Sorry for the rant above - just one of those days I guess. Mrs Sam,
D'Fing and Love
by I-CH-TH-U-S 73 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
greendawn
The WTS disfellowshipping policy is extreme and diabolical it is applied to many actions that under no circumstances represent disfell/ing offences and for most other things offenders could be kept at a distance but lovingly admonished rather than shunned. No need to kick out the weak sheep to the wolves.
-
Finally-Free
Humans are by nature social creatures. Meaningful interaction with other humans is a need, not a luxury. A JW is not supposed to have "worldly" friends, so most have minimal contact with non-JWs. Then a JW makes a mistake and is DF'd. The result is that his entire social network and support structure is vaporized with a single sentence spoken from the platform. Family ties are severed. Immediately everyone must view the DF'd person as something loathsome, and most will never even know why. A public execution would be more "loving" - the pain doesn't last as long. But for JWs that would be less satisfying than destroying someone's reputation and humanity.
Do they do it out of love? Do they do it for the sake of justice? Or rather, is it to feed their insatiable desire to have something to look down upon?
Think about it, what defines their existence more than anything? What do they preach more than anything? Their preaching and writings are filled with condemnations for the world, it's people, it's religions, it's governments, it's entertainment, it's educational systems, it's businesses. Their purpose in life is to condemn, and they even do it to their own members, and over the most trivial matters.
They may claim that DFing is done out of love, but when you look at the whole picture it looks more like it's all about feeling superior to everything they can't control.
W
-
Cognitive_Dissident
I-CH-TH-U-S,
I can see where on the surface the disfellowhsipping policy may seem necessary from the standpoint of "keeping the congregation clean," following the logic of "a little leaven ferments the whole lump."
But the analogy does not hold. The logic employed to justify disfellowshipping is inherently flawed.
If the analogy of one or two drops of red dye turning an entire aquarium red were to validly apply to a congregation it would mean that ANY outside influence would have the same effect.
By removing someone from the congregation and prohibiting contact with that one under threat of punishment, the policy is saying in effect that those in the congregation are not spiritually mature enough to decide for themselves whom they should or should not associate with.
If "the Truth" as the Watchtower, Bible and Tract Society presents it, is as powerful and life-changing as they claim it to be, shouldn't it be able to instruct its individual followers well enough so that it's obvious who is and is not a "spiritual danger"?
And apart from that, does just listening to someone's ideas automatically guarantee that you will be "tainted" by them, and result in the complete rejection of everything that you currently "know to be the Truth"?
If the truth will actually set a person free, it should be able to stand up to different viewpoints and criticism. If an idea, or system of ideas, is threatened by even the most modest questions and criticisms, does it mean that the answer is simply to stop asking questions?
And what does it say about an organization which has implemented a policy which does exactly that - removes any person whose voice or actions raise a question concerning an established idea?
The scripture that is often quoted in disfellowshipping and disciplinary matters is Proverbs 27:11, which in the New World Translation reads: "Be wise, my son, and make my heart rejoice, that I may make a reply to him that is taunting me." The interpretation that is given to it by the Witnesses is that Witnesses need to act appropriately(do what the Society says), so that Jehovah can make a reply to Satan regarding the question of his sovereignty and right to rule, by saying to Satan, "Look, these people aren't forced, and they still haven't chosen to follow me." If any who disagree in action or thought are simply kicked out, what kind of basis for a reply is that?
If you threaten to punch someone in the face unless he tells you that you're right, and then ask him whether or not you're right, of what value is it when he tells you that you are?
I don't mean to beat this in to the ground, but I've been on all sides of this question, and none of them are rational or loving.
CD -
The Lone Ranger
The perverted Love of Jehovahs witness's http://home.c2i.net/norman/perverted-love.htm
-
sammielee24
If the analogy of one or two drops of red dye turning an entire aquarium red were to validly apply to a congregation it would mean that ANY outside influence would have the same effect.
This statement is so true - in essence - according to their own belief any outside influence is negative therefore I say that all JW's should immediately halt the preaching work! Hearing someone else's viewpoint might corrupt their thinking - of course there go the book sales so I guess in exchange we up the ante by dictating that all members alter their wills and bequeath any and all monies to the society. Or maybe we'll change the whole donation idea for publications to one of membership dues thereby setting a rate of service pay to be included in the membership. The society is hypocritical and prejudiced imho. SW
-
Ring Wielder
If you voluntarily join any organization, be it a golf club, a political party, or a religion and you flagrantly flout ITS rules, then you would expect some discipline, even being expelled, disfellowshipped. You have to have some disciplinary procedures in place. Disfellowshipping..in my opinion, is a biblical concept.
What I totally disagree with, is the practice of shunning. Being told by the body of elders that we should shun someone, without us knowing any facts about what they have done, is barbaric. I WOULD choose personally to shun someone I know to be a paedophile, but i would be quite happy to talk to someone who was kicked out of the club because of smoking. And yet, with the JWs, these two sins are of equal severity in Gods eyes...thats crazy.
Also, with reinstatement...did the prodigal son have to sit outside his fathers house for 6-9 months before he was let back in...and look at what he had got up to while he was away!
-
Cognitive_Dissident
If you voluntarily join any organization, be it a golf club, a political party, or a religion and you flagrantly flout ITS rules, then you would expect some discipline, even being expelled, disfellowshipped.
That is true, but how does that statement apply to those of us who were raised in it, and never had any real choice?
How much choice does a child have when, by the time he's old enough to start really analyzing the world around him, his entire world - family, friends, meetings three times a week, studying, etc. - is defined by the religion he was born in to? By the time someone who is raised as a Witness is old enough to voluntarily decide for himself whether or not he wants to be a part of that group, the negative consequences that await him if he decides to leave are absolutely devastating. It means walking away from family, friends, and everything you've ever really known.
The other thing is that there is an inherent dishonesty in trying to get people to become Witnesses, because the full picture is not presented to people who are studying. How many Witnesses give all the details of the disfellowshipping arrangement to newly interested ones? -
serendipity
Anewme said: ...or the serious sin is discovered to have been over a period of time and committed many times, sometimes the brothers have no recourse but to disfellowship the sinner.
I've found no scriptural support for this statement. The only scriptural support is to remove unrepentent sinners or those who deny Christ. A major problem with df'ing is the involvement of the elders on a JC. They have to make a judgment as to whether a person is repentent and they have to follow WTS guidelines that are questionable (2 witnesses?). IF one elder disagrees, he's encouraged to go along with the others. I'd rather leave it to individuals in the congregation to mark a shady character rather than have a JC that reproves or df', withholds privileges and then reinstates- each with a WTS-defined process that's subject to abuses of power and whims of imperfect men.
-
serendipity
Hi Cognitive_dissident,
I agree with the comment that it's dishonest that JWs don't make full disclosure to their studies. Why is that? I think most realize that info would chase people away and no one would want to be a JW.