Some say one thing, and some say something completely different

[Juan Rivera]

11 hours ago, Pudgy said:

2.) We all have a “natural conscience” and with every statement each individual alone has to decide what part is TRUTH, and what part is agenda.

The classic example is practice and policy on disfellowshipping.

Do we do it as Jesus said in Matthew 18?

NO WE DO NOT!

We even take hostages and punish THEM, 

Show me THAT in Matthew 18.

I 100% agree that we should conform to the standards and edicts of Congregational Authority ….

…. unless they are WRONG, and you can prove it.

OTHERWISE … we don’t even NEED a conscience !!

Sometimes a Christian is  called upon to sacrifice his life or his freedom for the sake of Christian Unity, but he should never be called upon to sacrifice his Conscience.

 

 

2 hours ago, Pudgy said:

No it did not help.

To me the whole thing was just rationalizing gobbledegook.  

I don’t care if you believe it or not, but if you are an Elder or the Governing Body you can  … and do … ruin my life and family relationships if I don’t believe pretentious crap.

The Society never needed more than one book of hard facts (besides the Bible), easily understood and to the point, without the pretentious crap.

But NOOOoooo …. they came out with really good NWT of the Bible, and then PARAPHRASED it, so the crap was justified.

@Pudgy Feel free to call the five absolute true statements of the Bible as Gobbledygook. The stakes are far too high to treat this as a game, and treating as profane what is consecrated to God is the sin of sacrilege, which is grave matter, so  I don't need to spell out the seriousness of that error.

@Pudgy When each person is deciding for himself what is the correct interpretation of Scripture, Scripture is no longer functioning as the final authority. Rather, each individual's own reason and judgment becomes, as it were, the highest authority, supplanting in effect Scripture' unique and rightful place. That approach results in us becoming a law unto ourselves and Scripture is interpreted according to our conscience and reason. Everything is evaluated according to our final standard and "opinion" of what is and is not scriptural. We, not Scripture, is the real final authority according this approach. The Bible nowhere gives any hint of wanting every individual believer to decide for himself and by himself what is and is not the true meaning of Scripture.

Following what I said in a previous post, Congregations/ Churches can maintain natural authority, just as the leaders and laws of voluntary civic societies have natural authority over those who wish to be members of such societies. This sort of authority, however, can never bind the conscience in an unqualified way, but it can bind the conscience regarding what one must do if one wishes to participate in that congregation or civic society.

The state is a natural society, but the Congregation is a supernatural society. Authority in the natural order is divinely established, as the New Testament teaches. For this reason, kings, princes, presidents and mayors are to be obeyed, unless they command us to violate our conscience,  or to violate the divine law. Voluntary civic societies also can have internal laws, and hence dutifully appointed leaders. Anyone who wishes to participate in such societies must be subject to these leaders and laws. This is true of sporting leagues, philanthropic organizations, educational organizations, etc. But the authority had by the leaders and laws of voluntary civic societies is still natural authority, i.e. on the natural order. It is divine only in the providential sense, not in the supernatural sense. It remains at the level of nature. Hierarchy and authority are natural to human society, whether that society be the immediate society into which we are born (i.e. the family), the larger society into which we are born (e.g. USA), or voluntary societies which we form or enter (e.g. Rotary Club).

Human opinion remains human opinion, whether it is private or public, held by one person or held by a group of persons. Take a group of persons each having the same theological opinion. They discover that they share this opinion, form a club, and then make adherence to this theological opinion a condition for continued membership in their club. Their opinion has not thereby acquired any divine authority just because this group of persons made adherence to this opinion a condition for club membership. Rather, the club leaders having the [merely human] authority to exclude others from this club (as do leaders of the Elks club, the Rotary club, etc.), are exercising their own authority in making adherence to this opinion a necessary condition for club membership.
Thus the so-called 'authority' of the theological opinion is in actuality a cover for the governing authority of the club leaders, masking the actual locus of authority. That would be ok if the club leaders were divinely authorized to determine which theological opinions are orthodox and which are not. But, if the club leaders don't have such authority (and don't claim to have such authority), then the club and its theological opinion are no more authoritative than any other person's opinion. It is just a club, and since its leaders have no divine authority, their theological opinion has no divine authority. Their theological opinion is a condition for membership in that club, but it is still only an opinion of men.

@Srecko Sostar I have no interest in your legal and lawyer arguments, I deal with theology.

