Posts by TheWonderofYou

120

The right to shun - wrong?

by Simon in

many people are understandably upset and angry at the notion that jws have the right to shun people.

it seems such an obvious "no brainer" cruel and inhuman thing to do - it must be wrong ... surely?.

of course we look at things from the perspective of those hurt and harmed by shunning.

TheWonderofYou

JW shunning considered "Social shunning" vs. Mental shunning"of individuals.... the world knows it!

Part 2

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-time-cure/201303/shunning-the-ultimate-rejection-part-ii

The loving arrangement under fire,

At the moment i think that any form of shunning is a lack of love, what means that we are not always able to be good 100 percent, its lately our mistake too out fear or because the group wants to show who is the dominat bull and we play the game or because a person or a group doesnt really want to approach a person, other culture, boring person, problematic person, dangerous person,, better be cautious and withdraw the love.

What are the rules for the congregation?

Jesus said in cases 12/10, the paragraph of the human rights, that some persons in the congregation will be difficult cases, but love has no limit, its only your fear that limits you, to approach others 77 times.

Did you ever visit a former bro in a jail? Must be difficult. He wouldnt be your best friend, but not shunning him that would be nearly 99/100 love level.I think that only a pope would do such a thing. An average christian would not be so good. It would say.. i warned him..now i wash my hands in innocence...shall others help him, try to chance him.. for me this guy is ultimately lost.

Now I think of jws who go to jails and have bible studies......then they dont judge these criminals..speaking about love and repentance ...

...but why are the same elders judges in J/Cs and withdrawing love in minor cases that dont end in jail....and make ultimative shunning decisions .and avoiding ultimate devisions if abuse is obviously ? Okay thats another subject

120

The right to shun - wrong?

by Simon in

many people are understandably upset and angry at the notion that jws have the right to shun people.

it seems such an obvious "no brainer" cruel and inhuman thing to do - it must be wrong ... surely?.

of course we look at things from the perspective of those hurt and harmed by shunning.

TheWonderofYou

Interesting psychology today about shunning and bullying ..evolution

JWshunning considered "Social shunning" vs." Mental rejection"

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-time-cure/201302/shunning-the-ultimate-rejection

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-time-cure/201303/shunning-the-ultimate-rejection-part-ii

I have a thought and perhaps it will be acknowledged...

Shunning as loving arrangement is done to bring someone back to the flock, let us look on the evolutionary reasons.

225

Cult or Religion

by Richard C B in

what is a cult and what is a religion?

its open to debate.

who has the authority to say for certain what is a cult and what is a religion?

TheWonderofYou

Somebody already wrote in an other thread example for mindcontrol:

Behavior Control

Information Control

Thought Control

Emotional Control

Links

1: Steve Hassan's criteria for mind control

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/25532/jehovahs-witnesses-cult

2. A Study of the Persuasion Techniques Used by Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watchtower.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/544/persuasion-techniques-used-jws

3. written by Jang: Social Psychology And Group Dynamics

Cognitive Dissonance and again about Hassan.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5822/social-psychology-group-dynamics

4. Combatting Mind controll with WT references

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/112308/combatting-mind-control-steve-hassan-wt-references

5) High Control Groups

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/14262/fyi-understanding-high-control-groups-better

18

Shunning legal since 1987

by TheWonderofYou in

legality[edit].

in june 1987, the united states court of appeals for the 9th circuit upheld the witnesses' right to shun those who fail to live by the group's standards and doctrines, upholding the ruling of a lower court, finding that "shunning is a practice engaged in by jehovah's witnesses pursuant to their interpretation of canonical text, and we are not free to reinterpret that text ... the defendants are entitled to the free exercise of their religious beliefs ... the members of the church [she] decided to abandon have concluded that they no longer want to associate with her.

we hold that they are free to make that choice."[99][100].

TheWonderofYou

I was baptized as teenager. I had no idea that the subject DF shunning could violate human rights then.

