Is shunning scriptural? At all?

by Open mind 38 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  avidbiblereader

  I believe that shunning is scriptural but only within the context. I agree with the posts already, that one must be a brother and it doesnt apply to people who have left but also in taking a look at Pauls words in 1 Cor 5. Within the culture of the first century, it appears from history and also scriptural points that the meetings back then obviously were not conducted as today and especially the way the witness perform them. They were used as times to share a meal or as Jude put it a love feast. Even within the pagan culture eating at temples or religious ceremonies was common it was a PART of their worship.

  So when Paul said about not eating with a person he MAY have been talking about not recognizing him/her as a brother and especially within the congregational arrangement, but to have normal daily association as a HUMAN BEING was considered Christian as Christ himself set the example eating with the sinners and tax collectors and prostitutes. So to invite a "brother" to a congregational setting and eat with such a person in a congregational setting as they were advocating or trying to bring "leaven" into the congregation would be wrong, but not to be normal, loving to others and especially to those related to us who have left the ranks would be "unchristian" to say the least.

  The other scripture that they twist and use in conjunction with 1 Cor 5 is 2 John, again taken completely out of context. In reading the context John was saying not to say to a greeting and invite one into your home (where most congregations formed and met) who was a anti_Christ, a person who denies Christ existence, not saying a greeting to THEM, not having them into your home and perhaps the influence of the congregtion to spread their false teaching concerning the Christ. It has nothing to do with a former witness or brother who leaves and never was it meant to handed down to family members. Where one cannot do the "natural" acts of love toward either children or parents. It goes completely against the scriptures and showing honor to parents and love naturally our children.

  So where I believe in shunning, it is to be done with love but only in the context of keeping the congregation clean against a person who is willfully trying to contaminate it, not the way it is used as tool to scare people in submission as the Witnesses do to keep people from leaving their org.

  Respectfully

  abr
• 

  choosing life

  I haven't had time to read all the responses, so forgive me if this was already mentioned.

  Back in the time that Paul wrote those words, the Christians met in homes and part of their meetings involved sharing a meal together. That is why the eating of a meal was mentioned.

  Notice also that the things mentioned as offensive were fornication, idolatry, being a reviler, drunkard or extortioner or even being a greedy person. Never are doctrinal issues involved.

  The context is also important. The chapter begins discussing a man who is having sex with his father's wife. Who would want to condone that? Would a person not just naturally limit their association with such a person? If they were accepting this in their congregation, what else was going on?

  No where is there a discussion of disowning your children or parents for life if they did not agree with some issue that involved doctrines.
• 

  WTWizard

  I can think of a few more things that are scriptural. Slavery, killing innocent people and then moving in on their land, destroying all their valuables, genocide, and stoning people for sins like failure to make sacrifices are all in the Bible as acceptable practices. So was the scam that Jacob pulled on Esau to get his birthright for a bowl of stew. But would you condone any of those practices today?

  I believe that what Paul was doing was taking the scripture the wrong way. It was made for those who still depend on a leader to do their thinking, and Jesus was trying to help people think for themselves. Paul already had the ability to do his own thinking, but did not make the appropriate adjustment. He still took the Bible literally and misapplied it in his own writings. Hence you see a lot of things like this.

  What is wrong is when the church leaders cash in on these innocent mistakes and use the Scriptures to enslave people. That is exactly the opposite of what Jesus was trying to do! St Augustine did that to found the Catholic church. And so did Charles Russell and the other leaders of the Watchtower Society. You take a scripture that is a mistake in the first place, and make a key doctrine around it. That can sure get you into a heap of trouble. If Paul had been thinking of the Bible as a means of getting people to think for themselves rather than as a rulebook, none of this would have happened, and we would not have all the cults we see now.
• 

  steve2

  I believe that what Paul was doing was taking the scripture the wrong way.

  This is it in a nutshell. The man who re-introduced legalism into Christianity was the very man who claimed to have been a follower of Christ. Down through the ages, people have struggled to make sense of Paul's letters that are often little more than blunt attempts to assert his own authority.
• 

  DannyHaszard

  JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES 'R THE FAMILY WRECKERS OF THE WORLD
  
  
  "if my family has any contact with me they will be justifying my ungodly lifestyle"
  
  Ring a bell? It's not from the Jehovah's Witnesses it's an excerpt form the discovery channel documentary on 'doomsday cults' describing the practice of the *Roberts group* a disturbing cult. See all cults like JW's have a shunning shame device to control members.. To be treated like a man of the nations (gentile) or as a tax collector does not mean that i am viewed as 'dead' by my mother. Everything about the Watchtower's shunning protocol is twisted and demonic.
  The shunning by other religions for comparison is irrelevant as the Watchtower claims that it's disfellowshipping is at the direction of the holy spirit so it must be infallible.This is outright blaspheme.
  
