In theory, if you refuse to attend the JC meeting, they can act based on the evidence and testimony that is available to them. If they believe there is sufficient evidence to disfellowship, then they will do so. Since a JC meeting is not normally called without some sort of prima facie case for disfellowshipping, most committees will see that as being sufficient. Your refusal to show up just adds fuel to the fire, since if you were repentant, you would undoubtedly want to be there to receive "help" [translation: "browbeating"] from the elders.
NeonMadman
JoinedPosts by NeonMadman
-
13
Can I be df'd even if I never meet with the elders?
by ele_lux inif i never agree to meet them, can they still df me if they knew i was doing something they condemn?.
-
-
-
17
Why do Jehovah's Witnesses Feel Like They Have To Label You?
by Pitchess Co-Gen inok here's a little story on my background i was baptized in 2003, and i was a model witness for 2003-2006. then i had sex and was at first put private reprove (2006) and i made a another boo-boo in 2007 ( public reprove ) .
i was then given a bad name and thats when i started to get ''troubled'' label and a bad name around the circuit.
i labeled as "party boy" and ''sex hound'' ( which i was lol.
-
-
NeonMadman
Anyway why do they give people labels ?
It's a thought-stopping process. By slapping a label on you, they don't have to do the hard work of actually analyzing your behavior or arguments. They can simply dismiss you as having no value. The most prominent label that people on this board are familiar with is "apostate." If they can decide you are an apostate, they don't have to listen to anything you say and thay don't have to wrestle with the arguments or facts that you bring to their attention. They are completely justified in simply putting their heads into the sand and not listening at all. So the fact that their religious belief has holes in it you could fly the Starship Enterprise through never needs to come to their attention, and they can go about their lives convinced of their ultimate rightness and moral superiority.
-
18
Video of the Watchtower Study
by Pig inif you've seen my public talk video you might like to watch the watchtower video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keidzmxhliy.
can someone embedd please i dunno how?.
-
-
NeonMadman
This video is somewhat more exciting than the actual Watchtower Study.
-
24
Wish I knew where to get a new double electric breast pump...
by Gregor inmy old one sucks.. of all the strange ads that pop up here this is the oddest.
didn't even know there was such a gizmo..
-
-
NeonMadman
Oh look! There are 3 links right at the top of this thread where you can go.
Not if you use Firefox and have the AdBlock plug-in.
-
25
JW sister tells me about 1975- amnesia strikes again!
by moshe inshe came in the jw world in 1966 with her mother- she was 6 years old.
she graduated from high school in 1976. during the 90 minutes i spent with her yesterday, she mentioned that the org never said the end was coming in 1975-" it was just a few who said that and they all left after 1976- which was good- because jah needed to cleanse the kh of all who were serving with just a date in mind.. i asked her, "don't you remember the assembly talk from 1969 or 1970, where the speaker said, "stay alive until 75"- no she didn't remember.. i explained that our kh had a co tell us from the platform," brothers there is only 18 months left until armageddon- wow, she exclaimed.. i continued my story, "the po's 16 year old son quit school in 1974- to become a regular pioneer- he was held up as a fine example in the cong- and used as an example at a circuit assembly that year of someone who putting jehovah's work first.
didn't you have some who quit school to pioneer back then?".
-
-
NeonMadman
it was just a few who said that and they all left after 1976
I really hope some JW says that to me someday so I can ask them where those few got the idea in the first place. Oh, and also, how they can justify calling 99% of the congregation "a few".
-
5
Jehovah's Witnesses and morality
by Pahpa ini am always puzzled by the contradictory morality of jehovah's witnesses.
a person is formally disfellowshipped or disassociated in a congregation, that.
person is usually castigated and shunned by all other members.
-
-
NeonMadman
That's what happens when people worship and fear an organization instead of God.
-
59
Why I think Jesus spoke against Organized Religion
by sabastious inthis is going to be a short essay on a point i have been thinking about for a while now.. jesus explicitly stated in the gospels not to judge.
i think this a grossly overlooked statement from jesus from the witnesses and a lot of christian denominations.. judging could be defined as figuring out what's right or wrong for another person.
it's a pretty simple concept really, and jesus warned against it.. organized religion by definition creates doctrine and policy, some enforce them more than others (like the witnesses).. to create (or interpret) doctrine and initialize policy is to judge others.
