his ridiculous attempt

5 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

JW son who is in fact homosexual, but maybe say how he does not practicing homosexuality, can stay with his JW parents in their home and be full JW member in congregation as any other. You speaking and about such things too ? :))

to compare a man of homosexual tendencies who resists them to a woman of straight tendencies who practices immorality. He, too, is steamed that their should be a faith that upholds traditional morality. He wants to tear it down.

And he is joined here by some Witnesses that would say: “You know, I think he has a point. The way of Jehovah is not adjusted right.” I think that the way of Jehovah is adjusted right, or right enough. Perhaps it could be tweaked some—indeed it has been—but not at the expense of robbing God of a clean “people for his name”—something which is not the slightest concern of Jack or Srecko. In fact, they want such robbery to occur. 

I am very grateful that there is a Governing Body that does not sway in the wind on what is necessary, while they are willing to sway on what is not necessary. I am grateful, too, that God’s stated interests they put first, and they do not lose their cookies when persons disciplined who are disgruntled over it attempt to move heaven and earth so as to undermine the Christian congregation that they have dedicated themselves to uphold.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Oh, by the way, I have been studying the methods of  @James Thomas Rook Jr. and I tried them out in field service today, inviting people to the convention. I must admit that they are effective. I handed the householder the invitation so that he could see the cover: “Love Never Fails”!    (Btw, that is a violation of Strunk and White, who hold that the exclamation mark always goes inside the quotation marks!)

”Love is the quality that we could all use more of,” I said. But the householder was in a surly mood. He crumpled up the tract. “What does love have to do with anyth....” he began.

I smiled, parted my suit jacket, and he saw my holstered Glock. He quavered. “Oh, yes, of course. Love...yes, that is what we need,” as he carefully uncrumpled the tract.

Share this post


Link to post

In my life, I have only brought two young men to the point of Baptism ... neither one from door to door work.   Both knew what kind of person I was ... the same then as now.

It is suchlike perspectives, discussed around campfires, and at Scout meetings, that appealed to them.

One was killed in an accident in England, and the other I lost track of.

Back then, my interest was edged weapons, not firearms, and I could throw a knife pretty good.

I suspect that impressed them a lot more than anything I could have said quoting the Watchtower, and we had a lot of good Bible discussions.

The three Elders in my congregation at the time have all left the Truth, but they were good "company men", through and through.

Sometimes, in the quiet of the evening, I think about things like that

... and I have never heard anybody say anything disparaging about a Glock handgun.

 

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

You seem to have missed the point. The point is, what's the difference when worldly people do the same.

Thanks for respond Billy. Do you like this answer about difference: Worldly people are under power of satan, as Bible said. They are Led by bad spirit and doing this same thing. JW people are under power of JHVH, and have Spiritual Paradise, as WT Society said. They are Led by JHVH spirit and doing the same thing. 

We here have two different reasons/causes but same result = Shunning of those who are not, which are not acceptable.

 Do you have some explanation? 

9 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Therefore, look at your criticism from all angles. You will find that the word shunning has ZERO credibility with us that have experienced the other side of that word. Reverse shunning, start learning that phrase and store it in your vocabulary.

I agree about all angles :))

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

to compare a man of homosexual tendencies who resists them to a woman of straight tendencies who practices immorality

oh dear :))) well i am troublemaker ....  but you may/can say - judge, how this woman is less guilty than this man ? Than why in Bible is said how both sins (sinners) have to be punished by dead penalty? In OT and in NT?

New Moral View ? :))) Or we can IMITATE Jesus dealing with sinners and to speak: Go, and sin no more.

So, why to form Judicial Committee when all can be simplified and less stressful for all  involved, by few words: Go, and sin no more. 

Share this post


Link to post

@BillyTheKid46 It may come down to how blood is removed from meat/poultry and how it is cleaned. For a majority of us outside of the US, and especially on the islands such as Cuba, Haiti, Jamaica, Dominican Republic, and some South American areas, when we clean meat, we do so thoroughly, with either vinegar and or lemon/lime being other items in the cleaning process which takes anywhere from 1-2 hours, and afterwards and again use either the same items we used to clean the meat and keep it chilled for several days after it is cleaned and after an X amount of days said meat can be used for whatever dish. What we also do during the cleaning process, granted that a majority of us reside in the US and or if outside have some meat products shipped to the countries, we before we undergo the cleaning process of blood, we clean out the chemicals - granted that some meat process is riddled with chemicals to preserve the meat products (one of the reasons a whole lot of us like grass fed meat products more). In the United States, there is a lot of people who cook their food without cleaning it, with either blood and or chemical still intact - one of my reasons I do not always like American BBQ spots, such as Famous Dave's, for I wouldn't get any beef or chicken there if need be.

