Posts by EdenOne

21

Is a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses marries a disfellowshipped person, what is the outcome?

by EdenOne in

hello all.. i need a quick answer, and also a solid reference in the literature, please.. if a jw marries an unbeliever, there is reproof, it's frowned upon, it's disloyal, there will be loss of privileges, etc, but there's no other more serious consequences.

but, in a scenario where two people are free to marry, but one is a baptized jw and the other is disfellowshipped / disassociated, what are the consequences?.

thanks for your help.. r..

EdenOne

Walter and BluesBrother, yes, in my days as elder, that would be my "go-to" basis for a decision to disfellowship a Witness that would marry a disfellowshipped individual.

Slimboyfat, yes, I guess that falls onto that category "it's-so-obviously-wrong-that-we-don't-even-have-to-put-it-in-writing"

Thanks Duran for the reference.

I was just wondering if anyone knew of a publication referencing that in print, or speaking of an experience to that effect. I guess the Elders' manual will have to suffice to support my claim. Anyway, if someone finds something, please let me know here. thx.

Cheers!

21

Is a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses marries a disfellowshipped person, what is the outcome?

by EdenOne in

hello all.. i need a quick answer, and also a solid reference in the literature, please.. if a jw marries an unbeliever, there is reproof, it's frowned upon, it's disloyal, there will be loss of privileges, etc, but there's no other more serious consequences.

but, in a scenario where two people are free to marry, but one is a baptized jw and the other is disfellowshipped / disassociated, what are the consequences?.

thanks for your help.. r..

EdenOne

I understand the reasons why Ray Franz was disfellowshipped.

I was just wondering if there was ever something written, black on white, in any literature of the WTBTS that marriage with a disfellowshipped person would result in disfellowshipping for the JW.

I can see how it can be inferred from "insisting on associating with disfellowshipped ones" can be interpreted in this way. Just wanted to know if it was ever expressely stated.

21

Is a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses marries a disfellowshipped person, what is the outcome?

by EdenOne in

hello all.. i need a quick answer, and also a solid reference in the literature, please.. if a jw marries an unbeliever, there is reproof, it's frowned upon, it's disloyal, there will be loss of privileges, etc, but there's no other more serious consequences.

but, in a scenario where two people are free to marry, but one is a baptized jw and the other is disfellowshipped / disassociated, what are the consequences?.

thanks for your help.. r..

EdenOne

Hello all.

I need a quick answer, and also a solid reference in the literature, please.

If a JW marries an unbeliever, there is reproof, it's frowned upon, it's disloyal, there will be loss of privileges, etc, but there's no other more serious consequences. But, in a scenario where two people are free to marry, but one is a baptized JW and the other is disfellowshipped / disassociated, what are the consequences?

Thanks for your help.

R.

20

Very Interesting Post...

by XBEHERE in

jw
friends

and then, for two years…..nothing happened.until they pretended everything was normal and sent everyone back to the hamster wheel.

back to meetings, back to d2d, back to assemblies & conventions.

everyone, get back on the hamster wheel, and don’t you dare complain or try to get out of it by using zoom.. https://www.reddit.com/r/exjw/comments/14fhe4y/exercise_patience_classic_gaslighting_from_wt/ .

EdenOne

At least since the neolithic revolution pandemics have been wiping out large chunks of our human species. What's new, really?

Between Jesus' death and 1914 there were at least 3 pandemics that killed more people than the Spanish Flu:

1. The Black Death (1347-1351)
Death Toll: between 75 and 125 million

2. Smallpox (1520-1980)
Death Toll: Over 500 million

3. The Spanish Flu (1918-1919)
Death Toll: Between 17 and 50 million

4. The Plague of Justinian (541-542)
Death Toll: Between 17 and 100 million people

32

Is the ministry really taken seriously by most JWs?

by XBEHERE in

jw
friends

what say you?.

EdenOne

How can this be taken seriously? (Barcelona)

11

04-2022 Q from Readers on Divorce

by Rattigan350 in

any comments on the 04/2022 question from readers on divorce and remarriage.. "if a christian divorces his wife without scriptural grounds and then marries another person, how does the congregation view the previous marriage and the new marriage?".

why does that even matter how the congregation views anything?

they should be minding their own business.. if people move to a different area, the congregation wouldn't even know about.. (if a guy remarries a woman with the same first name, she would end up with the same name and no one would know).