  In just one year 1987 i calculated by the Watchtower's own stats that 4.4 men woman and children were disfellowshipped per hour as the world turned on it's axis.
  
  Get this,the Watchtower asserts that every single one was @ "the direction of the holy spirit"
  This is utter blaspheme by the watchtower/elder leadership.
  
  How many blasphemes do you charlatans need to be eternally damned?One,or how about 37,000 for that year of 1987?These are wrecked and ruined lives people.
  
  Matthew 18:10 Jesus dire warning to his high ranking apostles;" see to it that you do not despise one of these little ones,for i tell you their angels in heaven always behold the face of my father who is in heaven."
  The written and oral directives of the flunky elders is one priority,that is to intimidate and save face with the followers and to stonewall a potential civil lawsuit.
  
  Look either it's the Holy Spirit or it ain't da Holy spirit.They told me even when they are wrong in Judgment i must consider it a test of my faith and bite the bullet.What kind of mealy mouthing gobbledygook is that?
  
  No it's blaspheme.
  
  Tell the truth and don't be afraid-Danny Haszard 'expert witness on the Jehovah Witness'
• 

  DannyHaszard

  BeliefWatch: Witness
  Newsweek - 12 minutes ago
  What interests Engardio—who was raised as a Jehovah's Witness by his mother and has since left the church—is that despite their fierce separatism and ... [email protected] Email newsweek editors BeliefWatch: Witness By Lisa Miller Newsweek May 28, 2007 issue - With a presidential candidate, a recent television special and 13 million adherents worldwide, the Mormons have gotten an extra dose of media attention lately. But there's another indigenous American religion that is now making a bid for the spotlight. Formed in the 19th century, four decades after the Latter-day Saints, it, too, emphasizes a bizarre-seeming afterlife, attracts clean-cut and socially conservative adherents, encourages its members to evangelize and raises the ire of more-mainstream believers suspicious of its claims to Christianity. With "Knocking," a documentary airing this week on PBS, director Joel Engardio draws back the curtain on America's million Jehovah's Witnesses. People know of Witnesses, if they know of them at all, as the folks who refuse to say the Pledge of Allegiance. They also don't celebrate birthdays or Christmas, they don't vote, they don't fight in wars and they refuse to accept blood transfusions, even in life-threatening circumstances. They believe the end of the world is coming soon, and they bear witness to God by knocking on doors. What interests Engardio—who was raised as a Jehovah's Witness by his mother and has since left the church—is that despite their fierce separatism and fundamentalism, they use the courts to fight for their right to worship as they please and their legal battles, he argues, have made the world a better place for everyone else. In "Knocking," a young man who needs a liver transplant but refuses a transfusion is admitted to one of a growing number of hospitals that are experimenting with bloodless surgery. Engardio's own story is compelling. Witnesses, like the Amish, are baptized as teenagers or young adults; at that moment, they accept the mantle of their faith. Engardio declined to be baptized, he says, because he thought he could do more good in the world than out of it. He is also gay. His sexual orientation didn't lead him to abandon the church, but long term, "it wouldn't have been a good fit," he says. "I broke my mother's heart. Twice." (Unlike some other fundamentalist sects, the Witnesses condone recreational sex, as long as it's within marriage; they prohibit homosexual sex.) And what of all the knocking, which so many people find so irritating? Witnesses knock on doors, he explains, in order to live as much as they can like the disciples of Jesus. That way, they will be prepared for Armageddon and for the perfect world of peace and health on Earth that will follow.
  

  Engardio declined to be baptized, he says, because he thought he could do more good in the world than out of it. He is also gay. His sexual orientation

  Watchtower apologist have already spun Joel's case as showing how no child is compelled to get baptized and how disfellowshipped disgruntled only have themselves to blame.

  (Danny Haszard was forced to get baptized in 1967 at the tender age of 11 because my elder dad and 99% of all JW's said that armageddon was coming in 1975 and I had to be consecrated)
• 

  free @ last

  Bump
• 

  jonathan dough

  Verging on the macabre in this 21st Century, the Jehovah's Witnesses draconian practice of disfellowshipping and shunning current and former members is one of the most controversial aspects of this religion and has caused untold psychological and physical harm to thousands. The Watchtower Society mislabels the practice of shunning and disfellowshipping, as an act of love and a means of enforcing conformity.
  
