geode Well, I was making fun of your outrage which is misplaced. People who are shunned are still loved by their friends and family.
The article clearly discusses people being shunned which leads them to trick family members in order to convince them to leave the church. It is the entirety of the premise of the article. THAT is shunning. You can call it whatever you like, you can explain the differences and exceptions just as I tried but at the end of the day they are isolated from a large group of people they used to share the same faith with.
Meh, I support Mormons too. Heck, I don't have a problem with apostates as long as they aren't in my church and trying to separate me from it.
I know, based on another thread you created you want to make this a JW argument for no reason in particular. I'm not interested in that and there's not much more to add that I haven't already said, but I am interested in accuracy and you are wrong about how Jesus would handle unrepentant sinners of his teachings. After all, he's going to be killing a lot of people...the ultimate cutting off.
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.
You haven't even explained the difference or what examples you have of Jesus wanting to hang around the people who attack him, but I've given you a few to stew over. That said, you did not address the notion that you apparently think the ONLY thing that matters is the Gospels, so is there any reason to take you seriously in regards to what people are doing that is right or wrong. Throw me a bone.
On two occasions, I have mentioned there is Scriptural precedent for giving someone the boot from the congregation and twice you push backed by saying what you think Jesus would do while ignoring what I said in the first place. So either I'm wrong about Scriptural precedent which I'm sure we both know I am not, or you are ignoring that to focus on Jesus.
It is not my job to discuss details with someone who provides none of their own. You seem to know areas where expulsion is discussed (Although more than Paul warns about it. I'm not sure why people have issues with Paul anyway, but that's another topic for another day), so why say shunning is bad except to disagree with it?
“Well, I was making fun of your outrage which is misplaced. People who are shunned are still loved by their friends and family.”
Are shunned people really still loved by family and friends? I would say that their shunning is usually anything but showing a loving attitude. With love like that, who needs hate?
“The article clearly discusses people being shunned which leads them to trick family members in order to convince them to leave the church. It is the entirety of the premise of the article. THAT is shunning. You can call it whatever you like, you can explain the differences and exceptions just as I tried but at the end of the day they are isolated from a large group of people they used to share the same faith with.”
You should really re-read the article, with more comprehension than you did the first time. The article does not really discuss people being shunned. Once again you appear to be so indoctrinated by JW practices that you are projecting them into a discussion of Mormons where it was not present. It is NOT the entire premise of the article, it is not even a minor premise of the article. It really isn’t even there. There is no discussion of people isolated from a large group of people due to shunning. If there is isolation it was more of their own making and by their own desire. That is not the same as what you are discussing at all when it comes to JWs, who do the practice of shunning as a formal part of their religion.
The closest part of the article to what you claim was this:
“Nothing, though, prepared him for the psychological impact of separating from the church, which treats apostates as a dangerous infection that must be isolated from the flock. “I lost a lot of my friends, and things were very touch-and-go with my family for a while,” he said. LDS teaches that apostasy is a sign that the faithless parishioner is harboring some dark sinful secret, like a drinking habit, a gambling addiction or an affair. Nobody wanted the hear his real reasons for giving up his religion. “Nobody would listen to me,” Jones said. “They thought I had to be doing something else bad to leave the church.” (The Church of Latter-day Saints declined comment for this story).”
There may or may not have been shunning from family and friends. The claim about the attitude towards apostates here is only partially true. The Mormon church may excommunicate members for offences including apostasy, but this is not done for just falling into disbelief, but this does not bar them from attending church meetings or informal gatherings like picnics, etc. So there is not attempt to “isolate them from the flock” as the JWs do. Yes, many Mormons tend to think excommunicated members did some grave sin to get that action taken against them.
I said: “Your support of hateful JW practices is well known. The fact that Christ would disapprove of them doesn't appear to bother you, which is sad. Christians make mistakes, Christ never did. Hanging your hat on the poor practices of Christians in the past does not make a very good case for present day Christians going contrary to His teachings.”
You reply” “Meh, I support Mormons too. Heck, I don't have a problem with apostates as long as they aren't in my church and trying to separate me from it.”
Sorry, you have not really addressed what I said at all. So what is your church?
“I know, based on another thread you created you want to make this a JW argument for no reason in particular. I'm not interested in that and there's not much more to add that I haven't already said, but I am interested in accuracy and you are wrong about how Jesus would handle unrepentant sinners of his teachings. After all, he's going to be killing a lot of people...the ultimate cutting off. ”
It is you that brought up shunning. You took this thread off topic into a discussion of JWs. I am correct about what Jesus would do in terms of people who have doubts about their faith, to the point of leaving the organized group of worshippers that they were part of as members. This has nothing to do with sin. You keep labeling people such as I describe as sinners. I also do not believe that Jesus will be killing a lot of people. I would ask you to substantiate that scripturally, but it really is another topic completely. How many times do you wish to take tis discussion completely off topic?
“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.”
