Adamah, ok, let's see ...
But the title of your article didn't claim that shunning was not in keeping with the teachings of Jesus, but declares it to be 'unchristian'. There's a HUGE difference in those two claims.
For your benefit, here's the quote from the Merriam-Webster Diccionary: "Unchristian: (...) 2. contrary to the Christian spirit or character". Also, the Collins Diccionary: " not in accordance with the principles or ethics of Christianity" - I stand by the term unchristian as the most adequate term.
Yes, and that's the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, since you excuse the post-apostolic examples of Xians who murderously undermined your claim of shunning being "unchristian" by killing heretics, a behavior which is FAR MORE aggregious. But if you're willing to make such excuses, why bother jumping thru the logical hoops to present the history, only to play the "No true Scotsman" fallacy card in the end?
You just LOVE to fingerpoint fallacies into others, don't you? Well, the "no true scotsman" won't stick - you're wrong. I never excused the post-apostolic Christians who murdered others who didn't follow their mainstream form of Christianity. The had no permission from Jesus to do so, and they became murderers in the name of Jesus, but still, murderers. What? You expected me to say "they weren't true christians" ?
On the other hand, by trying to associate modern Christians to those murderers in the name of Christ from centuries past, you play an Association Fallacy and resort to strawman argument. The point is if Shunning was taught or endorsed by Jesus and the Apostles. Clearly it wasn't. You brought up the Christians who hunted and burned others - strawman argument.
You spend considerable time presenting the very evidence found in the NT, only to ignore it later,
You're being purposedly deceitful with that sentence. I haven't "ignored" the evidence of the NT - I presented it as the scriptural argument used by the WT, then dissecated it and found it to be unsopportive of the practice of shunning, that's all.
You cannot deny it's in the NT, and you left a few examples out, eg 2nd Peter 2 warns of false teachers:
Funny that you resort to 2 Peter, a letter that you consider to be a forgery. But perhaps you would like to show me where the apostle conveys the idea that the judgement upon the false teachers is to be executed by human hands...? Or isn't that a later development that is yet another [dangerous, criminal] 'doctrine of men'?
that kind of intolerant talk would be inexcusable today if expressed against ANY group, since it's clearly considered "hate speech" by today's standards.
That kind of intolerant talk is no less intolerant than any Dawkins' tirade against faith and believers. In any case, I agree with you, it would be deemed innapropriate these days. And that's precisely why ethics-conscientious Christians don't take it to the letter and leave it in the hands of God. And, lo and behold, no Armageddon has come in 2000 years, but intelligent, rational men such as yourself keep on designing sophisticated weapons of mass destruction. Ironic, isn't it?