As for consuming/giving blood, culturally, outside of even religion itself, some of us do not do, we must not do, even in the face of insult, more so, we do anything and everything to not be in alignment with a common enemy in said countries, others, who do not take or give due to superstition reasons. As far as Christendom goes, some do not accept blood, for the saying was this was only a JW thing, however, in a heated discussion with an SDA preacher who spoke of blood and the stance JWs had not realizing it isn't only them who uphold such, for a lot of Christians, both JW and not, had colorful things to say regarding blood.

That being said, for me, I cannot eat or take blood, not only due to what the Bible says, but also by means of strong cultural roots, in addition to what I consider the biggest enemy in my father's country, which has a way of traveling outside of the land. At the end of the day, what is said in regards to not take or give is there, but even though it is said, the decision is up to the person, for their decision is between them and God.

Share this post


Link to post

I Grok.

Half of all animal life on Earth have aggressive and defensive weapons .. . a cat with retractable claws immediately comes to mind  .... the other half are food for the first half.

Such  is the nature of things, and it has always been that way.

My #2 ex-wife once asked me, as I was cleaning my guns at the kitchen table "What would you do if everyone else but you gave up their guns ?"

I replied "Rule wisely".

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

The generation that truly understood the meaning of the word "Grok", apparently did not overlap to this one.

As I recall, the generation of Grok regarded dining as a function demanding of privacy, just as we would regard elimination that way. I mean, science fiction is all well and good, but it is not such that I would want to live the dream,

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

However, those in the world that shun people do it for divisive reasons. Many times, not out of love.

I see that you are in line with motto of Convention "Love never Fails" :)) 

I saw some faces of JW bro and sis when dfd person is near, and i have not noticed "sparkling eyes because of love". Perhaps some problem was in those JW bros and sis ?? :)))))

Share this post


Link to post

  • Similar Content

    • By James Thomas Rook Jr.
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
      Posted by Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. on November 9, 2019 at 4:20 am  
      The Supreme Court of Canada heard arguments Thursday in a lawsuit against a religious congregation’s “shunning” practice, but the congregation and several other groups contend the justices had no right to even take part in the case.
      Randy Wall, a real estate agent, filed the suit against the Highwood congregation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses organization in Calgary, Alberta.
      Wall was expelled from the congregation for getting drunk and not be properly repentant, court records said. He pursued an appeals process through the Jehovah’s Witnesses then went to court because he said the Witnesses’ “shunning” — the practice of not associating with him in any way — hurt his business.
      He explained his two occasions of drunkenness related to “the previous expulsion by the congregation of his 15-year-old daughter.”
      A lower court opinion said: “Even though the daughter was a dependent child living at home, it was a mandatory church edict that the entire family shun aspects of their relationship with her. The respondent said the edicts of the church pressured the family to evict their daughter from the family home. This led to … much distress in the family.”
      The “distress” eventually resulted in his drunkenness, Wall said.
       
