|
Post by Isapop on Feb 18, 2019 13:02:58 GMT
geode Here are the things to take away from my statements: 1. Religions are free to determine how to handle apostates within their religion regardless of precedent but certainly if there is one. I don't think anyone been arguing that religions aren't free in that regard. That freedom is not a shield from criticism if their policies are harmful and disgraceful.Has anyone been arguing that it IS the same thing?Remember that ex-JW family members and friends get shunned for reasons besides apostasy.Yes, you can talk to whoever you wish because (since you haven't gotten baptized) the JW organization doesn't expect you to follow their rules. But you do have a dog in the this fight. It is your family's dog, and you subscribe to Watchtower theology (though once again for the record, I know you are not officially a JW). Whenever a subject that implicates the Watchtower comes up, you are at their service with whatever defenses, lame or strong, you can make. So don't try to come on to anyone as if you view them with some distant objectivity.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 18, 2019 13:23:05 GMT
geode Here are the things to take away from my statements: 1. Religions are free to determine how to handle apostates within their religion regardless of precedent but certainly if there is one. I don't think anyone been arguing that religions aren't free in that regard. That freedom is not a shield from criticism if their policies are harmful and disgraceful.Has anyone been arguing that it IS the same thing?Remember that ex-JW family members and friends get shunned for reasons besides apostasy.Yes, you can talk to whoever you wish because (since you haven't gotten baptized) the JW organization doesn't expect you to follow their rules. But you do have a dog in the this fight. It is your family's dog, and you subscribe to Watchtower theology (though once again for the record, I know you are not officially a JW). Whenever a subject that implicates the Watchtower comes up, you are at their service with whatever defenses, lame or strong, you can make. So don't try to come on to anyone as if you view them with some distant objectivity. youre getting confused again. I have only agreed to be a JW for you and a select few others. If you want to add geode to the mix he has to formally accept.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Feb 19, 2019 13:25:07 GMT
geode Never in a million years would I have been able to read all of that, but I'll give the last thing a shot. This isn't true. I'm not even sure where you got it considering I said this: This seems to just boil down to you sticking to a view of me certainly not supported by my typings. Here are the things to take away from my statements: 1. Religions are free to determine how to handle apostates within their religion regardless of precedent but certainly if there is one. 2. This condoning of religious freedom is not the same thing as me agree to the beliefs of the religion whether we are talking about JW's, Mormons, atheists, or whatever. 3. There is NO evidence to suggest Jesus or any Christian welcomes enemies of their teaching as they would a believer. Prove me wrong. Sinners and non-believers are not inherently enemies. Apostates always are so it makes perfect sense why any religion would want their followers to avoid them. I guess I better add that this doesn't mean the apostate is wrong. 4. I have no dog in the fight of shunning I can talk to whoever I wish to, so it remains silly to connect me to JW's version of it which still remains indistinguishable from the Mormon one imo which makes your whining about it even odder. You have taken every opportunity for years on the board to defend shunning by the Mormons and JWs. That comment you made about apostates really is not about shunning.
"1. Religions are free to determine how to handle apostates within their religion regardless of precedent but certainly if there is one."
Yes, this is true. But it doesn't mean that what they do is in alignment with what Christ taught. You made a bunch of claims that He would never associate with unbelievers or sinners. I cited instances where he did just that. I notice you are ignoring this, the main point of my last post.
"2. This condoning of religious freedom is not the same thing as me agree to the beliefs of the religion whether we are talking about JW's, Mormons, atheists, or whatever."
I don't even know what you mean by this.
"3. There is NO evidence to suggest Jesus or any Christian welcomes enemies of their teaching as they would a believer. Prove me wrong. Sinners and non-believers are not inherently enemies. Apostates always are so it makes perfect sense why any religion would want their followers to avoid them. I guess I better add that this doesn't mean the apostate is wrong."
