You shall not murder vs You shall not shun

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, Witness said:

Extremism" - the fact of someone having beliefs that most people think are unreasonable and unacceptable, such as religious extremism. Yes, I would call it,  covert extremism.  

“And the disciples asked Jesus, ‘How will we know, in future times, what is truth?’

He answered: ‘Take note of what “most people think is unreasonable and unacceptable.” When you have discovered those things, avoid them like the plague. You do not want them to call you extremist.’”

[Witness]

4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Next thing you know, you will be joining Witness in claiming to be the “true” anointed

You seem to be indicating that I don’t think there are “true”, authentic anointed in the organization.  Have I ever said that, or have I repeatedly drawn attention to their existence among JWs?  Unless….you are referring only to the GB as “true” anointed and disregard all other anointed, which wouldn’t surprise me. 

I do believe the GB were anointed, but they have lost any Holy Spirit they had once received.  THEY now direct their false priesthood to carry out “covert extremism” to shun those who will not accept their tainted version of “truth”.  As my comment brought out, it is they who should be shunned. 

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

And the disciples asked Jesus, ‘How will we know, in future times, what is truth?’

He answered: ‘Take note of what “most people think is unreasonable and unacceptable.” When you have discovered those things, avoid them like the plague. You do not want them to call you extremist.’”

It is very sad that you joke about God’s word and the man who spoke them.

 

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

I am personally glad the comments and replies are getting SHORTER!

[TrueTomHarley]

4 hours ago, Witness said:

It is very sad that you joke about God’s word and the man who spoke them.

It is very sad that you quote verses by the truckload and yet don’t get the sense of any of them.

If I took any liberties with God’s word, what I produced is exactly in harmony with it.

Did Jesus advise his disciples that they should strive to be popular with men or that they should not be concerned when they prove unpopular?

[Witness]

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Did Jesus advise his disciples that they should strive to be popular with men or that they should not be concerned when they prove unpopular?

Are you speaking to me or to the anointed in the organization who are most definitely not working in their given capacity as God’s priesthood that they should?  They are proving to be very unpopular with the elder body.  Rev 11:1,2;13:1,2,5-7

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Did Jesus advise his disciples that they should strive to be popular with men

For some, it just comes naturally. 

https://www.facebook.com/NML.EMG/videos/samuel-herd-do-corpo-governante-das-testemunhas-de-jeová-mostra-que-sabe-dançar-/2515571221800669/

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

or that they should not be concerned when they prove unpopular?

"But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him." 1 Cor 1:27,28

"And who is there to harm you if you prove zealous for what is good? 14 But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed. And do not fear their intimidation, and do not be troubled, 15 but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; 16 and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. 17 For it is better, if God should will it so, that you suffer for doing what is right rather than for doing what is wrong."  1 Pet 3:13-17

“Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.  Matt 5:11

Tom, just because anointed who have left the organization speak out against the ruling authority that disfellowshipped them for disagreeing with their false teachings, doesn't mean they are seeking 'first place'.  They are doing what Jesus expects them to do; just as the apostles did.  Tell the truth, expose the lies, and not fear men while doing it.  Prov 14:5; Eph 5:11; 4:25; 2 Cor 10:4,5

 Stop trusting in mere humans, who have but a breath in their nostrils. Why hold them in esteem?...as the people in the video have done.  Isa 2:22

 

[TrueTomHarley]

11 hours ago, Witness said:

TTH: Everybody knows the book exists.

Not necessarily.  As a "good" elder's wife, I didn't know it existed since I never looked into his briefcase; and as a "good" elder, he never told me it existed.  

 

Now, now. Tell the truth and shame the devil.

Would you have been shocked to discover that, at a weekend school on how to be a good shepherd, he was released a textbook?

Say in his secular work he is a manager at WalMart. Would you be shocked that he is issued some literature not made available to everyone else?

