DAMNABLE CHRISTIAN CULT HERESY OF FORSAKING FAMILY FOR THE LORD

by FormerMormon 5 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  FormerMormon

  Matthew 19 (KJV- sorry, I don't know what version JW's use)

  29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters , or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

  I had to sit and listen to this blather on Sunday. (My wife is still a be lie ver, and I go to sacrament meeting for her) My wife exploded when I dared question it. She insists that this refers to those who are rejected by their family after they accept the gospel. That's not how the "scripture" reads though. Note, it does NOT say a brother forsaking the believer, or the wife forsaking the believer. It is the f**king believer forsaking the failing family member. I read alot of posts, esp at exmormon.org, where spouses leave after finding out the other no longer believes. Fortunately, my wife assured me she wouldn't leave me over church status.

  WHAT THIS F**KING "scripture" is, is a general pass, a general unlimited excuse for divorce. Anyone can leave anyone as long as it's for his "name's sake", whatever the f**king hell that means. " No tithing? No recommend, No hometeaching? I'm leaving for the "Lard's sake". I'm gunna find someone more worthy." --It wouldn't matter if you had the best non believing dad, sister or spouse. If you could find anyway they fall short of the glory of god, you have your golden ticket to get out.

  This is one of the things that has pissed me off about "scriptures" for decades. They make these reckless, irresponsible statements and then we get to deal with the carnage. Leaders, prophets and apostles can say and do anything with reckless abandon as long as they think it will herd the sheeple in the direction they want.

  This "scripture" is about killing relationships, divorces etc. It would be different if it mentioned a qualified RATIONAL reason for killing the relationship. Was there an egregious and chronic violation of the golden rule between the parties??? No, nothing of the sort was mentioned. But cults can't afford to start reasoning rationally can they?

  I think a sign of a cult is separation. The cult leader must separate the flock from the unbelievers who can talk sense to them. The cult must isolate (separate) we dissenters from spoiling the other apples. I can't tell you how many times I have been told I am the only one with this question or that problem.

  Sorry for the rant. This kinda crap just pisses me off. Words mean things. Wife says I am WAY off base interpreting this. Honestly, am I? Does anyone else feel this way when they read/ hear this kinda thing. If I'm the only one, maybe I should be checking into an institution or something. I'm sure SusanHere and QCMBR would like me to check into an institution... as long as it didn't have internet.

  Q... Is this proof of polygamy in the hereafter. What if it is the woman who forsakes her husband for the "lard's sake", does she get an hundred husbands in the hereafter?? What if she "forsakes" him twice??
• 

  Gopher

  FormerMormon,

  I agree with your understanding of this verse. Those who are believers will say Christ said it, and defend it because Christ always has to be right (in their mind). But as you said, this verse clearly states you should put following a belief ahead of family.

  Another verse that bothers me is Matthew 10:34, where Jesus said he came not to bring peace, but to bring a sword of division - even to families -- and that if you loved son or daughter more than him, you're not worthy of him.

  Jehovah's Witnesses use that latter verse to justify parents shunning their non-believing children and vice-versa. (I'm shunned by my own parents due to strict but selective interpretations of scriptures by the JW's.)

  Here's an interesting commentary on this verse: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_10:34

  BTW, JW's mainly use their own "New World Translation" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Translation ), although they are not averse to using other translations for comparison or variety.
• 

  momzcrazy

  As with many scriptures I have read recently I have a new take on this one. Leaving falsehood does cause a division within families. Just what if it should be applied to "unbelievers" as the beneficiaries of God's blessings? People who leave lose everything because they refuse to believe lies, they stay true to themselves and, in my case, teach your kids to do the same.

  Like many here, I have lost my mother to her religion. If my dad was alive he would do th same as Mom. But I have found more love and friendship among the "world" than I ever saw in the organization.

  momz
• 

  Chap

  Hi FormerMormon,
  
  I disagree with your interpretation of the Matthew passage. Here is a passage written to Timothy and a quote by Jesus concerning divorce. I don't think these are in agreement with the passage and interpretation you quoted.
  
  
  1 Tim. 5:7-8 (KJV)
  And these things give in charge, that they may be blameless. [8] But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
  
  Matthew 5:32 (KJV)
  But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
  
  
  
  
• 

  Gopher

  Chap,

  The context of Matthew 19 dealt with forsaking all things to follow Jesus. In verse 27 Peter said they'd forsaken all to follow Jesus, and asked what were they to get as a reward.

  In verse 29 -- Jesus answered as to what were the requirements for everlasting life -- not just to forsake family members, but also houses and fields (or lands) for his sake. So your interpretation of "forsake" could not apply to houses and fields, since those cannot lie or disown Jesus.

  In this context, "forsake" must mean an absolute abandonment or disregard. That's what non-believers are having a hard time understanding here.
• 

  Chap

  Hi Gopher,
  
  If I am not mistaken, the text that FormerMormon brought up is one of the accounts of the story of the rich young ruler. This man asked what he must do to get into heaven. Jesus said basically to keep all (his) commandments to which the man replied I have already done that. This seems to be a reply out of arrogance and instead of Jesus arguing with him, he gave the man a commandment that revealed to everyone who hears about this story the condition of his heart.
  
  Jesus was portrayed in the Bible as being in agreement with God the Father. God being the highest authority can command whatever he wishes. I think had the rich young ruler shown humility by saying something to the affect of "how can I do that?" or "I failed many times, how can I do better?", Jesus would have brought him along as one of his sheep giving him commands he can handle until he progresses to becoming more like God.
  
  Psalm 138:6 (KJV)
  Though the Lord be high, yet hath he respect unto the lowly: but the proud he knoweth afar off.
  
  
  Doesn't doing good at times in its purest form requiring forsaking everything else. For example, if a man is on a rural road, on the way to his church to get married and sees his enemy speed by him on a motorcycle then wipes out, doesn't good require him to stop and help out where he can and take him to a hospital or wait for an ambulance. If he does not forsake his bride to be and their families to help his enemy, he has forsaken God because God requires that we "love our enemies".