Posted directly to Rachel on the previous page. Sooner had a question, Chris more of a statement (see below) to wit Rachel responded:
Sooner7nc, Black Sheep, you've both expressed to me you're atheists. Legitimizing the arrangement of excommunication based on 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 from your perspective, is no different than borrowing scripture from the Iliad and the deity Zeus/ Homer as the inspired author.
(Rachel) Deflection is a faux pas inforum etiquette
Some of us non-atheist are just as interested in seeing your answer (sooner's)/response (Chris's) ......... especially in light of you not actively being a JW (ie birdfood).
Really it isn't hard....
Why not breakdown your answers by number or bullet points:
1*) Personal opinion on the matter
2*) WTS publication POV on the matter via CD
3*) Some random secular cut/paste job.
By doing so you create an easy to follow pattern, readers of this thread (and future ones) cannot continue making claims of you being incoherent!
Here I will repost them on this page to make it easier .... I suggest two separate response posts for Sooner and Black Sheep!
(Sooner's summary) The shunning by Jehovah's Witnesses of Jehovah's Witnesses is not the question, nor is the condemnation by you of them. The fact that they and you are indeed not robots and therefore cannot shun them does not mitigate the fact that the dehumanizing of the person being shunned is perceptible by the others in the congregation and therefore is uncondemnable. Being harshly judgemental as you put it as regards this supposed shunning is not being duplicitous, it is following the sublimely worded instructions from the FDS which are influenced by both the spirit and the rank and file Dubs whom are performing the shunning and the condemnation of the shunning in association with the little flock
(Sooner's Question) Now the question I have for you Alice Rachel is this; Does the GB have the right to enforce the shunning of Jehovah's Witnesses that haven't been disfellowshipped due to adultery when the adultery in question was no more than the simple fallacy of thought of the person in question as regards shunning?
Now simply answer using the 3 step method!
1*) Rachel's Personal opinion on the matter
2*) WTS POV via CD
3*) Secular cut/paste
Now on to Chris's (Black Sheep)
We don't want it both ways.
It is the Society we condemn for their shunning policy.
Individual JWs and their shunned family and friends are the victims of that policy.
You are being told, that according to the policy of the Society, you are supposed to shun us.
We don't want you to shun us.
We just want you to befriend us and settle down to meaningful discussions
and cheery banter without all of the aggro you create for yourself....
.....but ... we are not going to 'tickle your ears' with smooth words that you want to hear either
Chris isn't asking you a question or to 'legitimize' anything...... he is making a statement and a plea.
(yes I discern you will selectively ignore my post....but that doesn't mean that I didn't make a valid point)