Evangelicals vs. Jehovah's Witnesses

[Elijah John]

Evangelicals often call Jehovah's Witnesses, a "cult" and not Christian.

Jehovah's Witnesses, seem to consider Roman Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox etc, "not-Christian" (JWs please correct me if I'm wrong on this)

Question for debate, why can't all of these groups rightly be considered "Christian"?

And part two of this OP question is directed primarily to Evangelicals, why don't you consider JWs to be Christian?

[tam]

[Replying to post 526 by tigger2]

Your bible (or the NWT if you are not a JW) renders it as 'an'.

... because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice... - NWT


Peace again!
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Claire Evans]

But they need to follow the rules of the WTS or be disowned. This is obeying every rule of the WTS. And it says that if one is disfellowed, then they lose their salvation therefore you are in disagreement with the WTS.

I find it odd that people think that the Bible's rules were made up by the WTS.

Folks these are not WTS rules.

"But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man." - 1 Cor 5:11

That is if that person may corrupt you. Jesus was in the presence of prostitutes and other sinners.

Mark 2:13-17

13 Once again Jesus went out beside the lake. A large crowd came to him, and he began to teach them. 14 As he walked along, he saw Levi son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax collector’s booth. “Follow me,� Jesus told him, and Levi got up and followed him.

15 While Jesus was having dinner at Levi’s house, many tax collectors and sinners were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. 16 When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?�

17 On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.�

If a person doesn't want to follow the rules of the Bible then why would a person want to be a Witness anyway? What do people mean by 'disagreement' anyway? Like if a person doesn't agree there is 'no eternal soul' and they are disfellowshipped because they do not and will not teach what the Bible says, then why do they want to stay in the JWs anyway? Telling people they are going to hell or promising them heaven is a false teaching according to the Bible. The Bible is clear that Jehovah wants only truth seekers following Him. Furthermore, why would a person agree the Bible teaches there is no eternal soul in the first place at their baptism, only to change their minds? Sounds like a person that is upset with the Bible's commandments, follow the creature and not the creator. WTS this and WTS that, like it's their words. There is nothing JW teach that can't be followed up by scripture. If they actually made the rules then I wouldn't follow them, because that would be like all other religions in the world. Making up their own rules. Allowing sin to run rampant in their midst, things that Jehovah detest. If a person wants those things in their midst, then go for it. Don't condemn JWs because they actually enforce Bible commandments. A person should ask of their own religious leaders, why aren't we enforcing Bible commandments?

But the WTS does make up their own rules based on their interpretation. Where in the Bible does it has a passage that translates as forbidding smoking? Why have a problem with celebrating Christmas when the focus in on Jesus?

Also, disfellowshipping doesn't mean that a person loses their salvation. It means they lose their fellowship...I think that is implied in the word right? If it meant a person lost their salvation the word would be 'damned' and not 'disfellowshipped'. No human on Earth of group of humans can make the judgement as to a person's salvation. I wish people would stop making false accusations.





Sadly, I know this is going in one ear and out the other for some people.

"Disfellowshipping has a devastating effect because the individual's entire religious, family and social life are rooted in the Society. Keep in mind Jehovah’s Witnesses who are disfellowshipped are no longer part of the Watchtower Society and have, therefore, lost all hope of salvation until they can prove themselves worthy of being accepted back into the Watchtower Organization by their works."

Is this a false statement?

I've got a quote about the belief of Jehovah's Witnesses:

"Chretien: The Jehovah’s Witness is told he may not look to Jesus alone for everlasting life. As one of the “other sheep,� he must also depend on the Watchtower organization for his passage to Paradise. In turn, the organization says he’s required to earn his salvation, largely by calling door-to-door."

https://www.jashow.org/articles/general ... program-3/

Therefore the WTS can take away salvation since salvation is also dependent on a JW obeying the WTS.

You cannot earn salvation. It is a gift from God given by grace.

[2timothy316]

Your point, however, brings me straight back to my post that you do not wish to address or read. That you expect people from other religions to do what you refuse to allow people from your own religion to do: change their beliefs and/or religion.

"No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other." Matt 6:24. Do you agree with that scripture?

Absolutely.

Christ - the TRUTH - the One I serve and follow - is the One who said this.

[/quote]

Then I don't understand how you can say to yourself that a person who loves sinning can love Jesus and stay in his congregation. The Bible clearly don't agree with you.

