Yes or No----Do You Believe That JWs Are A Cult?

by minimus 149 Replies latest jw friends

  • garybuss
    garybuss

    ***

    w52 11/15 pp. 703-704 Questions from Readers ***

    Questions

    from Readers

    ?

    In the case of where a father or mother or son or daughter is disfellowshiped, how should such person be treated by members of the family in their family relationship??P. C., Ontario, Canada.

    We are not living today among theocratic nations where such members of our fleshly family relationship could be exterminated for apostasy from God and his theocratic organization, as was possible and was ordered in the nation of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai and in the land of Palestine. "Thou shalt surely kill him; thy hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him to death with stones, because he hath sought to draw thee away from Jehovah thy God, . . . And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is in the midst of thee."?Deut. 13:6-11, AS.

    Being limited by the laws of the worldly nation in which we live and also by the laws of God through Jesus Christ, we can take action against apostates only to a certain extent, that is, consistent with both sets of laws. The law of the land and God?s law through Christ forbid us to kill apostates, even though they be members of our own flesh-and-blood family relationship. However, God?s law requires us to recognize their being disfellowshiped from his congregation, and this despite the fact that the law of the land in which we live requires us under some natural obligation to live with and have dealings with such apostates under the same roof.

    God?s law does not allow a marriage partner to dismiss his mate because his mate becomes disfellowshiped or apostatizes. Neither will the law of the land in most cases allow a divorce to be granted on such grounds. The faithful believer and the apostate or disfellowshiped mate must legally continue to live together and render proper marriage dues one to the other. A father may not legally dismiss his minor child from his household because of apostasy or disfellowshiping, and a minor child or children may not abandon their father or their mother just because he becomes unfaithful to God and his theocratic organization. The parent must by laws of God and of man fulfill his parental obligations to the child or children as long as they are dependent minors, and the child or children must render filial submission to the parent as long as legally underage or as long as being without parental consent to depart from the home. Of course, if the children are of age, then there can be a departing and breaking of family ties in a physical way, because the spiritual ties have already snapped.

    If children are of age and continue to associate with a disfellowshiped parent because of receiving material support from him or her, then they must consider how far their spiritual interests are being endangered by continuing under this unequal arrangement, and whether they can arrange to support themselves, living apart from the fallen-away parent. Their continuing to receive material support should not make them compromise so as to ignore the disfellowshiped state of the parent. If, because of acting according to the disfellowship order of the company of God?s people, they become threatened with a withdrawal of the parental support, then they must be willing to take such consequences.

    Satan?s influence through the disfellowshiped member of the family will be to cause the other member or members of the family who are in the truth to join the disfellowshiped member in his course or in his position toward God?s organization. To do this would be disastrous, and so the faithful family member must recognize and conform to the disfellowship order. How would or could this be done while living under the same roof or in personal, physical contact daily with the disfellowshiped? In this way: By refusing to have religious relationship with the disfellowshiped.

    The marriage partner would render the marriage dues according to the law of the land and in due payment for all material benefits bestowed and accepted. But to have religious communion with the disfellowshiped person?no, there would be none of that! The faithful marriage partner would not discuss religion with the apostate or disfellowshiped and would not accompany that one to his (or her) place of religious association and participate in the meetings with that one. As Jesus said: "If he does not listen even to the congregation [which was obliged to disfellowship him], let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector [to Jehovah?s sanctified nation]." (Matt. 18:17, NW) Hurt to such one would not be authorized, but there would be no spiritual or religious fellowshiping.

    The same rule would apply to those who are in the relation of parent and child or of child and parent. What natural obligation falls upon them according to man?s law and God?s law the faithful parent or the faithful child will comply with. But as for rendering more than that and having religious fellowship with such one in violation of the congregation?s disfellowship order?no, none of that for the faithful one! If the faithful suffers in some material or other way for the faithful adherence to theocratic law, then he must accept this as suffering for righteousness? sake.

