Please explain how disfellowshipping is a loving gesture

by McKafka99 58 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  slimboyfat

  Little Toe,

  So you don't believe in the Bible, is that why you won't answer the question, or some other reason? In case you missed it:

  How can it make sense to reject disfellowshipping as unloving, yet still have faith in sacred text where God commands stoning? "Please explain how stoning is a loving gesture."

  It is clear from your thousands of posts that you take many liberal positions contrary to what you formerly espoused - this is no earth-shattering deduction on my part, it is a plain statement of fact. To deny that simply shows you are ready to argue about anything. I suppose you could argue that the direction your worldview has since taken has nothing whatever to do with your initial reasons for leaving - but on a balance of probabilities, is that likely?

  Sure some Witnesses shun others for bad and selfish reasons (who denied that anyway?). But the point is that some actually do it for the best possible (if misguided) reasons. Will you concede that? Will you concede that there are actually some good eggs at least among Jehovah's Witnesses? Is that too much?

  Slim
• 

  wednesday

  I spoke with an elder I have known for years, he told me he has not spoken to his DF sister in 25 yrs. He was so proud. He said that the reason for DF has long ago been corrected (no clue whatever he did not say) but b/c his sister would not submit to the ORG and get herself reinstated, he continued to shun. So it not really about what she did, the "sin" whatever it was, so long ago, it is about the subimssion to the ORG.
• 

  AuldSoul

  How can it make sense to reject disfellowshipping as unloving, yet still have faith in sacred text where God commands stoning? "Please explain how stoning is a loving gesture."

  SBF,

  I can't speak for LittleToe, but I can speak for me.

  Firstly, stoning wasn't a loving gesture. It was never presented as such. Not even in that sacred text you mentioned. How can you apply the freakish interpretation of a group of silly men to those sacred texts and then reject said sacred text on the basis of rejecting their freakish interpretation?

  Secondly, I am not at all convinced that the canon of sacred texts as determined by Pharisees was a correctly determined canon.

  Thirdly, the Mosaic Law was not presented as a law of love.

  Fourthly, the law of Christ was the law of love, therefore Christians care whether the beliefs and practices they have are loving. They also care whether those who claim to be Christian have beliefs and practices that are loving. Before you ask, yes, this includes every group with unloving beliefs and practices, not just JWs.

  From my viewpoint, that clears it up nicely.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  Dismembered

  Greetings Wednesday,

  :I spoke with an elder I have known for years, he told me he has not spoken to his DF sister in 25 yrs. He was so proud. He said that the reason for DF has long ago been corrected (no clue whatever he did not say) but b/c his sister woud not submit to the ORG and get herself reinstated, he continued to shun.

  Wouldn't it be nice to have pompous pricks such as he, "in charge" of our spirituality? What you've experienced in speaking with the dubass "elder", is by no means incidental.

  Dismembered
• 

  LittleToe

  Slim:

  I suppose you could argue that the direction your worldview has since taken has nothing whatever to do with your initial reasons for leaving - but on a balance of probabilities, is that likely?

  Looks like Statistical Probability was a subject you missed along with Anthropology, in that Awake! education. You're wrong again.

  My "worldview" has continued to evolve since I left the JWs. Regardless of whatever you think is the likelihood, you're plain wrong. You may think you have half an inkling about me, from the past, but you really haven't a clue.

  To fill you in: my reasons for leaving were mainly doctrinal, and precipitated by a love of Christ, which I really didn't see in the WTS. I deplore the shunning policy, but even more than that my personal reasons extended to their scholastic dishonesty as evidenced in the Trinity Brochure (for example - and regardless of the actual doctrine it considers). They have substituted the truth for lies, and Christ for a publishing company. So your disingenuous assertions about my motives are frankly not appreciated.

  Sure some Witnesses shun others for bad and selfish reasons (who denied that anyway?). But the point is that some actually do it for the best possible (if misguided) reasons. Will you concede that? Will you concede that there are actually some good eggs at least among Jehovah's Witnesses? Is that too much?

  Sure I can concede that, and have done on many occasions. I don't have a gripe with many JWs (only with a few who abused their positions of power and caused hurt), but I do have a major gripe with the WTS, as you have yourself.

  Believe it or not, I'd actually buy you a beer if we met, also
• 

  kwr

  Read the New Testament especially the letters from Paul and the first seven chapters of Revelation. You can always elect to attend a Church that does not practice that.
• 

  parakeet

  sbf:
  ***How can it make sense to reject disfellowshipping as unloving, yet still have faith in sacred text where God commands stoning? "Please explain how stoning is a loving gesture."***
  It doesn't follow that if you reject DFing as unloving, you must accept stoning as loving. It makes more sense that JWs, who approve of DFing someone (thus condemning him/her to a "spiritual death" soon to be followed by physical death at the big-A) would approve of stoning too, if they had the option. DFing is exactly like stoning, just without the stones.
  Even for you, sbf, this is a new low.
• 

  A Paduan

  but b/c his sister would not submit to the ORG and get herself reinstated, he continued to shun.

  This is really central to it.

  The jws give worship to an imaginary being who is like a beast, who they think will kill them if they don't submit to it - they believe their Image has this right because everything they are and have, and we have, comes from their Image, who also determines what is 'good' and 'bad' - and if you don't follow the beast then you aren't 'good' ( who is like the beast ).

  If their family member, or others, don't submit to the Image they are in danger of being killed and losing everything, so, the most extreme way of making sure someone else submits to the beast for their own good, is to shun them until they will, and thereby 'save their lives' - no doubt if the law of the land allowed they would do even worse, as the history of fundamentalist nutjobbing reveals. In this context of confused fear, love is something that people buy and sell.

  paduan
• 

  looking_glass

  The simplest way it has been explained to me is the "tough love approach" to life. It is like the parent that finds out their child is doing drugs. They can either continue to be an enabler or they can stop the abuse by refusing to condone the conduct by shunning the person. Obviously these are broad sweeping statements that are general in nature.

  However, as it has been pointed out, there are people who are DF'd because of personal conflicts w/i a hall. There are people who by a JW's own standards should be DF'd but are not. It is am imperfect judging system that is doled out by a group of heavy handed imperfect men. So for the example of stoning as loving, "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone".
• 

  jwfacts

  Slim,

  Even if it is the truth it is not loving. I know many people that think it is the truth, but give up on coming back in depression and low self esteem. They can not cope with 6 months of shunning at meetings and resign themselves to destruction.

  What would be loving is the way 1 Cor 5 and 2 Thessalonians 3( continue admonishing him as a brother.) “ describes it. Talk to them at meetings, just curtail socialising with people risky to your faith. Can you imagine how much more productive that would be? Lonely disfellowshipped people would flock to meetings as a place of encouragement.

  It is not outlined in the bible as practiced by JWs, so the bible can not be used to support it as loving. http://jwfacts.com/index_files/disfellowship.htm