Posts by EdenOne

27

Finally sending a letter to the elders today

by Suraj Khan in

figured i'd give them a shot to explain why i was expelled from the congregation 23 years ago without counsel or a jc.

dear sirs:.

i attended the xxxx congregation in the mid-1980s as a teenaged unbaptized publisher.

EdenOne

marked.

Interested to hear their reply as well.

Eden

52

just got my first shun.:(

by unstopableravens in

ok so rutherford came up with the idea to change the name of the true religion of god to jehovah's witnesses based in isaiah 43. and of course ever since the rank and file witnesses have lovingly thought of themselves as gods chosen people.

well some one frogot to mention that in chapter 62 of isaiah gods says his true followers will be called by a new name.

yes newer then the old name almost 20 chapters ago.

EdenOne

Well, Isaiah 43:12 does say:

"...and you are my witnesses,” declares the LORD, “and I am God". - ESV , NWT

This would allow for the expression 'witnesses of God'. Yet, newer translations render the text in a much more logical way:

"You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "that I am God." - NIV

Eden

27

New article - SHUNNING: UNCHRISTIAN PSYCHOLOGICAL TORTURE

by EdenOne in

hello everyone.. after months of neglect, i've resumed writing for my website.. the new article deals with the issue of shunning among the jehovah's witnesses.. it attempts to disentangle disfellowshipping from shunning, and demonstrating that shunning is a practice unbecoming of a christian.

i hope you find it interesting the article shunning - unchristian psychological torture.. it's divided into the following sections:.

introduction.

EdenOne

Adamah: Your focusing on the definition of 'Christian' is 'begging the question',

?? how so

Yet ALL are Xians, in my book, since they all profess a belief in Jesus.

Why don't you call a spade a spade? It's "Christian". And yes, I agree, everyone professing a belief in Jesus is by definition a "Christian".

And where has anyone KILLED in the name of Dawkins?

Not that I know of. Not YET, at least ;) But what kind of argument is that? Intolerance doesn't need a murder to be exposed for what it is.

No more ironic than the FACT that the far-majority of those weapons are designed by "ethics-conscious" Xians

Fact, you say? Prove it.

And you? Do you believe 2nd Peter was written by THE Apostle Peter, or IS it a forgery?

Until overwhelming evidence of the contrary, I accept that it was written by Peter.

Still, you have taken this thread into a tangent discussion fueled by strawman argument. It's late, I'm tired and can barely keep my eyes opened. Nite nite.

Eden

27

New article - SHUNNING: UNCHRISTIAN PSYCHOLOGICAL TORTURE

by EdenOne in

hello everyone.. after months of neglect, i've resumed writing for my website.. the new article deals with the issue of shunning among the jehovah's witnesses.. it attempts to disentangle disfellowshipping from shunning, and demonstrating that shunning is a practice unbecoming of a christian.

i hope you find it interesting the article shunning - unchristian psychological torture.. it's divided into the following sections:.

introduction.

EdenOne

Steve2:

...the shadow of the pharisees which oozes through the Pauline letters to the congregations of the day.

By Paul's own admission, not everything he wrote to the congregations was inspired of God. Some thing were direct commandments from Jesus that could be found in the gospels, others weren't.

To the Corinthians he said: "I give instructions, not I, but the Lord ..." (1 Cor. 7.10) but further on he wrote: " But to the rest I say, not the Lord..." (7:12) and "I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one who by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy." (7:25) and finally: " But in my opinion ... I think that I also have the Spirit of God". (7:40).

So, naturally, his background as a Pharisee would become apparent in his letters. He admitted that, in the incumbence of his office as a travelling overseer, he had his own "methods" (4:17) that were uniquely his, and wouldn't be found in the other apostles. It was Peter who validated the pauline letters as "Scripture" - 2 Peter 3:16

Eden

27

New article - SHUNNING: UNCHRISTIAN PSYCHOLOGICAL TORTURE

by EdenOne in

hello everyone.. after months of neglect, i've resumed writing for my website.. the new article deals with the issue of shunning among the jehovah's witnesses.. it attempts to disentangle disfellowshipping from shunning, and demonstrating that shunning is a practice unbecoming of a christian.

i hope you find it interesting the article shunning - unchristian psychological torture.. it's divided into the following sections:.

introduction.

EdenOne

Ray

27

New article - SHUNNING: UNCHRISTIAN PSYCHOLOGICAL TORTURE

by EdenOne in

hello everyone.. after months of neglect, i've resumed writing for my website.. the new article deals with the issue of shunning among the jehovah's witnesses.. it attempts to disentangle disfellowshipping from shunning, and demonstrating that shunning is a practice unbecoming of a christian.

i hope you find it interesting the article shunning - unchristian psychological torture.. it's divided into the following sections:.

introduction.

EdenOne

Adamah, ok, let's see ...

But the title of your article didn't claim that shunning was not in keeping with the teachings of Jesus, but declares it to be 'unchristian'. There's a HUGE difference in those two claims.

