Pity no mention of WTS....
URL http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2288575/Giving-cold-shoulder-It-painful-researchers-claim.html (sorry on ipad cant link it properly)
Apologies if noted already
TSRTS
Daily Mail shunning article...
by The Song Remains The Same 4 Replies latest forum tech-support
-
-
cedars
Thanks The Song, very interesting. Here is the clickable link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2288575/Giving-cold-shoulder-It-painful-researchers-claim.html
Cedars
-
AnnOMaly
The comments are interesting.
Some say there is a place for shunning under certain circumstances, but it's to be noted that these circumstances share one common factor - the shunning happens as a result of a PERSONAL problem between people or where somebody is cutting out a harmful, toxic individual from their lives. In the computer game, there has been no just cause to shun the person and this creates the internal conflicts and pain.
This is, of course, different from institutionalized shunning. The person hasn't offended everyone personally, but everyone has to unitedly shun him/her.
This wasn't Jesus' way.
(Matthew 18:15-17) 15 “Moreover, if your brother commits a sin, go lay bare his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take along with you one or two more, in order that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every matter may be established. 17 If he does not listen to them, speak to the congregation. If he does not listen even to the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector.
The NWT doesn't have 'you' in capitals to signify plurality. 'You' is in lowercase - singular. So if a person wrongs you and it cannot be resolved even when the congregation became involved, 'you' as an individual, would limit association - NOT the whole community.
-
smiddy
This same article was published in the Herald Sun Melb.Vict. 7/3/13 . However a more condensed version which I replied to in a letter to the editor that wasnt published today.Highlighting the policy of JW`s.
smiddy
-
00DAD
Interesting article. Thanks for sharing it, TSRTS!
Ann, I agree with you completely. It is a very different thing for an INDIVIDUAL to decide on their own whether or not they want to end a relationship with someone than the way shunning is practiced among JWs. As we all know, with them it is--as you described it--an INSTITUTIONALIZED form of shunning whereby all JWs everywhere are obliged to shun an individual just because three elders somewhere said so. In theory at least, the majority of the JWs don't even know why they are shunning the person except that they are following "theocratic direction" aka "orders."
Two more points:
- According to the scripture in Matthew 18, the entire congregation was to be involved in the process and/or decision (assuming it got to that point), not just three elders. It was a public (or at least a community) process not conducted in a secret Star Chamber. Even then, it was up to each individual to decide how to treat someone that "does not listen to them."
- Finally, the scripture says that such a person would be treated " as a man of the nations and as a tax collector." We were told that the Jews generally didn't have close association with such people. This is NOT the same as the extreme form of shunning practiced by JWs today.
All in all, when you examine shunning as practiced by Jehovah's Witnesses, you find that it does not harmonize with what the Bible teaches.
In the end, we realize that the WTBTS has takes scriptures and twisted their meaning to create policies that are intended to control people.
The article referenced in the OP shows that shunning not only injures the person that is shunned, but it hurts those doing the shunning. Way to go WT! Because of you're insane need to control people, you have found a way to harm everyone involved.
Let's review: It's a cult!
00DAD