Here we go with your moving the goal posts again. Were we not talking about "enemies" before, or at least I wasn't. You were claiming that non-believers and sinners were shunned by Jesus. You basically equated apostates as sinners. So now you are moving your position. I think apostates by most people's definition just stop believing. Are you using a JW definition? Some actively attempt to tear down the faith, but most do not.
"4. I have no dog in the fight of shunning I can talk to whoever I wish to, so it remains silly to connect me to JW's version of it which still remains indistinguishable from the Mormon one imo which makes your whining about it even odder."
For somebody who has no dog in the fight, you sure promote shunning very strongly. I already explained the the JW concept and Mormon concept of shunning are vastly different. The Mormons do not have a formal policy of shunning like the JWs...remember that part? Apparently not.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 19, 2019 17:52:04 GMT
geode Never in a million years would I have been able to read all of that, but I'll give the last thing a shot. This isn't true. I'm not even sure where you got it considering I said this: This seems to just boil down to you sticking to a view of me certainly not supported by my typings. Here are the things to take away from my statements: 1. Religions are free to determine how to handle apostates within their religion regardless of precedent but certainly if there is one. 2. This condoning of religious freedom is not the same thing as me agree to the beliefs of the religion whether we are talking about JW's, Mormons, atheists, or whatever. 3. There is NO evidence to suggest Jesus or any Christian welcomes enemies of their teaching as they would a believer. Prove me wrong. Sinners and non-believers are not inherently enemies. Apostates always are so it makes perfect sense why any religion would want their followers to avoid them. I guess I better add that this doesn't mean the apostate is wrong. 4. I have no dog in the fight of shunning I can talk to whoever I wish to, so it remains silly to connect me to JW's version of it which still remains indistinguishable from the Mormon one imo which makes your whining about it even odder. You have taken every opportunity for years on the board to defend shunning by the Mormons and JWs. That comment you made about apostates really is not about shunning.
"1. Religions are free to determine how to handle apostates within their religion regardless of precedent but certainly if there is one."
Yes, this is true. But it doesn't mean that what they do is in alignment with what Christ taught. You made a bunch of claims that He would never associate with unbelievers or sinners. I cited instances where he did just that. I notice you are ignoring this, the main point of my last post.
"2. This condoning of religious freedom is not the same thing as me agree to the beliefs of the religion whether we are talking about JW's, Mormons, atheists, or whatever."
I don't even know what you mean by this.
"3. There is NO evidence to suggest Jesus or any Christian welcomes enemies of their teaching as they would a believer. Prove me wrong. Sinners and non-believers are not inherently enemies. Apostates always are so it makes perfect sense why any religion would want their followers to avoid them. I guess I better add that this doesn't mean the apostate is wrong."
Here we go with your moving the goal posts again. Were we not talking about "enemies" before, or at least I wasn't. You were claiming that non-believers and sinners were shunned by Jesus. You basically equated apostates as sinners. So now you are moving your position. I think apostates by most people's definition just stop believing. Are you using a JW definition? Some actively attempt to tear down the faith, but most do not.
"4. I have no dog in the fight of shunning I can talk to whoever I wish to, so it remains silly to connect me to JW's version of it which still remains indistinguishable from the Mormon one imo which makes your whining about it even odder."
For somebody who has no dog in the fight, you sure promote shunning very strongly. I already explained the the JW concept and Mormon concept of shunning are vastly different. The Mormons do not have a formal policy of shunning like the JWs...remember that part? Apparently not.
I defend churches that don’t shun too. It doesn’t matter if a religion is adhering to Christian teachings or not in regards to their rights enforce their views. However shunning is a Biblical thing and one that can easily be interpreted that Jesus would sanction. I never once made a claim that Jesus or any Christian in the Bible would not hang out with sinners and nonbelievers. It literally was the exact opposite of what I said. What I said are apostates and enemies were shunned. You are creating goalposts as I have moved nothing.. Apostasy is abandonment which is different than disbelief. A person who stops believing would have little to no interest is turning other people away from what they once believed. If the person kept matters to themselves then I’m not sure what issue there would be. Your article is specifically discussing apostates shunned by the Mormon Church or its members and them activately trying to get people leave as well through what you thought might be deceptive advertising. Why on Earth would you think I’m changing the context from that?
|
|
|
Post by geode on Feb 21, 2019 6:07:55 GMT
You have taken every opportunity for years on the board to defend shunning by the Mormons and JWs. That comment you made about apostates really is not about shunning.
