Is Shunning an Act of Revenge?

by cameo-d 60 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  JustHuman14

  Mary I would add also in your comment:

  The primary scripture the Society uses for justification in this doctrine is found in 1 Corinthians 5:11 which says:

  "But now I am writing you to quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man."

  The scripture cited above in 1 Corinthians is clear that a person with whom the congregation should not mix company is one who is:

  1. "called a brother" (that is, one who professes to be a member of the congregation); and those who:
  2. practicing fornication, greed, idiolatry, reviling (insulting), habitual drunkenness, and/or extortion (theft).

  Since WT are completely hidding the original Greek text of this scripture here is another point to add: In the Original Greek text it says for mixing-sinanamignyete...and is the mixing of 2 compents to have ONE...

  So in the Greek scriptures when we have the word sinanamignyete it has to do with the Holy Communion. This is the only time when the Congregation becomes ONE when they share the mystery of Jesus Flesh and Blood.

  In other words this is what Apostle Paul told: If anyone has gone through serious sin you will not allow to the person to share with you Jesus blood and flesh. Simple as that. And this what the Orthodox Apostolic Church is doing ever since, and there is not even a Biblical evidence that the first Christian Congregation acted like WT does. The Church is a place of spiritual healing for the sinners, not a place of condemnation and hate like WT is
• 

  Spike Tassel

  No. It's not Revenge. It's an Act of Loyalty, based on Trust in the Elders.
• 

  jookbeard

  trust elders who may be pedophiles dont be so ridiculous Spike, next your be saying they've been appointed by holy spirit
• 

  fokyc

  I T IS an Act of revenge, t he elders just love revenge, they have NO love, only for themselves.

  You can have NO trust in elders, as I have repeated so many times they are AMORAL, whether they are taught this at elders schools I have no idea, but so many of them will lie so easily, I believe they must be taught to lie under the guise of theocratic warfare.

  fokyc
• 

  isaacaustin

  More like cultlike submission built on fear and guilt Spike.
• 

  Mary

  Barnes' Notes on the New Testament comments on these scriptures as to how to treat these ones mentioned in 1 Corinthians:

  We are here presented with directions in regard to our intercourse with those who are not members of the church, 1 Corinthians 5:10. There is nothing that is more difficult to be understood than the duty of Christians respecting such intercourse. Christians often feel that they are in danger from it, and are disposed to withdraw almost entirely from the world. And they ask with deep solicitude often, what course they are to pursue? Where shall the line be drawn? How far shall they go? And where shall they deem the intercourse with the world unlawful or dangerous? A few remarks here as rules may aid us in answering these questions: 1st. Christians are not wholly to withdraw from intercourse with the people of this world. This was the error of the monastic system, and this error has been the occasion of innumerable corruptions and abominations in the papal church. They are not to do this, because

  (a.) it is impossible. They must needs then, says Paul, go out of the world.

  (b.) Because religion is not to be regarded as dissocial, and gloomy, and unkind.

  (c.) Because they have many interests in common with those who are unconnected with the church, and they are not to abandon them. The interests of justice, and liberty, and science, and morals, and public improvements, and education, are all interests in which they share in common with others.

  (d) Many of their best friends--a father, a mother, a son, a daughter--may be out of the church, and religion does not sever those ties, but binds them more tenderly and closely.

  (e) Christians are inevitably connected in commercial dealings with those who are not members of the church; and to cease to have any connexion with them would be to destroy their own business, and to throw themselves out of employment, and to break up society.

  (f) It would prevent the possibility of doing much good either to the bodies or the souls of men. The poor, the needy, and the afflicted, are, many of them, out of the church; and they have a claim on the friends of Christ, and on their active beneficence.

  (g) It would break up and destroy the church altogether. Its numbers are to be increased and replenished from age to age by the efforts of Christians; and this demands that Christians should have some intercourse with the men of the world, whom they hope to benefit.

  (h) An effort to withdraw wholly from the world injures religion. It conveys the impression that religion is morose, severe, misanthropic; and all such impressions do immense injury to the cause of God and truth.

  2nd. The principles on which Christians should regulate their intercourse with the world, are these:

  They are to discharge with fidelity all the duties of a father, husband, son, brother, friend, benefactor, or recipient of favours, towards those who are out of the church, or with whom they may be connected.

  (d) They are to do good to all men--to the poor, the afflicted, the needy, the widow, the fatherless.

  So no---the Society's extremely harsh and unreasonable view that one must shun their own flesh and blood simply because they may no longer believe this is "the Truth", is without any scriptural basis whatsoever.

  A few months ago, Jim Penton gave me a copy of the book he wrote outlining the circumstances that led to his own disfellowshipping. Basically, it's Canada's version of what happened to Ray Franz and others in the early 1980s. In one section of the book, Jim described a conversation he had with Ray in either 1979 or 1980 when Ray was still a member of the Governing Body. It was right at that critical time that Ray described in CoC where the Organization had come to a crossroad: they could either lighten up on their Nazi-like rule, or come down even harder on any dissention and Ray was hoping against hope that they would chose the former. He encouraged Jim not to lose faith and to try and stick it out as he truly hoped things would be changing for the better.

  As we all know, that didn't happen and Jim was disfellowshipped about a year before Ray was. The one good thing that happened is that over 80 other Witnesses left (both relatives and others in his congregation in Lethbridge), as they were totally shocked and disgusted at the Organization's method of handling things.

  Yes, disfellowshipping is most definitely a form of revenge, no matter what dorks like Spike Tassel and Reniaa say (since they have nothing to back up their claims). It is neither scriptural, nor Christ-like and has devastated tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of lives. It's torn families apart, caused severe depression and even led to suicide. All in the name of the Watchtower.
• 

  DaCheech

  "respect" for liars and false prophets?

  get a job, and stop leeching off the goverment
• 

  Spike Tassel

  Disfellowshipping is NOT Revenge. It's what those loyal to Jehovah's congregational arrangement do, in response to the announcements they are aware of that are in effect.
• 

  Spike Tassel

  Disfellowshipping is a form of agape (a.k.a. principled love), just as going along with any other form of theocratic discipline is.
• 

  Spike Tassel

  "Shunning" isn't confrontational, such as "revenge" suggests. "Shunning" is really a form of "withdrawal", much as "cowardice" is.