Shammatta—"Disfellowshipping" Jewish Style

by AuldSoul 50 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  LittleToe

  AS:

  LittleToe, I know SBF is a friend of yours, but he's a pain in the a--, too, sometimes.

  He's just as much a friend as you are. Though I knew him from being a nipper I've not seen him since I left the JWs. Sure he can be a pain in the ass, but can't we all? To my mind he brings some fresh thoughts to an otherwise increasingly drab subject. He's intelligent and has his own perspective. While he may not concur with comments about the extent of the corruption in the organisation he's at least entitled to his opinion based upon his own subjective experiences, isn't he?

  Btw, your rebuttal of his comment about comparisons to the first century is a little over the top and nitpicking in the extreme. He contributed to the point as you invited.

  SBF:
  Denominations who make much of "returning to the root practises of the original church" often miss the fact that the "first century Christians" were a lot more disorganised than they attempt to prove.

  The one example of someone being put out of the congregation is of an incestuous Corinthian who was even causing the world at large disgust. His return seems to have been with open arms after a simple change in life-course. Even Demetrius wasn't expelled, though not particularly liked.

  Methinks Paul was maybe exposing some of his Jewish roots in instigating any form of shunning, hence the original thread comments on Shammatta. To my mind it wasn't the teaching of Christ, though totally understandable in a social context. Basically people and groups rarely tolerate those whom they feel display wildly aberrant lifestyles.

  Where I personally have difficulties with the WTS is that they have a long list of phariseeical rules for which they will arbitarily DF someone. It is abhorrant to me to see folks being shunned for voting, taking a blood transfusion, or celebrating birthdays. These things should be completely up to the conscience of the individual. For this reason I personally hold that the shunning policy is the thing that distinguishes them as a cult. If it were not for that I would just categorise them as one of the more wacky but relevant religions.
• 

  AuldSoul

  LittleToe: ...your rebuttal of his comment about comparisons to the first century is a little over the top and nitpicking in the extreme.

  Maybe its a cultural thing, LittleToe, a bit of something lost in translation. I told him it was a flawed interpretation on his part, he pressed the issue further and with more aspersion, so I verbally stomped on his big toe to stop his belaboring of a false impression of his.

  LittleToe: For this reason I personally hold that the shunning policy is the thing that distinguishes them as a cult.

  I agree that this distinguishes them as a cult, but I think there is another doctrine that would also fit the bill. The doctrine that the organization provides all the Spiritual information; that they should look nowhere outside the organization for Spiritual insights is also a mark of a cult.

  The man who was later welcomed back was never shunned by an imposed organizational edict. Paul even admits that the admonition was only given by the majority, meaning the choice of whether to shun the person was left to the individual congregant. It doesn't seem to me that sort of policy would have been out of harmony with Matthew 18:15-17, so long as the one expelled could still be treated as Jesus and Paul treated men of the nations and tax collectors.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  AuldSoul

  LittleToe: While he may not concur with comments about the extent of the corruption in the organisation he's at least entitled to his opinion based upon his own subjective experiences, isn't he?

  Everyone is always entitled to their own opinion. But he is not entitled to offer his opinions as though he is a contradictory authority on the issue if his subjective experiences do not include the interactions specifically addressed. To do so is a logical fallacy: argument from personal incredulity.

  Everyone is entitled to hold an opinion on any matter. Everyone is not always entitled to argue their opinion as logically valid, especially not if they are going to peevishly contradict someone in the arguing.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  sir82

  Elders on the forum: Do interactions with the Service Desk and certain COs or DOs give you the impression that you are viewed as amhaarets?

  In a feeble attempt to get the thread back on track: In my limited experience in dealing with the Service Department via telephone, my impression was that they thought they were doing me a big favor just by deigning to talk to me, and could barely keep the contempt for my "stupidity" out of their voice.

  And of course it is utterly verboten to know who you are talking to - if you want ever want to feel what it must be like to be stabbed with an icicle, just call the service department and ask "could you tell me your name?"

  But of course they ask you alls sorts of stuff first - name, rank, congregation name, etc.
• 

  AuldSoul

  Thanks for sharing that experience, sir82.

  How did those interactions influence your opinion of the upper echelon of the organization?

  Did you feel loved and cared for by the men who wouldn't tell you their names?

  Do you see the practice of disfellowshipping among JWs as an act of love? And why?
• 

  sir82

  How did those interactions influence your opinion of the upper echelon of the organization?

  By the time I dealt with them, I was well along the path of mental freedom from the org. I had no illusions about the upper echelons being holier, more loving, etc.

  Did you feel loved and cared for by the men who wouldn't tell you their names?

  Certainly not - see response above. However, thinking back on my gung-ho days, I probably would have rationalized it away, along the lines of "these brothers have such heavy ressponsibilities, of course they don't have time to deal with my little concerns."

  Do you see the practice of disfellowshipping among JWs as an act of love? And why?

  Now - not at all. In the past - Yes, I bought the rationalizations about it being an act of "tough love" - "you've got to be cruel to be kind", etc.
• 

  emptywords

  Ok without haveing to start a new thread can I hyjack this one....

  I ask a question to all the elders too. Did you feel superior to the average joe, being an elder and all, gee wiz you would sit on commitees and judge, listen to confessions, view service reports and come and visit us at times when our service was not at the GB status report.

  Pray tell me what did you think of us...
• 

  Quandry

  A lot of JWs and ex-JWs believe the GB sucks up to the elders. That was why I asked for their input on the issue. Nothing could be further from the reality. They placate and humor the elders occasionally, but the elders are constantly reminded of their place in the organization; a place FAR below the GB.

  True! True! The elders in reality are the "robot drones" who are to carry out whatever "new light" the GB comes up with. A case in point:

  I was discussing the 1995 "generation" change with him, and how I couldn't believe that no one, including him, was in an uproar about it. He was the Watchtower study conductor at the time, and said that all he was concerned with was trying to understand the new interpretation-the "new light" so that he could adequately explain it to the congregation as that was his duty. He did not dare to stop and think about whether it in fact seemed reasonable or not. He was just to "assimilate" the information and parrot it to others.

  Whatever distasteful chore the GB dreamed up, the elders were the ones to implement it.

  My husband, obviously no longer an elder, now calls it "new blight."
• 

  AuldSoul

  emptywords: Did you feel superior to the average joe, being an elder and all, gee wiz you would sit on commitees and judge, listen to confessions, view service reports and come and visit us at times when our service was not at the GB status report.

  There may be some elders posting here who did, emptywords, but I imagine the sort that leave wouldn't really be into the power trip thing as much. I'd wager that every elder and ex-elder here knows at least one elder who revels in the authority. I know quite a few, but at one time or another I was in 9 congregations and visted two others often enough to know the elders very well. Between that and serving at conventions and assemblies you learn to discern who is in it for the glory.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  LittleToe

  My experience was "the smaller the man, the bigger the chip on their shoulder". Some guys revelled in being an Elder etc., perhaps because it gave them an authority trip that they couldn't find elsewhere in life.

  I can only imagine how this influenced their judicial decisions. Often emotion got completely in the way of logic and if there was a perceived slight (especially if you hadn't followed their counsel to the letter) you were on a fast road to DFing. Some were sticklers for the rulebook, some would bend it to their own particular preference (for or against an individual), some would pretty much throw it out of the window altogether...