So having a different interpretation of religion is a vice equivalent to horrible self-destructive behaviors such as out of control gambling and drinking and other illegal activities? Someone who’s heart leads them to find truth in a way that’s different from the path you’ve chosen is thought to be so tainted and vile that you need to exorcise them from your life?
You really don’t see how people who embrace a pluralistic society would find that reprehensible?
FWIW I do believe there are people who are so toxic that it makes sense to remove them from your life. However, your threshold for what makes some one a bad apple worth removing is so horribly low, that it’s almost laughable. Laughable, except for the people who are cut off from the people they love love for the singular crime of finding faith in a different way.
You always head for the “worst of the worst” types of offenses - yet we’ve discussed before the full range of offenses that are disfellowshipping offenses - Including even contact with ones family that might be disfellowshipped.
Are you truly prepared to discuss this at any reasonable level?
Would you disfellowship someone that had repeatedly lied to you?
No, we caught your second sentence. It’s just that it wasn’t any better than your first. I know a lot of people–even people in my family–who have a different religion from me. I am not usually tempted to shun them. That requires a level of hubris I am seldom able to muster.
It is distressing how often theists conclude that God is infallible, and then quickly infer they they, themselves, must therefore be infallible on theological matters. And as for those who disagree with them, well…I suppose they should count their blessings if they are only shunned.
Your first and third sentences express mutually exclusive concepts. The first alludes to offensive people no one would want around; the other refers to an apostate person. I guess it would be like trying to be a practicing Catholic in a synagogue.
If a practicing Catholic came to my synagogue they would be more than welcome. If they chose to not stand at parts of the service, or wear a kippot etc, that’s their choice.
If they wanted to take communion in my synagogue (not sure why, but I’ll run with it), they’d be politely told that we can’t do that here. At no point would they be shunned from my life. If they kicked up a fuss, started using ethnic slurs, and punched the Rabbi, then their behavior would cause me to cut them out.
You simply need to accept that becoming apostate is reason enough for you to cut someone out, but most people do not see it that way and find the harm that action causes reprehensible. You are entitled to live by your fait and its principles, but don’t act like you don’t understand why outsiders would find your reasons and explanations less than compelling.
And any of my Jewish brethren were to cut someone out of their life for converting to another religion or marrying outside of the faith, I would find that equally reprehensible.
In the congregation I knew a divided family: The mother was a Witness, the father was a dyed-in-the-wool Baptist. (Their kids attended both services.) I was an Amway distributor at the time, and the mother ordered some goods from me, which I was to deliver to their home–when the father, an off - duty firefighter, would be home. I did so. I was cordial, so was he; the delivery went just fine; religion was not mentioned.
Yes, which is why I said I find that equally reprehensible and consider their cult-like mentality harmful as well. My mom was raised Hasidic (back in Europe), and much of my family is ultra-orthodox, so I’m not unfamiliar with them.
Your point is well taken. I attended funeral services for both parents (11 years apart) of a girl I knew in high school–often mentioned on the SDMB. It was at a small Episcopalian church; though I am not Episcopalian I sang the hymns and paused for the prayer–and, of course., wept bitterly at the end.
A “divided family”? I guess that term makes since in a religion that celebrates rejecting people.
Any other Christian denominations that I’ve been exposed to (say Catholic and Baptist, or Shaker and Lutherian, or any other combination) would either just use the blanket term “Christian family” or possibly something along the lines of “mixed” or “blended”. My neighbors are Catholic/Jewish, and even they don’t use the term “divided”.
Sometimes it’s best just not to mention religion. I’m an atheist, and my favorite uncle (honestly, about the only one I can stand) is, as far as I can tell, a Dominionist. I just don’t bring it up. We go eat sushi together, have a good time, and talk about other things.
:Sigh: I don’t know any better word; “divided” was common among Witnesses at the time. Still, both parents followed Scriptural counsel about having an “unbelieving mate,” and so harmony reigned in the household.
I assume by “any person,” you mean any Christian. It’s obvious why a non-Christian would not be convinced just because Paul said something. So here’s my Christian interpretation.
It seems really strange to me that you think the choice is between cutting people completely out of your life and thinking that all people are good and right. In the same passage of Scripture you are referencing, Paul specifically disclaims that interpretation.
Paul says it is impossible to not associate with any sinners without leaving the entire world behind. If Paul thinks that is impossible, there is no way he is talking about complete dissociation in the Scriptures that follow.
Paul is talking about kicking someone out of the congregation. He’s not talking about shunning. People are to “stop keeping company” with someone, not to completely avoid any conversation unless absolutely necessary. You are not to break bread with someone, but not act like they no longer exist.
And that’s only the first problem with your interpretation. You are applying it to entirely the wrong issue. Who is Paul talking about kicking out of the church?
That’s right, a guy who has done something so sinful that even the unbelievers would balk. He is having ongoing sexual relations with his stepmother.
It is true that Paul makes this a bit more general a little later on, but what specifically does he talk about?
Notice a distinct lack of mention of “former members”? Note it’s specifically about someone “called a brother”?
So not only is the punishment harsher than indicated, it is being applied to the wrong situation. You are not to completely dissociate with people who leave the church.
That’s the Scriptural basis for hating your shunning, but, as a Christian, there is a further reason. The practice is using Scripture to defend cultic practices.
And I know that word is thrown around a lot, referring to doctrines people disagree with. That’s not what I mean here. I mean this is a practice specifically used by cults in order to manipulate and control their members. It, more than anything else is why I have a problem with Witnessism.
And that practice is Isolation. What disfellowship does is allow you to completely cut off everyone from the outside world. It prevents them from having anyone they love who can make sure that they don’t fall into error. It is a powerful manipulation technique that can get those who adhere to it to believe anything.
God’s word doesn’t need nor what those tactics. It does not need people’s free will to be subjugated. It does not need for the Church to be taken out of the world. We are in the world, but not of the world.
As Jesus said, kicking people out of the congregation just means they are treated like the world.
And who did Jesus eat with? Tax collectors and sinners. (Matthew 9:11).
Of course you do. But I didn’t want to make members of the congregation a captive list of potential customers, if that makes sense. I almost never mentioned Amway at meetings. I did not believe that should be a condition to my attendance.