      Wall submitted to the court arguments that about half his client base, members of various Jehovah’s Witnesses congregations, then refused to conduct business with him. He alleged the “disfellowship had an economic impact on the respondent.”
      During high court arguments Thursday, the congregation asked the justices to rule that religious congregations are immune to such claims in the judicial system.
      The lower courts had ruled that the courts could play a role in determining whether or not such circumstances rise to the level of violating civil rights or injuring a “disfellowshipped” party.
      The rulings from the Court of Queen’s Bench and the Alberta Court of Appeals said Wall’s case was subject to secular court jurisdiction.
      A multitude of religious and political organizations joined with the congregation in arguing that Canada’s courts should not be involved.
      The Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms said in a filing: “The wish or desire of one person to associate with an unwilling person (or an unwilling group) is not a legal right of any kind. For a court, or the government, to support such a ‘right’ violates the right of self-determination of the unwilling parties.”
      Previous case law has confirmed the right of religious or private voluntary groups to govern themselves and dictate who can be a member.
      But previously rulings also reveal there is room for the court system to intervene when the question centers on property or civil rights.
      The Association for Reformed Political Action described the case as having “profound implications for the separation of church and state.”
      It contends the court should keep its hands off the argument.
      “Secular judges have no authority and no expertise to review a church membership decision,” said a statement from Andre Schutten, a spokesman for the group. “Church discipline is a spiritual matter falling within spiritual jurisdiction, not a legal matter falling within the courts’ civil jurisdiction. The courts should not interfere.”
      John Sikkema, staff lawyer for ARPA, said: “The issue in this appeal is jurisdiction. A state actor, including a court, must never go beyond its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court must consider what kind of authority the courts can or cannot legitimately claim. We argue that the civil government and churches each have limited and distinct spheres of authority. This basic distinction between civil and spiritual jurisdiction is a source of freedom and religious pluralism and a guard against civic totalism.”
      He continued: “Should the judiciary have the authority to decide who gets to become or remain a church member? Does the judiciary have the authority to decide who does or does not get to participate in the sacraments? Church discipline is a spiritual matter falling within spiritual jurisdiction, not a legal matter falling within the courts’ civil jurisdiction. The courts should not interfere. Here we need separation of church and state.”
      The Alberta Court of Appeal, however, suggested the case was about more than ecclesiastical rules.
      “Because Jehovah’s Witnesses shun disfellowshipped members, his wife, other children and other Jehovah’s Witnesses were compelled to shun him,” that lower court decision said. “The respondent asked the appeal committee to consider the mental and emotional distress he and his family were under as a result of his duaghter’s disfellowship.”
      The church committee concluded he was “not sufficiently repentant.”
      The ruling said “the only basis for establishing jurisdiction over a decision of the church is when the complaint involves property and civil rights,” and that is what Wall alleged.
      “Accordingly, a court has jurisdiction to review the decision of a religious organization when a breach of the rules of natural justice is alleged.”
       
                     
    • By Jack Ryan
      I'm a 21 yo PIMO on the West coast. My family and I attended a wedding this past Saturday and I was completely disgusted by my family's and congregation's behavior.
      The couple that got married are both studies, so they didn't get married at the Kingdom Hall. However they requested an elder to give the wedding ceremony talk (and I call it a talk because it was 95% scriptures and 5% about the couple) and they invited mostly JWs aside from their families.
      Everything was going pretty well, until about 40 min after the ceremony. I just finished eating when my dad whispered to my brother and I that we had to leave because there was a DF'd woman that was invited. I sincerely apologised to the couple for leaving because I felt awful that I had to play along with all of the invited JWs and awkwardly leave the wedding so soon.
      Once my family was in the car, I asked my dad who the woman was. He revealed to me that it was the groom's mom. Apparently a couple of elders went and talked to her and asked her to leave. She refused, so they let her know that we'll all be leaving.
      I was shocked and appalled at the insanity of the situation I found myself in. This couple isn't even baptised and they invited more JWs than family to their wedding only to have them all leave because the groom's mom is in attendance. To top it all off, the brothers afterwards were saying stuff like: "I can't believe that she could be that selfish" and "Aw that poor couple, because of ONE person, everyone had to leave. She totally ruined their wedding".
      The indoctrination is insane in this cult, of fucking course the groom is going to invite his own mother to his wedding. I can't believe that I'm expected to feel offended at the mother for refusing to leave her son's wedding. I really hope that the newlyweds see this as crystal-clear evidence that this is a cult.
      - Contributed
      --------------------------------
      Now which of these three do you think seemed to be a neighbor to him who fell among the robbers?"
      He said, "He who showed mercy on him."
      Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise... Unless they're dfed then leave em to die."
       
      --------------------------------
      Their actions are codified as follows:
      *** w81 9/15 p. 30 par. 23 If a Relative Is Disfellowshiped . . . ***
      "There is no point in looking for some rule as to family members being at gatherings where a disfellowshiped relative might be present. This would be something for those concerned to resolve, in keeping with Paul’s counsel. (1 Cor. 5:11) And yet it should be appreciated that if a disfellowshiped person is going to be at a gathering to which nonrelative Witnesses are invited, that may well affect what others do. For example, a Christian couple might be getting married at a Kingdom Hall. If a disfellowshiped relative comes to the Kingdom Hall for the wedding, obviously he could not be in