WHO is authorized to pronounce judgement? Those WITHOUT sin?

by Terry 11 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Terry

  "Let him who is WITHOUT sin cast the first stone."

  The above statement by Jesus was directed at a throng of men about to stone a prostitute in accordance with the Law of Moses.

  Jesus did not say the Law of Moses was wrong or that the men should not carry out the judgement against the prostitute.

  Jesus did single out a QUALIFYING eligibility which stopped the execution by an appeal to conscience. "Let him who is WITHOUT sin...."

  In effect, Jesus is making all conditions of sin on the same level of deserved punishment. Pulling the trigger on a final act of judgement according to LAW holds the AGENT OF JUDGEMENT equally liable.

  Can a glutton stone an adulterer? Is adultry somehow worse?

  Can a liar stone a glutton? Can a man who thinks about adultry stone a man who thinks about lying?

  In other words: WHO IS AUTHORIZED to be a judge against one's fellow man when ALL are sinners?

  That is the set up for the discussion to follow.

  To wit:

  Who gives the Governing Body the right to beat their fellow brethern in judgement by pronouncing them "marked", "shunned", disfellowshipped or even spiritually sick?

  Wouldn't the Governing Body itself subject its member sins to vulnerability before Jehovah by not forgiving again and again up to seventy times seven?

  The means by which Elders judge is the same means by which they themselves are to be judged. What does this accomplish except to condemn when MERCY and FORGIVENESS is the goal of Christ's mission as a ransom?

  When you are sitting in the Kingdom Hall and an announcement is made from the platform that a fellow JW is disfellowshipped---WHO AUTHORIZED IT? Was it a sinless group of elders?

  Are the governing elders exempt from sin? If not, how are they qualified to speak on behalf of the MERCY of the members in the KINGDOM HALL who are now---cut off---from praying for the one judged to be shunned?

  Can a group decide who you can love and who you must hate?

  Can a group actually be authorized to prevent you from extending mercy and forgiveness?

  Is a group superior to an individual Christian's mercy?

  WHO IS AUTHORIZED to pronounce judgement?

  Those WITHOUT sin? Or, with sins of their own?

  How and when did the Watchtower Society confer upon somebody the right to TELL YOU what limits are upon your kindness, love and attitude toward others?

  Where is the precedent, authorization and basis?

  What good is a personal CONSCIENCE if a group can over rule it?
• 

  THE GLADIATOR

  According to the Bible Jesus was talking about who had the right to stone another to death.

  Watchtower Elders would claim they are disfellowshipping a member in order to help to correct them. That it is an act of love that is intended to lead the errant one back to the fold.

  So their corrective activities are really nothing to do with what Jesus was talking about.

  Anyway stoning is rather primitive. A swift word stroke or a well aimed trident is much more civilised.

  TG
• 

  d.boon

  1Cor. 6 1-11

  Still this only applys to theose who will rule with Christ.
• 

  Terry

  Watchtower Elders would claim they are disfellowshipping a member in order to help to correct them. That it is an act of love that is intended to lead the errant one back to the fold.

  Does the doctor kick the sick patient out of the hospital and deny them the best medical care?

  Or...will a doctor do everything possible to PREVENT a patient from jeopardizing their own health?

  The premise of the elders who disfellowship, for example, is a faulty premise IF THEY THEMSELVES believe God's Truth is only dispensed within the confines of the Kingdom Hall as passed on by the Governing Body. By kicking somebody out they are, in effect, cutting of their lifeline and exposing the stray sheep to the ravening wolves out in the world.

  How can it be an act of love or a move to correct a sick person (spiritually) if you cut off the influence which can nurse them back to health?

  In short, it is a callous and unloving act of judgement and not a caring, nurturing act which leads to ministrations of love and concern.

  Humiliation, isolation and the strangling off of affection, prayers and well-wishes is not medicine so much as it is poisonous abuse.

  If Jesus did not cast out Judas, but, allowed him to keep company with all the other disciples can we not infer something?
• 

  THE GLADIATOR

  Terry

  I don’t approve of the way the Elders shepherd their flocks. I was pointing out that Jesus was not talking about the act of disfellowshipping. Also what Elders claim their motive is.

  Wilds horses do the same thing. If a stallion does not respect the chain of command in a wild herd, he will be driven out where he will be at risk from predators. If he survives, then after a while he will be allowed another chance to conform.

