Jump to content
The World News Media

JW Lawyer on Disfellowshipping and Shunning


Jack Ryan

Recommended Posts

  • Member
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

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 7.4k
  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular 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 C

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 bef

Posted Images

  • Member
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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
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.  

:))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
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.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
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?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
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 :))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • In my perspective, when the Smithsonian Magazine covers a topic, I am inclined to trust their expertise. As for the shadows here, I see no benefit in entertaining irrational ideas from others. Let them hold onto their own beliefs. We shouldn't further enable their self-deception and misleading of the public.  
    • Hey Self! 🤣I came across this interesting conspiracy theory. There are scholars who firmly believe in the authenticity of those artifacts. I value having conversations with myself. The suggestion of a mentally ill person has led to the most obscure manifestation of a group of sorrowful individuals. 😁
    • I have considered all of their arguments. Some even apply VAT 4956 to their scenarios, which is acceptable. Anyone can use secular evidence if they genuinely seek understanding. Nonetheless, whether drawing from scripture or secular history, 607 is a plausible timeframe to believe in. People often misuse words like "destruction", "devastation", and "desolation" in an inconsistent manner, similar to words like "besiege", "destroy", and "sack". When these terms are misapplied to man-made events, they lose their true meaning. This is why with past historians, the have labeled it as follows: First Capture of Jerusalem 606 BC Second Capture of Jerusalem 598 BC Third Capture of Jerusalem 587 BC Without taking into account anything else.  Regarding the second account, if we solely rely on secular chronology, the ancient scribes made military adaptations to align with the events recorded in the Babylonian Chronicles. However, the question arises: Can we consider this adaptation as accurate?  Scribes sought to include military components in their stories rather than focusing solely on biblical aspects. Similarly, astronomers, who were also scholars, made their observations at the king's request to divine omens, rather than to understand the plight of the Jewish people. Regarding the third capture, we can only speculate because there are no definitive tablets like the Babylonian chronicles that state 598. It is possible that before the great tribulation, Satan will have influenced someone to forge more Babylonian chronicles in order to discredit the truth and present false evidence from the British Museum, claiming that the secular view was right all along. This could include documents supposedly translated after being found in 1935, while others were found in the 1800s. The Jewish antiquities authorities have acknowledged the discovery of forged items, while the British Museum has not made similar acknowledgments. It is evident that the British Museum has been compelled to confess to having looted or stolen artifacts which they are unwilling to return. Consequently, I find it difficult to place my trust in the hands of those who engage in such activities. One of the most notable instances of deception concerning Jewish antiquities was the widely known case of the ossuary belonging to James, the brother of Jesus. I was astonished by the judge's inexplicable justification for acquittal, as it was evident that his primary concern was preserving the reputation of the Jewish nation, rather than unearthing the truth behind the fraudulent artifact. The judge before even acknowledged it. "In his decision, the judge was careful to say his acquittal of Golan did not mean the artifacts were necessarily genuine, only that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Golan had faked them." The burden of proof is essential. This individual not only forged the "Jehoash Tablet," but also cannot be retried for his deceit. Why are they so insistent on its authenticity? To support their narrative about the first temple of Jerusalem. Anything to appease the public, and deceive God. But then again, after the Exodus, when did they truly please God? So, when it comes to secular history, it's like a game of cat and mouse.  
    • I'm not bothered by being singled out, as you seem to be accustomed to defending and protecting yourselves, but it's a good idea to keep your dog on a leash. Speaking of which, in a different thread, TTH mentioned that it would be great if everyone here shared their life stories. As both of you are the librarians here, I kindly ask you to minimize any signs of intimidation or insincerity. It is you people who need to be "banned" here. However, it is quite evident that you hold a negative influence, which God recognizes, therefore you are banned from your own conscience in His eyes.
    • One issue with historian Flavius Josephus is that he suggests that the Royal Captain of the (Guard) can also be regarded as General Nebuzaradan. A confusion arises from Josephus' account of the captives mentioned in Jeremiah, as he claims that they were taken from Egypt instead of Babylon. Since Nebuchadnezzar was occupied in Rilah, he directed his generals to lay siege to Jerusalem. This could potentially account for the numerous dispatches that Nebuchadnezzar would have sent to the west, but the considerable distance to Borsippa still poses a challenge. As a result, the Babylonians managed to gain control of regions such as Aram (Syria), Ammon, and Moab. The only territories that remained were the coastal cities, where the Egyptians held sway. King Josiah decided to form an alliance with Babylon instead of being under Egyptian rule. So, that part of the territory was covered until King Josiah was defeated.  It's interesting how they started back then in 4129, but still end up with the same conclusion with Zedekiah's Defeat 3522 607 B.C. 3419 607 B.C. even though their AM is different.  
  • Members

  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      159.4k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,679
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Techredirector
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.