Responsibility

[nobspeople]

You get caught breaking the speed limit, you are responsible for the ticket and or court costs, if not more.
Breaking the speed limit without getting caught still opens you to the possibility of potential repercussions.
Yet, you aren't all knowing, powerful, present, etc.
You're simply a mortal, flawed living animal.

All this said, still, people claim we are responsible for our own sins, and the sins of 'our fathers', so to speak (according to some). This same sin was created (or allowed to be created) by the modern christian god (again, according to some).

For discussion:
Where's god's responsibility in all this?
What's god responsibility for when it comes to sin and the everlasting life some claim it can provide? Does providing a sacrifice suffice? Does god not have any responsibility in this - does it get an excuse?

[JehovahsWitness]

There can be a vast difference between what is published policy and what is practiced in real life.

Granted. But Jehovahs Witnesses have a rigorous system of cheques and balances put in place to ensure policy is carried out. Things occassionally "slip through the nets" but its usually the other way round, ie not taking needed action, when action should have been taken. It is not likely anyone "inadvertedly" disfellowshipped someone for the non-issue of watching a movie, thats like accidently divorcing someone you are not married to.

Everybody in the congregation knows what offenses one can be disfellowshipped for or not, its common knowledge. An accusation can only make it to a judicial committee to be heard if there are at least two witnesses of the offense. So even to get started you would need two people that were not only ignorant of what can be found by looking on our website but also willing to be rebuked for not minding their own business when they attempted to report it in this way.

A disfellowshipping is carried out by a judicial committee of at least three appointed men that have to act according to written policy. The Committee would then have to judge the matter and document the procedure and final judgement and all such decisions are reviewed by an outside travelling representative and reported to the local HQ. There is an an appeal procedure that is available to said Headquarters. If a committee showed such ignorance or corruption as to disfellowship someone for watching a movie, they would very quickly find themselves removed from office. If such nonsense got past the travelling overseer, the Branch HEADQUARTERS would come down on them all like a ton of bricks.

How likely do you think it is that the non-issue of watching a movie could even get past the first stage of all this?

This nonsense can only be spun for gullible non-witnesses that do not know enough about the inner workings of our organisation. We Witnesses cannot be duped by yarns of "I was disfellowshipped for watching Thor" (whatever that is). If someone is inviting others to watch questionable material then they of course can speak to one of our elders and counsel might be privately given but it would stop there; personal decisions are personal decisions. The only exception I can think of might be pornography (which is usually engaged in in private and stays private). But a wife, for example, might make a complaint of the persistent use of porn of her husband which having lead to the more serious matter neglect or abuse of her person.



JW




RELATED POSTS

How do Jehovah's Witnesses ensure published policy is carried out?
viewtopic.php?p=1065143#p1065143

Why don't many ex-witness support groups emphasis that leaving does NOT equate to being shunned?
viewtopic.php?p=1066583#p1066583

Why post official JW protocol? Is it faithfully applied?
viewtopic.php?p=1066775#p1066775

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES , DISFELLOWSHIPPING/ SHUNNING and ... ORGANISATIONAL INFALLIBILITY

[JehovahsWitness]

You could be posting what the Queen of England said, I have just posted Jehovahs Witness policy from the OFFICIAL website . There is no discussion on this matter, it is a fact, that is not our policy.

I find it odd that they should have to address that question ...

Well its probably to counteract the disinformation of people saying Jehovahs Witnesses disfellow people for watching the wrong movies.

While my personal opinion is that JW's go too far on this, disfellowshipping for things like watching the wrong movies ...

... that the information you posted is of little help to the people pulled into elder meetings and asked why they watch certain movies or listen to certain music.

I didn't post for people pulled into elders meetings, I posted to clarify the inaccuracy you posted.




JW

[JoeyKnothead]

...
This nonsense can only be spun for gullible non-witnesses that do not know enough about the inner workings of our organisation.

It's always odd to hear folks call others "gullible" - as they believe in a god that can't be shown to exist.

We Witnesses cannot be duped by yarns...

Yet have fallen for, "He was dead for three days, but got hungry and fetched on off to town for some Mickey D's".

LoutL

[Purple Knight]

I didn't post for people pulled into elders meetings, I posted to clarify the inaccuracy you posted.

My point was, if the information is not of use to people pulled into elder meetings and deliberately being terrified into believing that they're going to be disfellowshipped for watching the wrong movies, it shouldn't be of use to you debating about whether people get disfellowshipped for watching the wrong movies, either. Because this is just as much about what happens to real people in reality as it is about stated policy.

As an aside, I'm sorry for people equating belief in a god to gullibility. I personally don't see those things equating. People talk as if everyone looks through the same eyes, finds identical evidence, and weighs it with an identical scale. People don't seem to see how little scope pure deductive reasoning has, and just how much of our reason-filled universe relies on very personal judgments about whether we think this evidence is enough or not, and that everyone makes them. Maybe 3/4 of the people who try to sell me stuff have been swindlers, so I say, that guy is probably (75%) likely to be a swindler, but you've only encountered 1/100 so you say it's unlikely. Neither of us is wrong.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
As an aside, I'm sorry for people equating belief in a god to gullibility.
...