EdenOne

Peacefulpete,

From the said article:

"The new marriage constitutes a legally binding relationship. As stated in the November 15, 1979, issue of The Watchtower, page 32, “now he has entered a new marriage and so cannot simply end it and return to the way things were before; the former marriage ended with the divorce, adultery and remarriage.”

and

"Although the new marriage would not be viewed as adulterous, the man would not qualify for special privileges of service in the congregation for many years and not before living down any notoriety or reproach associated with his wrongdoing."

and

"This adjusts our previous understanding that such a marriage would be viewed as adulterous until the innocent mate died, remarried, or was guilty of sexual immorality."

So, it doesn't change the fact that entering into a new marriage while not being "free to remarry" constitutes adultery, it only changes that the new marriage is considered legally binding and sacred, regardless of the status of the "innocent" mate.

171

Mass Shooting at Kingdom Hall in Hamburg, Germany

by EdenOne in

mass shooting at a kingdom hall in hamburg, germany this evening.

at least 6 or 7 killed, dozens injured.

single shooter on the run, police doesn't rule out more shooters.

EdenOne

Not a single word of praise or gratitude to the police and authorities for their prompt intervention that probably saved many more lives ...

2

I had a 'conversation' with ChatGPT about shunning and human rights .....

by EdenOne in

hello chatgpt.

can you discuss human rights?.

human rights are a set of fundamental rights and freedoms that are inherent to all human beings, regardless of their race, gender, nationality, ethnicity, religion, or any other status.

EdenOne

Hello ChatGPT. Can you discuss human rights?

Hello! Yes, of course. Human rights are a set of fundamental rights and freedoms that are inherent to all human beings, regardless of their race, gender, nationality, ethnicity, religion, or any other status. These rights are considered universal and inalienable, meaning they cannot be taken away from individuals under any circumstances.

Human rights include civil and political rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and freedom of expression, as well as economic, social, and cultural rights, such as the right to education, healthcare, and work. They also encompass collective rights, such as the right to self-determination and the right to participate in the cultural life of one's community.

Human rights are protected by law at the national, regional, and international levels. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, is considered a foundational document in the field of human rights. Many countries have also incorporated human rights protections into their constitutions and legal systems.

Despite the existence of legal protections, human rights violations continue to occur around the world. Some of the most common violations include discrimination, torture, arbitrary detention, and censorship. It is important for individuals and governments to work together to protect and promote human rights in order to ensure the dignity and well-being of all people.

Impressive. Is the right to change religious beliefs a human right?

Yes, the right to change one's religion or belief is considered a fundamental human right under international law. Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief." This right is also protected under various international human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

However, despite the recognition of this right, in some parts of the world, individuals who attempt to change their religion or belief may face discrimination, persecution, or even violence. In these cases, it is important for governments and communities to take action to protect the human rights of all individuals, including the right to freedom of religion or belief, without discrimination or prejudice.

I live in Portugal. How is my right to change belief protected?

In Portugal, the right to change one's religion or belief is protected under the country's Constitution, which guarantees freedom of conscience, religion, and worship. Article 41 of the Portuguese Constitution states that "everyone is free to choose their religion or philosophical belief and to practice it individually or in community, in private or in public, without prejudice to their responsibility before the law."

Additionally, Portugal is a signatory to various international human rights treaties that protect the right to freedom of religion or belief, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights.

As a resident of Portugal, you have the right to change your religion or belief without fear of discrimination or persecution. If you believe that your rights have been violated, you can seek legal recourse through the Portuguese judicial system or by contacting human rights organizations for assistance.

If a religious authority teaches that I should be shunned by members of my faith community because I changed my beliefs, is that a violation of my human rights?

Yes, if a religious authority or community teaches or enforces shunning or exclusion of an individual on the basis of their exercise of the right to change their religion or belief, it could be considered a violation of the individual's human rights.

Freedom of religion or belief includes the right to change one's religion or belief and to express that choice without fear of discrimination, coercion, or violence. Shunning or exclusion from a community can have serious social, emotional, and economic consequences, and can be a form of coercion that violates an individual's right to freedom of religion or belief.

It is important to note, however, that the right to freedom of religion or belief is not absolute and may be subject to certain limitations, such as to protect the rights and freedoms of others or to ensure public safety or order. Nevertheless, any limitations on the exercise of this right must be proportionate and necessary in a democratic society.

Is enforced shunning a form of torture?

Enforced shunning can be considered a form of psychological torture. The United Nations Convention against Torture defines torture as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person."

Enforced shunning involves the deliberate exclusion and isolation of an individual from their community or social support networks, which can result in severe psychological harm, including depression, anxiety, and feelings of loneliness and abandonment. In some cases, enforced shunning can also have economic and practical consequences, such as being cut off from family members, employment opportunities, and basic necessities of life.

Therefore, enforced shunning can be considered a form of psychological torture, as it involves intentional infliction of mental suffering and can have severe and lasting consequences on an individual's mental health and well-being.

How is the individual's right to decide with whom to associate or not, different than a religious authority dictating that a religious community must shun a dissenter?

The individual's right to freedom of association includes the right to decide with whom they wish to associate or not. This right allows individuals to form and join associations, including religious communities, based on shared values, beliefs, and interests. It also includes the right to disassociate from associations, including religious communities, if an individual no longer shares those values, beliefs, or interests.

However, when a religious authority or community dictates that members must shun a dissenter, this can violate the dissenter's right to freedom of religion or belief. This is because shunning or exclusion from a community can be a form of coercion that violates an individual's right to freely exercise their religion or belief without fear of discrimination or persecution.

Moreover, when religious authorities or communities engage in such practices, they may also be violating other human rights, such as the right to freedom of expression, the right to be free from discrimination, and the right to privacy.

Therefore, while the right to freedom of association is an important right, it must be balanced with the right to freedom of religion or belief, as well as other human rights, in order to ensure that individuals are not subjected to coercion, discrimination, or persecution.

Is it viable to pursue legal actions against religious institutions that enforce shunning and teach religious hatred?

The viability of pursuing legal actions against religious institutions that enforce shunning and teach religious hatred would depend on several factors, including the specific laws and legal systems of the country in question, as well as the facts and evidence of the case.

In some countries, there may be legal avenues available to address such actions, such as anti-discrimination laws or laws protecting the right to freedom of religion or belief. In other cases, legal action may not be viable or effective, especially if the religious institution has significant political or social influence.

However, it is important to note that even when legal action is not viable or effective, there may be other ways to address these issues, such as through public awareness campaigns, education, and advocacy efforts. Human rights organizations and civil society groups can play an important role in raising awareness of these issues and advocating for change.

Ultimately, the most effective way to address shunning and religious hatred may be through dialogue and engagement with the religious community itself, in order to promote understanding and respect for human rights principles and values.

But what if the religious institution is absolutely inflexible and refuses to dialog?

If a religious institution is inflexible and refuses to engage in dialogue or to address concerns related to shunning or religious hatred, other approaches may be necessary.

One possible approach is to engage with government officials, policymakers, and other stakeholders to advocate for legal or policy changes that address these issues. This could include advocating for the adoption of anti-discrimination laws or policies that protect the right to freedom of religion or belief, or working to ensure that existing laws and policies are enforced effectively.

Another possible approach is to work with civil society organizations and other groups to raise public awareness of these issues and to promote education and dialogue. This could include organizing public events, workshops, and training sessions, as well as engaging with media outlets to raise awareness of these issues.

It is important to note that addressing issues related to shunning and religious hatred can be a complex and challenging process, and may require a sustained and coordinated effort by a wide range of stakeholders. Nevertheless, through persistence, collaboration, and creative approaches, it may be possible to effect change and promote greater respect for human rights principles and values.

Are the Jehovah's Witnesses violating human rights when they enforce shunning as a penalty over excommunicated members?

The practice of shunning by Jehovah's Witnesses has been a subject of controversy and debate, and has been criticized by human rights organizations for potentially violating the rights to freedom of religion or belief, freedom of association, and freedom from discrimination.

When a person is excommunicated or disfellowshipped by the Jehovah's Witnesses, they are subject to shunning, which involves being completely cut off from social and spiritual contact with other members of the religious community, including family members. This can have severe emotional and psychological consequences for the individual, and may result in social and economic isolation.

While religious communities have the right to establish their own rules and practices, these must be balanced against other human rights and legal obligations. The right to freedom of religion or belief includes the right to freely exercise one's religion, but this must not be used to justify practices that violate the rights of others or discriminate against them.

In some countries, the practice of shunning by Jehovah's Witnesses has been challenged under anti-discrimination laws or other legal provisions, and there have been cases where courts have ruled that the practice violates human rights principles.

However, the legality and permissibility of shunning may vary depending on the specific legal and cultural context, and there may be limits to what legal or policy measures can effectively address these issues. Ultimately, addressing the practice of shunning by Jehovah's Witnesses may require a multi-faceted approach, including legal action, public awareness campaigns, and dialogue with religious communities themselves.

If we allow religious organizations to teach hatred, under the pretext of freedom of religion, isn't that dangerous for our society?

Allowing religious organizations to teach hatred or promote discriminatory practices under the pretext of freedom of religion can indeed be dangerous for society. While religious freedom is an important human right, it must be balanced against other fundamental rights, such as the right to non-discrimination and the right to freedom from violence or persecution.

Hate speech and discrimination can have serious consequences, both for individuals who are targeted and for society as a whole. They can contribute to the marginalization of certain groups, perpetuate harmful stereotypes and prejudices, and create a climate of fear and hostility. In extreme cases, hate speech and discrimination can lead to violence and conflict.

Moreover, religious organizations that promote hatred or discrimination can also undermine the credibility and legitimacy of religion as a whole, and may contribute to a sense of disillusionment or disaffection among believers.

It is important, therefore, for governments, civil society organizations, and religious communities themselves to work together to promote religious freedom while also ensuring that human rights are respected and protected. This may include taking legal action against hate speech or discriminatory practices, engaging in public education and awareness-raising efforts, and promoting dialogue and interfaith cooperation to promote understanding and respect among different religious communities.

Do you know of real cases where former Jehovah's Witnesses committed suicide as a result of shunning?

There have been several reported cases of former Jehovah's Witnesses who have committed suicide, and some of these cases have been linked to the practice of shunning. It is important to note that suicide is a complex issue and often has multiple causes, and it is difficult to attribute any single factor as the sole cause of a suicide.

However, it is clear that the practice of shunning can have severe emotional and psychological consequences for individuals, particularly when it involves being cut off from family members and social support networks. This can lead to feelings of isolation, depression, anxiety, and hopelessness, which may in turn contribute to suicidal ideation or behavior.

In recent years, there have been increasing efforts by some former Jehovah's Witnesses and their supporters to raise awareness of the potential harms of shunning, and to advocate for changes in the way the practice is carried out. Some have called for more compassionate and humane approaches that prioritize the well-being and dignity of all individuals, regardless of their beliefs or affiliations.

Ultimately, addressing the potential harms of shunning will require a sustained and multi-faceted effort by a wide range of stakeholders, including religious communities, government officials, mental health professionals, and civil society organizations. This may include efforts to promote greater understanding and awareness of the impacts of shunning, to provide support and resources for individuals who have been affected by it, and to work towards more inclusive and compassionate approaches to religious practice and belief.

The Jehovah's Witnesses describe shunning as an act of love. How is that possible?

The Jehovah's Witnesses describe shunning as an act of tough love or discipline, intended to help erring members to repent and return to the faith. According to their teachings, shunning is intended to serve as a deterrent against sinful behavior and to protect the purity and unity of the congregation.

However, many critics of the practice argue that shunning is not an act of love, but rather a form of emotional and psychological abuse that can cause lasting harm to individuals and their families. Shunning can involve cutting off all contact and communication with the excommunicated member, including family members, which can lead to feelings of isolation, depression, and even suicidal ideation.

While some religious communities may view shunning as a necessary disciplinary measure, it is important to recognize that human relationships and emotions are complex, and that there may be more compassionate and humane approaches to addressing conflict or discord within a community. Treating individuals with respect and dignity, even in the face of disagreement or conflict, is a fundamental principle of human rights and social justice.

Ultimately, the question of whether shunning can be considered an act of love is a complex and subjective one, and may depend on a variety of cultural, religious, and ethical factors. However, it is important to approach this issue with sensitivity and compassion, and to work towards solutions that prioritize the well-being and dignity of all individuals involved.

Is it inevitable to conflate the practice of excommunication with shunning? Wouldn't it be more compassionate to separate both and reject shunning?

Excommunication and shunning are often linked in religious practice, as excommunication is frequently accompanied by a period of social exclusion or shunning from the religious community. However, it is possible to separate these practices and to reject shunning as a form of discipline or punishment.

Some religious communities have adopted more compassionate and inclusive approaches to discipline, including restorative justice practices that seek to address harm and conflict in a way that prioritizes healing, reconciliation, and the well-being of all individuals involved. These approaches recognize that conflict and discord are inevitable in human relationships, but also that these challenges can be addressed in a way that is respectful and compassionate.

Ultimately, whether or not to separate excommunication from shunning is a decision that must be made by each individual religious community. However, it is important to approach these issues with a commitment to respect for human dignity and a recognition of the potential harms that can be caused by exclusion and shunning. By embracing more inclusive and compassionate approaches to discipline and conflict resolution, religious communities can help to promote greater understanding, healing, and reconciliation among their members.

Is religiously driven and institutionally enforced shunning an attack on human dignity?

Religiously driven and institutionally enforced shunning can be seen as a form of attack on human dignity. Shunning involves the deliberate exclusion and isolation of individuals from their religious community, often as a result of their beliefs or actions. This can cause significant emotional, psychological, and social harm, including feelings of shame, guilt, and rejection. The practice of shunning can also lead to long-term damage to relationships, including with family members and loved ones.

Human dignity is a fundamental principle that recognizes the inherent worth and value of all human beings. It is closely tied to concepts of respect, equality, and autonomy. Shunning can be seen as a violation of human dignity because it denies individuals their right to be treated with respect and dignity, and it infringes on their freedom of association and autonomy.

Moreover, religiously driven and institutionally enforced shunning can perpetuate discrimination and intolerance towards certain individuals or groups. It can create a culture of fear, shame, and exclusion that may have long-lasting effects on individuals and their families.

It is important to recognize that religious freedom is also a fundamental human right. However, this right does not extend to practices that violate the rights of others or cause harm. As such, it is important to promote religious freedom in a way that respects the dignity and autonomy of all individuals, and that does not perpetuate discrimination, intolerance, or exclusion.

Is it possible that religious shunning fosters a culture of fear of denunciation of wrongful practices in a religious community?

Yes, it is possible that religious shunning can foster a culture of fear and silence within a religious community, particularly when it is used as a means of enforcing conformity and punishing dissent. Shunning can create a climate of fear and intimidation, in which individuals may feel hesitant to speak out against perceived injustices or wrongdoing within their religious community for fear of being shunned themselves.

This fear of denunciation or punishment can have a chilling effect on freedom of expression and the open exchange of ideas and beliefs within a religious community. It can also contribute to a culture of secrecy and isolation, in which problems or concerns are not addressed openly or constructively.

Moreover, when shunning is used to punish individuals who challenge or question religious teachings or practices, it can reinforce authoritarian or hierarchical power structures within a religious community. This can make it difficult for individuals to advocate for change or reform from within the community, and can perpetuate harmful or discriminatory practices.

In contrast, when religious communities promote open communication, inclusivity, and mutual respect, they can foster an environment in which all members feel comfortable expressing their opinions and concerns, and in which constructive dialogue and collaboration can lead to positive change and growth.

Can religious organizations who refuse to respect human rights continue to enjoy legal recognition in countries where religion is separate from the state?

In countries where religion is separate from the state, religious organizations are typically required to respect the laws and regulations of the state, including those related to human rights. Failure to do so may result in legal consequences, such as the loss of legal recognition or the imposition of fines or other penalties.

However, the extent to which religious organizations are held accountable for violations of human rights can vary depending on the specific laws and regulations in place, as well as the political and social context in which they operate. Some countries may be more lenient towards religious organizations, particularly if they have significant political or social influence.

It is important to note that respect for human rights is a fundamental principle that is recognized internationally, and that governments have a responsibility to protect and promote these rights, including in relation to religious organizations. This may involve enforcing laws and regulations that prevent discrimination, protect freedom of religion and belief, and safeguard individual dignity and autonomy.

In cases where religious organizations refuse to respect human rights, it may be necessary for governments to take action to ensure compliance with the law, and to hold religious organizations accountable for any violations. This may involve a range of measures, including legal action, public education and awareness-raising, and engagement with religious leaders and communities to promote respect for human rights.

What human right takes precedence? Religious freedom, or human dignity?

In general, there is no human right that takes absolute precedence over all others, and it is often necessary to balance competing rights and interests in a given context. In the case of religious freedom and human dignity, there may be situations where these rights come into conflict, and it may be necessary to find a way to reconcile them.

Religious freedom is an important human right that is protected under international law, and includes the right to hold and practice one's religious beliefs without interference or discrimination. At the same time, human dignity is a fundamental principle that underpins many other human rights, and includes the right to be treated with respect and to have one's inherent worth as a human being recognized and protected.

When religious beliefs or practices come into conflict with principles of human dignity or other human rights, it may be necessary to find a way to reconcile these competing interests. This may involve limiting certain religious practices or beliefs in order to protect human dignity or other human rights, or finding ways to accommodate religious beliefs or practices in a manner that does not violate human dignity or other human rights.

In general, the approach to reconciling competing human rights and interests will depend on the specific context and the nature of the rights at issue. It is important to engage in thoughtful and respectful dialogue, and to consider the full range of implications and consequences of any decision or action.

What if a religion absolutely refuses to respect basic human rights? Does it have a future?

If a religion refuses to respect basic human rights, it may face significant challenges to its continued existence and legitimacy, particularly in countries where human rights are protected by law. In such cases, there may be legal and social consequences for religious organizations that violate human rights, including the loss of legal recognition or the imposition of fines or other penalties.

However, the future of a religion that refuses to respect basic human rights will depend on a number of factors, including the specific nature and extent of the human rights violations, the response of the broader community and society, and the willingness of the religious organization to adapt and change its practices.

In some cases, religious organizations that violate human rights may face significant public backlash, which can lead to a decline in membership and influence. On the other hand, some religious organizations may be able to maintain their influence and appeal despite violating human rights, particularly if they are able to cultivate a strong sense of community and identity among their members.

Ultimately, the future of a religion that refuses to respect basic human rights will depend on its ability to adapt and change in response to social and cultural shifts, as well as its willingness to recognize and address human rights concerns.

9

CBS NEWS Report: Pittsburgh woman testifies for grand jury investigation into JWs and child abuse

by AndersonsInfo in

https://www.cbsnews.com/pittsburgh/video/pittsburgh-woman-testifies-for-grand-jury-investigation-into-jehovahs-witnesses-and-sexual-abuse/#x.

pittsburgh woman testifies for grand jury investigation into jehovah's witnesses and sexual abuse.

kdka investigator andy sheehan interviewed a woman from pittsburgh who's cooperating with an ongoing state investigation into the jehovah's witness church, testifying before a state grand jury about being sexually assaulted when she was 12 years old and how she says church elders told her she was to blame.mar 6, 2023. .

EdenOne

I can't ever thank Barbara enough. Her website was crucial in the awakening of my wife.

13

For JW lurkers - After Hamburg.................

by BoogerMan in

.......do you still believe the organization's false teaching that romans 6:7 refer to a person's literal death?.

watchtower may 15th 1982, pp.

8,9 - "the bible explains that at death a person is set free or released from any sins he committed.".

EdenOne

The Bible explains that at death a person is set free or released from any sins he committed." but not inherited sin because Lazarus still was a sinner.

Where in the Bible do you find that explanation?