Micheal:
I WOULD NEVER ALLOW ANY JW TO INTER ACT WITH ANY OF MY CHILDREN. THEY ARE FREAKS WITH WITH EXTREMLY DESTRUCTIVE AND DANGEROUS BELIEFS.So that's a maybe then?I WOULD NOT WANT MY SON OR DAUGHTER POISENED BY THEIR HATRED AND LIES!!!
by Nosferatu 34 Replies latest social family
Micheal:
I WOULD NEVER ALLOW ANY JW TO INTER ACT WITH ANY OF MY CHILDREN. THEY ARE FREAKS WITH WITH EXTREMLY DESTRUCTIVE AND DANGEROUS BELIEFS.So that's a maybe then?I WOULD NOT WANT MY SON OR DAUGHTER POISENED BY THEIR HATRED AND LIES!!!
from here sounds like you guys are treating the JWs how they treat other people. No JW books, No JW meetings, no hanging around JWs unsupervised. Replace JW with the word worldly and you see the resymblance.
I could see a potential problem if a DFed person's child became a JW. The child would then have to shun the parent.
One thing I was thinking about is not letting my mother take my child(ren) to a meeting. If my kid(s) want to see what a meeting is like, I'll take them. That way, if they get bored within the two hours, I can take them home.
Not really JWs are not required to shun any family member. They many just do. I have no idea why.
XQ You are playing with words the way the WTS teaches people to play with words.
Best case:
Franz was DFed for having lunch with his boss who was DFed
Guess they thought it was a good way to get rid of someone who really knew what was going on
What TD said. The religion holds no appeal to a healthy person.
XQ is an outright liar.
My mother tried influencing my daughters when they were little (under age 7). They are now 13 and 11. I told my mother to stop reading the Lie-Society's literature to my girls and she flat out refused. So I told her if she didn't stop she wouldn't see my girls again and I would file child abuse charges against her as well as a civil suit if necessary.
My oldest brother, who was a raving JW lunatic MS at the time, had just had his daughter taken from him by family services for punishing her a tad more than logic called for -- all in the name of Jerkovah -- and that experience scared my mother badly. All I had to say to her was "family services" and "lawsuit" and she quit preaching overnight.
Franz boss was not immediate family.
XQ
Not really JWs are not required to shun any family member. They many just do. I have no idea why. Franz boss was not immediate family.
yup you are right they weren't family
[ http://www.jw-media.org/beliefs/beliefsfaq.htm]
[?]
Those who become inactive in the congregation, perhaps even drifting away from association with fellow believers, are not shunned. In fact, special effort is made to reach out to them and rekindle their spiritual interest. If, however, someone unrepentantly practices serious sins, such as drunkeness, stealing or adultery, he will be disfellowshipped and such an individual is avoided by former fellow-worshipers. Every effort is made to help wrongdoers. But if they are unrepentant, the congregation needs to be protected from their influence. The Bible clearly states: 'Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.' (1 Corinthians 5:13) Those who formally say they do not want to be part of the organization any more are also avoided. What of a man who is disfellowshipped but whose wife and children are still Jehovah's Witnesses? The spiritual ties he had with his family change, but blood ties remain. The marriage relationship and normal family affections and dealings can continue. As for disfellowshipped relatives not living in the same household, Jehovah's Witnesses apply the Bible's counsel: "Quit mixing with them." (1 Corinthians 5:11) Disfellowshipped individuals may continue to attend religious services and, if they wish, they may receive spiritual counsel from the elders with a view to their being restored. They are always welcome to return to the faith if they reject the improper course of conduct for which they were disfellowshipped.
[Also available at Watchtower official website]
14 The situation is different if the disfellowshipped or disassociated one is a relative living outside the immediate family circle and home. It might be possible to have almost no contact at all with the relative. Even if there were some family matters requiring contact, this certainly would be kept to a minimum, in line with the divine principle: "Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person [or guilty of another gross sin], . . . not even eating with such a man."?1 Corinthians 5:11.
15 Understandably, this may be difficult because of emotions and family ties, such as grandparents' love for their grandchildren. Yet, this is a test of loyalty to God, as stated by the sister quoted on page 26. Anyone who is feeling the sadness and pain that the disfellowshipped relative has thus caused may find comfort and be encouraged by the example set by some of Korah's relatives.?Psalm 84:10-12....
22 For example, on page 26 we noted Lynette's comment about her choice 'to cut herself off completely from all association' with her disfellowshipped sister Margaret. She and her Christian relatives 'believed that Jehovah's way is best.' And it is!...
24 In another case, Laurie's parents were disfellowshipped. Yet she says: 'My association with them never stopped but increased. As time went on, I became more and more inactive. I got to the point of not even attending meetings.' Then she read material in The Watchtower of September 1 and 15, 1981, that stressed the counsel of 1 Corinthians 5:11-13 and 2 John 9-11. "It was as if a light bulb were turned on in me," she writes. 'I knew I would have to make some changes. I now better understand the meaning of Matthew 10:34-36. My decision was not an easy one for my family to swallow, for my son, five, is the only boy, and they love him dearly.' It is hoped that losing such association will touch the parents' hearts, as it did Margaret's. Still, the discipline involved helped Laurie: 'I am back out in the field ministry. My marriage and family are stronger because of my change, and so am I.'...
"Cutting ourselves off completely from all association with [my disfellowshipped sister] Margaret tested our loyalty to Jehovah's arrangement. It gave our family opportunity to show that we really believe that Jehovah's way is best."?Lynette.
Of course you would know nothing about why people shun family memebers. You said:
Not really JWs are not required to shun any family member. They many just do. I have no idea why.Don't you read the literature? What do you think those examples were there for? Just to fill up the page? Stop playing games. Either you are a JW or you aren't! Either you believe the whole ball of wax or you are out. Got a quote to show they have changed this policy? I would sure love to see it and show my mother and ex-husband. So would a lot of other people here.
Not really JWs are not required to shun any family member.
Where are you from? Lalaland?