Say he was not a manager but was a team leader there. Would you be shocked that he is issued some literature not made available to everyone else?

Recall that I clarified just how JWs know the book exists:

13 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

They either know of it specifically or they know of it in the ’Well.....duh!’ sense that they know that any training of any class of any subject in any discipline just may feature a curriculum and textbook not for general distribution.

Not every piece of writing not made public is the smoking gun.

[Witness]

41 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Now, now. Tell the truth and shame the devil.

 

Start at about 4.30

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

All Jehovah's Witnesses are equal.

... but some are more equal than others.

They get the secret books.

[Srecko Sostar]

3 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Recall that I clarified just how JWs know the book exists:

..... is this one more of points on a list of "clarifications" about "The Truth" :))

[Anna]

On 12/7/2019 at 1:45 PM, Srecko Sostar said:

"You shall not kill," is evident in the fact that it was not of valid, obligation for all men and for all circumstances.

Some good points there Srecko.

It was obviously God who decided when it was ok to kill, based on laws that superseded the command not to kill. The question then is, when it comes to shunning, who decides when it's ok to shun and when it is not ok? Or is there something that supersedes the command to shun? First I want to address this comment you made:

On 12/7/2019 at 1:45 PM, Srecko Sostar said:

As you may already guessed, it is about an act of symbolic "killing" that is carried out in such a way to exclude (disfellowship) another person from a particular social (religious) group in a specific way - by ignoring aka shunning.

I understand the parallels you are trying to draw. There are many examples in history of family members disowning other family members, cutting them off as if the other person no longer exists. In these instances it is humans that make their own personal law. Sometimes it's based on understandable reasons, (extreme evilness on the part of the one who is being disowned) and sometimes on purely frivolous grounds (used as blackmail). Of course there are many many different reasons, too many to mention.

On 12/7/2019 at 1:45 PM, Srecko Sostar said:

Shunning (this is about JW organization in particular).can be made because of two conclusions.

The first conclusion is reached by an individual JW member who believes that another member of the congregation has wronged/sinned against the Bible and its principles to the extent that he / she personally presents a spiritual anomaly (in the form of a spiritual illness or threat) and decides to "label" particular person as inappropriate for him to have socializing contacts. He seeks to avoid contact and minimize any literal and spiritual communion.

I suppose this sounds reasonable. Usually when this situation occurs, the person is not in a disfellowshipped state.

On 12/7/2019 at 1:45 PM, Srecko Sostar said:

In second conclusion, the conviction of the inappropriateness of a member is made by the body of the elders. The judgment may be based on the morally inappropriate behavior of an individual member, or it may be that an individual no longer agrees with the ideological and organizational structure or with the theological solutions of the organization what made him/her as "hostile element".

This is when a person is removed from congregational members aka "spiritually killed" in such a way to excommunicate (dfd) them (he,she) from the community and impose a ban on almost every contact with the dfd person. The ban has few variations and interpretations of how the shunning should be carried out. But the very core of such a demand not to contact the excluded person is evident from the widespread practice that JW members have consistently implemented - the excluded (dfd) is not even greeted with the simplest “Good afternoon” greeting (hallo) on the street.

I have often thought about this problematic and I have still not found satisfactory justification for some of these actions.

I can understand that a person guilty of breaking the Bible's commands and not repenting, or changing, should not be a part of the congregation. The congregation must be kept clean, otherwise Jesus "could vomit it out of his mouth". (Rev 3:16) He says "All those for whom I have affection, I reprove and discipline. So be zealous and repent" (Rev 3:19). And  "‘Therefore remember from where you have fallen, and repent and do the deeds you did at first. If you do not, I will come to you, and I will remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent". (Rev 2:5) and “‘Nevertheless, I have a few things against you, that you have there those adhering to the teaching of Baʹlaam......  So repent. If you do not, I am coming to you quickly, and I will war against them with the long sword of my mouth" 