No, I don’t think Jesus ever warned about not associating with people who have sinned or “stumble the faithful”…you might make a case that Paul did so, but not Jesus. So now you are saying that Jesus didn’t care for anybody that did not already believe upon Him? So much for seeking anybody out through missionary work. I suggest looking up the Parable of the Lost Sheep. I doubt you will look it up on your own, so here it is in Luke Chapter 15.
1 Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him.
2 And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.
3 And he spake this parable unto them, saying,
4 What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?
5 And when he hath found [it], he layeth [it] on his shoulders, rejoicing.
6 And when he cometh home, he calleth together friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost.
And while we are on the subject, and you are reminding me of the attitude of the Pharisees we can go to Matthew Chapter 9.
10 And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples.
11 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?
12 But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.
13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Once again you interject condemnation for those who have lost faith. Most are certainly not “enemies of his teachings” they just do not believe anymore.
You say: “You haven't even explained the difference or what examples you have of Jesus wanting to hang around the people who attack him, but I've given you a few to stew over.”
Jesus sought out sinners. Remember the woman brought to him that was said to have committed adultery? Did he refuse to associate with her after those asking Him about her had left? Do you remember the lesson He attempted to teach? You missed that lesson it would seem. You have not given a single example that supports your belief that Jesus didn’t wish to associate with sinners. The one you think proves your case from the cross at the crucifixion is a real stretch. There was only one apostle present and it is disputed if Jesus even had any siblings. Some say that his asking the beloved disciple to look after His mother indicates that there were no living sons to do so. But there were other believers with faith in Christ that were present, such as Mary Magdalene. He said nothing to her that is recorded. However, he did talk to the thief at his side, a sinner, and promised they would dwell in Paradise together. That sure is one heck of a promise of association.
“That said, you did not address the notion that you apparently think the ONLY thing that matters is the Gospels, so is there any reason to take you seriously in regards to what people are doing that is right or wrong. Throw me a bone.”
That is because I never made that claim. I never once have written that only the gospels matter. If you cannot read with comprehension and actually comment truthfully about what I do write, why should I take anything you say seriously? You seem to be doing this just to avoid answering to what I did write.
What did I write? This:
“Personally I think the shunning thing done by JWs is hateful and quite unlike what Christ taught.”
And then I wrote this after you attempted to make more of this than what I had written:
“You just moved the goalposts. I said nothing about whether shunning was practiced in accounts in the Bible. I said the JW practice was not in keeping with what Christ taught. The JW practice is antithetical to Christ's teachings.”
I also said: “Just where did I ever reject all of the New Testament? I didn't. It is a poor practice to claim somebody has said something they have not. You on the other hand have really offered no argument to support your case. Broad generalities are all you have offered. I fully expected you would try an argument based upon something Paul wrote, but no, you didn't even attempt that but simply made a case that Christians have always been poor followers of Christ so current Christians are justified in being hateful and unfeeling as well.”
You reply: “On two occasions, I have mentioned there is Scriptural precedent for giving someone the boot from the congregation and twice you push backed by saying what you think Jesus would do while ignoring what I said in the first place. So either I'm wrong about Scriptural precedent which I'm sure we both know I am not, or you are ignoring that to focus on Jesus.”
My comments about Jesus were a very good answer, as I just outlined above. You deflected from my answer by moving the goalposts.
Your mention of scriptural precedents was exactly as I said, a “broad generality”…shall we review what this consisted of? Here it is:
“You are also incorrect about JW's. It is entirely accurate to suggest shunning was practiced in the Bible so they have a standard.”
“While I don't necessarily agree with the practice to their degree (Although they do allow communication for no religious things), it's not because there isn't a scriptural precedent for it along with the opportunity join again.”
You claim that there is a scriptural precedent, but do not explain what it is or where it might be found in scripture. I even tried to prompt you to do so, but instead you cling to your unsubstantiated and unexplained generalities. Remember that I wrote this?
“Broad generalities are all you have offered. I fully expected you would try an argument based upon something Paul wrote, but no, you didn't even attempt that but simply made a case that Christians have always been poor followers of Christ so current Christians are justified in being hateful and unfeeling as well.”
You say: “I think I have defended shunning to the sufficient degree (There is Scriptural precedent) and to be clear if any religion wanted to be even more severe, that wouldn't be my problem either.”
You have not really defended shunning at all, at least not beyond saying that you believe in shunning.
“It is not my job to discuss details with someone who provides none of their own. You seem to know areas where expulsion is discussed (Although more than Paul warns about it. I'm not sure why people have issues with Paul anyway, but that's another topic for another day), so why say shunning is bad except to disagree with it?”
No, you say that shunning is good because you agree with it. It is not your job to describe anything but a sweeping generality it would seem. Here you just say that there is a case without describing it. I would have been very willing to discuss what Paul and others said in the Bible. I even gave you the opening to do so, but you deflected away as usual. Most commonly cited passages about not associating with others refer to sin or immorality. Of course you have stated in places that apostasy is sin. I disagree that in and of its self that this is true. A stronger case can be made for those who actively attempt to steer others away from Christ. I do not agree that attempting to direct people away from the Mormon church or the JWs is doing this.