|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 27, 2017 21:18:37 GMT
One final knowledge drop regarding the article: People do not get disfellowshipped for leaving an abusive relationship - JW's split up over more minor stuff than that and while it is frowned on and Scriptural divorce only happens with adultery, there is pretty clear instruction in their literature that it is OK to separate from a spouse who is physically abusive and that abusive spouse could be disfellowshipped for the abuse. Since a lot of disfellowshipping are tied to sex, I imagine Susie just fell in love with someone else. People do not get disfellowshipped for missing the Memorial which, while important in their faith, is entirely voluntary like the rest of their meetings. They even made a movie where the premise was someone was so focused on career that they were going to miss the Memorial and the notion of this being a shunning event never came up. How would that even work? As with the other example, there is a more honest reason for the people being given the boot. So what was the actual reason for disfellowshipping of the two examples? We won't know since JW's practice confidentiality & the "victim" will never tell the whole truth of the matter. It doesn't matter since in both cases, it's clear the people don't want to be JW's anyway and the people who are outraged by the practice, as explained nicely by lowtacks, just wants the religion to go away in the first place regardless of the disfellowshipping practice. The one is perfectly fine with never seeing her parents again, give or take a few pangs of nostalgia.However, she would be able to go to their funeral. They aren't banned from the Kingdom Halls or meetings, they just don't want to be in one. Simply another reprehensible trait inflicted by a religion. Families should be able to disagree, refrain from heavy talk about certain things if they need to, etc., and still be able to love each other and break bread together. Faith-mandated "shunning" is based upon pure fear that the facade can't be maintained in the face of any possibility of real discourse. Disowning for having a different belief would be silly although being a hateful, lowdown dirty, resenful atheist livng in my house could get you the boot at 18. It's best not to bite the hand that feeds you.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 28, 2017 11:02:10 GMT
A number of things. It could be common sense; law; custom; love; conscience. But probably not what an assumed supernatural character, known for its purported acts of violence, jealousy and self-justification, with its mythical roots in an ancient culture, may be presented as preferring through inspiration. But then again, you pays your money and takes your choice. Then right and wrong are completely subjective to someone like you, yes? Right and wrong are completely subjective throughout all societies. There has never been an example of a universally accepted moral right or wrong.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 28, 2017 11:07:19 GMT
For your view to be correct (that a progressive view constitutes brainwashing) you have to suppose that the vast majority of the media, not only in the US but also the rest of the world is brainwashed, and only a handful of enlightened ones (all of course in the US) are not brainwashed. Sounds reasonable to me. Yes, I do suppose that, except for the part about them all being in the US. And the rest are in Russia right!
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 28, 2017 13:39:04 GMT
One final knowledge drop regarding the article: People do not get disfellowshipped for leaving an abusive relationship - JW's split up over more minor stuff than that and while it is frowned on and Scriptural divorce only happens with adultery, there is pretty clear instruction in their literature that it is OK to separate from a spouse who is physically abusive and that abusive spouse could be disfellowshipped for the abuse. Since a lot of disfellowshipping are tied to sex, I imagine Susie just fell in love with someone else. People do not get disfellowshipped for missing the Memorial which, while important in their faith, is entirely voluntary like the rest of their meetings. They even made a movie where the premise was someone was so focused on career that they were going to miss the Memorial and the notion of this being a shunning event never came up. How would that even work? As with the other example, there is a more honest reason for the people being given the boot. So what was the actual reason for disfellowshipping of the two examples? We won't know since JW's practice confidentiality & the "victim" will never tell the whole truth of the matter. It doesn't matter since in both cases, it's clear the people don't want to be JW's anyway and the people who are outraged by the practice, as explained nicely by lowtacks, just wants the religion to go away in the first place regardless of the disfellowshipping practice. The one is perfectly fine with never seeing her parents again, give or take a few pangs of nostalgia.However, she would be able to go to their funeral. They aren't banned from the Kingdom Halls or meetings, they just don't want to be in one. Simply another reprehensible trait inflicted by a religion. Families should be able to disagree, refrain from heavy talk about certain things if they need to, etc., and still be able to love each other and break bread together. Faith-mandated "shunning" is based upon pure fear that the facade can't be maintained in the face of any possibility of real discourse. Disowning for having a different belief would be silly although being a hateful, lowdown dirty, resenful atheist livng in my house could get you the boot at 18. It's best not to bite the hand that feeds you.Why is what you bolded a bad thing or tied to your statement?
