Battered spouses disfellowshipped for leaving violent partners.

[Matthew9969]

Well a woman can be disfellowshipped for being raped, so this is no surprise.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

It may be arguable as to whether or not the Japanese Attack on Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941 was a sneak attack, as Washington cryptographers had broken the Japanese codes, and sent a telegram to Pearl Harbor for them to anticipate imminent attack ... but down on the ground, and in the harbor, it was a sneak attack.

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

It gets dumber. It is not just a fact that he has offered in your eyes— it is a FACT! But his opinion? Obviously he doesn’t know what he is talking about and he may even be lying. Yet when it comes to chronology you are like a child at his feet, lapping up every word—never doubting for a second his judgement, even while admitting it is over your head because you don’t really dig into things.

AND, an attack before a formal declaration of war.

That attack brought the United States into the World War against Japan, and Germany, allied with Japan.

Either you get it ....... or you don't.

 

[JW Insider]

2 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Either you get it ....... or you don't.

Very true! . . . . . But I don't get it.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

You may, therefore, beat yourself with whips in lamentation.

.... don't overdo it!

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

Mr Harley is a story teller, sorry, writer. So it is the nature of the beast to use a thousand words to say, well basically, nothing.  He seems a bit hurt here. A bit angry, but still says, basically nothing. There is nothing to answer, he is just having a writer's rant. 

Mr Harley says " As already stated, if he was so obsessed about leaving a positive note on the end, he would not have supplied his negative note at the beginning. " 

Oh dear, well in my opinion the information wasn't negative to start with. It was just truth about a situation. As he had lived through that actual situation then i presume he has the correct details. However, to JWs such as Mr Harley the information was negative, as I would have expect from Mr Harley.  So i said that he had put a positive ending to it to please other JWs now and to give them hope that these things might not happen in the future.

People such as Mr Harley, i would think, would rather keep that sort of information hidden forever. Hence Mr Harley tries to bring the focus around by criticising me, to keep the focus from that important information. Nice try Mr Harley, but fail.  

 

[Matthew9969]

27 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

Mr Harley is a story teller, sorry, writer. So it is the nature of the beast to use a thousand words to say, well basically, nothing.  He seems a bit hurt here. A bit angry, but still says, basically nothing. There is nothing to answer, he is just having a writer's rant. 

Mr Harley says " As already stated, if he was so obsessed about leaving a positive note on the end, he would not have supplied his negative note at the beginning. " 

Oh dear, well in my opinion the information wasn't negative to start with. It was just truth about a situation. As he had lived through that actual situation then i presume he has the correct details. However, to JWs such as Mr Harley the information was negative, as I would have expect from Mr Harley.  So i said that he had put a positive ending to it to please other JWs now and to give them hope that these things might not happen in the future.

People such as Mr Harley, i would think, would rather keep that sort of information hidden forever. Hence Mr Harley tries to bring the focus around by criticising me, to keep the focus from that important information. Nice try Mr Harley, but fail.  

 

I often wonder if Mr. Hartley is sharing a cubicle with the jw space merchant.

[TrueTomHarley]

39 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

Mr Harley is a story teller, sorry, writer. So it is the nature of the beast to use a thousand words to say, well basically, nothing. 

How large is the library in your town? Have you ever been there?

40 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

People such as Mr Harley, i would think,

I’m not so sure. There is little sign of it here.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Very true! . . . . . But I don't get it.

I didn’t either. And with some, I will rise to the occasion and try to figure it out. But with the ol pork chop I cannot even be sure that there is an occasion so I rest from my labors

[Srecko Sostar]

8 hours ago, César Chávez said:

What appropriate steps did those Elders take if the ex-husband had joint, shared or split custody. Even with full or sole custody that would allow for visitations and some kind of parental interaction? Spousal abuse is one thing, Child abuse is another. Was that what happened to have been denied such interaction?

Good points. Interactions. That remind me on rule that JW like to have as practice when ex-JW is in question. 