  So if someone is asked why they were disfellowshipped, they can say, ‘Wilds horses couldn’t keep my by their side.’ (Yes that was a joke)

  As you are a worthy combatant, I would like to throw you a sword to help your argument along.

  I no longer keep a copy of the Aid book but remember that under disfellowshipping, it said that it was an alternative to stoning which modern laws prevented them from doing. Instead, the disfellowshipped one was put outside to await their death at Armageddon.

  TG
• 

  Terry

  God elects through choice. God saves by choice. God grants mercy by choice. All the choices are God's choices.

  If we merely posit and stipulate that these choices have some basis in Justice (not easy to establish, explain or defend) then we see the importance of shepherding the flock is a purpose more signficant than any other.

  The separating, winnowing, threshing is nowhere to be done by shepherds. The shepherding job is one of keeping the sheep together and safe even when the sheep do not cooperate.

  Jesus, as the fine shepherd, lay down his life to accomplish the WHOLE flock's safety.

  Where does an elder or group of elders get the hubris to UNDO what Jesus died to accomplish?

  UNshepherding is not a duty appointed to elders.

  It is the EVIL slave who beats those in their charge.
• 

  R.Crusoe

  Quite so , but they justify doing it discretely.

  I mean they're only human so half right must be good - right?
• 

  Switch

  Wow, Terry. I like your analogy of a doctor sending a sick person out of the hospital to fend for themselves. I may just use that with the family.
• 

  WTWizard

  At the organizational level, it is even worse. They are casting stones at people that are not going out in field circus, missing boasting sessions, listening to real music, going online, and even ratting them out for actual injustices that the Filthful and Disgraceful Slavebugger has committed against people. They are casting stones at worldly people that will not listen to the witlesses. They are casting stones at people that do not aggressively go to those doors, that spend too much time at Starbucks, that bring in food to the Grand Boasting Sessions in branded bags and cups, and that disobey and disrespect the Filthful and Disgraceful Slavebugger.

  Now, this same organization that is doing the stoning is worse. They harbor pedophiles and hide the evidence by coercing the victims to shut up (at least the Catholic church is going public with the issue). They ruin children's lives with policies that sequester them from worldly children (that would provide better integration). They derail every romantic opportunity before it can do any good. They waste time, gas, and people's health keeping them out in field circus for nothing.

  And the worst is that they are stifling the freedom to post critical information. They use lawsuits and threats thereof to silence anyone that has anything bad to say about the Filthful and Disgraceful Slavebugger. They are trying to tamper with laws so they would be favored. Then, once they have the right circumstances (enough people and a strong enough pro-witless law), they will start the whole world into the Second Dark Ages. The crap science, blatant mathematical inconsistencies, and corruption of Jesus' true message will be the law of the land, strictly enforced and no one will be able to derail it.

  Which is worse, someone that commits fornication, or someone that volitionally starts the whole world into the Second Dark Ages? I don't think the Washtowel Slaveholdery is in any position to be judging people for fornication, smoking, or even apostasy.
• 

  AGuest

  The conduct of the WTBTS elders in this regard is absolutely without merit or authority... on several grounds:

  1. First, these (elders) do not have holy spirit, which is the ONLY means by which they CAN forgive or retain the sins of ANYONE.

  John 20:21-23

  2. However, even IF they had holy spirit, they would be compelled BY that spirit NOT to judge... but to FORGIVE and release...

  Matthew 7:1 Luke 6:37

  3. As well as, IF they had such spirit it is for the very reason that they are called to be kings - who have the authority to judge - AND priests -who offer up "sacrifices" in the form of supplicating prayers on behalf of the people FOR THEIR SINS.

  4. As such kings and priests, these would FOLLOW the example of Christ (and NOT Paul!). And if Christ himself (who had authority to judge) did not judge... who are THESE to do so?

  John 3:17 John 5:22 John 8:11 John 12:47, 48

  What MANY forget or do not understand is that:

  1. Paul had been a Pharisee; thus, many of his early writings contained some Pharisaical... "flavor." As a result, some were putting faith in what the 12 were telling them over what Paul was telling them. Now, some of the 12 tried to tell him that he was preaching a different Christ than the One they walked with, but he did not like that - he took offense and called them "superfine" apostles, because he thought he was a better apostle (because he did not accept provisions from them, unlike some who followed the 12, and perhaps falsely so, and because of the trials he had undergone). And so he felt the Corinthian congregation should "put up with him in some little unreasonableness." But not all of them considered Paul's unreasonableness "little." Thus, there was a rift between the 12 and those loyal to them... and Paul, and those loyal to him... for 14 years!!