In any event, this is not about family disagreement but rather religious standards.
However, disagreements are not disconnected from acceptance of the sin. There is no reason for family to hang out that don't have anything in common and the examples given clearly reflect that. What are they going to discuss? Football?
IF the family is weak enough in their faith, they're going to be talking to their kids anyway and they are never barred from talking to their grown children about important stuff anyway. Why the grown child thinks they are right is in no way an important discussion.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 28, 2017 13:47:44 GMT
Simply another reprehensible trait inflicted by a religion. Families should be able to disagree, refrain from heavy talk about certain things if they need to, etc., and still be able to love each other and break bread together. Faith-mandated "shunning" is based upon pure fear that the facade can't be maintained in the face of any possibility of real discourse. Why is what you bolded a bad thing or tied to your statement?
In any event, this is not about family disagreement but rather religious standards.
However, disagreements are not disconnected from acceptance of the sin. There is no reason for family to hang out that don't have anything in common and the examples given clearly reflect that. What are they going to discuss? Football?
IF the family is weak enough in their faith, they're going to be talking to their kids anyway and they are never barred from talking to their grown children about important stuff anyway. Why the grown child thinks they are right is in no way an important discussion.
That was your bolding, not mine. What this is about is an immoral faith working to split up families in order to try to protect its ludicrous line and egregious advantage-taking of people. Families can and should be able to have stark differences of opinion within them and still remain together as a family. Certainly not be pushed into "shunning" each other. It's a reprehensible trait of a pernicious cult. Disowning for having a different belief would be silly although being a hateful, lowdown dirty, resenful atheist livng in my house could get you the boot at 18. It's best not to bite the hand that feeds you.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 28, 2017 14:16:11 GMT
Why is what you bolded a bad thing or tied to your statement?
In any event, this is not about family disagreement but rather religious standards.
However, disagreements are not disconnected from acceptance of the sin. There is no reason for family to hang out that don't have anything in common and the examples given clearly reflect that. What are they going to discuss? Football?
IF the family is weak enough in their faith, they're going to be talking to their kids anyway and they are never barred from talking to their grown children about important stuff anyway. Why the grown child thinks they are right is in no way an important discussion.
That was your bolding, not mine. What this is about is an immoral faith working to split up families in order to try to protect its ludicrous line and egregious advantage-taking of people. Families can and should be able to have stark differences of opinion within them and still remain together as a family. Certainly not be pushed into "shunning" each other. It's a reprehensible trait of a pernicious cult. Disowning for having a different belief would be silly although being a hateful, lowdown dirty, resenful atheist livng in my house could get you the boot at 18. It's best not to bite the hand that feeds you.Oops, I forgot.
Anyway, the faith doesn't work to split up families as much as the grown child uses almost no effort or worry to do so.
Whatever the sin was, it was likely easier than what the parents and congregation go through to give them the boot. There's no reason for a grown kid who doesn't like JW's to even like their parents and much less reason for a grown kid to being living with them and being decidedly independent.
But please continuing talking as if we're are talking about 12 year olds...
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 28, 2017 14:22:45 GMT
That was your bolding, not mine. What this is about is an immoral faith working to split up families in order to try to protect its ludicrous line and egregious advantage-taking of people. Families can and should be able to have stark differences of opinion within them and still remain together as a family. Certainly not be pushed into "shunning" each other. It's a reprehensible trait of a pernicious cult. Disowning for having a different belief would be silly although being a hateful, lowdown dirty, resenful atheist livng in my house could get you the boot at 18. It's best not to bite the hand that feeds you.Oops, I forgot.
Anyway, the faith doesn't work to split up families as much as the grown child uses almost no effort or worry to do so.
Whatever the sin was, it was likely easier than what the parents and congregation go through to give them the boot. There's no reason for a grown kid who doesn't like JW's to even like their parents and much less reason for a grown kid to being living with them and being decidedly independent.
But please continuing talking as if we're are talking about 12 year olds...
"Easier" mitigates "reprehensible" not one bit, and this isn't originating from "the family" but "the faith". And not believing does not in any way mean not liking their parents. And "shunning" doesn't have anything particularly to do with cohabitating. And at no time did I suggest anything about "12 year olds". The lengths you guys will go to in order to rationalize pure nasty. Disowning for having a different belief would be silly although being a hateful, lowdown dirty, resenful atheist livng in my house could get you the boot at 18. It's best not to bite the hand that feeds you.
|
|