Now, you know that I am Jehovah’s Witness, not a good at that, but still identify as one. Our relation to the act of consent of becoming a Witness, can take one of two forms. Either we inherit it by being born into it (like a child born into a religion), or we choose to participate in that act of consent (either by joining the institution or by forming an institution). But even the child eventually chooses either to participate in that act of consent (by remaining in the institution) or not (by leaving that institution). So ultimately, if ecclesial authority comes from man, then it has its ground in the consent of the individual. In other words, if ecclesial authority comes from man, then its authority over me is grounded in my consent. If I do not consent to the authenticity of that ecclesial authority, then it has no authority over me. That is precisely why your local Episcopalian priest, Presbyterian pastor, Baptist pastor, Catholic priest, charismatic pastor, etc. have no authority over you or me. You have not consented to their authority, and thus not given them authority over you.

One does not sign a legal contract when one joins a church. That is why anyone in the Jehovah's Witness community or  Catholic or Mormons or any of the 8,000 denominations can (and should) leave as soon as he realizes that it’s  not in the true Congregation that Christ established, but in a counterfeit institution. Even if Catholics, Evangelicals etc.… or JWs or Mormons did sign legal contracts upon becoming members, they should violate those contracts as soon as they recognize that they are false religious institutions. No one is under an obligation to fulfill an oath that would require injustice to fulfill. We are not to give ourselves to false shepherds, or false religious institutions. We should give ourselves (in religion) only to the Congregation Christ established. That is why all false religious institutions have no actual authority, for men not only owe others (i.e. the true shepherds) the obedience that these false shepherds illicitly receive, but men are required by God not to give their obedience to false shepherds.

On another note, when I hear people say that they just want people to be "faithful to the word of God," what they really mean is that they want them to be faithful to their own interpretation of Scripture. And that is why there is an implicit presumption of governing authority in the very claim they are making. As for statements about conscience, of course I agree that a person must never violate their conscience. But, a person with a poorly formed conscience can do much evil without violating his conscience. And therefore it is incumbent upon us all to seek to inform our conscience, so that it may be a more reliable guide.

A large portion of Christians, including believing Ex-JWs at some level resonate with Luther's statement at the Diet of worms, "My conscience is captive to the word of God, and it is neither safe nor wise to act in violation of one's conscience." Precisely. This is the fundamental principle of this framework, the principle of the individual as his own ultimate interpretive authority.

 

 

[Juan Rivera]

11 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Paul did not deny "inspiration". GB persistently denies that HS "inspires" them. Of course, even if GB claimed that they were "inspired", that would be a reason to doubt them even more than the claim from the first version.

@Srecko Sostar “Inspiration”is a technical term that refers to the inspiration of scripture and that term is used in 2 Timothy 3:16 and that’s the only place the bible uses that word: Inspiration. It refers to the written or verbal revelation that Jehovah gave. Guidance(spirit led) refers to the holy spirit prompting to truth. In Acts 15 the apostles are speaking on their own authority given by Christ, and they are deemed with this authority because they are the ones taking the lead and governing the church. The reason they can do that is because they are guided by the holy spirit, but is not because of inspiration. Claiming they were inspired in Acts 15 when the passage nowhere mentions they were inspired its an unfounded deduction. This is similar to the Apostles in the first ten to fifteen years of the Congregation (before any Scripture was written), when exercising their authority over the Christian congregation as their appointed representatives, and yet not speaking inspired Scripture.

I think you are equating inspiration, with the assistance of the holy spirit. The holy spirit works in and through the fallible Christian congregation not apart from it nor does it dispense with the human factor.  With respect to the notion of the holy spirit’s  guidance of the Governing Body, the events of the Jerusalem council in Acts can again be helpful. It is important to understand that the spirits guidance of the Governing Body  is not to be thought of as magical or mystical, or in any manifest way noticeable in the concrete reality of the Governing body’s activity. The spirits guidance is more subtle, powerful, and comprehensive than that. In reading the account of the gathering and conducting of the Jerusalem council, there does not appear to be anything especially divine about how the proceedings develop. There is heated argumentation and debate, and finally, after various opinions and objections had been placed on the table, those taking the lead (James and Peter)speak and make something like an executive decision with respect to the question of circumcision. From a purely human point of view, it does not appear to be much different from what one might encounter in a Fortune 500 board room. And yet, when the decision or decrees of the council are drawn up for promulgation to the various congregations, it includes a rather extraordinary claim regarding the identity of one of the parties involved in the process. For it begins: “it seemed good to the holy spirit and to us”. This correspondence between the activity of the Governing Body and the spirit in promulgating definitive teaching is the prototype for all their activity going forward.