You will say that you allow this. Yes, but at the cost of their loved ones who are told to shun them. (and THAT goes against 'do not turn your back on your own flesh and blood') Recall the account of Aaron and his sons?

Later Aaron’s sons Naʹdab and A·biʹhu each took his fire holder and put fire in it and placed incense on it. Then they began offering before Jehovah unauthorized fire, which he had not commanded them to do. At this a fire came out from before Jehovah and consumed them, so that they died before Jehovah. Then Moses said to Aaron: “This is what Jehovah has said, ‘I will be made holy among those near to me, and I will be glorified before all the people.’� And Aaron kept silent." - Lev 10:1-3

Do you agree with Aaron's response? Do you agree with Jehovah's actions? Did Aaron leave Jehovah God?
Aaron did not respond. Not sure I accept that this happened just as written,

Here is exactly the point where you and I split ways. I DO accept it just as it is written and accept what the Bible teaches. This is an answer to the accusation that Witnesses do not follow the Bible, when in fact we do. Yet we see you are the one that said 'Not sure I accept'.

but I can comment on a related account that I do accept: fire comes down from heaven and consumes Gog and Magog. Sad as it is that these ones do not repent but must instead be destroyed, I do agree with God for protecting the innocent from those who wish to destroy them.

Yes it is sad, but disfellowshipping is a last ditch effort to change their minds. For them to come back to the Bible's teachings of Jesus and the God inspired Bible writers.

Aaron did not leave God, and I am not sure what that has to do with anything I stated. Perhaps you could elaborate on that point?

What if you were in Aaron's shoes? Would you have left the priesthood for Jehovah's judgement? Would you have supported God's judgement on your sons? Today Jehovah's commandment is to remove fellowship from the congregation. Certainly a much better punishment than what was sentenced on Aaron's son. If you would support Jehovah's Judgement on Aaron's sons why not support the commandment found 1 Cor 5:9-13?

Do you agree with this scripture?

“If anyone comes to me and does not hate* {love to lesser degree} his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple." - Luke 14:26

Of course. Christ said it. I even understand why it is true.

Then why do you say,
"But yes, I think you and yours have made it very clear that if anyone joins your religion, and later realizes that the WTS is not the truth, they cannot later change their mind EVEN IF they realize the WTS is not the truth; not without being shunned by every member of the religion, including their own families."

If a person chooses to go against the teachings of Jesus the Bible is clear, even when it comes to family, we are to choose Jesus over even a family member.

When a person gets baptized they made a promise. A dedication to repent from sinful ways and false teachings. If they change their mind not to uphold that promise, I have pointed out many scriptures what is to be done with such a person. Even a family member.

Do you believe this scripture to be true?
"For the Lord disciplines whom He loves, and He scourges every son whom He receives." - Heb 12:6

I do. This is confirmed in Christ who said: those I love I rebuke and discipline. (rev 3:19)

Discipline has to do with teaching.
Not punishment, though sometimes (often) people mix up the two.

The Bible once again disagrees with you. At times punishment is the discipline because a person will not listen. 1 Timothy 1:18-20 "Hy·me·naeʹus and Alexander are among these, and I have handed them over to Satan so that they may be taught by discipline not to blaspheme." Hymenaeous and Alexander were two that were cast out from the congregation (handed over to Satan). Why? So that they may be taught by discipline.

There are many examples in the Bible of a person being punished so that they can be taught a lesson. There were not killed but many times they were stricken with disease as punishment. Moses' wife was one of them. She was stricken with leprosy and forced to live with the lepers for quite awhile.

You can't really teach someone you shun, nor can you teach someone who is dead. Destruction is judgment, not discipline (I think you agree with that; I could be mistaken).

That person can still be taught. They are not barred from the congregation meetings. We actually have a DF member that comes to our meetings. DFed people also are not barred from reading the Bible. So a person can still be taught. If they are seeking to be taught. Some though don't want to be taught. DF is the last resort. If that doesn't make them want to repent, other than DFing there is no other punishment allowed by the Bible.

Even the WTS states:

No one should be forced to worship in a way that he finds unacceptable or be made to choose between his beliefs and his family.

http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102009251

That is correct. We don't expect someone who doesn't love what the Bible teaches to keep doing it. This is called freewill. Everyone has the right to reject Jehovah God.

Someone rejecting the WTS and its interpretation of the Bible does not mean that someone is rejecting God. That is what the WTS teaches you, but that is false; as some (many) who leave do so in order to OBEY God (and listen to His Son, as commanded).

