I just have to jump in here and point out a few obvious things to "Non". First of all do you realize that you are "associating" with disfellowshipped people via the internet. What would your elders think. Shame on you. You could easily be booted from your precious cult if they ever found out. Second, the act of shunning does break up families and it totally unscriptual. Here's how I know:
If a religion asks of you to shun a family member is that really Christian- like? I know that you are following 1 Cor. 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 text 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 I don’t call myself a sister); and is 2) Practicing fornication, greed, idolatry, reviling, habitual drunkenness, and/or extortion. I am none of these things. But it is interesting that the society does not disfellowship “greedy” people or disfellowship for certain kinds of “idolatry” such as materialism. Now I suppose you might think, what about 2 John 10 which says, “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. For he that says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works”? If the scripture at 2 John 10 were observed literally by Jehovah's Witnesses, they would be obliged to never invite anyone other than a Jehovah's Witness in good standing into their home, or ever speak a greeting to anyone other than a Jehovah's Witness. How did Jesus say one expelled from congregation should be treated? Matt. 18: 15-17 answers, “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. 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. 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 as a tax collector.” In other words, Christians were to treat former members just like anyone else who was not a member of the congregation. To be treated like a "man of the nations" was far from being shunned. Jewish people worked with, associated with, transacted business with, and preached to Gentiles. As for "tax collectors," Jesus ate and associated with them. Matthew was a tax collector. Tax collectors were not popular, but they were not shunned.
There is no scriptural basis for mandating that Christians must totally shun former members (that is, have no communication or conversation with them). The instruction is to expel them from the congregation and treat them like anyone else who is not a member. Especially, there is no scripture to support shunning of one's own relatives--parents, children and siblings. 1 Tim. 5:8 says, “Certainly, if anyone does not provide for those who are his own (relatives), and especially for those who are members of his household, (immediate family), he has disowned the faith and is worse than a person without faith.” Even for the rest, Paul counseled against abandoning those separated from the congregation in 2 Thes. 3:13-15, “For your part, brothers, do not give up in doing right. But if anyone is not obedient to our word through this letter, keep this one marked, stop associating with him, that he may become ashamed. And yet do not be considering him as an enemy, but continue admonishing him as a brother.”
As far as the WTBS they are obviously evil. How?
What is a False Prophet? Deut. 18: 20-22 defines one, “However the prophet who presumes to speak in my name a word I have not commanded him to speak…, that prophet must die. And in case you should say in your heart: “How shall we know a word that Jehovah has not spoken?” when the prophet speaks in the name of Jehovah and the word does not occur or come true that is the word that Jehovah did not speak. With presumptuousness the prophet spoke it. You must not get frightened of him."
Would you follow a man who claimed to have God’s backing, predicted the future and it didn’t happen? Herbert Armstrong the founder of the “World Wide Church of God” said that the world would end around 1975 and many followed him. But the world did not end in 1975. What did Deut. say? If a “prophet” claims to “speak in the name of Jehovah”, (Herbert Armstrong claimed to), “and the word does not occur”, (his prediction did not come true), “the word of Jehovah did not speak”. So was he a False Prophet? Of course he was! you’d say. Didn’t one of the Watchtower Presidents make the same claim? The exact same claim? So isn’t he a False Prophet too? Hmm . . . did this happen often? In 1914 the world was supposed to end. Oops, maybe 1915? Or maybe 1925? It was even said in one Watchtower article that in 1925 Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were to be resurrected. A house was even constructed for them to live in! Was any of this true? Let’s keep going. In 1968 the Watchtower said that the world would definitely end in 1975, did it? Would a true prophet make claims that would not come true? Not according to Duet. 18 20-22! But notice what was said in the Awake! October 8 1968 article:
"True there have been those in times past who predicted an end to the world even announcing a specific date, yet nothing happened, the end did not come. They were guilty of false prophesying. Why? What was missing? Missing from such people were God’s truths and the evidence that he was guiding and using them."
Is the Watchtower talking about itself?
StinkyP
"Keep your friends close, but your enemies even closer"
