Originally posted by no1marauderI'm using definition 2) from m-w.com...
What definition of "coercion" are you using? Generally in law coercion has to be by physical force or threat of the same. I don't see how the word "coercion" applies here; the devout JW's in her family could just as well say that she was attempting to "coerce" them by asking them to accept her failure to abide by a central tenet of their faith yet still maintain close relations.
1 : to restrain or dominate by force 2 : to compel to an act or choice 3 : to achieve by force or threat
...combined with the following definition of 'compel'.
2: to cause to do or occur by overwhelming pressure [public opinion compelled her to sign the bill]
I see no reason to confine the definition to a strict legal sense. Disfellowship is a social consequence, not a legal one.
I don't understand why the word 'disfellowship' has such a powerful effect on people.
In just about every other religion and every culture... what happens when someone (unrepentantly) breaks the rules of that culture? ... they are removed.
God is not discriminatory, but he does have rules... when those rules are broken (deliberately and unrepentantly), removal from the congregation is a logical, and scriptural procedure.
Why Some Are Disfellowshipped
3 God’s servants study the Bible and Christian publications. Jehovah’s standards are discussed at their meetings, assemblies, and conventions. So Christians are in a position to know what Jehovah requires of them. Disfellowshipping takes place only if a member of the congregation unrepentantly engages in gross sin.
4 Consider a Scriptural example of disfellowshipping. The congregation in Corinth tolerated “such fornication as [was] not even among the nations, that a wife a certain man [had] of his father.” Paul urged the Corinthians to “hand such a man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, in order that the spirit may be saved.” (1 Corinthians 5:1-5) When disfellowshipped and thus handed over to Satan, the sinner was again part of the Devil’s world. (1 John 5:19) His expulsion removed an evil fleshly element from the congregation and preserved its godly “spirit,” or dominant attitude.—2 Timothy 4:22; 1 Corinthians 5:11-13.
5 Before a very long time had passed, Paul urged the Christians in Corinth to reinstate the wrongdoer. Why? It was so that they might not be “overreached by Satan,” said the apostle. The sinner had evidently repented and cleaned up his life. (2 Corinthians 2:8-11) If the Corinthians refused to reinstate the repentant man, Satan would overreach them in that they would be as hard and unforgiving as the Devil wanted them to be. Very likely, they soon did “forgive and comfort” the penitent man.—2 Corinthians 2:5-7.
6 What is accomplished by disfellowshipping? It keeps Jehovah’s holy name clear of reproach and protects the fine reputation of his people. (1 Peter 1:14-16) Removing an unrepentant wrongdoer from the congregation upholds God’s standards and preserves the congregation’s spiritual cleanness. It may also bring the unrepentant one to his senses.
- An article for study in the November 15th, 2006 Watchtower.
I see nothing wrong with this at all...
Originally posted by snowinscotlandIf you read a newspaper written in the middle east, they make it sound like they are winning the war.
Thanks for adding your point.
I guess the point about the unclean food is similar to the Indian Mutiny where the pig fat wrappings of the ammunition were just as intolerable; only where a literal point is taken. (More on this later perhaps; to what level should the literal point be taken - one molocule?)
You wouldn't inject it for sure, if you tho ...[text shortened]... not.
but seriously what are you trying to say about the viewpoints re east and west?
Read something in the states and it's completely opposite.
ummm.. interesting you talk about how strictly the law on blood should be taken... obviously JW's won't take blood transfusions or eat foods with blood (ie. blood sausages).. but what about blood fragments? What about medicines (such as some snake venom meds) that have small amounts of blood products in them?
Smaller things such as this fall into the grey area of a Christian's conscience.
One thing that I've always found funny about this debate is this; blood transfusions are rarely a life and death decision. Situations like this almost never happen (especially with modern bloodless surgery). Why is it people have a complete fit about blood transfusions and disfellowshipping? Why is it 'minor' things like that as opposed to the Trinity or other fundamental differences between the JW's and many other Christian faiths? I've found that unusual...
Originally posted by SwissGambitif perhaps you'd notice the explanation given in the post immediately after, your viewpoint may become that much more reasonable 🙄
Imagine being shunned by your all family and friends, permanently, even outside of church meetings and property, then see if it still seems like 'no big deal'.
Originally posted by ih8sensHas it ever occurred to you that they are biased and will paint their own controversial practices in the most reasonable and politically correct light? I've heard too many stories of how it really turns out to believe their flowery version.
if perhaps you'd notice the explanation given in the post immediately after, your viewpoint may become that much more reasonable 🙄
Originally posted by SwissGambithm... sounds me talking about religious guys in general.
Has it ever occurred to you that they are biased and will paint their own controversial practices in the most reasonable and politically correct light? I've heard too many stories of how it really turns out to believe their flowery version.