"1. Religions are free to determine how to handle apostates within their religion regardless of precedent but certainly if there is one."
Yes, this is true. But it doesn't mean that what they do is in alignment with what Christ taught. You made a bunch of claims that He would never associate with unbelievers or sinners. I cited instances where he did just that. I notice you are ignoring this, the main point of my last post.
"2. This condoning of religious freedom is not the same thing as me agree to the beliefs of the religion whether we are talking about JW's, Mormons, atheists, or whatever."
I don't even know what you mean by this.
"3. There is NO evidence to suggest Jesus or any Christian welcomes enemies of their teaching as they would a believer. Prove me wrong. Sinners and non-believers are not inherently enemies. Apostates always are so it makes perfect sense why any religion would want their followers to avoid them. I guess I better add that this doesn't mean the apostate is wrong."
Here we go with your moving the goal posts again. Were we not talking about "enemies" before, or at least I wasn't. You were claiming that non-believers and sinners were shunned by Jesus. You basically equated apostates as sinners. So now you are moving your position. I think apostates by most people's definition just stop believing. Are you using a JW definition? Some actively attempt to tear down the faith, but most do not.
"4. I have no dog in the fight of shunning I can talk to whoever I wish to, so it remains silly to connect me to JW's version of it which still remains indistinguishable from the Mormon one imo which makes your whining about it even odder."
For somebody who has no dog in the fight, you sure promote shunning very strongly. I already explained the the JW concept and Mormon concept of shunning are vastly different. The Mormons do not have a formal policy of shunning like the JWs...remember that part? Apparently not.
I defend churches that don’t shun too. It doesn’t matter if a religion is adhering to Christian teachings or not in regards to their rights enforce their views. However shunning is a Biblical thing and one that can easily be interpreted that Jesus would sanction. I never once made a claim that Jesus or any Christian in the Bible would not hang out with sinners and nonbelievers. It literally was the exact opposite of what I said. What I said are apostates and enemies were shunned. You are creating goalposts as I have moved nothing.. Apostasy is abandonment which is different than disbelief. A person who stops believing would have little to no interest is turning other people away from what they once believed. If the person kept matters to themselves then I’m not sure what issue there would be. Your article is specifically discussing apostates shunned by the Mormon Church or its members and them activately trying to get people leave as well through what you thought might be deceptive advertising. Why on Earth would you think I’m changing the context from that? "I defend churches that don’t shun too."
By saying that they do not follow scripture or the wishes of Jesus?
"It doesn’t matter if a religion is adhering to Christian teachings or not in regards to their rights enforce their views. However shunning is a Biblical thing and one that can easily be interpreted that Jesus would sanction."
You claim that shuning is a biblical thing. Yes, that is all you have done. You have failed to support this with scripture even when prompted. You can easily interpret that Jesus would sanctin it, but this would fly in the face of what He actually did and said, some of which I have referenced.
"I never once made a claim that Jesus or any Christian in the Bible would not hang out with sinners and nonbelievers. It literally was the exact opposite of what I said." Exact opposite? You implied it very strongly. You said: "On top of that he warns about associating with ones who are unrepentantly sin or stumble the faithful. While dying he literally told his apostles to take care of his mother over his siblings who weren't disciples at the time. Jesus has always chosen faithfulness over unfaithfulness and so it stands to reason that people who are actually enemies of his teachings would fit into that as well."
And yet he hung out with a woman who apparently had committed adultery. Why? In part to call her to repent. Jesus hung out with Pharisees who most certainly tended to attack Him. They accused him of associating with just those sinners you talk about here.
"What I said are apostates and enemies were shunned. You are creating goalposts as I have moved nothing.."