  1 Corinthians 1:12-15 2 Corinthians 11:1-31 Galatians 2:1

  2. The rift started because of Paul's teaching on disfellowshipping (shunning, removing, expelling - a Pharisaical practice that was NOT condoned by Christ!). This teaching actually divided the Corinthian congregation: some knew that disfellowshipping was WRONG, that, IN CHRIST, they were SUPPOSED to forgive the man in question. In his FIRST letter to the Corinthians (which is NOT in the Bible canon*), Paul was extremely severe with the congregation. In his second letter (1 Corinthians)... he tried to reiterate his position, and while still harsh, apparently not as, ummmmm... "tyrannical"... as the first. In his third letter (2 Corinthians), however, he changed his position entirely. There, he said that although his previous position (to get rid of the man) was for the purpose of keeping the congregation clean, he now realized that rather than doing a GOOD thing... he had actually caused a very serious division... and had undermined the morale of the entire congregation... which had actually put the entire congregation in a position to be "overreached by Satan". So, he said that the rebuke given by the congregation... was SUFFICIENT and so, HE forgave the man, too, and they were to now WELCOME him."

  *( 1 Corinthians is actually Paul's second letter - 1 Corinthians 5:9; and 2 Corinthians is actually Paul's third letter - 2 Corinthians 13:1. The actual first letter is said to have been destroyed by the early church; whether it was or wasn't is irrelevant; it's absence (along with, for example, the Books of Enoch, Barach, Jashur, etc.), however, is only one fact which literally undermines the theory that the entire Bible is inspired, that nothing has been "removed" and that it cannot be tampered with.)

  And this is how it should have been: Paul, alone, had NO authority to opine as to what should have occurred, but should have encouraged the process that CHRIST taught... which the congregation tried to DO. Only the congregation, en masse, has the authority to consider someone "as a man of the nations and as a tax collector"... and even then, they are to pray for and forgive him.

  1 Corinthians 5:1-13 2 Corinthians 2:1-11 Matthew 18:15-21 Matthew 5:43-48

  3. That Paul CHANGED his position on shunning/disfellowshipping is shown in his letter to the Romans (which was written AFTER his letters to the Corinthians), where he asked them, "Who are YOU to judge?" Why did Paul change? Because when he started out, he was a young man with a Pharisaical background; however, he GREW... in CHRIST... and came to understand that if HE wanted to be forgiven for HIS sins (i.e., turning christians over to be murdered; condoning such murder), the HE would have to forgive others their "trespasses." Many think Paul was "called" because he was "zealous" and "righteous." This is NOT true: Paul was called... because he had a BLOODGUILT. And so long as HE continued to JUDGE... his guilt would remain.

  Romans 2:1 Romans 14:4, 5 Acts 9:16 2 Corinthians 11:23-27 Acts 20:25-27

  So, anyway, why do they do it? Why do these elders sit in judgment as they do? It is in fulfillment of what my Lord is recorded to have said at John 10:12, 13 and Matthew 23:2: as "wolves", these have no more purpose that to snatch and scatter the sheep, handed over to them by the "hired man" the GB of the WTBTS. These "seat themselves in the seat of Moses" and then "shut up the kingdom of the heavens before men" because they are not going in themselves. Because they do not possess the holy spirit of God by means of which they CAN enter. They do not "know" the One who dispenses... nor do they permit others to know him... or his voice:

  John 10:27

  They are false... imposters... wolves "IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING... but not knowing this because of their HYPOCRISY (particularly those who committed the type(s) of sins that they sit in judgment of others about!)... which BLINDS them.

  Anyone who judges another without the authority of holy spirit... judges... and condemns... him or herself. Anyone who does it "in the name of the Holy Spirit" but does not possess such spirit... or by saying they have such spirit... when they do NOT... blasphemes... against the Holy Spirit. Which is quite serious.

  I bid you all peace.

  SA, a slave of Christ and a foremost sinner, and thus, in NO position to judge ANYONE with regard to ANYTHING... but called to be a king and priest, and so can and will supplicate (to God, through Christ) for any and all that I can. And perhaps, someone might do the same for me...