by MrTheocratic 52 Replies latest watchtower bible
International Version 1 Cor 5:11
But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.
If shunning is wrong. .how does one explain this scripture?
I'm gonna shun you all if you don't get out of this cult and leave it alone... lol No, really, why would you want to shun someone?? I'm not a bible believing god fearing person anymore... But, didn't Jesus eat with sinners?? Just because I don't believe the same way others do doesn't make me a bad person...
Actually, shunning is a form of being a bully in my books...
Well for starters you will find the writings credited to this guy Paul contradict the writings attributed to Jesus. Did Jesus not eat with and associate with tax collectors did he not say not to judge? Read the the last half of Mathew chapter 5 , what does Jesus say there? Also Paul says that eating meat sacrificed to idols is ok so long as your not stumbling the one your eating with and Jesus seems to concur where at Mathew chapter 15 Jesus says "nothing entering into a man can defile him" . Yet in the book of revelations Jesus is quoted as saying to not eat meat sacrificed to idols. So it would seem as though Jesus is contradicting Paul and himself. Oops Houston we have a problem.
I don't think this "Paul contradicts Jesus" theme works with ppl who still believe in scripture as the word of God. Afterall, Jesus handpicked Paul as an apostle and clearly blessed him with holy spirit to do many great works.
Me personally, I do believe shunning to a certain degree IS indeed scriptural. However, it seems to me that nowhere in the bible is authority given to form a judicial system, a system with theocratic courts and judges and punishments/sentences. This would go beyond the statement given by Paul, and indeed beyond the attitude Jesus told his followers to have. (an attitude opposite to the pharisees)
Rather, the suggestion here is on an individual basis, directed toward all in the congregation. An idea closely related to the concept that "bad company corrupts good character", Paul is simply encouraging all Christians to avoid relating closely to any who 'claiming to be a brother practices all these things'. This would be up to the conscience of each christian to follow. Nowhere does it speak of a "state" of disfellowshipping which someone falls into after being declared "guilty of not repenting" in which they can't be spoken to for the rest of their lives until they follow some reinstatement procedure.This theocratic judicial system goes beyond scripture and intent, and ultimately I think does more harm than good to the Christian Conscience.
This same context also applies to 2 John 10 of "not even greeting someone who does not bring this teaching". Again, this is a personal recommendation directed towards individuals, a recommendation again closely related to the "bad company corrupts.." concept. Besides that, who is John referring to in this text when he mentions to not even greet? The context shows that he is referring to someone who refuses to believe in Christ, the "anti-christ". Can a JW say they are following this scripture if they shun someone that although in disagreement with JW doctrine, still believes in Christ?
For more discussion in the subject, there is always jwfacts.com.
The issue in the year 2016 AD is not if shunning is "scriptural". It could well be scriptural, depending on the reading of the Bible; the stoning of adulterers is also "scriptural". So is the burning at the stake for witchcraft practitioners and apostates. The whole process of the Inquisition was scriptural. So what?
The question is if shunning even remotely humane and has any place in a society where human rights and human dignity are held high. The answer is a big no.
Sanchy, you make good points for those that believe the bible is infallible. Jesus I believe is also the one that talks about if you have an issue to hear it with the older ones at the front gate of the city. This is where people would gather to do business among other things and it was sure to be crowded. This way the accused could express himself and people could hear and make sure that if he was judged unfairly they would hear about it. Instead of back door secret meetings.
To build on what Sanchy said, there is a big difference between not associating / breaking bread with someone and not even saying a greeting. JWs lump 1 Cor 5:11 with 2 John 10. They say that if a person is unrepentently sinning, that person is actually an anti-christ. In fact, the RNWT has a cross reference on 1 Cor 5:2 to 2 John 10 to show that they do make this connection, stating that these do not "remain in the teaching of the Christ" (2 John 9). So, if someone has sex with someone else who is not their marriage mate and are unrepentent (according to three imperfect men who judge behind closed doors) they are deemed as not remaining in Christ's teaching, and thus to be completely shunned. Was that the teaching of the Christ? Did Christ teach that anyone should be shunned for such an act? What of Matthew 18:15-17? Expelled from the congregation, perhaps. Treated as dead? No.
WT shunning is the exact opposite of Corinthians.
Dude was sleeping with his step-mom, so was banned from meetings.
When he ceased boinking his step-mom, he was to be IMMEDIATELY welcomed back.
WT REQUIRES meeting attendance.
WT acts like the Prodigal's resentful brother, bullying those who return, even though no longer "sinning."
If the fairy tale book hints at shunning for any reason, and the fairy tale believers take it too far, the fault is the book for not being clear enough, in exact detail, what it is implying.
How about an entire book of the Bible on shunning, how to do it and not do it. Instead we get Song of Solomon, or Job, or some other ignorable tripe.
Did Jesus shun that's better question.