 

[Pudgy]

Well … I have found in life that the more words a person uses to explain contested ideas, the less likely the premises of the arguments are valid.

Juan, you are very articulate and easily understood, and logical and coherent.

But I cannot bring myself to give fealty to anyone but God and Christ.

If I was a United States Marine, of reasonable intelligence, I would of course know that most Officers were petty, deeply flawed, arrogant, presumptuous and likely to view me and my fellow Marines as career building cannon fodder.

But even in the Marines you are not required to obey an illegal order.

So, who decides what is an illegal order?

You do.

You may be shot or hanged, (or disfellowshipped) but it is better than living an unexamined life in a pseudo- fantasy.

[Juan Rivera]

39 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

Well … I have found in life that the more words a person uses to explain contested ideas, the less likely the premises of the arguments are valid.

Juan, you are very articulate and easily understood, and logical and coherent.

But I cannot bring myself to give fealty to anyone but God and Christ.

If I was a United States Marine, of reasonable intelligence, I would of course know that most Officers were petty, deeply flawed, arrogant, presumptuous and likely to view me and my fellow Marines as career building cannon fodder.

But even in the Marines you are not required to obey an illegal order.

So, who decides what is an illegal order?

You do.

@Pudgy I hear you, but here’s  what worries me about that simplicity principle you mention and then I’ll leave you alone. Either you are using simplicity as a criterion for truth, or not. If you are, that's using a human-derived criterion (i.e. human philosophy) to judge what content gets to count as divine revelation. That's making 'divine revelation' in your own image. On the other hand, if you're not using simplicity as a criterion for truth, then there is no reason (other than rhetorical) to appeal to simplicity as a reason to adopt your own view rather than the JW perspective.

The working philosophical assumption that theology and ecclesiology must all be simple it’s an assumption which the person is presupposing that it all must be simple, and that because what I'm saying includes digging deeper into things, therefore it cannot be true, because it is not simple, or at least as simple as your position. But that’s just making theology conform to your own philosophical presuppositions, rather than being open as a child to whatever level of complexity, sophistication or simplicity is to be found in Jehovah’s self revelation. It is  his revelation, not our creation. So if we are to be open in faith, we have to be open to whatever God reveals, rather than try to force it into our preconceived notions concerning what it must be like. So if Jesus established a congregation with a Governing body, and entrusted to her the scriptures, then persons of faith should embrace it rather than reject it and replace it with something simpler. Given your simplicity principle, any person could reject your theology as too complex, and replace it with simpler theology still. There is always someone with a position simpler than one’s own.

So let me leave you with one last thought to think about and perhaps you can see where I would like to focus my efforts and attention in the closed forum or elsewhere. I believe once you and other current and former Witnesses start seeing this distinction, it would be the equivalent of "taking the red pill” or leaving the set of "The Truman Show".

It seems to me that if we are not going to worry with distinguishing false teachings from true teachings , then while we might possibly continue to argue that there are grounds for thinking that Jehovah has communicated something to mankind, somewhere at some time (i.e. given a revelation), a stance of ambivalence with respect to the need to distinguishing which current explanatory or descriptive accounts of that revelation match what Jehovah intended men to know (true teachings), over against errant disfigurements of what Jehovah intended men to know (false beliefs), has the practical effect of undermining the very notion or purpose of any divine revelation at all. 

Such a stance explicitly, and in principle, shrouds the content which Jehovah intended to reveal within a cloak of human opinion from which it cannot escape to reach the mind of any modern seeker as a revelation from Jehovah distinct from some other fellow human’s opinion. And this would mean that the purported answers concerning human meaning and destiny which Christianity claims to provide are just opinions and can, therefore, command our assent no more than the thousands of other competing truth claims about human purpose and destiny which are all around us in a pluralistic society. The Good News reduces to an opinion column and so becomes old news. If all Christianity has to offer modern man is yet another wacky set of notions about Jehovah, afterlife, morality, etc. – then to hell with it. The whole point of a “revealed” religion is to offer truth claims which ostensibly stand in contrast to what man can know, or guess at, on his own. Hence, a revealed religion which simultaneously, and in principle, claims that what God intended to communicate to men via revelation is no longer decipherable beyond the level of that same human opinion to which we all had access before ever exploring revealed religion, simply defeats the very purpose of revealed religion. 