I think just those few scriptures in Revelation show clearly Jesus' feelings about keeping the congregation morally and spiritually clean. We also have Paul's counsel. However, we know that those who have not repented are not thrown out of the congregation literally, but symbolically. They can still attend the meetings if they want. But they cannot participate and speak to anyone. Why? Because they have been disfellowshipped. So in this sense they have been "removed" BUT by being able to still go to meetings they are able to receive Jehovah's instructions and come to repentance, and then be welcomed back. Now imagine if this person had literally been thrown out, and was not allowed to put foot inside the KH. How would they be able to "repent and come back"? How would that work in practice? So in this sense, disfellowshipping is a merciful and loving provision, because the person is still able to receive spiritual instruction. But if they weren't disfellowshipped, and everyone would speak with them, then there would be no difference at all would there? Now the questions I ask is, it makes sense for the congregation, but how is it outside the congregation? This is where I find the difficulty. There are several things to consider. One is; are we Christians only inside the congregation, or are we Christians 24/7? Obviously we are Christians all of the time. So we could argue that whatever applies inside the congregation should also apply outside of it. Then there is the family. Frequently there is a misunderstanding in what family means. The broad definition is "a group of people who share common ancestors" a more usual definition is "group of people that may be made up of partners, children, parents, aunts, uncles, cousins and grandparents" then the classic definition, and the ones JW mean when they say family is; "a group consisting of parents and children living together in a household" It's also called the nuclear family. We know that members of a household or nuclear family are not shunned. Only those living outside the household. 

I am ok with that, but I think that associating with family living outside the household should be left up to conscience, (your first conclusion). That is just my opinion.

So is there something that supersedes the command to shun? (this is for anyone to answer, not just Srecko)

 

 

 

 

On 12/8/2019 at 6:34 AM, 4Jah2me said:

So how do the congregants know proper the 'rules' then

The basics are in the Bible, for anyone to see

[Srecko Sostar]

43 minutes ago, Anna said:

Now the questions I ask is, it makes sense for the congregation, but how is it outside the congregation? This is where I find the difficulty. There are several things to consider. One is; are we Christians only inside the congregation, or are we Christians 24/7? Obviously we are Christians all of the time. So we could argue that whatever applies inside the congregation should also apply outside of it.

Yes, Anna. I found, how it is unreasonable, out of common sense, not to have normal conversation of two human, or at least, as minimum to say, Hallo. Sometimes it would depend on in what relations they were before, of course.  

When you mentioned, Christians 24/7, i suppose how that would include to "love the enemy" as Jesus said. If some JW member want to "love his enemy" in Jesus' context of teaching, i guess how dfd or dis member are not consider to be worst than "the enemy, men from nation" ?! :)) Or is he/she?

If we go so far in conclusions about some bro/sis, perhaps it will be good to remind self how sort of "final judgement" for all of us will be in some future time, i guess, and not now. And process subject in that "judgement" will not be because we belonged or not belonged to particular religion, now, but because of some other issues. 

Below is quote from WT publication what JW believes it is Judgmental Day.

(Judgment Day will be not only a time of instruction from God but also a time for those alive to apply what they learn and enjoy the blessings that result.) - https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/g201001/what-is-judgment-day/.

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

@Anna  I don't think you answered the situation where by a person LEAVES the JW Org because they know about the disgusting things that go on in it, such as Child Sexual Abuse Earthwide. And they know about the false teachings which have been made so clear on this forum. And they do not want to teach lies to members of the public. 

What is your opinion then of such a person that leaves the JW Org of their own free will ? 

If they are to be treated as a 'tax collector' or a 'person of the nations' then shouldn't JWs talk to them ?

Jesus spoke to and ate meals with such ones. 

 

So how do the congregants know proper the 'rules' then

Quote @Anna  " The basics are in the Bible, for anyone to see "

But JWs have to obey the GB's / JW Org rules, so your comment doesn't help.