That being said I think you missed the second part of that statement:

OR BE MADE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN HIS BELIEFS AND HIS FAMILY

[/quote]
"Does study of the Bible lead to family breakup? No. In fact, the Bible encourages a husband and wife who practice different religions to remain together as a family.—1 Corinthians 7:12, 13."

However, the article your sighting here is not about DFing. So your on the wrong track. The article is about a family member that has never been a JW ever. What we are talking about is a family member that once was a JW and is now an unrepentant sinner. The two situations are handled differently per the Bible's commandment.

“You cannot be drinking the cup of Jehovah and the cup of demons; you cannot be partaking of ‘the table of Jehovah’ and the table of demons.� (1 Cor. 10:16-21) Do you agree?

I do. (well, without the insertion "Jehovah", but the point is unchanged either way). But my point was the double standard being applied.

Yet what you are saying is the double standard. You're saying a person can be what the Bible calls a person practicing sin and still be allowed at God's table. A person can't bear the name of God and be a hypocrite. Yet that is what you are expecting to happen? That a person be allowed to teach faithful people at God's table their false doctrines? Example: Would you allow a person to teach your children that they are going to hell every time you spoke with them? Or would you shun that person away from your children? It's the same thing with JWs. Even though you don't agree with what is being taught, we don't want people in our congregations teaching false doctrines.

But yes, I think you and yours have made it very clear that if anyone joins your religion, and later realizes that the WTS is not the truth, they cannot later change their mind EVEN IF they realize the WTS is not the truth; not without being shunned by every member of the religion, including their own families.

You keep assuming that they want to 'do their own thing' rather than that they may have seen something later that they did not see earlier (especially if they were born in, as it is difficult to see something different than what a person was raised to believe in), and so they wish to align themselves NOW with the truth.

No different than the householder you hope will reexamine their beliefs and come to (what you believe to be) the truth.

So you can understand that even though someone sincerely believed something, they might just as sincerely recognize that they were wrong (and taught wrong)... that they were once blind, but now can see, per se.

If a person loves the creature [family] more than their creator [Jehovah] then I guess they better hope their family can give them salvation.

I'm not going to disagree with you here. But the quote from the wts states that no one should be made to choose between their beliefs and their family.

Again, the article you're referring to is not about a disfellowshipped family member. It's about being married to someone that was never a JW and doesn't want to be a JW. It's not the same thing. Remember "Whoever has greater affection for father or mother than for me is not worthy of me; and whoever has greater affection for son or daughter than for me is not worthy of me." - Luke 14:26. A person that respects the commandments found in 1 Cor regarding removing a practicing sinner from their midst will follow it so as to have greater affection for Jesus than a family member. If you don't agree. There is nothing I can do about it. It's in the Bible and I don't change the Bible to fit my feelings.

Certainly there will be disagreements and family members will be turned against one another, as Christ said. Indeed, many may well be forced to choose between their faith and their families (if only for a period of time), but NOT because THEY (who choose Christ) shun their family members; but because those family members may choose to shun THEM.

But the wts states that no one should be made to choose between belief and family... yet that is exactly what the wts forces its members to do. Either the wts statement is wrong (designed to encourage someone outside the religion to do something that is not permitted to those inside the religion); or the practice of shunning those who have a different belief is wrong; or both are wrong.

If the DFing is not changing the person's mind then the command from the Bible becomes a protection for the family members that are remaining loyal to God's teachings in the Bible. So that the person that rejects what they have learned will not draw away others after them. When a person breaks a promise to Jehovah then they didn't take it very seriously in the first place. This is not an excuse so to be relieved of a person's promise.

In the Bible Ecc 5:5 says, "Better for you not to vow than to vow and not pay." Proverbs 20:25 "It is a snare for a man to cry out rashly, “Holy!� And only later to give consideration to what he vowed." Deut 32:22 "But if you refrain from making a vow, you will not be guilty of sin."

So if that person would've never made the vow to Jehovah, they'd wouldn't have been DFed when they rejected it later. Again, another example of JWs just following what the Bible says on how to treat vows to Jehovah God. They should have never said yes to baptism questions "and only later to give consideration to what he vowed."

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 528 by Claire Evans]

Claire, I don't think you understand what disfellowshipping is in the JW religion.

What is accomplished by disfellowshipping? It keeps Jehovah’s holy name clear of reproach and protects the fine reputation of his people. (1 Peter 1:14-16) Removing an unrepentant wrongdoer from the congregation upholds God’s standards and preserves the congregation’s spiritual cleanness. It is also our hope it may also bring the unrepentant one to his or her senses. This only is enforced on those that have made a dedication in the way of baptize in our organization to serve Jehovah God and live by the commandments set forth in the Bible and His Son Jesus. A person that isn't a Witness can't be DFed.

