Advice needed

Peony

Can someone tell me the scriptural basis (according to JW's) for shunning disassociated ones. Only asking because I don't remember (probably wasn't that interested) I'm sure the shunning in the Scriptures was just applied to Disfellowshipped. I've only been out 3 years but I seem to have forgotten any scriptures or reasoning! Think I've blocked it out. I've seen a comment on FB (jw who must be a friend of a friend) where a witness has said they believe in Gods word, not mans and then said God does not break up families, I want to comment to the effect that they have contradicted themselves......if God does not break up families then where has the shunning policy come from. I know the usual stock answer from JW's is 'you broke your contract with God' you knew what you were getting yourself into' blah blah. But for me I disassociated, I'm hoping with a bit more understanding of what their basis is I can be prepared to answer that stock reply.

Xanthippe

Hi Peony I think they use this scripture but it's been a very long time for me too so I'm not sure.

If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them. 2 John 1 : 10 NIV

I think in the NWT it replaces don't welcome them with do not say a greeting to them, hence the silent treatment.

alanv

Xanthippe & Peony

That scripture is talking about those that deny Jesus came in the flesh or do not keep to his teachings.

JWs who disassociate themselves normally do so for the reason that they no longer go along with Watchtower's false teachings. Most still have a strong faith in Jesus and his teachings. At baptism these days you have to agree to work along with the org, and if you no longer wish to do that, they will say you have disassociated yourself. However there is nothing in the scriptures that says if you reject any false teachings you should be shunned, and certainly nothing in the bible that says you have to go along with anyone teaching something that is not scriptural.

Peony

Thank you xanthippe and alanv

I replied to (Jw) and said ***** I think you have just agreed with *****(she had made a comment that JW's follow men and not God) she says you follow men and not God, you say God does not break up families so where does the shunning of Disfellowshipped disassociated come from.

They can't have it both ways.....if she says its scriptural(which we know it isn't) then God breaks up families and if it's not scriptural they are following men.

crazy_flickering_light

They can. The official WT-spin is: You break up the familiy while you leave god and the cult. There's a study-WT, I think dated Februar this year, where you can read it. (I cant search the articel at the moment, sorry.)

millie210

In my experience, if you use the word "shunning" a JW wont listen to any word after that one.

It takes longer to type but using a phrase such as "not talking to "or

not speaking to" will at least get JWs to read the rest of the sentence.

freemindfade

I suggest checking out the insight book, in a nutshell its basically "well big J's people would have stoned you to death, so this is a nice gift from the big guy that we only emotionally torture you" . "if we could we'd still stone you but he says no for now"

Crazyguy

Matt 5 Jesus says not to shun, and you may also want to point out that baptism is for forgiveness of sins there are no Scriptures that say its a pledge or contract for anything.

Peony

Thank you all for your comments

I had quite a few Facebook comments with her in the end......was quite surprised she didn't cotton on that I'm disassociated.....and no surprise she could not give scriptural reason for shunning disassociated. I took screen shots of our comments, that was just before they disappeared on FB. Hopefully made her think though.

Hadriel

1 Corinthians 5:11 is the primary basis or I should say it starts there. In this chapter the congregation in Corinth is being counseled to not associate with a man that is engaging in incest. This text also includes various other sins there in vs. 11 to show that you would not want to actively associate with those practicing these things.

Two letters in this scripture are the undoing of the organization for starters..."IS". So this scripture would only apply if the person "IS" practicing these things. Again the account here this man was belligerent. Essentially Paul is saying what the heck are you guys doing this guy is bad news.

Less would have issue with this doctrine if the scriptures were followed as prescribed here. See in that time there were no special blue envelops headed to a headquarters somewhere. When the congregation saw such behavior they were to limit their contact. Quit hanging out and so on. Essentially quit acting like there's no issue going a long as they always had with this person.

The kicker here is that as described by others 2 John 1:10 has been lumped in with this however there's little if any basis for doing this. In 2 John this was about those that were denying that Christ ever came. The Jews had preached about the Messiah coming for years now that he was there some were saying he really wasn't who he said he was. It was as simple as that. They denied that he physically came in the flesh.

This was a problem obvious as Jesus was changing things and if these folks didn't believe he was real then they obviously wouldn't follow his teachings.

I would say there are very very few "AntiChrists" that are disfellowshipped. Most are for fornication. In no way someone that commits this sort of sin is the AntiChrist.

Knowing this why in the world would the organization make this large stretch?

It's simple really...silence. It is important to silence ANYONE that brings constructive criticism. This criticism is postured as "poison", "deception" and "apostate lies".

What is is really though? Often nothing more than past doctrines that have been completely abandoned with little or in most cases NO explanation.

Hence this information from their own literature is so damning that they most go beyond the scriptures and letting the local congregation handling the matter to weaponization. An acute cutting off to silence you from speaking the truth.

Advice needed

Share this