by KateWild 34 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
thedog1,
Yes I am emoitionally attatched to my loved ones. I have missed two meetings. They want me to get RI'd. I love them dearly, but I will not go through this corrupt RI process any longer.
I am here for them, one sister is paying me a visit tonight. She is here now. Speak to you soon, love Sam xx
thedog1 said: I can only say that Christianity in its basic form is alive and well in our local cong.
What does your congregation do to help someone suffering from drug addiction? Do they open the doors to help these ones by hosting NA meetings? How does your basic form of christianity help people who are struggeling with addiction?
Oh that's right, you kick em while their down, kick them out and cut them off from support that may be crucial to recovery. Yeah, christianity alive and well!
hi Stealth, in the part of the world I live in this is not really a major issue. So I cannot comment on what you seem to be experiencing in your area. I do know that of course addiction in all its forms is very destructive. I have personally been involved with individuals who have suffered from addictions, and I know how tough it is to break free. I have tried in whatever way I can to help them individually and with scriptural principles, but I know many people also need the help of gov agencies and experts in these areas. Elders in the congs are not qualified to deal with many of these things but can offer spiritual comfort along with the help people can get from others.
thedog1:
You said: " Paul did say that the congregation should 'remove the wicked man from among yourselves,' so there is scriptural precedent for judicial action."
Why do you feel this scripture at 1 Cor. 5 indicates it is the responsibility of a body of elders, through a judicial committee, to "expel" an individual? Why isn't Paul simply giving advise to the individual members of the congregation - especially in light of the fact that the words in 1 Cor were followed by the majority, but not all (see 2 Cor. 2:6)?
In other words, regardless of how well-intentioned an elder is, no matter how concerned with justice he may be, it is not enough. The elder is past the biblical "precedent" simply by taking away the freedom of the other members of the congregation to make up his/her own mind to associate.
MMM
Well if we are to accept that Paul was inspired when the wrote these words,
(1 Corinthians 5:9-13) 9 In my letter I wrote YOU to quit mixing in company with fornicators, 10 not [meaning] entirely with the fornicators of this world or the greedy persons and extortioners or idolaters. Otherwise, YOU would actually have to get out of the world. 11 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. 12 For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Do YOU not judge those inside, 13 while God judges those outside? “Remove the wicked [man] from among yourselves.”
then we would have to act in accord with this. This seems to me to be a direction from Paul rather than simply a suggestion. How should we apply this today? There needs to be some benchmark for behaviour in the congregation, and after careful consideration and scriptural reflection, the body of elders would be in a position to make a call on this. Otherwise, this could descend into individual preference, which could be coloured by family or other issues, rather than basing it on scripture.
@thedog1,
Respectfully, you side-stepped my question. You may have done this unintentionally. You said: " and after careful consideration and scriptural reflection, the body of elders would be in a position to make a call on this."
WHY elders? Why not individual members for all sorts of "sins"? The scripture you cite does not imply centralized judicial action.
MMM
edit: As a clairification, I don't see the scriptural precedent for a judicial committee. I see the precedent for members deciding, perhaps that someone is a bad influence, and therefore limiting association. But there is no precedent for a body of elders to declare a person fit or unfit for association.
I suppose this depends on whether you acknowledge the right of a body of elders to guide and direct matters in a cong.
@thedog1:
"I suppose this depends on whether you acknowledge the right of a body of elders to guide and direct matters in a cong."
Why would anyone acknowledge that? Is there a scripture that would give them authority over the conscience of the members?
MMM
edit: Note, we aren't talking about 'directing matters' in a general sense. We are talking about telling members to shun another member based on a judicial decision.
who cares dude. It's friggin real estate laundering corporation.
Eff those guys.
the jerusalem bible is quite forceful, 'you must drive this evildoer from among you.' the revised standard version, 'drive out the wicked person from among you.' the new international version, 'expel the wicked man from your number.' all these suggest a concerted action, not simply a personal decision.