It doesn't take away anything except fellowship from the person. Whoever is telling you that the person's salvation is lost, is wrong. I have read the posts that JWs have posted on this board and I know none of them would say such a thing. If a person turns from their practiced sin because of their removal of fellowship, then the discipline could actually save their life.

Now the questions to you Claire, do you agree with 2 John 9-11 and should it be enforced?

"Everyone who pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God. The one who does remain in this teaching is the one who has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. For the one who says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works."

[ttruscott]

I think it is pretty explicit in the Scriptures that there are two groups of Christians. This has been explained before, but I'll go over it again. One place that shows the difference between two groups is Matthew 25:31-41. Within those ten verses Christ clearly has differentiated between his brothers and the "sheep."

Yes. Exactly. He has differentiated between His brothers and the sheep. Christians are His brothers; the sheep are not.

Ummmm...Matthew 25:31 “But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. 32 “All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; 33 and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left. This verse differentiates between the sheep and the goats and the later reference to His brothers is not a third category but includes all of GOD's legitimate children, holy or sinful, and how they treated each other as members of one family Hebrews 2:11 Both the one who makes people holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters.

imCo
the sheep are the sinful elect by any of the many appellations given to them, sheep gone astray but returned 1 Peter 2:25 For "you were like sheep going astray," but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls. and these sheep are His brothers Luke 8:21 He replied, "My mother and brothers are those who hear God's word and put it into practice." They are the sinful but good seed finally made holy, the sinful people of the kingdom made holy, those who are not condemned already because they believe / have faith in His name as their saviour.

imCo
They are united as one Ephesians 4:3 Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. with Ephesians 4:13 ...until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. as the work of GOD with HIS LEGITIMATE children (one family) are trained in righteousness, Heb 12:5-11.

imCo
There are only two kinds of people: those who have faith so they are not condemned and those who do not have faith so they are condemned already. Some of those who had faith rebelled against the call to judgment of their friends who became reprobate and so became sinful themselves, sheep gone astray needing to be returned by the fulfillment of the promise of salvation in them, brought back to faith by HIS grace. Two groups only: the elect, some holy some sinful, who put their faith in YHWH as their GOD and so came under HIS promise of election and salvation and the non-elect who rejected to putting their faith in YHWH rather believing HE was a false god and a liar about HIS so called promises, condemned for that choice already.

[tam]

Your point, however, brings me straight back to my post that you do not wish to address or read. That you expect people from other religions to do what you refuse to allow people from your own religion to do: change their beliefs and/or religion.

"No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other." Matt 6:24. Do you agree with that scripture?

Absolutely.

Christ - the TRUTH - the One I serve and follow - is the One who said this.

Then I don't understand how you can say to yourself that a person who loves sinning can love Jesus and stay in his congregation. The Bible clearly don't agree with you.

I never said that.

The bible does not agree with your strawman, but this has nothing to do with me or anything that I said.

You will say that you allow this. Yes, but at the cost of their loved ones who are told to shun them. (and THAT goes against 'do not turn your back on your own flesh and blood') Recall the account of Aaron and his sons?

Later Aaron’s sons Naʹdab and A·biʹhu each took his fire holder and put fire in it and placed incense on it. Then they began offering before Jehovah unauthorized fire, which he had not commanded them to do. At this a fire came out from before Jehovah and consumed them, so that they died before Jehovah. Then Moses said to Aaron: “This is what Jehovah has said, ‘I will be made holy among those near to me, and I will be glorified before all the people.’� And Aaron kept silent." - Lev 10:1-3

Do you agree with Aaron's response? Do you agree with Jehovah's actions? Did Aaron leave Jehovah God?
Aaron did not respond. Not sure I accept that this happened just as written,

Here is exactly the point where you and I split ways. I DO accept it just as it is written and accept what the Bible teaches. This is an answer to the accusation that Witnesses do not follow the Bible, when in fact we do. Yet we see you are the one that said 'Not sure I accept'.

Not sure that I accept it happened exactly as it is written. Correct. Meaning it is a question for me, yes.

Do you agree with this scripture?

“If anyone comes to me and does not hate* {love to lesser degree} his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple." - Luke 14:26

Of course. Christ said it. I even understand why it is true.

Then why do you say,
"But yes, I think you and yours have made it very clear that if anyone joins your religion, and later realizes that the WTS is not the truth, they cannot later change their mind EVEN IF they realize the WTS is not the truth; not without being shunned by every member of the religion, including their own families."

Funny. I did not realize until now that you are speaking from the pov of a person who does the shunning; whereas I am speaking from the pov of a person who risks being shunned because of their love and faith for Christ.

Christ didn't tell us to shun anyone. Christ said that we would BE shunned.

All this I have told you so that you will not fall away. They will put you out of the synagogue; in fact, the time is coming when anyone who kills you will think they are offering a service to God. They will do such things because they have not known the Father or me.


There is also the example from Revelation where Christ tells various congregations what they are doing well and what they (or some in them) are doing wrong; and His instruction is not that they expel the 'immoral' brother; but that they REPENT, and do the things that they did at first.

If a person chooses to go against the teachings of Jesus the Bible is clear, even when it comes to family, we are to choose Jesus over even a family member.

Of course. But that simply means we who love and belong to Christ are to continue to listen to and follow HIM. Even if our loved ones are against us following Christ. Even if our loved ones are following someone/something else. If we love Him most (over family, over men and religion), then it is HIM we will follow and obey.

So a person would not be stuck serving a religion (or false anything) that requires that they obey men over Christ; even if that religion is holding their loved ones hostage.


You said that df'ing is also used as a means to protect people so that they will not be led astray. Well, how could they be if they love Christ first?

When a person gets baptized they made a promise. A dedication to repent from sinful ways and false teachings. If they change their mind not to uphold that promise, I have pointed out many scriptures what is to be done with such a person. Even a family member.

People can get baptized into a religion and realize later that the religion is wrong.

People can get baptized and leave a specific religion WITHOUT leaving Christ and God.


Do you agree or not agree?

Do you believe this scripture to be true?
"For the Lord disciplines whom He loves, and He scourges every son whom He receives." - Heb 12:6

I do. This is confirmed in Christ who said: those I love I rebuke and discipline. (rev 3:19)

Discipline has to do with teaching.
Not punishment, though sometimes (often) people mix up the two.

The Bible once again disagrees with you. At times punishment is the discipline because a person will not listen. 1 Timothy 1:18-20 "Hy·me·naeʹus and Alexander are among these, and I have handed them over to Satan so that they may be taught by discipline not to blaspheme." Hymenaeous and Alexander were two that were cast out from the congregation (handed over to Satan). Why? So that they may be taught by discipline.

There are many examples in the Bible of a person being punished so that they can be taught a lesson. There were not killed but many times they were stricken with disease as punishment. Moses' wife was one of them. She was stricken with leprosy and forced to live with the lepers for quite awhile.

The bible does not disagree with me; you misunderstand me. Discipline may be harsh, but that doesn't mean it is not discipline.

But if someone commits suicide over being ostracised by every person they have ever cared about, then there was no discipline, because there was no teaching, there was no compassion, there was no mercy even.

(Also, I believe Miriam is Moses' sister who was stricken with a skin affliction and confined outside the camp for seven days (and after that was healed). It was likened to a father spitting in his daughters face. She was not shunned by the entire community, nor even df'd.)

Even the WTS states:

No one should be forced to worship in a way that he finds unacceptable or be made to choose between his beliefs and his family.

http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102009251

That is correct. We don't expect someone who doesn't love what the Bible teaches to keep doing it. This is called freewill. Everyone has the right to reject Jehovah God.

Someone rejecting the WTS and its interpretation of the Bible does not mean that someone is rejecting God. That is what the WTS teaches you, but that is false; as some (many) who leave do so in order to OBEY God (and listen to His Son, as commanded).

That being said I think you missed the second part of that statement:

OR BE MADE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN HIS BELIEFS AND HIS FAMILY

"Does study of the Bible lead to family breakup? No. In fact, the Bible encourages a husband and wife who practice different religions to remain together as a family.—1 Corinthians 7:12, 13."

However, the article your sighting here is not about DFing. So your on the wrong track. The article is about a family member that has never been a JW ever. What we are talking about is a family member that once was a JW and is now an unrepentant sinner. The two situations are handled differently per the Bible's commandment.

[/quote]

It doesn't matter if it is about df'ing or not. The article IS about changing one's religion. You continue to fail to see the double standard that the WTS is applying, by expecting and encouraging and praising people from other religions to change THEIR religion; while at the same time punishing their own for doing the same thing they encourage in others.

THAT is the double standard I am referring to. THAT is hypocrisy.

“You cannot be drinking the cup of Jehovah and the cup of demons; you cannot be partaking of ‘the table of Jehovah’ and the table of demons.� (1 Cor. 10:16-21) Do you agree?

I do. (well, without the insertion "Jehovah", but the point is unchanged either way). But my point was the double standard being applied.

Yet what you are saying is the double standard. You're saying a person can be what the Bible calls a person practicing sin and still be allowed at God's table. A person can't bear the name of God and be a hypocrite. Yet that is what you are expecting to happen? That a person be allowed to teach faithful people at God's table their false doctrines? Example: Would you allow a person to teach your children that they are going to hell every time you spoke with them? Or would you shun that person away from your children? It's the same thing with JWs. Even though you don't agree with what is being taught, we don't want people in our congregations teaching false doctrines.

First, you are not understanding the scripture you cited. You can't EAT from both tables; participate in one table and the other table. It is not referring to what you should do to others.

And are you all children?

Just because you don't want to hear what others have to say with regard to religion doesn't mean that that person must be shunned, does it? Obviously, if person does not respect your wishes and continues to force their belief upon you, you may choose not to spend time with them. (although why you would strictly refuse to ever speak with them is beyond me, since they are providing an opportunity for you to bear witness to the truth, if indeed you know the truth).

But if someone simply no longer believes and wishes to leave the religion (or perhaps wishes to share with you some of what they have learned, as you do for others), then why would you need to shun them?

And it is hypocrisy for YOU to go around preaching what you believe to be the truth, knocking on doors etc, but shun someone else for trying to do the same.

AND you could even simply keep religious matters off limits, if need be, but still associate with a person who has left, especially a family member.

Rather than treat them as though they are dead.

But yes, I think you and yours have made it very clear that if anyone joins your religion, and later realizes that the WTS is not the truth, they cannot later change their mind EVEN IF they realize the WTS is not the truth; not without being shunned by every member of the religion, including their own families.

You keep assuming that they want to 'do their own thing' rather than that they may have seen something later that they did not see earlier (especially if they were born in, as it is difficult to see something different than what a person was raised to believe in), and so they wish to align themselves NOW with the truth.

No different than the householder you hope will reexamine their beliefs and come to (what you believe to be) the truth.

So you can understand that even though someone sincerely believed something, they might just as sincerely recognize that they were wrong (and taught wrong)... that they were once blind, but now can see, per se.

The above is my quote. You left it in your post but you did not respond to it. Perhaps you missed it.

If a person loves the creature [family] more than their creator [Jehovah] then I guess they better hope their family can give them salvation.

I'm not going to disagree with you here. But the quote from the wts states that no one should be made to choose between their beliefs and their family.

Again, the article you're referring to is not about a disfellowshipped family member. It's about being married to someone that was never a JW and doesn't want to be a JW.

No, its about changing your religion.

The Bible's viewpoint
Is it wrong to change your religion

http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102009251


That is the title of the article.

So I will repeat the words I said below:

Certainly there will be disagreements and family members will be turned against one another, as Christ said. Indeed, many may well be forced to choose between their faith and their families (if only for a period of time), but NOT because THEY (who choose Christ) shun their family members; but because those family members may choose to shun THEM.

But the wts states that no one should be made to choose between belief and family... yet that is exactly what the wts forces its members to do. Either the wts statement is wrong (designed to encourage someone outside the religion to do something that is not permitted to those inside the religion); or the practice of shunning those who have a different belief is wrong; or both are wrong.

**

If the DFing is not changing the person's mind then the command from the Bible becomes a protection for the family members that are remaining loyal to God's teachings in the Bible. So that the person that rejects what they have learned will not draw away others after them. When a person breaks a promise to Jehovah then they didn't take it very seriously in the first place. This is not an excuse so to be relieved of a person's promise.

In the Bible Ecc 5:5 says, "Better for you not to vow than to vow and not pay." Proverbs 20:25 "It is a snare for a man to cry out rashly, “Holy!� And only later to give consideration to what he vowed." Deut 32:22 "But if you refrain from making a vow, you will not be guilty of sin."

So if that person would've never made the vow to Jehovah, they'd wouldn't have been DFed when they rejected it later. Again, another example of JWs just following what the Bible says on how to treat vows to Jehovah God. They should have never said yes to baptism questions.

And Christ said to let your yes be your yes, and your no be your no.

Seems to me that your words are suggesting that the baptismal dedication is, itself, going against what Christ commanded.

Can you show me from Christ (and the bible) where people who wish to be baptized answer baptismal questions? Or study for years first? The Ethiopian eunuch spoke with Phillip for how long before deciding that he wished to be baptized?

What words accompanied his baptism?

In addition to the above:

Dedicating oneself to God is not the same as dedicating oneself to a religion; unless of course your religion makes its adherents dedicate themselves to IT. Which it seems that yours does. Where is the scriptural requirement for that?


Leaving a religion does not = leaving God.

Do you agree or disagree?

If one leaves a religion to follow Christ, then tell me how they have done anything wrong or broken any 'vow'?


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

(edited once to withdraw a comment equating Aaron's sons dying - to gog and magog being destroyed. Gog and magog are destroyed completely; Aaron's sons are not; they are still buried and so while they died, yes, they were not destroyed. They can take part in the resurrection and Aaron can receive his sons back. I apologize to anyone I may have misled or confused due to my own lack of knowledge in that account.)

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 526 by tigger2]

Your bible (or the NWT if you are not a JW) renders it as 'an'.

... because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice... - NWT


Peace again!
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

Yes I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

So you believe the NWT is without error? That's good to know. I was sure that you didn't trust it.

Even JWs don't believe the NWT is infallible (hence the occasional revisions).

I have shown you how the NT Greek grammar favors "the voice of the archangel." If you disagree and favor the NWT over the other Bibles I have listed which use "the archangel", please let me know.

If you think JWs are bound to use only the NWT, you have one more misunderstanding of JWs.

[tam]

[Replying to post 526 by tigger2]

Your bible (or the NWT if you are not a JW) renders it as 'an'.

... because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice... - NWT


Peace again!
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

Yes I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

So you believe the NWT is without error? That's good to know. I was sure that you didn't trust it.

They all have some errors. I don't trust or distrust any one version more than others, including the NWT.

Even JWs don't believe the NWT is infallible (hence the occasional revisions).

Okay. I was just surprised that you would take a different version over your own.

I have shown you how the NT Greek grammar favors "the voice of the archangel." If you disagree and favor the NWT over the other Bibles I have listed which use "the archangel", please let me know.

I do not favor any version over the other. And it could be translated as you suggest above. Or perhaps not.

If you think JWs are bound to use only the NWT, you have one more misunderstanding of JWs.

I did not think you would favor another version over your own. I do know that jws will use other versions to conduct bible studies.

But interesting info, thank you.

Peace again,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[marco]

It's not so much avoiding the sinner. 1 Cor. 5:11 tells us to avoid the fellow Christian who is now a sinner. When he repents and continues a Christian lifestyle, he is to be welcomed back. This is to keep the congregation clean and to, it is hoped, influence the stray to return to a Christian life.

The difference between us is that I am getting my information directly from Christ's words. Peter himself was unsure, as perhaps was Paul too. But surely this is clear enough:

"21 Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother who sins against me? Up to seven times?� 22 Jesus answered, “I tell you, not just seven times, but seventy-seven times! "
Matthew18:21, 22

It would be ludicrous if Christ followed this beautiful statement with "and you must shun him till he repents; nor should you eat with him."

It is so easy to get caught up in the letter and forget the spirit. But if Christ told us anything it was to display humanity towards our neighbour, and very often, our neighbour is a sinner.

Of course we can visit Luke for an idea of how Christ viewed the pariah and the paragon of virtue:

“Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’

13 “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’

14 “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.�

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 532 by tam]

I never said that.

The bible does not agree with your strawman, but this has nothing to do with me or anything that I said.

Then clarify. Because you're not making sense. On one hand you don't like JWs enforcing Bible commandments when it comes how to those that practice sin are handled in the congregation, then on the other you agree that a person can't slave for two masters. I don't see how you reconcile that scripture and be fine with a unrepentant sinner.

Not sure that I accept it happened exactly as it is written. Correct. Meaning it is a question for me, yes.

This is the whole issue I have been talking about this whole time when it comes to the Bible.

You are equating disfellowshipping with destruction here?

No, those practicing sin that know better are at risk for destruction. DFing is in the hope the person will stop practicing sin. Please don't make me repeat myself about this and please stop suggesting it.

Christ didn't tell us to shun anyone. Christ said that we would BE shunned.

Should the following be enforced?

"Everyone who pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God. The one who does remain in this teaching is the one who has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. For the one who says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works." - 2 John 9-11

Oh and yes followers of Jesus are shunned. You should see how my father's inlaws treat him for being a JW this time of year.

Yet as you can see from the Bible those that once did follow Christ but don't remain are to be shunned. So how do you reconcile this? Do you just ignore the command above?

You said that df'ing is also used as a means to protect people so that they will not be led astray. Well, how could they be if they love Christ first?

Yes indeed. Because they don't show in their actions. One might say they love Christ but if they are practicing sin, then clearly their words are just words. If a person is teaching hellfire yet at one time understood that the Bible doesn't support it then that is not showing love for Christ.

People can get baptized into a religion and realize later that the religion is wrong.

People can get baptized and leave a specific religion WITHOUT leaving Christ and God.

Do you agree or not agree?

A person can't leave the true teachings of Christ without leaving Christ. So I disagree. So I'm looking at your teachings and I don't think they are the teachings of Christ. On your side you're thinking the same. How do you think the truth of who is right and who is wrong will be revealed? How can it be revealed now? I say the Bible will reveal who is right and who is wrong. What say you?

Do you agree with the following?

“Go in through the narrow gate, because broad is the gate and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are going in through it; whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are finding it." Matt 7:13, 14

But if someone commits suicide over being ostracised by every person they have ever cared about, then there was no discipline, because there was no teaching, there was no compassion, there was no mercy even.

An example of following the creature and not the creator. There are JWs in prison right now and they have lost everything. No contact from friends, family and even their freedom is gone. In fact many endure for years under these conditions. Why aren't they trying to commit suicide? Where does their strength come from?

Where it is sad a person contemplates suicide because of being ostracized. In any trial a person that expects people to be answer to their problem will be disappointed more often then not.

"This is what Jehovah says: “Cursed is the man who puts his trust in mere humans, Who relies on human power, And whose heart turns away from Jehovah." - Jeremiah 17:5

"It is better to take refuge in Jehovah Than to trust in humans." - Psalm 118:8

If I personally was cut off from my family and friends, I would be sad but I wouldn't turn to suicide because of those scriptures. I'd give the same advise to anyone going through the same thing.

Yet what we see many times are DFed ones not turning to Jehovah but others in other religions who will accept the sin that they are practicing. Needing the human connection more than the holy connection with God. To that I say, if all they want is a connection with people, then that is all they will get.

(Also, I believe Miriam is Moses' sister who was stricken with a skin affliction and confined outside the camp for seven days (and after that was healed). It was likened to a father spitting in his daughters face. She was not shunned by the entire community, nor even df'd.)

Ah yes it was his sister. At any rate what do you think it means to be 'confined outside the camp'? Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses saying, "“Is it only by Moses that Jehovah has spoken? Has he not also spoken through us?� (Num 12:2) Questioning if Moses should be the only one God speaks through. Perhaps inciting a change in leadership without Jehovah's approval. Aaron too was part of the sin against God but wasn't stricken with leprosy and sent away. Why not? "Immediately Aaron said to Moses: “I beg you, my lord! Please do not hold this sin against us! We have acted foolishly in what we have done." (Num 12:11) He repented. There is no record Miriam repented. Even then a person could be saved from the hardship of punishment if they repent.

It doesn't matter if it is about df'ing or not. The article IS about changing one's religion.

You're trying to say that changing ones religion from JW to something else without repercussions is ok. Not according to 2 John 9-11 quoted above. You seem to view that all religions are acceptable to God. But the Bible disagrees with you as pointed out in Matt 7:13, 14.

So yes it does matter if the article about DFing or not. What you're saying is that the person's current religion is correct. But according to Matt 7:13, 14 not all religions are correct. You're saying that Jehovah's Witnesses are not the true religion so where you see hypocrisy is your opinion because I'm guessing you are assuming the religion the person came from had God's backing. But from my POV and 2 John 9-11 I see no hypocrisy. A person can leave false religion but to leave the true religion, is not acceptable. Which the article you cited is about a person that wants to follow the true religion. Not just any religion.

Leaving a religion does not = leaving God.

Do you agree or disagree?

If they are leaving Jehovah's Witnesses, then then I agree. Because He puts His people where He wants. So to refuse that placement would show no faith in Jehovah's judgement. It would be like rejecting Moses like Korah did.

If they are leaving a different religion, then I disagree.

I don't believe every religion serves God. Matt 7:13, 14

Curious, are you currently a disfellowshiped member of Jehovah's Witnesses?