If it would be only a public announcment like:

Case 1 "Brother X decided to seize his publisher service but he will remain unactive fellow-believer... / the reasons are private, (we would not public announce the reasons whether he doest believe in 1914 or in Armagedon or has a girlfriend) we will respect him now as good friend, because he is a very sincere and respectable person like his whole family, but he quits his service for private reasons and we will treat him with brotherly love, charity and loving neighbourship like all men"

this would be public ending of a special servie and would not be a mobbing.

Case 2: "Brother X decided to seize his service and we hope that he further remains our fellow believer. We respect his achievments in our congregation and love his family. We will always show love, charity and loving neigbhourship to him and his family."

again public but lovingly. No ending of family bonds anymore! How wonderful that TTaT would be.

Even if the bible uses the word "shun" this

would not mean that JW should use the whole "caliber" of shunning techniques that are available, neither in writing nor in reality.

And many witnesses in reality already dont follow this rigid rules. They are greating me and smile to me even. really, because they know that I am a good fellow, always was and always would be! The older elders try to convert me a second time, thats typical and I find it funny.

____

I think the laywers at the court think of the "little shunning", but not of the "grand shunning pratices" that JW use, therefore they think it would not contradict human rights.

Its a lack of information about the real cruel of shunning in the cult.

18

Shunning legal since 1987

by TheWonderofYou in

legality[edit].

in june 1987, the united states court of appeals for the 9th circuit upheld the witnesses' right to shun those who fail to live by the group's standards and doctrines, upholding the ruling of a lower court, finding that "shunning is a practice engaged in by jehovah's witnesses pursuant to their interpretation of canonical text, and we are not free to reinterpret that text ... the defendants are entitled to the free exercise of their religious beliefs ... the members of the church [she] decided to abandon have concluded that they no longer want to associate with her.

we hold that they are free to make that choice."[99][100].

TheWonderofYou

If this "she will be shunned" pratice would be merely the little daily "shunning" it sounds even acceptable. If it would only mean than:

We dont have so much contact any more because we dont now about what to speak or what to do togehter, but we speak with the person and we help her to remain in the community if he wants, famikly contacts remain. .... than that would be okay.

I have a neighbour , i would never invite him, because I dont like his behaviour, we are not friends, i dont want him in my clique. This is the little shunning, nobody can urge me to like him. In the congregation sometimes we shun someone too, if we exclude the person from a clique, dont we?

If you read the JWorg text you think shunning is something acceptable.

But this is not little shunning it is a group shunning.....like a group mobbing, mobbing is illegal.

18

Shunning legal since 1987

by TheWonderofYou in

legality[edit].

in june 1987, the united states court of appeals for the 9th circuit upheld the witnesses' right to shun those who fail to live by the group's standards and doctrines, upholding the ruling of a lower court, finding that "shunning is a practice engaged in by jehovah's witnesses pursuant to their interpretation of canonical text, and we are not free to reinterpret that text ... the defendants are entitled to the free exercise of their religious beliefs ... the members of the church [she] decided to abandon have concluded that they no longer want to associate with her.

we hold that they are free to make that choice."[99][100].

TheWonderofYou

Right.. They say they dont shun offically, interesting.

But the problem remains the same. I could not say to anyone I know in the congo , hey i dont believe in this things anylonger, but i like to sit here and listen.
Either I go away or i will be expelled.

They fought for their right to shun, but obviously the meant only "excommunication" and not the "no greating thing, the disgusting things"....?
Because they say that they dont shun at all.
Obviously the word "shun" is only falsely in the law text.

But why did they not only speak of excommunication/DF withouth that unnecessary "shun"-touch incl add-ons like not greating eg.? Was it really necessary to shun that woman in america to avoid compensation for damages?

Perhaps this former sister looked like a witch that should be shunned.

18

Shunning legal since 1987

by TheWonderofYou in

legality[edit].

in june 1987, the united states court of appeals for the 9th circuit upheld the witnesses' right to shun those who fail to live by the group's standards and doctrines, upholding the ruling of a lower court, finding that "shunning is a practice engaged in by jehovah's witnesses pursuant to their interpretation of canonical text, and we are not free to reinterpret that text ... the defendants are entitled to the free exercise of their religious beliefs ... the members of the church [she] decided to abandon have concluded that they no longer want to associate with her.

we hold that they are free to make that choice."[99][100].

