"New Light" Question

[Evacuated]

2 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

I don't understand what that means.

anomally = something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected.

Your postings normally differ from the usual JW crticisms in being well reasoned and researched rather than the more common derisory or ad hominem rantings I have seen sometimes on this forum.

Of course I see your point (similar to Act  5:29), I just do not think it applies here as I don't see David as being disloyal to Saul. It was Saul who was disloyal.

Anyway, are you constructing an argument to show that the experience of ex-witnesses disfellowshipped for disagreeing with doctrinal matters which were later corrected in their favor is parallel to David's experience of being an outcast?

(I am trying to line up with the first posting on this subject)

[Ann O'Maly]

2 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

anomally = something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected.

I know what an anomaly is, I just didn't understand your sentence.

2 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Of course I see your point (similar to Act  5:29), I just do not think it applies here as I don't see David as being disloyal to Saul. It was Saul who was disloyal.

David defected to Saul's and Israel's enemy, the Philistines. Wouldn't the establishment have viewed that as disloyal? 

2 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Anyway, are you constructing an argument to show that the experience of ex-witnesses disfellowshipped for disagreeing with doctrinal matters which were later corrected in their favor is parallel to David's experience of being an outcast?

My argument was a simple one: Loyalty to God may mean disloyalty to a religious leadership's actions or beliefs. 

You brought in 1 Sam. 24, and I referenced 1 Sam 27f. which raised the issue about David's loyalties. David's example underlined the point that loyalty to Jehovah comes over and above loyalty to a nation or human ruler, even if that meant one became an outcast in the eyes of God's anointed.

 

[Evacuated]

32 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

David defected to Saul's and Israel's enemy, the Philistines. Wouldn't the establishment have viewed that as disloyal? 

Not sure he did as he worked against their interests. If by the establishment you mean Saul, then probably he may have had all sorts of distorted views about David, none of them true. I am sure Jonathan would not have shared the establishment's view.

 

35 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

God's anointed

I would call him God's formerly anointed but now a rebellious reject. I can't see how David had any obligation to him at all at this time, other than his respect for Jehovah's right to remove him. So therefore I fail to see how David could be considered disloyal to Saul as king. Disloyalty implies an obligation. One has no obligation to an unfaithful or brother religious leadership, so I cannot see how loyalty/disloyalty to them comes into the equation. But then, that's just my view.

[Evacuated]

12 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

unfaithful or brother religious leadership

mistake. Should read as :  unfaithful  religious leadership.

[Evacuated]

On 5/28/2016 at 16:38, JW Insider said:

These types of disfellowshippings are not as common as disfellowshippings for immorality. With immorality the person is often immediately repentant but a certain amount of time is required for disfellowshipping anyway, to show the person, the congregation and the rest of the world that we are serious about keeping the congregation clean.

This implementation of the disfellowshipping provision is disappointing. Hopefully the more enlightened view presented in this extract from https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/shunning/ now prevails:

"We do not automatically disfellowship someone who commits a serious sin. If, however, a baptized Witness makes a practice of breaking the Bible’s moral code and does not repent, he or she will be shunned or disfellowshipped. The Bible clearly states: “Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.”—1 Corinthians 5:13."

[JW Insider]

On 6/10/2016 at 2:37 AM, Eoin Joyce said:

We do not automatically disfellowship someone who commits a serious sin.

This is very true. The types of sins that usually result in disfellowshipping are typically related to immorality or "uncleanness," but, in my experience, there are very few times when it's only one "instance" of immorality. However, even if the "instances" are in the past, and are expected to never be repeated, it's still often a matter of whether there was some "scandal" that has to be addressed even if only known by very few. There is a level of repentance shown, just by the fact that the person has met with a judicial committee. The person could have chosen to ignore the congregational judicial process.

There is still the issue of consistency, too. Some elders are more "judicious" than others. A person who is caught smoking (tobacco and/or nicotane-based) cigarettes, for example, can claim it was just a temporary slip-up, and this is treated with much more leniency than in the past. But this leniency can be abused, and even become an excuse for potentially unrepentant slip-ups that are always "forgiven."