What is special about the Good News, or the deliverances of Christianity regarding human meaning and destiny, if we give up on the distinction between True beliefs and false ones? I, for one, cannot say.

Regards,

 

 

 

[Pudgy]

After all those words, and you cannot say …

I like my system better.

[Juan Rivera]

1 minute ago, Pudgy said:

After all those words, and you cannot say …

I like my system better.

@Pudgy Let me try one last time. To boil it down for convenience, my central argument has been that, without an infallible interpreter of divine revelation, we would have no way of distinguishing between what's objectively divine revelation and what's only human opinion about the scope and interpretation of the sources. That distinction is not primarily about how we attain certainty. Rather, my argument is about how we identify the primary subject matter of theology, i.e. divine revelation itself. Now if the subject matter of theology were primarily a set of texts and practices, make that set as broad or narrow as you please, then theology would be just like other disciplines such as philosophy, history, and sociology. Accordingly, it would not require positing inerrancy or infallibility. We would study the texts and practices, come to reasonable but provisional conclusions about their truth and/or value, and call some of our conclusions our theology. That's the methodology in departments of "religious studies."

I spent some time in that methodology when I was younger, and I learned things thereby. But as Christians we know that such a merely human discipline does not suffice for the purpose at hand. Thus, even though it often utilizes methods of inquiry like those of other disciplines, theology itself is not like other disciplines. What we're after in theology strictly speaking, as distinct from natural theology, which is a branch of metaphysics, is identifying the content of something we could never know or identify just by human inquiry, i.e. what Jehovah has revealed. And we take for granted that Jehovah is "infallible," in the sense that he knows whatever can be known, and can neither deceive nor be deceived. So, we want to know how to identify what Jehovah himself has revealed, as distinct from, but not always as opposed to, what mere man has said or done about him. The latter is not protected from error, and hence cannot be relied on for knowledge of what Jehovah has revealed.

In the nature of the case, knowledge of something as divine revelation can only be attained by recognizing certain sources of information as produced or authorized by God and thus protected by him from error. My argument is not over that point, but over the scope of those sources. 

Given as much, another way of putting my central argument is this: Without a living body that is divinely authorized to speak with divine and thus infallible authority, we would have no way of distinguishing reliably between theology and religious studies. That's because we would not even have a way of definitively settling the question what the relevant sources of transmission are, much less what they mean. You might personally choose to regard a certain set of texts, i.e. “Scripture," as the inerrant "Word of God," which is what you do; you might regard certain early interpreters of those texts as pretty reliable guides to interpreting them, which you also seem to do; you might even recognize certain traditions and concrete practices as relevant sources of information, which you could do consistently with your position. But your grounds for doing so would be human reasoning and opinion alone, not the teaching of any living body whose leadership we recognize as authorized by God to speak definitively in his name. Hence, all your conclusions would remain fallible and provisional. But you don't seem any more content with that than I am, nor should you be. That is why I've said to you before that your only alternatives to such an infallible interpretive authority are "rationalism" or "enthusiasm," whose concrete correlates would be an academic governing body. There is no third alternative that does not reduce to one of those two, or to some ramshackle combination thereof, such as (JW insider)  (if I’m not mistaken) idea that the scope and meaning of the biblical canon can be recognized with certainty by a combination of literary/historical analysis and the inner promptings of the holy spirit.

 

Hopefully that clears up what I’ve been meaning to say. Thank you for you time, I’m bowing out.

[Pudgy]

I can describe in ONE SENTENCE all that I need to know about theology.

1.) Pick any scripture and read the page before it and the page after it, in context.

All else is possibly interesting, but not essential.

 That means to avoid distractions, ad nauseum, you can safely ignore it.

[Juan Rivera]

32 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

I can describe in ONE SENTENCE all that I need to know about theology.

1.) Pick any scripture and read the page before it and the page after it, in context.

All else is possibly interesting, but not essential.

 That means to avoid distractions, ad nauseum, you can safely ignore it.

@Pudgy I wish that was true. Believe me, I really do, it would of made my life so much easier growing up and I would of avoid so much heartache and suffering and could of used that time energy and efforts and investing it in the ministry helping others.