TheWonderofYou

Gone for good: A judicial committee cannot be formed in respect to a former member. And you are legally free to quit any religion at any time you chose. Stop making targets of yourselves - quit the f-----g cult now. Make a written record of the date to show the hounders when they finally track you down - they have no authority over you unless you grant it to them.

I like your tip: It is like over-rolling the cults procedure. Would be possible also in countries were the religion is state approved. Only resign in time at the proper authority.

But wouldnt they "shun" me anyway if i would suddenly disappear. Would my family members than not stop greating and visiting me anyway? I am not sure. It is very risky.

23

TV.JW.ORG - October 2015: Neighborly love is more than just Field Service

by Designer Stubble in

the october 2015 jw broadcast, hosted by gerrit losch is quite positive actually.a lot of focus on "field service" needs to be balanced with other good works - supporting those in need around you - either in the congregation (witnesses) or in your classroom or neighbors (non-witnesses).

visiting and encouraging the sick and elderly is mentioned.

jesus parable of the merciful samaritan is highlighted.

TheWonderofYou

I wont believe it as long as there is not a special campaign "refugee help", "help for the poor" with a distinct account for refugees where I can send my money. Otherwise the money goes always to the organisation and I cant decide what they make with it.

23

TV.JW.ORG - October 2015: Neighborly love is more than just Field Service

by Designer Stubble in

the october 2015 jw broadcast, hosted by gerrit losch is quite positive actually.a lot of focus on "field service" needs to be balanced with other good works - supporting those in need around you - either in the congregation (witnesses) or in your classroom or neighbors (non-witnesses).

visiting and encouraging the sick and elderly is mentioned.

jesus parable of the merciful samaritan is highlighted.

TheWonderofYou

The broadcast has shocked me, because the others are called "outsiders"

So there is distinction between the "disciples of Jesus" "preachers" in the parable and the "outsiders".

A religion that has it necessary to explain to its followers what is neighbourly love and labels them "outsiders" is strange. The Samaritanians are compared to outsiders?

Of course the building of kingdom halls is "sacred service" and not the charity towards outsiders, that is not "sacred service". So why not concentrating your efforts in sacred service than otherwise to let your light shiiiiiinnnnnne, as the bro. beautiful pronounced it.

Than: We have distaster relief service too that is also an activity of neighbourly love, and helping your brothers is neigbourly love too. So help goes first to the sisters and brothers.

So thats good begin this help in disaster, but if that is all, its not sufficient. Where are the regulare compains, like sending pioneers to Lesbos in greece helping the refugees. Only preaching in refugee camps is not sufficient.

"Does not the Management Committee of EAJW in Europe have the power

"to contribute funds to give spiritual and incidental humanitarian assistance in particular to the poor, the homeless and the sick especially in under-developed countries"

according to its constitution that is known to the United Nations and basis of its charity status?

18

Shunning legal since 1987

by TheWonderofYou in

legality[edit].

in june 1987, the united states court of appeals for the 9th circuit upheld the witnesses' right to shun those who fail to live by the group's standards and doctrines, upholding the ruling of a lower court, finding that "shunning is a practice engaged in by jehovah's witnesses pursuant to their interpretation of canonical text, and we are not free to reinterpret that text ... the defendants are entitled to the free exercise of their religious beliefs ... the members of the church [she] decided to abandon have concluded that they no longer want to associate with her.

we hold that they are free to make that choice."[99][100].

TheWonderofYou

Legality[edit]

In June 1987, the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld the Witnesses' right to shun those who fail to live by the group's standards and doctrines, upholding the ruling of a lower court, finding that "shunning is a practice engaged in by Jehovah's Witnesses pursuant to their interpretation of canonical text, and we are not free to reinterpret that text … The defendants are entitled to the free exercise of their religious beliefs … The members of the Church [she] decided to abandon have concluded that they no longer want to associate with her. We hold that they are free to make that choice."[99][100]

Does this law really say shunning ? Is it cited correctly?