-
-
NeonMadman
It's one thing to evaluate someone's actions and offer advice, it's entirely something different to enforce some action based off of your evalution.
I think you are reading the concept into the text that you want it to say. Jesus isn't talking in that text about enforcing anything upon anyone. He's talking about someone trying to help a brother overcome a small sin while he himself is guilty of much greater sin. There is nothing in that text or the context that speaks to the idea of actions being enforced by some organized religious authority. (Sorry about the italics in this paragraph, can't seem to shut them off)
I really don't want to get into a semantics debate.
I don't see how you can avoid it if you want to discuss this topic. In we can't agree on what "judging" means, how can we reach any resolution on whether Jesus was taking a stand against organized religion when He used the term?
Interesting excerpt. Jesus ate with tax collectors and he made sure the Gentiles had provision for salvation before he left as well. So what does that even mean?
It means that those who were removed from the church because of some moral issue were to be treated like anyone else that was not a member of the church. They weren't to be harrassed, they weren't to be utterly shunned, they weren't to be mistreated. They were just to be considered as not Christian and in need of repentance, like any other sinner. They could be treated with kindness, they could be eaten with, they could visit you in your home, and presumably, they could also be encouraged to abandon their sinful ways and return to God, with great rejoicing if and when they returned to Him.
I think he is advocating close fellowship. If a good friend of yours was doing something potentially harmful to himself would you not try to help him? And if he didn't want help would you not try to enlist others to try to help him?
Calling that organized religion is follly. That is just friendship, imo.
The problem with that position is that, when all the verses are considered, Jesus has outlined a specific, progressive procedure that culminates in the matter to be taken before the church, and which might result in the sinner being removed from the special sort of fellowship that was to exist among believers. A reasonable reading of the text implies more than mere interpersonal friendship. Clearly there is some sort of organized activity there, and Jesus attributes that activirty to "the church." To miss the existence of an organized church in that text is to impose an unreasonable presupposition upon it, in my opinion.
I think Jesus was utilizing the church for a good cause, not advocating it as necessary.
Well, according to what He said, He was the founder of the church: Matt. 16:23 "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Now, while there is some controversy between Protestants and Catholics as to the antecedent of the word "rock" in that verse, it's still crystal clear from either position that Jesus is the one building the church. It's His church, not one that He borrowed from someone else to utilize as He saw fit.
Care to define what "treating them like any other non-member" means if it doesn't mean shunning?
It means just what it says. Treating them exactly as you would treat any other person who is not a member of the church. Not avoiding them, not refusing to greet them, not leaving the room if they enter, but not extending the hand of spiritual fellowship to them either. My mail carrier is not a member of my church, but I say hello to her when I see her. I have a very friendly relationship with my doctor, though he is of a different faith than I am. I have no idea what the religious faith(s) of the workers at the local drugstore are, but I try to be pleasant with them when I go there. I have had dinner many times with co-workers without necessarily knowing what their beliefs are, or even if I knew that I disagreed with their beliefs. I don't shun my mailperson, doctor, druggist or co-workers, but I don't treat them as my brothers/sisters in Christ, either. That is how a person who is removed from the church is to be treated. Like anyone else in the world.
No, the problem is Organized Religion because absolute power corrupts absolutely. And Organized Religion always finds a way to dull out absolute power to someone.
You're certainly entitled to your beliefs in this area, and I'm not even saying that there isn't a grain of truth in what you are saying - at least in some instances. Where I think you are going wrong is in trying to insert these concepts into the mouth of Jesus.
-
59
Why I think Jesus spoke against Organized Religion
by sabastious inthis is going to be a short essay on a point i have been thinking about for a while now.. jesus explicitly stated in the gospels not to judge.
i think this a grossly overlooked statement from jesus from the witnesses and a lot of christian denominations.. judging could be defined as figuring out what's right or wrong for another person.
it's a pretty simple concept really, and jesus warned against it.. organized religion by definition creates doctrine and policy, some enforce them more than others (like the witnesses).. to create (or interpret) doctrine and initialize policy is to judge others.