But If that were true, disagreement regarding which doctrines are essential could be due only to illiteracy or malice. But when we engage in on-the-ground dialogue with Christians in other interpretive traditions, we find that the people with whom we disagree on such matters are generally neither unintelligent nor malicious. That implies that resolving the disagreements regarding which doctrines are essential is not as simple as pointing to Bible verses. Otherwise, after the last five centuries of reading and studying Scripture, then even if there was not an initial agreement concerning the meaning of Scripture, there should be at least a convergence of biblical interpretations among all students of Scripture. Instead there has been a continual multiplication of doctrinal disagreements among the various traditions. For these reasons, Scripture alone is not capable of answering the "essentials" question.

We have a five-hundred-year experiment called Protestantism. Protestant history is a history of fragmentation upon fragmentation, dividing not over what was believed to be secondary issues by those separating, but over what was believed to be orthodoxy and heresy. People do not break unity over issues they themselves believe to be secondary, indifferent adiaphora. Someone could claim that in each such case someone was failing to engage in honest exegesis, but it seems to me that such a claim would be ad hoc. There is no good reason to believe that in each case of  fragmentation, one or both sides were being dishonest in their exegesis of Scripture. The evidence is to the contrary. Likewise, someone could claim that in each case of fragmentation one or both sides did not have the spirit. But again, that would be ad hoc. Moreover, honest exegesis in the present is not bringing denominations back together. Given all the exegetical work published in academic journals and books over the last few centuries, which denominations have reconciled because of it? None if any. And again, it would be ad hoc to claim that they are not doing so only because of dishonesty or exegetical ignorance. Do we see all New Testament scholars moving toward one denomination’s theological position, over the past 500 years? No. All this shows that personal interpretation of Scripture is not a reliable way of distinguishing fully and accurately between orthodoxy and heresy.

[George88]

15 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Is the exclusion of a sinful anointed a rebellion? 

Is ignoring/shun a sinful anointed one rebellion?

Mr. Srecko, the authority of God surpasses all other authorities. When God allows governments to rule over us, it is our moral duty to submit ourselves to that authority. If God permits spiritual leaders to oversee his flock, then according to the same interpretation of scripture, it is our moral duty to wholeheartedly follow that authority, particularly if that authority has been chosen by God Himself.

During Jesus' time, the prevailing authority among the Jews were the Pharisees. However, did Jesus instruct the people to defy them? No! This is clearly stated in Matthew 23:3. Does this imply that a spiritual leader cannot be questioned? Absolutely not. The role of a spiritual leader is to validate scripture through their actions and by embracing the will of God in their words. If a leader fails to do so, it is God who will reveal it. It is God who will pass judgment, not the congregation or any individual who disapproves of how the spiritual leader is overseeing God's house. 

Spiritual leaders are called to lead by example and guide others in their spiritual journey. (Ephesians 4:14). However, if a leader fails to uphold the principles they preach, it is God who ultimately reveals the truth. The congregation or individuals may express their disapproval, but it is important to remember that the final judgment lies with God. It is God's role to pass judgment, not ours. In this case, one could argue that you are mistaken. However, the truth is different. The congregation should not be seen as a body of Elders, as it has not been given such a role. It is important to note that during Jesus' trial, it was the Pharisees and high priests who brought him before Pilate, not the people. These were individuals in positions of authority. When Pilate gave the people the opportunity to choose who should be freed, and they selected Barabbas instead of Jesus, it was not an act of passing judgement on Christ.

It is crucial for spiritual leaders and their followers to continually seek alignment with God's will, practicing discernment and holding each other accountable. However, it is God who has the final say and who will ultimately reveal any discrepancies between a leader's words and actions.

Those who claim to be Christians but do not adhere to the principles established by God and Christ are disregarding the solemn oath they make after being baptized. Baptism represents a deeply personal commitment to God, promising to obey him and submit their lives to his authority, following His commands faithfully. 

In this scenario, the concept of authority and authenticity can be subjective and based on personal interpretation. Each individual may have their own criteria for determining the legitimacy of an authority figure. 

However, the idea of unity often transcends the individual, as it involves aligning with a collective purpose or goal. When we strive for unity, the focus shifts from 'I' to 'we'. It emphasizes the importance of collaboration, cooperation, and mutual understanding among individuals. Unity acknowledges the interconnectedness of all members within a group or society, irrespective of their personal beliefs or differences. Unity can promote solidarity, harmony, and common purpose. It encourages individuals to set aside personal agendas and work together towards shared objectives. 

