In fairness, some of the more fringe ultra-Orthodox would shun family members who converted outside of the faith.
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.
In fairness, the poster did say they’d find that morally reprehensible.
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”.
To answer your first question: I am.
Second question: I very likely would. With my dismal social history I have little to lose anyway.
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.
All the better.
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).
Ooohh, you alluded to it! And you point that out to someone who wasn’t a member when the thread was extant.
That thread must have made a distinct impression on you. Still, you MAY be an outlier in that respect. Perhaps if you link to it, people might not miss the point. :dubious:
You were an AMWAY distributor?
Where’s my shunning sash?
You were a JW and an Amway salesman? Did the houses in your neighborhood just have signs next to their doorbells that showed your face and a red circle with a line over it? I kid.
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.
Still fitted in its place in the wall, hanging from its sash weights.
I can, if you give me the thread number. I’m posting now on my smartphone.
I can only presume that my knowledge of Ranger Jeff not yet being a Doper when that thread was alive is why you think I know anything about it. I don’t though; all I know about Ranger Jeff is that he joined last year, and that Hart died in 2007, therefore the thread was before his time.
I know nothing of the thread itself.
So - lets focus on the second question for a bit -
In your own words - what constitutes a ‘lie’ ?
I’ll remind you what the Watchtower Organization states -
What would you think if it were shown that the Watchtower does not follow its own guidelines?
There’s no ‘IF’ about it - but we’re supposed to be having a conversation here - how about honestly answering the questions? THen we can get on to the business of “IF”.