by bsand20 28 Replies latest jw friends
Same here Steve, and I would tell my smug self-righteous JW family members exactly that. (Not all of them are that way, so the ones who have treated me fairly well would get a watered down version.)
I would point out to all of them though, that if the GB reversed the policy, they would be back shunning again in a flash, because they are mind-controlled drones.
The GB won't stop shunning unless it will bring them more money, power and little boys to fiddle with.
Awake! January 8th 1947, disfellowshipping has pagan origins:
Where, then, did this practice originate? The Encyclopaedia Britannica says that papal excommunication is not without pagan influence, "and its variations cannot be adequately explained unless account be taken of several non-Christian analogues of excommunication." The superstitious Greeks believed that when an excommunicated person died the Devil entered the body, and therefore, "in order to prevent it, the relatives of the deceased cut his body in pieces and boil them in wine." Even the Druids had a method of expelling those who lost faith in their religious superstitions. It was therefore after Catholicism adopted its pagan practices, A.D. 325, that this new chapter in religious excommunication was written.
It still wouldn't make it the right religion especially given that they keep changing their minds when money is involved. It wouldn't cause me to believe in god again. I wouldn't go back to the WBT$ end of story.
I want nothing to do with people who are conditional in their friendships and unquestioningly follow the guidance of American corporations. Stopping shunning me wouldn't result in me wishing to re-active friendship with any of them. Family included.
Shunning is so entrenched that even if the WT reversed this instruction, many would continue to shun.
Those that had shun children and grandchildren would not be able to admit to themselves that they missed out on these relationships for no reason.
Splash
I would shun the JWs as there is no value in them.
bsand20:
I am a long time "fader" and sometimes in stores I see JWs from years ago who try their shun game.
I remember being on line in a store and a woman was looking at me rather intently, more so than a stranger would. At first I did not recognize her but the realization came. She said nothing and I gave a half-smile and gave my order... I wondered to myself what they take away from the experience, since so much time has passed and these people are hardly recognizable.
The point is: if they were not my friends 30 years ago, what difference would it make now???
So, if the shunning policy were removed I would feel the same way. It would have zero effect. Besides, I would have no use for anybody who would avoid me on somebody else's say so. It is certainly too late to be friends and I have no interest.
Do they think people are like a light switch that you can turn on and off?? This is the absurdity of the religion and the delusion of the people in it.
Shortly after my own exit, the WT published an article that considerably softened their own attitude towards disfellowshipped ones. It also made it possible for me to resume reasonably normal relations with my own parents. This is the section from that article published in the 8-1-1974 Watchtower magazine. You may be amazed when you compare it to the attititude displayed today!
Maintaining a Balanced Viewpoint Toward Disfellowshiped Ones
Congregational elders, as well as individual members of a congregation, therefore, ought to guard against developing an attitude approaching that which some Jewish rabbinical writers fomented toward Gentiles in viewing them as virtual enemies. It is right to hate the wrong committed by the disfellowshiped one, but it is not right to hate the person nor is it right to treat such ones in an inhumane way. As noted earlier, some rabbinical writings held that, even if in peril of death, no assistance should be extended to Gentiles. Suppose, then, a member of a Christian congregation boating on a lake were to see another boat containing a disfellowshiped person capsize, throwing the disfellowshiped one into the water where he struggled to stay afloat. Could the Christian ignore that one’s peril, row away and feel free from guilt before God—inasmuch as the one in danger of drowning was disfellowshiped, viewed as “a man of the nations”? Certainly not. That would be cruel and inhumane. We cannot imagine Christ Jesus doing so; nor would any other Jew of the first century who had a balanced viewpoint have reacted that way toward a Gentile or a tax collector in such a plight.
6 But consider a less extreme situation. What if a woman who had been disfellowshiped were to attend a congregational meeting and upon leaving the hall found that her car, parked nearby, had developed a flat tire? Should the male members of the congregation, seeing her plight, refuse to aid her, perhaps leaving it up to some worldly person to come along and do so? This too would be needlessly unkind and inhumane. Yet situations just like this have developed, perhaps in all good conscience, yet due to a lack of balance in viewpoint.
7 If we imitate our heavenly Father we will remember that he even showed certain considerateness toward the first human pair after their disfellowshiping in Eden, providing them with clothing. (Gen. 3:21) This was an undeserved kindness toward them. As Jesus reminded his disciples, Jehovah God “makes his sun rise upon wicked people and good and makes it rain upon righteous people and unrighteous.” (Matt. 5:45) The apostle Paul showed that, despite the independent course the Gentile nations took contrary to God’s way, Jehovah “did not leave himself without witness in that he did good, giving [them] rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling [their] hearts to the full with food and good cheer.” (Acts 14:16, 17) So, not “mixing in company” with a person, or treating such one as “a man of the nations,” does not prevent us from being decent, courteous, considerate and humane............................................
...............................We may note, too, that at 1 Corinthians 5:11 the apostle warns against mixing in company with one who “is” a fornicator or practicer of some other kind of serious wrongdoing. What, however, of the one who has been disfellowshiped for being that kind of person but who thereafter, either at an early point or at a later point in time, gives consistent evidence of discontinuing such wrong practice, stopping it? Can it be said that he or she still “is” a fornicator or whatever type of wrongdoer such a one was that caused him or her to be as “leaven” toward the congregation?
11 For example, a young person disfellowshiped for fornication may thereafter marry, raise a family and live a respectable life. Or one who was disfellowshiped for drunkenness may abandon such practice and, if drinking at all, may do so in moderation only. By such changes these individuals may now regain the respect of the community. Such ones may not yet have come and formally sought reinstatement by the congregation. Is there, however, not an evident difference between these and others who continue right on in the wrongdoing that brought their disfellowshiping? Those giving up the wrong practice may still manifest some appreciation for Christian truth, perhaps even defending the true Christian congregation when someone speaks evil against it. Should not such circumstances be given due weight and have an effect on our attitude as a congregation toward such ones?
nothing
I would throw a party/feast. The kind of party that is indicated in the story of the Prodical Son.