Truth is their beliefs make as much sense to me as other religious beliefs.
Originally posted by SwissGambitLet me share a little story of how cynisim tends to pan out...
Has it ever occurred to you that they are biased and will paint their own controversial practices in the most reasonable and politically correct light? I've heard too many stories of how it really turns out to believe their flowery version.
A man goes into a barbers shop and sits down for a haircut, as usual, small talk ensues. Eventually the chat gets religious.
Barber - I don't believe in god, there's no way.
Guy - Why do you say that?
Barber - I've seen way too much stuff to believe in a god.
Guy - Like what?
Barber - Just look at the world, no powerful god would let the world be like this! He can't exist!
... long pause....
Guy - I don't believe in Barbers.
Barber - WHAT! Are you crazy? What makes you say that?
Guy - Well, look at that guy across the street... look at his hair! If barbers existed his hair wouldn't be so long and unkempt.
Barber - Oh c'mon that's stupid, he just hasn't come to me.
Guy - Exactly.
... Don't be cynical without looking at the other side fairly.
Originally posted by ih8sensUgh. A story worthy to be forwarded email fodder. Thanks for sharing. 🙄
Let me share a little story of how cynisim tends to pan out...
A man goes into a barbers shop and sits down for a haircut, as usual, small talk ensues. Eventually the chat gets religious.
Barber - I don't believe in god, there's no way.
Guy - Why do you say that?
Barber - I've seen way too much stuff to believe in a god.
Guy - Like what?
Barber - me.
Guy - Exactly.
... Don't be cynical without looking at the other side fairly.
I could have dismissed one random story as a possible exaggeration, or even lie, by a disgruntled ex-JW, or shunned family member of JWs. The trouble is that several unrelated people are telling me the same thing.
Originally posted by SwissGambitSo what? If somebody marries or associates with devout JW's and THEN decides to not follow an important directive of the faith they suffer consequences. They know this going in. You act like it's some outrageous and totally capricious result when it is part of the package.
Ugh. A story worthy to be forwarded email fodder. Thanks for sharing. 🙄
I could have dismissed one random story as a possible exaggeration, or even lie, by a disgruntled ex-JW, or shunned family member of JWs. The trouble is that several unrelated people are telling me the same thing.
Go take a leak on the altar of any Christian Church and see if you're not kicked out of the Church!
Originally posted by SwissGambitHas it occurred to you that you are biased? Certainly you didn't address the points raised in his post at all.
Has it ever occurred to you that they are biased and will paint their own controversial practices in the most reasonable and politically correct light? I've heard too many stories of how it really turns out to believe their flowery version.
Originally posted by SwissGambitThis statement is incorrect and a gross exaggerration as regards JW disfellowship. From the Wiki article on Jehovah's Witnesses:
Imagine being shunned by your all family and friends, permanently, even outside of church meetings and property, then see if it still seems like 'no big deal'.
After one is disfellowshipped, all baptized members would cut off all association with that person. They would not speak to such a one, or acknowledge him or her.[51] There are two exceptions. First if a member was forced to have commercial dealings with a member who is disfellowshipped, these would continue as before. Second, if the disfellowshipped member is living with family members who are baptized, they could continue to associate with this one, but are not to speak about matters pertaining to the religion. The exception to that being that loving parents still arrange to have a home Bible study with minor disfellowshipped children.[52] The extent to which disfellowshipped or disassociated relatives living in the same household would be included in family life would be left to the discretion of the family.[53] Family members living outside the home who are disfellowshipped, would have minimal contact.[54][55]
Originally posted by ih8sensre the papers: - so where lies the truth? As sentient beings we all make a judgement; some will favour the middle east version, other the states version; but somewhere in the middle is much more probable.
If you read a newspaper written in the middle east, they make it sound like they are winning the war.
Read something in the states and it's completely opposite.
ummm.. interesting you talk about how strictly the law on blood should be taken... obviously JW's won't take blood transfusions or eat foods with blood (ie. blood sausages).. but what about b ...[text shortened]... fferences between the JW's and many other Christian faiths? I've found that unusual...
I think it is funny too: in this way. All these religions have all these major differences that are 'important' and it's the minor, 'stupid little' ones that in this womans case ended in her death and the loss of a mother for her children.
How important is it that how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Originally posted by snowinscotlandBTW, the article doesn't state that the woman died because she didn't get a blood transfusion and the family denies it played any part in her death. This is more hysterical demagoguing from someone who should know better.
re the papers: - so where lies the truth? As sentient beings we all make a judgement; some will favour the middle east version, other the states version; but somewhere in the middle is much more probable.
I think it is funny too: in this way. All these religions have all these major differences that are 'important' and it's the minor, 'stupid littl ...[text shortened]... r her children.
How important is it that how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?