    The purpose of observing the disfellowship order is to make the disfellowshiped one realize the error of his way and to shame him, if possible, so that he may be recovered, and also to safeguard your own salvation to life in the new world in vindication of God. (2 Thess. 3:14, 15; Titus 2:8) Because of being in close, indissoluble natural family ties and being of the same household under the one roof you may have to eat material food and live physically with that one at home, in which case 1 Corinthians 5:9-11 and 2 John 10 could not apply; but do not defeat the purpose of the congregation?s disfellowship order by eating spiritual or religious food with such one or receiving such one favorably in a religious way and bidding him farewell with a wish for his prosperity in his apostate course.

  • patio34
    patio34

    Thanks Gary for the reference. Haha, more than I wanted to know!

    I can see that it could be thought to be what Farkel said:

    They've even lamented in print that they regret not being able to stone children who do bad things.

    But I don't think I could ever repeat that to anyone and be convinced of it myself from what that WT says; especially where it says they're limited by the laws of the land and the laws of Jesus Christ.

    But I don't care. I just won't repeat it myself, haha.

    Have a nice evening. I don't see that you're in chat, but Farkel is. Night.

    Pat

  • minimus
    minimus

    I read that Bush said that but I can't provide the source......I like the Republicans, for the record, but what applies to JWs applies to ANY ruling form of government or party that keeps tight control over their "own". If ANY politicians went against their own party and started dissension within their ranks, they would be given no perks, positions or clout. That is a fact of political as well as JW "Cult" life.

  • heathen
    heathen

    They are a friggen mind control cult to the farthest extreme . I think if the WTBTS started to pass around some cool aid with arsenic in it and told them to drink it I think most wouldn't hesitate . Not likely to happen as farkel pointed out they need all these people to volunteer to sell their publication and raise money and the more dumbed down the better . What else could you say about it , when people tell you everything in the world is from satan but they are the only truth and hope for mankind .

  • Farkel
    Farkel

    minimus,

    : I read that Bush said that but I can't provide the source......

    Then shut the Fark up. Don't spout out stuff as if they were facts without qualifying them.

    Stop wasting our time dogging you and keeping you honest.

    Farkel

  • minimus
    minimus

    Fark you back. What do you think, I remember every source? You certainly don't back everything you say up. So get real and don't think you're that great to begin with. You ain't. Feel better?

  • Farkel
    Farkel

    patio34,

    Carefully read the quotes from the 1952 WT that Gary posted, and ask yourself this, "WHY would they comment that they don't have the power today to stone people who disagreed with them? WHY would that comment appear in that issue of the WTS, unless it implied that they don't like NOT having that power?

    Had someone who was sane (i.e. NOT a dub) and who was revolted at the ancient Jewish stoning sentence written the same article, that person might have written something like: "Unlike the old Law Covenant where the cruel and possibly sadistic practice of stoning to death was carried out, we are ruled by the law of Jesus, the rule of love,compassion, and forgiveness."

    Now, re-read the WT quote that Gary provided and tell me they were not PISSED OFF that they are prevented from stoning their enemies to death. Freddie's comments convince me that he was PISSED he could not execute people in the Old Testament way. Freddie ran the doctrine of that religion for most of the 70 years he was there, and almost ALL of his writings were about the Old Testament God. He didn't give a rat about Jesus, except to use him as a prop. He was an Old Testament guy and the WT is basically an Old Testament religion: with Jesus as a prop and a few select NT quotes which basically imply Old Testament violence and retribution.

    Sad sack of shit that Freddie Franz who mislead so many and then blamed them for it.

    Farkel

  • Farkel
    Farkel

    minimum,

    : Fark you back. What do you think, I remember every source?

    Of course not. Neither do I, but I don't generally talk out of my ass unless I can produce a source. You did NOT, and I called you on it. Don't try dub tricks on me, like this little strawman of yours. You couldn't produce your source and you didn't have the decency to admit it and retract your statement about Bush until you CAN find that "source." Your credibility in here has just shot to new lows, among thinking people. The rest don't count.

    :You certainly don't back everything you say up.

    Except for my own opinions, which I admit as such, I certainly do back up what I say, and when I can't or my information turns out to be faulty, I publically admit it. I've always been like that. That's one place where you and I differ: you spout out shit and hope no one will call you on it. When I call you on it, your lame excuse for your lack of evidence for FACTS is "what do you think, I remember every source?"

    : So get real and don't think you're that great to begin with.