Don't you worry you nothing about it.

They hold to the belief non-believers're "fools".

And soil their pants when we hold to the belief they're idiots.

[JehovahsWitness]

I didn't post for people pulled into elders meetings, I posted to clarify the inaccuracy you posted.

... it shouldn't be of use to you debating about whether people get disfellowshipped for watching the wrong movies..

It is not for you to tell me what should or should not be of use to me; that is personal to each person based on their values. You are not the master of me and your telling me what I should or should not debate is almost as if you are trying to impose a cult like control over my values. What next are you going to tell me what I should or should not watch?

I do not appreciate your trying to impose your worldview and values on me, if I want to be preached to I go to church, this is a debating forum and as long as I respect the guidelines I can debate as I choose, thank you very much. I posted to correct an INACCURACY in your post, an INACCURACY that provided the bases for all kinds of unverified and unverifiable claims. I felt I should correct that and I did. Your response that insinuates that I should have kept silent and submitted to your barrage is not appreciated.

Come now Purple, let us not fight. You have been corrected, and, given how difficult it is to accept correction, you were surprisingly good to squeeze out a concession to that fact as best you felt able. I'm happy to leave it there.

Please, have an excellent day,


JW

[Purple Knight]

Come now Purple, let us not fight. You have been corrected, and, given how difficult it is to accept correction, you were surprisingly good to squeeze out a concession to that fact as best you felt able. I'm happy to leave it there.

And I conceded that point in case anyone got the wrong idea and thought it was official stated policy. What is official stated policy does matter. However, what happens to real people in real situations matters too. I don't mean to control what you can say, but I do mean to make a point about fairness. It isn't fair for you to invoke official stated policy in a debate and have that be effective unless it is just as effective for the people threatened with disfellowshipment who didn't do anything against that policy.

...
As an aside, I'm sorry for people equating belief in a god to gullibility.
...

Don't you worry you nothing about it.

They hold to the belief non-believers're "fools".

And soil their pants when we hold to the belief they're idiots.

Nobody's an idiot. Nobody's a fool. Nobody's even crazy, but let's say they are. Let's say they believe this thing on very little to no evidence.

Who's the fool when an inmate from an insane asylum, believing all the time that Star Trek was real, actually gets beamed up? That's one of the least likely things I can think of but it's not flat impossible. Are 1) they still the fool even though they happened to be right? Or 2) are those that ridiculed them as crazy the fools, because they happened to be wrong? Or 3) are the fools only those that believed without a sufficient amount of evidence, regardless of whether they happened to be right?

Think carefully about who exactly decides how much evidence is enough before you pick 3.

[Difflugia]

Are 1) they still the fool even though they happened to be right? Or 2) are those that ridiculed them as crazy the fools, because they happened to be wrong? Or 3) are the fools only those that believed without a sufficient amount of evidence, regardless of whether they happened to be right?

Think carefully about who exactly decides how much evidence is enough before you pick 3.

The answer's 3. The answer doesn't change just because we're being judged by fools. How to keep fools out of that position is itself an important problem, but it's also an independent problem.

A stopped clock is right twice a day and a blind squirrel sometimes finds a nut, but relying on either one is still foolish.

[nobspeople]

...
This nonsense can only be spun for gullible non-witnesses that do not know enough about the inner workings of our organisation.

It's always odd to hear folks call others "gullible" - as they believe in a god that can't be shown to exist.

We Witnesses cannot be duped by yarns...

Yet have fallen for, "He was dead for three days, but got hungry and fetched on off to town for some Mickey D's".

LoutL

That smacked of a 'holier than thou' argument; some may even say pompous and arrogant, while others would say self assured. Strange how perception works, I guess

[JoeyKnothead]

Nobody's an idiot. Nobody's a fool. Nobody's even crazy, but let's say they are. Let's say they believe this thing on very little to no evidence.

I think you're not catching my point...

When we call others "fools", we risk em thinking they're idiots for it.

It's a tit for tat situation.

Only one side there has the insult codified as a deeply held religious belief. Inscribed in God's hand, breathed in God's breath. Thought in God's mind.

But he loves you.

Who's the fool when an inmate from an insane asylum, believing all the time that Star Trek was real, actually gets beamed up? That's one of the least likely things I can think of but it's not flat impossible.

You might well be surprised what kinda thinkings go on in them rooms, in them halls.

There's far more Gods and Jesuses than are there the beam me uppers.

Are 1) they still the fool even though they happened to be right? Or 2) are those that ridiculed them as crazy the fools, because they happened to be wrong? Or 3) are the fools only those that believed without a sufficient amount of evidence, regardless of whether they happened to be right?

Think carefully about who exactly decides how much evidence is enough before you pick 3.

Here's the thing, I can think folks're idiots without having to say there's an invisible man up in the sky to agree with me.

Think carefully about how you tell about folks in the insane asylums, 'til you've spent you time in amongst em.