CAN YOU FEEL THE LOVE HERE?

by Mary 29 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Mary

  Forcher said: That is what always happens when law becomes the most important thing. But then, what can we expect out of a religion started by a lawyer?

  Actually, Charles Russell, while having some really strange beliefs, never advocated shunning anyone, let alone your own flesh and blood, the way that the WTS dictates today. If anything, he was far more tolerant than those that came after him.

  Baba Yaga asked: Hey, Mary, is your Mom getting better?

  Yes, finally and thanks for asking. She's still very weak though and I think it'll be a couple more weeks before she's 100% better. Pretty scary how quickly something can overtake you like that.

  I actually spoke to a Professor of Law about formal church shunning and our Rights under the Canadian Constitution. He said it's a "tricky" situation that the government doesn't want to get involved with at least for now because then it's a matter of dictating to a church who they have to accept and who they don't have to accept. And because the Witnesses are amongst the very, very few religions who teach such an extreme form of shunning and don't vote anyway, why should the government get involved?
• 

  BabaYaga

  "...and don't vote anyway, why should the government get involved?"
  Touche', dear... touche'. Indeed, the aspect of not voting is a very poignant and interesting point.
  
  So glad Mum is doing better!!! Strength to both of you.
  
  Hugs
  Baba.
• 

  frozen one

  Whats laughable about witnesses who shun those who smoke is that many of them are totally ignorant about why smoking is a bootable offense. When asked about smoking the typical answer relates to the health effects of smoking and the body is a temple, you know. The official reason is the society tied smoking tobacco to spiritism and demons. Afterall, if the health effects of smoking is such a great sin, wouldn't drinking, eating "unhealthy" and not exercising be equally great sins? Are Big Macs and Krispey Kremes a good thing to feed your temple?

  I have a lot of relatives who show the same "love." Treat those who live "wordly" lives but were never dedicated decently, treat those living identical lives (in some cases better lives) but were dedicated like they are dead. It is crazy.

  By the way, if I'm wrong on the smoking issue correct me. I don't want to be holding on to old light beliefs.
• 

  JWdaughter

  It is a very sad irony that the child who probably was the most loving and eager to please child (hence, she was the only one baptised) is the one that is rejected. I think that after a certain point, parents should lose the priveledge of calling themselves parents. The only thing I knew EVER about my kids before they were born until today, is that I will love them NO MATTER WHAT and will never reject them.
• 

  JWdaughter

  mary said: I actually spoke to a Professor of Law about formal church shunning and our Rights under the Canadian Constitution. He said it's a "tricky" situation that the government doesn't want to get involved with at least for now because then it's a matter of dictating to a church who they have to accept and who they don't have to accept. And because the Witnesses are amongst the very, very few religions who teach such an extreme form of shunning and don't vote anyway, why should the government get involved?

  It is kind of funny, while JWs WON'T vote, most EX JW's have no such compunctions. The gov't can't lose except for that pesky issue of 'freedom of religion'. However, they actually infringe on the rights of others to worship(or not) freely by their religious teachings when it forces people who wish to maintain normal family ties to attend a church they have no wish to be involved in. Isn't there some kind of crime involved there? In the US we are not supposed to be threatened in any way that forces us to attend a church. Doesn't the WT in a de facto way do exactly that?
• 

  Forscher

  Actually, Charles Russell, while having some really strange beliefs, never advocated shunning anyone, let alone your own flesh and blood, the way that the WTS dictates today. If anything, he was far more tolerant than those that came after him.

  I quite agree with you that Russell didn't. I am one of those who consider Jehovah's Witnesses to be a creation of Rutherford though. After going through the history of the organization, I noted that Rutherford spun Jehovah's Witnesses off of the larger Bible Student movement to create the religion in 1931. That would make Russell the founder of Jehovah's Witnesses only in the same sense that Menno Simons might be said to be the founder of the Amish. Russell started the Bible Students as part of the Adventist movement and Rutherford more properly started the Witnesses after most of the Bible Students ceased association with the WTBTS after he siezed power. The Bible Students are still around today though they don't number as many.

  Since Rutherford was a lawyer, my statement is not without merit.

  Forscher
• 

  Mary

  JWdaughter said: It is a very sad irony that the child who probably was the most loving and eager to please child (hence, she was the only one baptised) is the one that is rejected.

  Actually, you got that part spot on! Over the years she has paid for her parents to vacation in Florida, she's given them antique furnishings worth thousands of dollars, when her father had a heart attack 10 years ago, she flew out west and spent a month with him, she's fed them, kept them, entertained them, and sheltered them. None of her sisters did anything. And this is the thanks she gets.

  Forcher said: I am one of those who consider Jehovah's Witnesses to be a creation of Rutherford though.

  I quite agree. There's virtually nothing about the religion that Charles Russell would even recognize.
• 

  BrendaCloutier

  (((( Mary )))) (((( Mary's xdub friend ))))

  I surely feel for you, and her! After getting that dose of love from my own step-sister. Ah, yes, and you shall know them they their love.
• 

  gumby

  Frozen one said,

  Afterall, if the health effects of smoking is such a great sin, wouldn't drinking, eating "unhealthy" and not exercising be equally great sins? Are Big Macs and Krispey Kremes a good thing to feed your temple?

  Overeating (or gluttony) is listed right along with the rest of the defilements of the flesh in the book of Romans, yet how many witnesses overeat and have health issue because of that very fact? A shitload, that's how many. I'll bet 60% of the publishers in my hall are extreemly overweight......elders included, yer NEVER are any of these ones even as so much ever talked to about this horrible sin that's listed alongside adultry.

  Gumskinny
• 

  Mary

  Gumby said: how many witnesses overeat and have health issue because of that very fact? A shitload, that's how many. I'll bet 60% of the publishers in my hall are extreemly overweight......elders included, yer NEVER are any of these ones even as so much ever talked to about this horrible sin that's listed alongside adultery.

  What's ironic about that problem is that many are actually discouraged from exercising, thus contributing more to the problem. My girlfriends' son David used to go to Gold's Gym to do his workout and keep in shape. While he certainly didn't look like Arnie, he has muscles which I think are a good thing. The fat-bodied, beer guzzling elders were more jealous than a teenaged girl of the way he looked and actually brought it to the attention of the CO as David was pioneering at the time. They complained that he was "spending too much time in the gym" (one whole hour a day, 5 days a week---gasp!) The CO stood there on the platform, rambled off that scripture about how "bodily training is only beneficial for a little" and pointedly asked "...Can you imagine Jesus going to Gold's Gym?" David was embarassed (as was intended) and pissed off to no end and stopped pioneering shortly afterwards.

  Yes smoking is bad for you and I've tried getting my girlfriend to quit, simply for health reasons. But as Gumby already mentioned, there are more ways to show "disrespect" for your body than just by smoking, yet they aren't disfellowshipping offenses and are problems that at least 1/2 the congregation have........once again: there's no consistency whatsoever here.