That you would even attempt to defend ‘disfellowship’ is disappointing.
:Sigh: You didn’t pick up anything from my second sentence that you quoted…as I see it, it makes sense to get rid of a bad apple. From what you and others say, you couldn’t care less.
People aren’t apples. JW’s view of a bad person is anyone who questions anything about their faith.
The christianity I learned at my mother’s knee rejects that as anathema to Jesus’ example. He sat and ate with the sinners and prostitutes. Who are we to think we deserve better company than Jesus? If your faith is so delicate you must shrink from all who question it, have you faith at all?
Damn but that’s cold-blooded.
That’s my opinion on it.
I wouldn’t harass someone ringing my doorbell to sell newspapers or asking me to sign a petition or offering a quote on a new driveway even though each of those people would be bothering me to answer the door just the same. So why reserve some special “treatment” for another guy asking me about stuff I’m not interested in? Just say “no” nicely and close the door. It’s called manners.
No – evil would be answering the door wearing a breechclout and holding a tomahawk covered in what looks like blood.
(In my defense, I had just returned from the re-enactment of the Battle of Kittanning)
(And it worked — haven’t see one since)
[QUOTE= Donny Osmond]
One Bad Apple don’t spoil the whole darn bunch
Oh I don’t care what they say I don’t care what you’ve heard
[/QUOTE]
You question Donny?
First you try to compare shunning to discontinuing the reading of Johnny Hart comic strips(like he would even know or care if he were still alive), and now it’s like getting rid of a bad apple?
Documentation, if you please.
Compare Titus 3:10: “A man that is an heretick after a first and second admonition reject.” (KJV)
And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
Let me put it this way: If I’ve had a close friend for years, and this person suddenly takes up some serious vice–heavy drinking, stealing, reckless driving, compulsive gambling, for example, and I don’t consider myself capable of reforming him/her, I would properly call an end to my relationship with that person, because of my own sense of right and wrong and my effort to avoid being tainted by such vice myself.
So the entire Church feels they’re unable to return the person to the “proper path”?
And you feel you’re so weak that mere contact will turn around an entire life of faith.
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. 