Is there a contradiction with regard to freedom to change one's religion?

[Anna]

On 9/3/2017 at 8:44 AM, JW Insider said:

If we are not proud enough of a practice to explain it up front as part of the conversion process, and explained by an elder prior to baptism, then, of course, we should change the practice.

Precisely. But it gets a little more complicated because people can be mislead into thinking something else to what can actually happen in practice as is evident in the answers to FAQ

https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/resign/#?insight[search_id]=475f2def-a58d-4618-aec5-5b7ebdc2505e&insight[search_result_index]=1

and

https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/shunning/

On 9/3/2017 at 8:44 AM, JW Insider said:

 And another way to look at the verses above (about returning to vomit, re-nailing the Son of God), is that they are not about any specific religious organization, but about a specific type of personal relationship with Jehovah that is rejected.

Interesting

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

3 minutes ago, Anna said:

  On 9/3/2017 at 8:44 AM, JW Insider said:

 And another way to look at the verses above (about returning to vomit, re-nailing the Son of God), is that they are not about any specific religious organization, but about a specific type of personal relationship with Jehovah that is rejected.

Agreed JWI ... in context, you are exactly right.

[Evacuated]

18 hours ago, Anna said:

a big difference in the spirit of the admonition

Quite right. And I suspect necessarily so. Unfortunately, human emotion is a powerful driver of action that crosses the boundaries that Jehovah sets. Jeremiah made that clear at Jer.10:23. Although it is simple to state that in a case of disfellowshipping, " blood ties remain. The marriage relationship and normal family affections and dealings continue", to what extent should this be applied? Many left to their own devices will over-restrict, or excercise too much lattitude, despite the desire of Jehovah to dignify us with principle rather than law. As an example of the latter: "In our area some disfellowshiped ones with large families have been met, as they enter the lobby of the Kingdom Hall, with a fanfare of backslapping and handshaking (even though the disfellowshiped one was known by them to be still living immorally)." WT 1981 15 Sep.

So someone has to set a bar somewhere at times. Parents have this right: Eph.6:4, and the same applies to those with shepherding responsibilty in the congregation: Heb.13:17.

For example, despite the fact that at the start of the Christian congregation when about 3000 or so joined "All those who became believers were together and had everything in common, and they were selling their possessions and properties and distributing the proceeds to all, according to what each one needed." Acts 2:41-47. They didn't need detailed directions on this matter one would have thought, not with love as a fruitage of the abundantly present holy spirit surely?.  But, a little later, with numbers growing, we find "the Greek-speaking Jews began complaining against the Hebrew-speaking Jews, because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution."  Acts 6:1. How could this possibly be? How could true, spirit anointed, spirit-gifted Christians be so self-centered and heartless?  

We know that the measures taken to deal with this matter would have necessitated specific directions. (Acts 6:3-6). The apostles left the logistics of this to suitably qualified representatives. Would those directions have been put in place by Jehovah? Or was it more a case of Jehovah allowing humans to make the arrangements to deal with a specific matter at that time.

I know this is different from the logistics of how we implement the scriptural requirement to "quit mixing in company" with unrepentant serious sinners to whom we are related. But the principle is that responsible shepherds in the congregation at times MUST make rules, in this case, to ensure the spritual cleanness and safety of the members of the congregation. 

Sometimes, the placing and implementation of a rule made by human representatives in Jehovah's organisation will elicit the following response:

18 hours ago, Anna said:

I do no think Jehovah has put it in place!

But hasn't Jehovah put Caeser's law in place? Rom.13:1? Isn't it so that what Jehovahs allows, He has put in place?

Really, it is to Jehovah (and of course Jesus, the Head of the Christian congregation) that those charged with shepherding responsibility will answer. We surely know that, as the principle earthly shepherds today, the Governing Body are as subject to the direction of Jesus as Head of the Christian congregation as were those of the first century described in Revelation Chapters 2 and 3. And this applies to all with shepherding responsibility. And in discharging that responsibility, rules have to be made, even tightened up at times, unpopular though this might be. Otherwise, how would the words of the wise ones ever serve as oxgoads? Ecc.12:11.

Extrapolating on what is not included in the video is interesting, but we can make many alternative scenarios can't we? Obviously Sonya was set in her wrong course. She did not care at all for the hurt she caused others and obviously did not care about her status after disfellowshipping because when given the choice to alter her conduct to enable her father to continue providing her with a home, she chose to leave. To liken her to Aaron's sons might be a pointer to the extent of her bad attitude. She could always have returned to the Kingdom Hall at any time, but there is no indication she ever tried to set matters straight over the many years. Surely the visit by the elders before her return was not the only attempt made to get her to return over the years. There are many possible scenarios there. What is important is the outcome, and I am certain this drama is factual having seen many similar incidents.

But really, you know this and quite rightly you have stated that

16 hours ago, Anna said:

I will let Jehovah be the Judge.