Unity refers to the oneness and harmony between individuals who choose to submit to God's authority. The notion of "I" or individual autonomy becomes subordinate to the higher authority of God. When one recognizes God's authority, they willingly surrender their own desires and preferences in order to align with his will. 

Obedience to God's authority is not a matter of personal choice or subjective authenticity. Rather, it is a fundamental belief that God's authority is absolute and infallible, and therefore, worthy of complete obedience and submission. It goes beyond individual perspectives and preferences. Unity in obedience to God's authority is founded on the premise that God's wisdom and guidance surpass human understanding and judgment. 

It acknowledges that God's authority is inherently authentic and divine, and therefore, supersedes any other humanly-constructed authority. This unity brings together individuals who share a common understanding and acceptance of God's authority, creating a collective synergy driven by a shared commitment to follow His teachings and commands. 
By recognizing the greater good and finding common ground, unity promotes inclusivity and collective progress.

However, it is crucial to maintain a balance between unity and personal autonomy. While unity encourages collaboration and consensus-building, it should also allow space for individuality, free-thinking, and diverse perspectives. The idea of unity should not suppress or silence individual voices, but rather foster an environment where individuals are respected and their views are valued. It does not mean that we lose our individuality. Quite the contrary. Embracing spiritual maturity is crucial if we want to recognize when our spiritual leaders are adhering to the principles of scripture, just as the congregation does. Romans 13:1-2

Romans 13:1-2 states, "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore, whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment." When looking at the context of these verses, we understand that Paul is addressing the believers in Rome and their relationship with the governing authorities. He emphasizes the importance of respecting and submitting to the authorities that God has established. 

Embracing spiritual maturity does not mean that we lose our individuality. It means understanding that our faith and personal beliefs should guide us in recognizing and respecting the authorities that God has placed in our lives. It means growing in our ability to discern whether the actions of our spiritual leaders align with the principles of scripture. Spiritual maturity brings a deeper understanding of God's Word and enables us to make wise and discerning choices. 
It allows us to hold our spiritual leaders accountable to the teachings of scripture while still respecting their authority. We are called to be individuals who think critically, seek truth, and ensure that our actions align with the principles of our faith. 

Finally, the concept of unity in this scenario arises when individuals relinquish their personal autonomy and align themselves with God's authority, recognizing it as the ultimate truth and source of wisdom. In doing so, they prioritize obedience to God's authority above all other forms of authority and work towards a harmonious collective that is guided by His principles.
 

[Pudgy]

 

—————————————————

You make my points even better than I can ….

[Juan Rivera]

3 hours ago, Pudgy said:

 

—————————————————

You make my points even better than I can ….

I don’t understand what you mean Pudgy😔 … sigh….

[Srecko Sostar]

12 hours ago, George88 said:

tax-gatherer

I found one article to educate me more on about this. https://www.evidenceunseen.com/theology/historical-theology/tax-collectors/

 

I don't really understand why Jesus would use a tax collector in his teaching about internal relationships among fellow believers.
The tax collector was a legally appointed person from the Roman authorities. Nobody likes taxes and tax collectors, both before and today. I will use the cynicism of GB who said that "Jesus did not promise perfect spiritual food". Jesus also did not promise that you will not be taxed by the authorities. He did not promise that taxes would be low. He did not promise that injustice would not overtake you. And so on and so forth. Finally, JWs boast of being completely law-abiding and paying (unjust) taxes, both in the 1st century and today.
Furthermore, everyone will agree with what @Juan Rivera said about ex-JW status. Ex-JWs fall into the category of "neighbors" just like tax collectors and Gentiles.

In the light of the comments that are presented here and emphasize the need for less influence of the written word, the Bible, and a stronger influence of the interpretation of the written word by those who are "authorized and appointed" to interpret it, then the existing interpretation of completely ignoring excluded JWs would need reinterpretation.
Among other things, JWs go to prisons to convert people who have been marked as criminals by a "higher authority", who they say is appointed by God to their position. The same elders who are cordial with the prisoners despise the ex-JW when they see him on the street. That's a normal state of mind and emotion, right? That was Jesus' intention in his teachings, from chapter 18?