  Scriptural justification for shunning is weak, at best. It is considered by many on the outside as one of the most offensive and unbiblical tools in the Watchtower Society's arsenal of weapons used to enforce rigid conformity to their multitude of rules and regulations. Grounds for disfellowshipping, a radical form of excommunication, are legion. The list includes adultery, fornication, greed, accepting blood transfusions (with modifications), drunkenness, associating with the disfellowshipped ... the list is very extensive and subject to wide interpretation. Many of those shunned or disfellowshipped are guilty of apostasy - abandoning the religion and turning away from the teachings of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. Similar to the Mob, once you're in there's no easy way out without suffering severe consequences.
  
  A significant amount of judging and attendance at judicial committees is involved. The act of shunning and disfellowshipping as implemented by the Jehovah's Witnesses has caused untold pain and suffering among friends and family members. Families are routinely destroyed and broken up, forever; siblings are separated, often for life, parents lose their children, children lose their parents. Grandparents are ostracized and cut off from their grandchildren for the sake of keeping members 'in.'
  
  Most often the simple act of saying hello to a disfellowshipped person, or one who has disassociated him or herself from the organization, is forbidden. The horror stories told by the disfellowshipped, thousands of them, are ghastly and heartrending. The ancient practice of disfellowshipping and shunning causes profound psychological damage, and has led to suicide. As practiced by the Jehovah's Witnesses, their extreme form of shunning in most cases is simply cruel, nothing more.
  
  Anyone considering joining the Jehovah's Witnesses is advised to pay close attention to the consequences and repercussions for not living up to the Watchtower Society's standards, or questioning their doctrine. The ultimate price might be unbearable and irreversible. To assist you in making the right decision and help you learn more about this practice, visit the websites listed below for additional information.

  http://144000.110mb.com/directory/shunning_disfellowshipped_shunning_disfellowshipping.html
• 

  Vanderhoven7

  marked
• 

  Quarterback

  I tried to paste this before, hope it works this time. If it does, this is my first successful paste on this site.

  The following are the UN's comments on intolerance. They are bang on when they recognize Religion as being intolerant especially with this shunning application.

  1. Fighting intolerance requires law:
     Each Government is responsible for enforcing human rights laws, for banning and punishing hate crimes and discrimination against minorities, whether these are committed by State officials, private organizations or individuals. The State must also ensure equal access to courts, human rights commissioners or ombudsmen, so that people do not take justice into their own hands and resort to violence to settle their disputes.
  2. Fighting intolerance requires education:
     Laws are necessary but not sufficient for countering intolerance in individual attitudes. Intolerance is very often rooted in ignorance and fear: fear of the unknown, of the other, other cultures, nations, religions. Intolerance is also closely linked to an exaggerated sense of self-worth and pride, whether personal, national or religious. These notions are taught and learned at an early age. Therefore, greater emphasis needs to be placed on educating more and better. Greater efforts need to be made to teach children about tolerance and human rights, about other ways of life. Children should be encouraged at home and in school to be open-minded and curious.
     
     Education is a life-long experience and does not begin or end in school. Endeavours to build tolerance through education will not succeed unless they reach all age groups, and take place everywhere: at home, in schools, in the workplace, in law-enforcement and legal training, and not least in entertainment and on the information highways.
  3. Fighting intolerance requires access to information:
     Intolerance is most dangerous when it is exploited to fulfil the political and territorial ambitions of an individual or groups of individuals. Hatemongers often begin by identifying the public's tolerance threshold. They then develop fallacious arguments, lie with statistics and manipulate public opinion with misinformation and prejudice. The most efficient way to limit the influence of hatemongers is to develop policies that generate and promote press freedom and press pluralism, in order to allow the public to differentiate between facts and opinions.
  4. Fighting intolerance requires individual awareness:
     Intolerance in a society is the sum-total of the intolerance of its individual members. Bigotry, stereotyping, stigmatizing, insults and racial jokes are examples of individual expressions of intolerance to which some people are subjected daily. Intolerance breeds intolerance. It leaves its victims in pursuit of revenge. In order to fight intolerance individuals should become aware of the link between their behavior and the vicious cycle of mistrust and violence in society. Each one of us should begin by asking: am I a tolerant person? Do I stereotype people? Do I reject those who are different from me? Do I blame my problems on 'them'?
  5. Fighting intolerance requires local solutions:
     Many people know that tomorrow's problems will be increasingly global but few realize that solutions to global problems are mainly local, even individual. When confronted with an escalation of intolerance around us, we must not wait for governments and institutions to act alone. We are all part of the solution. We should not feel powerless for we actually posses an enormous capacity to wield power. Nonviolent action is a way of using that power-the power of people. The tools of nonviolent action-putting a group together to confront a problem, to organize a grassroots network, to demonstrate solidarity with victims of intolerance, to discredit hateful propaganda-are available to all those who want to put an end to intolerance, violence and hatred.