Of your own conduct I think you mean, but is He not also Judge of those who provide the counsel we follow today? Or do not follow for that matter? Best result always comes to those who wait on Jehovah and work with what He allows.

Pro.19:21 The Living Bible

 

[Anna]

11 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

"In our area some disfellowshiped ones with large families have been met, as they enter the lobby of the Kingdom Hall, with a fanfare of backslapping and handshaking (even though the disfellowshiped one was known by them to be still living immorally).

That is ridiculous of course especially when that person was still known to be living immorally. But it is a far cry from discretely keeping in touch with someone who albeit being disfellowshipped, is no longer practicing what they were disfellowshipped for. And that's the situation I'm talking about. However, the video even condemns that.

11 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

But hasn't Jehovah put Caeser's law in place? Rom.13:1? Isn't it so that what Jehovahs allows, He has put in place?

I know what you are trying to say, but clearly there are some things that are happening that are apparently being allowed that Jehovah has definitely not put in place...think of anything that has had a detrimental effect on some, for example faulty child abuse policies we have had in the past. Jehovah allows mistakes, and eventually these mistakes are rectified. These mistakes help us become stronger if we don't allow them to break us. Iron sharpens iron.

I agree with most of your reasoning and thank you for taking your time to address this issue. It helped to put things into proper perspective.  I am not going to let this issue become my Achilles heel. I know what I feel in my gut (obviously based on a Bible trained conscience) and I have basically done this most of my life as a JW, and many times my gut feelings were proved correct.  I am glad I do this because I will never blame the "truth" or the Elders or anyone because whatever I do, it is because I choose to do it (or not do it), not because someone said I should or shouldn't. And this case will be the same. So one day IF our stance on disfellowshipped loved ones changes, I will not become resentful because I will have been doing what I felt was right anyway.....

As regards the answer to the original topic for discussion "is there a contradiction with regard to freedom to change one's religion"? I think JW Insider nailed it when he said that: "This means that yes, absolutely, we have two sets of scales on this one, but only because we are sure we deserve a different set of scales. I don't think there is any other way to see it either. It's OK for others to change their religion, because that is obviously the point of the Greek Scriptures about conversion and baptism. But it's not OK for any of us to change our religion, because it's akin to: Hebrews 6:4-6 and 2 Peter 2:20-22  So, scripturally, there appears to be no problem with the belief itself that this is only a one-way street".

[Anna]

12 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

She did not care at all for the hurt she caused others and obviously did not care about her status after disfellowshipping because when given the choice to alter her conduct to enable her father to continue providing her with a home, she chose to leave.

Yup, such is the pull of the opposite sex!

[Evacuated]

On 9/3/2017 at 9:09 AM, Gone Fishing said:

Whilst it is true to say that humans have been gifted with the ability to choose when it comes to moral obligations, they have not been given a right to excercise their choice wrongly by chosing to rebel against Jehovah. That fact is illustrated in the restriction on eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and bad and the sanction for disobeying that command.

I think this agrees with this part of JWI's statement quoted by Anna: "It's OK for others to change their religion, because that is obviously the point of the Greek Scriptures about conversion and baptism. But it's not OK for any of us to change our religion, because it's akin to: Hebrews 6:4-6 and 2 Peter 2:20-22  So, scripturally, there appears to be no problem with the belief itself that this is only a one-way street".

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

7 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

So, scripturally, there appears to be no problem with the belief itself that this is only a one-way street".

I agree with that 100% ... but it is based on the assumption that down here in the dirt streets, we are on the RIGHT street ... and the dirt has not evolved into ruts and quagmires of mud.

However, at the current time it appears that Jehovah's Witnesses are the "only game in town", but like Bethlehem, even Joseph, Mary, and Jesus had to flee to Egypt for awhile when things got to dangerous for them when the wrong people were ruling Israel.

They returned later, after the cruelty had subsided.

[Evacuated]

28 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

even Joseph, Mary, and Jesus had to flee to Egypt for awhile when things got to dangerous for them when the wrong people were ruling Israel

I upvoted you for honesty.

Is that what you have done? Figuratively?

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

Figuratively ...after all ... denile is just a river in Egypt.

[Srecko Sostar]

On 8/28/2017 at 13:49, Albert Michelson said:

JW's baptize young children because

..(quote from bro Lett :))))), "the sooner you can get baptized the sooner you will receive greater protection  and blessings from JHVH...."

....really strong reasons. Then Catholic are not wrong at all when want to baptized newborn children. Protection and blessings comes earlier than in JWorg :))))))

[Evacuated]

2 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Then Catholic are not wrong at all when want to baptized newborn children. Protection and blessings comes earlier than in JWorg :))))))

Let's baptize pregnant mothers.........

[Matthew9969]

I know I'm late in this thread, but I disassociated myself, some jw's shunned me and some didn't. I know some disgellowshiped ones who still had a relationship with their jw family.

But I ask, how do elders punish someone if they are not jw's?