You keep changing your definition of "apostate' and evolve it to fit wherever you are in the discussion. That is moving the goal posts.
"Apostasy is abandonment which is different than disbelief. A person who stops believing would have little to no interest is turning other people away from what they once believed. If the person kept matters to themselves then I’m not sure what issue there would be." So people who stop believing do not abandon? I think you are splitting hairs with semantics. You last said:
"Sinners and non-believers are not inherently enemies. Apostates always are so it makes perfect sense why any religion would want their followers to avoid them."
You are following a different definition than others dod, once again, is this the JW definition? It certainly is not the one other religions use. You claim that apostates are always enemies.
"Your article is specifically discussing apostates shunned by the Mormon Church or its members and them activately trying to get people leave as well through what you thought might be deceptive advertising."
I already commented on this. There is very little in that article that talks about shunning. I cited the only paragraph, The main person talked about had started ads to influence members away from the Mormon church, but he had not been shunned. At least not in the way you use the word.
"Why on Earth would you think I’m changing the context from that?"
You said that shunning was the main focus of the article when it is in fact barely there at all. A question for you. You are obsessed with shunning. Were you once subjected to it?
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Feb 22, 2019 21:36:28 GMT
Meh, people split from their families for any number of reasons. Generally speaking, a person leaves their family before they are ever given the boot. In the article, there's a dude who simply couldn't abide his wife rejecting the church like he did. All indications were she was fine as things were, but it was him who tricked her into drinking the apostate Kool-Aid. I was referring to the whole endemic emotional blackmail shunning thing in particular...done on purpose to punish those you love for having a different opinion to you. One thing that has not been mentioned so far is that the Amish practice shunning. And, given that they are an insular community that is based on agriculture, someone who has been shunned has only the world of the 'English' to go to, and how exactly are they supposed to survive?
The Amish claim that teenagers are given the opportunity to go out in the English world, during 'Rumspringe' , but given that they are complete 'babes in the woods' and have no knowledge of how to function in that world, the vast majority go back to what they know. It's about control, as are all religions.
I consider myself lucky that I was able to escape the Evangelical Southern Baptist cult I was raised in, though my aging mother is still trying to bring me back into the fold. Once she has passed on, I will live my own life, separate from the rest of the family that are all Bible-thumpers. I have no desire to maintain contact with a family that has refused to help my mother because I am an atheist. They are punishing her for my 'sins'. Yet more coercion, more attempts to control.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Feb 23, 2019 4:04:57 GMT
I was referring to the whole endemic emotional blackmail shunning thing in particular...done on purpose to punish those you love for having a different opinion to you. One thing that has not been mentioned so far is that the Amish practice shunning. And, given that they are an insular community that is based on agriculture, someone who has been shunned has only the world of the 'English' to go to, and how exactly are they supposed to survive?
The Amish claim that teenagers are given the opportunity to go out in the English world, during 'Rumspringe' , but given that they are complete 'babes in the woods' and have no knowledge of how to function in that world, the vast majority go back to what they know. It's about control, as are all religions.
I consider myself lucky that I was able to escape the Evangelical Southern Baptist cult I was raised in, though my aging mother is still trying to bring me back into the fold. Once she has passed on, I will live my own life, separate from the rest of the family that are all Bible-thumpers. I have no desire to maintain contact with a family that has refused to help my mother because I am an atheist. They are punishing her for my 'sins'. Yet more coercion, more attempts to control. Back in 1987 I almost formally joined a Presbyterian congregation I had been worshipping with. This would have been grounds for excommunication from the Mormon church. When I told my mother about this she started crying, "I can explain an inactive son to my friends at church, but not an excommunicated one. They will assume you are into some great sin." I said it shouldn't matter what they thought, as it would be an act of conscience on my part. That didn't soothe the waters. She was probably right about that, so I did not follow through. I am saddened to hear of your situation. Too many religious sects act in an inhuman fashion which they justify by protecting "the faith"....this is so wrong.
|
|