-
-
NeonMadman
It's well known Jesus was against humans judging humans.
If so, it must be well known from some other source than the Bible. The text that everyone loves to take out of context, and upon which this thread is based, is Matthew 7:1 - "Judge not, that you be not judged." However, if the context is read, it becomes quite clear that it is not judging per se that Jesus opposes, but hypocritical judgment. He goes on to say: "For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you." Then He goes on to the famous passage about the speck in your brother's eye and the log in your own, which He concludes by saying: "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." Now, it seems quite obvious to me that , since He is using this illustration to make a point about judging, His closing statement requires that we make a judgment. We can't remove the speck from our brother's eye unless we have judged that there is indeed a speck in his eye. The problem is that we tend to notice his speck more than our own log, because we are hypocrites - and I submit that all of us are, to some degree.
In another chapter of Matthew, Jesus actually discusses discipline within the church:
Mat 18:15-20 "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them."
Again, this is clearly an area in which Jesus requires judgments to be made, and, in fact, He seems to be advocating a system of organized religion. There needs to be an organized church of some kind for this sort of procedure to be carried out. While I disagree with the sort of extreme actions carried out by the JW organization, there appears to be a requirement for the church to remove members under certain circumstances (treating them like any other non-member, not with extreme shunning).
Taking a single line of the Bible and using it to wash away many other plain texts never leads to a correct understanding. This is characteristic of JW reasoning - they do it all the time with a variety of doctrines. Also, even if Matt. 7:1 were not being taken out of context, I think it would be reading way too much that is not stated into the text in order to find a blanket condemnation of all organized religion there. Jesus was clearly not opposed to organized religion. He participated in the organized religion of the synagogues and He specifically spoke of founding a church. He was, however, vehemently opposed to hypocrisy in any form, and there's no question that organized religions have seen a lot of hypocrisy over the last 2000 years. The problem, though, is the hypocrisy itself, not the concept of organized religion.
-
65
As a JW, what did you do on Christmas Day?
by Magwitch ingrowing up a jw, we always had family from out of town visit or we would go visit family.
it was fun to get together with my other jw cousins over christmas.
(however, it was hell going back to school in january as the only girl without a new sweater).. as a married jw though it was a different story.
-
-
NeonMadman
I went out in field service on Christmas Day in 1973, when we were distributing the Kingdom News tract, "Has Religion Betrayed God and Man?" That was in the days when the KN tracts would be distributed for ten days only, so the Society had to have timed it deliberately to fall at Christmas. Most people were oblivious and just wanted to get back to their families, so they took the tract, which was all we were trying to get them to do. There was no suggestion of turning the visit into a discussion during tract distribution then; it was just get the tract into their hands and leave. There is only one person I specifically remember leaving the tract with that day. It was a man who came out and stood on his porch, took the tract, looked at the title, and then looked at me and said, "You know, you people have a lot of stones." I think that was the last year I ever went out in service on Christmas, even though I was in the organization for over 25 years after that.
-
14
Do you believe in censoring information at all?
by sabastious inas witnesses we all grew up with our information heavily censored.
it has got me to thinking: do i think censoring information is ever a good thing?.
i had this bethelite friend back when i was a witness and he would be careful who he told about the craziness behind those doors.
-
-
NeonMadman
Generally, I don't believe in censorship, though there might be necessary exceptions in matters of national security. The danger in such, of course, is that the privilege to censor for "national security" might be abused for political advantage.
I certainly don't believe that people should be ordered by religious authorities to avoid reading material that disagrees with the "party line." If a group of which one is a member tries to restrict his/her access to certain information, that should be a big red flag.
On a private basis, I believe that parents should exercise care as to what their children are reading or viewing. The younger the child, the more discernment should be used as to what material is appropriate. By the time a child reaches the mid-teens or so (the age could vary depending on the intellect and maturity of the child), there should be very little material that the parents would prohibit. I should emphasize that I'm talking here about intellectual material: I would consider pornography a separate issue when dealing with minors.