    Of course, the lame arguers always must resort to one of the ad hominem variations: "So's yo' mamma! You think you're great! Your momma wears combat boots!, etc." This has nothing to do with anything but it makes the fool who's stating it feel better and maybe more in control of a losing situation.

    Minimum,

    Define "get real" as you used it to me above. If you want me to do it, just tell me what it is in plain and simple English.

    "..don't think that you're that great to begin with."

    This was not about me being great or thinking I'm great, and thus it's a red herring. I'll give you an example of a red herring just like that and that applies to you:

    "Minimum just started a thread wherein he wants the fame and the glory of having the LONGEST thread on the history of this board. He has a history and a pattern of starting lame threads just to draw attention to himself, even though most of them are inane and frivalous. Therefore, Minimum:

    "Don't think that you're that great to begin with."

    Do you see that my red herring is EXACTLY like your red herring? The conclusions had NOTHING to do with the evidence!

    You do your best with "fluff", and I do my best with "stuff." I can wander into your world because fluff doesn't involve any thinking. You wander into my world and you'd better come up with something more substantial than your comments. I'm merciless when people who are unarmed make statements they cannot substantiate, and you are no exception, Minimum.

    Sigh.

    Farkel

  • minimus
    minimus

    Fickle, why not do a google search on "God picked Bush" and read what it says. I did. Look at it yourself. And do you have sources about everything you've said about Jaracz, Rutherford, Franz and other Bethelites that you seem to be an authority on? Was Rutherford a cigar chomper? Is Jaracz the BOSS? Prove it. Did FWFranz write that Watchtower QFR or are you merely taking someone else's word? I really think you're a trip. You attack me, I respond and you're the victim......btw, that longest thread gets under your skin, doesn't it? You are sooo easy.

  • Farkel
    Farkel

    Minimum,

    Calm down, now.

    : Fickle, why not do a google search on "God picked Bush" and read what it says. I did. Look at it yourself. And do you have sources about everything you've said about Jaracz, Rutherford, Franz and other Bethelites that you seem to be an authority on? Was Rutherford a cigar chomper? Is Jaracz the BOSS? Prove it. Did FWFranz write that Watchtower QFR or are you merely taking someone else's word? I really think you're a trip. You attack me, I respond and you're the victim......btw, that longest thread gets under your skin, doesn't it? You are sooo easy.

    Please be specific with your charges, and don't expect me to do any "google searches." It's your assertion, and thus you have the burden of proof. Well?

    Now,

    You said:

    : Was Rutherford a cigar chomper?

    Is this so important that it would impact the lives of dubs today? The only evidence we have is anecdotal and even if it is wrong, it wouldn't mean squat in dubland, because dubs were not prevented from smoking in JFR's day.

    : Is Jaracz the BOSS? Prove it.

    That's what insider Bethelites call him, and they have everything to lose by coming out and saying it. What's more important is, why would I and others say this? What have we to gain by saying this? We could have just as easily said that Dan Sydlik or Bert Schroeder was "the boss," couldn't we? Even if that were so, SO WHAT? WHY would we say stuff like that if people who called him that hadn't told us that was what he was called. Didn't you know the Nathan Knorr was called "Pappa?" Why would people in Bethel tell us us that Jaracz is called "the BOSS" if that was not true.

    : Did FWFranz write that Watchtower QFR or are you merely taking someone else's word?

    Again, what does that have to with anything? The QFR stands by itself, regardless of who wrote it. Fred Franz was the only person with the brains and gall to introduce new doctrine in the WTS. They knew it, and he knew it. If you've read as much WTS crap as I have, it's not a great leap of intelligence to recognize the writing style of Fred Franz compared with other writers on the WTS staff. Have you read the Commentary on the Book of James? Have you read the Babylon the Great Has Fallen Book? Do you think the same person wrote them both?

    Of course not, you ninny! Franz wrote the "Babylon" book, and Ed Dunlap wrote the "James" book.

    Whether I'm right or wrong about any particular QFR, the material stands by itself, and whether I mention or not my opinion the FWF wrote it, and even if I'm wrong, my attact against the QFR is all that matters. I may be wrong about the author, but if I'm not wrong about the material, my argument still stands.

    Why I waste my time with you, I do not know.

    Farkel

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit