i would like this to become a permanent thread, because i think there are grounds - at least in europe - to take this matter up to the european court of human rights.
not sure we'll ever get there, but one must start somewhere.
objective: force, by legal means, the watchtower society and the jehovah's witnesses to stop the practice of shunning ex-jehovah's witnesses, on grounds that it constitutes a violation of human rights.. what is needed: all written material ever published by the watchtower society, especially since 1940's, concerning the practice of shunning.
Since you still don't address the issue of shunning as a violation of human rights, and all you attempt is to derail this thread, you don't merit a reply. And still, you show a great lack of knowledge about the Catholic excommunication. I suggest you start a new thread on how excommunication and shunning are good, loving and lawful.
Eden
i would like this to become a permanent thread, because i think there are grounds - at least in europe - to take this matter up to the european court of human rights.
not sure we'll ever get there, but one must start somewhere.
objective: force, by legal means, the watchtower society and the jehovah's witnesses to stop the practice of shunning ex-jehovah's witnesses, on grounds that it constitutes a violation of human rights.. what is needed: all written material ever published by the watchtower society, especially since 1940's, concerning the practice of shunning.
As for the pertinent bit of your post, why does an action taken before the European Court of Human Rights can't single out the Jehovah's Witnesses?
Eden
i would like this to become a permanent thread, because i think there are grounds - at least in europe - to take this matter up to the european court of human rights.
not sure we'll ever get there, but one must start somewhere.
objective: force, by legal means, the watchtower society and the jehovah's witnesses to stop the practice of shunning ex-jehovah's witnesses, on grounds that it constitutes a violation of human rights.. what is needed: all written material ever published by the watchtower society, especially since 1940's, concerning the practice of shunning.
Before you try to impress me with your TH'D, you should get your facts straight, because Catholic excommunication is different from the protestant disfellowshipping. Namely, because it only barrs an ordained member of the clerigy to officiate and the rank and file from participating in the Eucharistia. There's no shunning, no cut off from communication with others. Again, you're obscuring the discussion by attempting to mix up disfellowshipping with shunning. This discussion is about shunning alone, and how it constitutes a violation of human rights as a form of unlawful discrimination.
Eden
well, we were going about our business today as we usually do on a monday.
mrs kwin went to work, kids went to school, i stayed home and made apple sauce and beer.
2:30 comes along and it's time to pick up everyone and, oh yeah ... we have that appointment today.
I wonder what was the outcome of this story...?
Eden
i would like this to become a permanent thread, because i think there are grounds - at least in europe - to take this matter up to the european court of human rights.
not sure we'll ever get there, but one must start somewhere.
objective: force, by legal means, the watchtower society and the jehovah's witnesses to stop the practice of shunning ex-jehovah's witnesses, on grounds that it constitutes a violation of human rights.. what is needed: all written material ever published by the watchtower society, especially since 1940's, concerning the practice of shunning.
For those who think that the First Ammendmend protects the right of a religion to shun ex-members because the Bible says so: let's imagine that a religion takes the OT to the letter. One of its members is caught in adultery. Since the OT prescribes death by stoning for that sin, this religion advocates the right to stone to death its member. Now, would the First Ammendment protect this action under the "freedom of religion" excuse? What is the difference regarding shunning?
Eden
i would like this to become a permanent thread, because i think there are grounds - at least in europe - to take this matter up to the european court of human rights.
not sure we'll ever get there, but one must start somewhere.
objective: force, by legal means, the watchtower society and the jehovah's witnesses to stop the practice of shunning ex-jehovah's witnesses, on grounds that it constitutes a violation of human rights.. what is needed: all written material ever published by the watchtower society, especially since 1940's, concerning the practice of shunning.
WheninDoubt
Since you don't adress the issues in discussion and you're merely attempting to obscure and derail the thread with trolling tactics, you don't merit any further reply. Better count your hours for the monthly report at the expense of someone else.
Eden
previous rendering of john 8:58: jesus ldisse-hes : digo-vos em toda a verdade: antes de abraao vir a existencia, eu tenho sido.. new rendering: jesus lhes disse: digo-lhes com toda a certeza: antes de abraao vir a existencia, eu ja existia.. i am calling attention to the words in bold letters.
the previous rendering: "i have been.
the new reading: "i already existed.
Wonderment,
The new text makes a lot more sense. "Eu tenho sido" [I have been] is an odd way of wording it, possibly even borderline incorrect from a grammar point of view. [Because it begs the question: I have been - what?] The new wording doesn't change anything fundamental doctrinally and the wording is by far more natural with portuguese.
Eden
i would like this to become a permanent thread, because i think there are grounds - at least in europe - to take this matter up to the european court of human rights.
not sure we'll ever get there, but one must start somewhere.
objective: force, by legal means, the watchtower society and the jehovah's witnesses to stop the practice of shunning ex-jehovah's witnesses, on grounds that it constitutes a violation of human rights.. what is needed: all written material ever published by the watchtower society, especially since 1940's, concerning the practice of shunning.
Whenindoubt
To your first point: Separation of State and Church. It's funny that the issue of separation of State and Church is so promptly brought up by religious apologists such as yourself when there's even as much as a suggestion that judicial and legislative powers may force churches to simply comply with the law; all the while churches attempt to influence lawmakers and local authorities to grant them tax exemptions, introduce creationism into the teaching system, anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage laws, etc etc. The hypocrisy of it if appalling. You really should stop being so American-centered, because there's a world out there. I'm discussing the laws of Europe, which, in case you haven't noticed, it's also located on planet Earth. If you look in the world map, it's to the East of the US. Shouldn't take you long to find it. Alas, for apologists such as yourself, the First Amendment seems to be another loving provision of Jehovah against the hordes of Satan. How ironic!
Religious organizations such as the Watchtower and the Jehovah's Witnesses thrive by exploiting the liberties warranted by Western Democracies. Nothing intrinsically wrong with that, except when religions demand to be shielded from the full effect of the law alleging violation of "freedom of religion". Legislators in Europe aren't as condescending with religious lobbies as lawmakers in the U.S., you see. So, instead to derailing this thread with comments based on the American Constitution, I won't dignify you with an answer unless you're prepared to speak about european legislation.
On your second point: Congratulations, you can copy and paste from biblehub.com ! Regarding the Scriptures you mentioned, after being a baptized Jehovah's Witness for nearly 30 years and an ex-Elder, you can be sure I've heard them all and every argument put forth by the Governing Body to back up their theology of disfellowshipping. Let me stress this out: The issue here is not the termination of fellowship. It's the shunning that follows, which should be ruled as unlawful and illegal. Therefore, why don't you go read with a keen eye on 2 Thessalonians 3:14, 15 - "If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of that person and do not associate with him, so that he will be put to shame.Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother."
How can you 'stop associating with' and at the same time 'admonish' (which involves communication) and keep considering such person as a 'brother'? In Watchtowerism this text is used to support the practice of "marking" someone in the congregation, and it is usually stressed that it doesn't apply to disfellowshipping. This is a peculiarity of the Jehovah's Witnesses, because any Bible commentator will tell you that Paul is discussing the very same thing here as in Romans 16:17 or 1 Corinthians 5:11.
Have you read the work of Alikin? Because if you had, you would know that "stop associating with" and "not even eating with" had to do with the way the Christian gatherings were organized in the Early church, namely the table fellowship that took place during the eucharistia portion of the Gatherings, where only the iniciated (baptized in good standing) could participate in the body and blood of Christ through table fellowship. And as for the "greeting" that John mentions, it had to do with a blessing extended as a greeting (such as "Godspeed") to a false teacher who might take advantage of the hospitality of a Christian, which John argues that might implicate the greeter as partaking in the false teachings of the false teacher. It had nothing to do with disfellowshipping for immorality, for example. Your interpretation of Scripture is skewed by your Watchtowerism. Cultivate yourself with History - read the work of Alikin that I suggested - and you'll see all the important points about the early Christian gatherings that the Organization omits, and would be very important to know.
As for Islam, it's not my concern, as it's neither the Amish, the Mormons, Scientology ... If any of them is shunned and feels his human rights violated, he should file a complaint. At least here in Europe...on planet Earth.
Eden
i'm pretty new here.
but i have a question.
the kingdom rules!
Russell wasn't shy on using the name "Jehovah"; but later it became an obsession when Rutherford needed ways to differentiate his religious group from the myriad others out there. That's when "Jehovah" became the trademark of...you know....the Jehovah's Witnesses.
Eden
i would like this to become a permanent thread, because i think there are grounds - at least in europe - to take this matter up to the european court of human rights.
not sure we'll ever get there, but one must start somewhere.
objective: force, by legal means, the watchtower society and the jehovah's witnesses to stop the practice of shunning ex-jehovah's witnesses, on grounds that it constitutes a violation of human rights.. what is needed: all written material ever published by the watchtower society, especially since 1940's, concerning the practice of shunning.
flamegrilled,
I don't challenge the right that Jehovah's Witnesses' congregations have to terminate fellowship with an individual based on clear violations of clearly stated moral conduct, for example. What I don't find clear is that someone might be unilaterally disfellowshipped by holding contrary doctrinal opinions to the Governing Body, because that violates the freedom of thought and of opinion, which are protected by the European law.
In any case, it's the shunning that I challenge. And, while any individual may choose to shun another, i challenge the policy of an institution who instructs and requests that its members practice discrimination upon former members. And why is it discrimination? Because they instruct active JW's to not even say hello to an ex-JW (they say hello to the population at large), to not engage in any sort of conversation with an ex-JW (they talk with the population at large), to not have business with an ex-JW (they conduct business with the population at large) and to not have conversations about spiritual matters with ex-JW's (they will have conversations about faith, the Bible, spiritual matters, with the population at large, even going to great lengths to contact people with their message). JW parents will stop their children to see ex-JW relatives (but they won't stop them from having contact with the population at large). JW's will stop having contact with ex-JW'relatives who don't live under the same roof (but they won't stop contact with other relatives that aren't ex-JWs). In my view, yes THIS CONSTITUTES DISCRIMINATION, and therefore, it's unlawful and must stop.
Someone once told me: "But, if we don't shun the disfellowshipped person, the penalty of disfellowshipping loses its meaning and effectiveness!". Ah, yes, good point! But that's not MY problem, you see. That's the problem of a high control cult who needs to resort to these unlawful actions to keep the rank and file in line. Surely, if they trusted the strength of faith of their members, they would think of other ways to "terminate fellowship". But they can't, because they need it to control their members.
Eden