For your benefit, here's the quote from the Merriam-Webster Diccionary: "Unchristian: (...) 2. contrary to the Christian spirit or character". Also, the Collins Diccionary: " not in accordance with the principles or ethics of Christianity" - I stand by the term unchristian as the most adequate term.

Yes, and that's the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, since you excuse the post-apostolic examples of Xians who murderously undermined your claim of shunning being "unchristian" by killing heretics, a behavior which is FAR MORE aggregious. But if you're willing to make such excuses, why bother jumping thru the logical hoops to present the history, only to play the "No true Scotsman" fallacy card in the end?

You just LOVE to fingerpoint fallacies into others, don't you? Well, the "no true scotsman" won't stick - you're wrong. I never excused the post-apostolic Christians who murdered others who didn't follow their mainstream form of Christianity. The had no permission from Jesus to do so, and they became murderers in the name of Jesus, but still, murderers. What? You expected me to say "they weren't true christians" ?

On the other hand, by trying to associate modern Christians to those murderers in the name of Christ from centuries past, you play an Association Fallacy and resort to strawman argument. The point is if Shunning was taught or endorsed by Jesus and the Apostles. Clearly it wasn't. You brought up the Christians who hunted and burned others - strawman argument.

You spend considerable time presenting the very evidence found in the NT, only to ignore it later,

You're being purposedly deceitful with that sentence. I haven't "ignored" the evidence of the NT - I presented it as the scriptural argument used by the WT, then dissecated it and found it to be unsopportive of the practice of shunning, that's all.

You cannot deny it's in the NT, and you left a few examples out, eg 2nd Peter 2 warns of false teachers:

Funny that you resort to 2 Peter, a letter that you consider to be a forgery. But perhaps you would like to show me where the apostle conveys the idea that the judgement upon the false teachers is to be executed by human hands...? Or isn't that a later development that is yet another [dangerous, criminal] 'doctrine of men'?

that kind of intolerant talk would be inexcusable today if expressed against ANY group, since it's clearly considered "hate speech" by today's standards.

That kind of intolerant talk is no less intolerant than any Dawkins' tirade against faith and believers. In any case, I agree with you, it would be deemed innapropriate these days. And that's precisely why ethics-conscientious Christians don't take it to the letter and leave it in the hands of God. And, lo and behold, no Armageddon has come in 2000 years, but intelligent, rational men such as yourself keep on designing sophisticated weapons of mass destruction. Ironic, isn't it?

Eden

52

just got my first shun.:(

by unstopableravens in

EdenOne

Shunning is a passive form of ashaming that normally only the shunned one perceives. Public confrontation is an agressive, active way to ashame others. It qualifies as harassment. I'm surprised you find it acceptable.

Eden

27

New article - SHUNNING: UNCHRISTIAN PSYCHOLOGICAL TORTURE

by EdenOne in

hello everyone.. after months of neglect, i've resumed writing for my website.. the new article deals with the issue of shunning among the jehovah's witnesses.. it attempts to disentangle disfellowshipping from shunning, and demonstrating that shunning is a practice unbecoming of a christian.

i hope you find it interesting the article shunning - unchristian psychological torture.. it's divided into the following sections:.

introduction.

EdenOne

braincleaned : I am an antichrist, since I deny him being more than a normal man

According to the apostle John that's exactly what you are, considering what you've believed before. You might as well come to terms with that notion, nothing esoteric or apocalyptic about it.

Eden

27

New article - SHUNNING: UNCHRISTIAN PSYCHOLOGICAL TORTURE

by EdenOne in

hello everyone.. after months of neglect, i've resumed writing for my website.. the new article deals with the issue of shunning among the jehovah's witnesses.. it attempts to disentangle disfellowshipping from shunning, and demonstrating that shunning is a practice unbecoming of a christian.

i hope you find it interesting the article shunning - unchristian psychological torture.. it's divided into the following sections:.

introduction.

EdenOne

Adamah:

I don't follow your logic, really. This is taken from the article (Conclusion):

No one nowadays can make a verifiable claim to possess equal authority as that of the apostles who interacted directly with Jesus Christ. Therefore, no one has the authority to modify or reverse what was written by the apostles or taught by Jesus, unless Jesus himself would unequivocally change his teachings. True, post-apostolic Christians often failed to show mercy towards those who departed from orthodox, dominant mainstream Christianity, but that doesn't negate the validity of the Scriptures. Modern Christians aren't bound by the mistakes of past Christians. They respond to Christ and God alone. As wisely put by Fulton J. Sheen: "Tolerance does not apply to truth or principles ... Tolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons. Tolerance applies to the erring; intolerance, to the error".

Perhaps this addresses your concern?

Yes, shunning isn't the same as stoning or burning someone, but it's excessively damaging and unconsistent with the teachings of Christ. Furthermore, I can't find in the apostolic writings anything that supports such treatment either. Later Christian writers, perhaps, but not the apostles.

Eden