Violent husband who beat his wife has all right to be father and teacher to his children, on one hand. This we call parent-child  interaction. Perhaps he show love and tender to children, but we can go to question this, because he beating mother of those children he love so much. Well, he don't love mother to measure he beating her, but love children he have with beating wife ?! Upside-down world. What he will give to children in interaction moment? How he will explain this two side love?  

JW love all people except ex-JW. Interactions. Upside-down world.

Love can stop at any moment.

Husband not need to love her wife if he has such feeling, but beating is not proper interaction.

JW are not obligated to love ex-JW, but does this give any right to them to stop having human interaction.

Do not misunderstand me. I have no need, any need to speak with my JW family or ex congregants and other JW. I just show how many things in life are upside down. Even my interactions. :)) 

[Srecko Sostar]

2 hours ago, César Chávez said:

There you go. You just answered a fundamental debate question, JW's don't have a need to speak or interact with unrepentant fellowships. I hope every other ex-witness here will take control of what you have said, and stop the nonsense of phrasing the word "shun" to mean something that ex-witnesses themselves do. Thank you for your honesty.

There is a difference between "obligation" and "mercy" Jesus words encourage mercy to those that REPENT!

Debate question is in topic. Part of my comment is not answer on topic issue: "disfellowshipped for leaving violent partners". 

Interactions, you mentioned, is something i comment from one of angles we can use to make conversation between us who participate. We have at least three groups of people who are involved in debate here. This is what we can call as "social interaction". We standing on different positions, but we have "interaction". Normal human changing of thoughts, opinions and standpoints. We all here are proof how WT Society "obligation" that is need for JW members to obey is of no significance, meaning and purpose ... here, on this web site. 

In that context, i would like to understand your position. Do you showing your "mercy" to us, while interacting with all of us here? Or do you feel sort of "obligation" to interacting with us?

I don't see why would "mercy or obligation" have to be impetus and motive, for me or anyone else here, to go in  interaction  with people on this web site !? 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

....

 

[Space Merchant]

On 12/19/2019 at 7:21 AM, 4Jah2me said:

There is a man who uses the name @Space Merchant that often talks of how the JW Org is 'managed'. He tends to think that the JW Org operates 'by the book'. Whether that be by God's book or by their own JW handbook. 

But what are we seeing here ? We know that God and His son Jesus Christ are full of love and mercy, and they want the best for as many humans as possible, as long as those humans obey God's rules and show love to God and to neighbour. 

Just seeing this now due to it showing my name on recent notifications, but to be quick and swift - clearly, you do not know what I stand for, and you haven't even bother to see what I actually stand for and what I told to as to being true. As is with me and my culture, I detest slander and falsehood, as is with falsifying anything pertaining to God, the Bible, and a neighbor, etc.

But I take you on your challenge (and I love challenges, as is with ALL of us at The Christian Exchange) to explain yourself by taking anything I have mentioned, and quote it here.

As all things concerning God, we are to learn who he is and who his Son is, as Jesus professed in his final prayer as seen in John 17:3-5. Yes, Jesus is of mercy and we follow his example and his teachings, but never once Jesus taught to make a slander a truth and or pertain to falsehood and shamery. Yes, we have to be the best we can, although we are imperfect, but nothing in God's Word pertains to belittling and putting down someone who is trying to, let alone being a bigot in all things in the realm of faith, as is with being ignorance and openly embracing customs that do not apply to God (I can easily find where you stand on this and quote it here, in another interact you lack in all sense concerning God vs false gods). Yes, we are to obey God, and what he puts forth, as is with what Jesus stands for and what he has entrusted and taught his followers to teach the people of the Christian Church Congregation, and or new converts, being ministers of truth, making disciples, etc.

That being said, you are probably the last person to speak of obeying God, granted, our last interaction concerning false gods, but by all means, I am open for you to quote anything pertaining to me by means of your claim, granted I have a reasoning behind every response I make.