What would you give up?

Originally posted by FMF
Do you condemn the way that JWs sometimes shun each other for religious reasons? Do you condemn the way that your mother was condemned for religious reasons?

native Americans also practised shunning, why don't you ever mention them? and the
practice is Biblically established, Jehovahs witnesses did not originate it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
native Americans also practised shunning, why don't you ever mention them?

There hasn't been a native American turn up on this forum to advocate it or suggest that it is a superior kind of moral behaviour.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the practice is Biblically established, Jehovahs witnesses did not originate it.

There are hundreds and hundreds of millions of adherents who do not use shunning against people for religious reasons. Whether Jehovahs Witnesses "originated" or not, each person who uses forms of psychological bullying over ideological issues should be held accountable for their actions, more especially if they tout it as an example of moral behaviour.

Originally posted by divegeester
Actually I think you have been caught in a 'fork' to use a chess term; you defend shunning people from a JW doctrinal viewpoint and then come here crying about being "shunned" yourself and putting it out there as you having "given up" something for Jesus. The hypocrisy is chocking.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but where did G75 "complain" about being shunned? I seem to recall where he said it didn't bother him at all.

Believers make all kinds of sacrifices all the time... and do so cheerfully. (not to say others don't do it as well) As a matter of fact, the bible teaches that good works that are not done cheerfully are counted as negative, not positive. Better for someone to not give at all, than to give begrudgingly.

All G75 asked was, what sacrifices have believers endured or given. Surely, an entire family shunning 1 family member would be seen--when compared to no shunning at all--as a certain level of burden, or, sacrifice. But that doesn't necessarily mean, as you suggest, that G75 is whining and complaining about it. I see it as just the opposite, actually.

Originally posted by sumydid
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but where did G75 "complain" about being shunned? I seem to recall where he said it didn't bother him at all.

Believers make all kinds of sacrifices all the time... and do so cheerfully. (not to say others don't do it as well) As a matter of fact, the bible teaches that good works that are not done cheerfully are counted as neg ...[text shortened]... t, that G75 is whining and complaining about it. I see it as just the opposite, actually.

Thanks. But if you've read any of his postings you will quickly learn his negative motives on just about every subject he responds too. I can't explain why but he's pretty consistant with that.
I guess he's apponted himself as some kind of judge here in the forums.

Originally posted by sumydid
My answer is everything.

However if this is kind of a "trap" question, like, once I answer "everything," then you say, "Then why do you have a computer or any money? You obviously are not willing to give up everything..." etc... if it's THAT kind of question, my response is, Jesus has not required that I give up what little I have, and if He ever did explicitly require such, I would do so without hesitation.

No I promise there is no trap. Just an honest question to all here.

Originally posted by galveston75
I guess he's apponted himself as some kind of judge here in the forums.

Who are you referring to here, robbie corrobie?

Originally posted by galveston75
Well so far he has not posted what he said I said. I'm still waitng.

* BUMP * for galveston75

Do you condemn the way that JWs sometimes shun each other for religious reasons? Do you condemn the way that your mother was condemned for religious reasons?

Originally posted by galveston75
Thanks. But if you've read any of his postings you will quickly learn his negative motives on just about every subject he responds too. I can't explain why but he's pretty consistant with that.
I guess he's apponted himself as some kind of judge here in the forums.

What on earth are you thanking him for!

Are you not complaining that your in-laws have effectively "shunned" you for religious reasons i.e. you being a JW?

Originally posted by sumydid
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but where did G75 "complain" about being shunned? I seem to recall where he said it didn't bother him at all.

Believers make all kinds of sacrifices all the time... and do so cheerfully. (not to say others don't do it as well) As a matter of fact, the bible teaches that good works that are not done cheerfully are counted as neg t, that G75 is whining and complaining about it. I see it as just the opposite, actually.

Try reading the thread.

>Galveston asks what would anyone give up for follow Jesus

>I ask ask him what he has "given up"

>He responds by describing his in-laws "shunning" him for being a JW

Don't you think this is hyprocritical considering JW's practice "shunning" for religious reasons themselves? Not to mention that he hasn't given them up in some sort of self-sacrifice for Jesus; they have given him up.

Originally posted by galveston75
I would think all the above.....

How exactly did giving up being an architect translate into "serving Jesus"? Does Jesus hold some dislike against those in the construction industry?

Originally posted by FMF
There are hundreds and hundreds of millions of adherents who do not use shunning against people for religious reasons. Whether Jehovahs Witnesses "originated" or not, each person who uses forms of psychological bullying over ideological issues should be held accountable for their actions, more especially if they tout it as an example of moral behaviour.

yawn, the practice is Biblical and we are not prepared to be morally tyrannised over
be some self certified spiritual quack who does not even know what is the nature of his
God that he professes to worship.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yawn, the practice is Biblical and we are not prepared to be morally tyrannised over
be some self certified spiritual quack who does not even know what is the nature of his
God that he professes to worship.

Whether or not "shunning" is morally acceptable is not in question robbie, what is being discussed is why Galveston feels that his in-laws (effectively) shunning him and his mother which resulted in alienation from them is something he has "given up" for Jesus; when actually JW's also shun members of their own family or congregations for religious reasons and consider it normal biblical practice, as you once again point out.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yawn, the practice is Biblical and we are not prepared to be morally tyrannised over
be some self certified spiritual quack who does not even know what is the nature of his
God that he professes to worship.

Misanthropic or sociopathic behaviour cannot simply be passed off as moral behaviour because a subjective interpretation of a book asserts that it is moral behaviour.

If you are the free moral agent that you profess to be, you have to take responsibility for the pronouncements on morality that you make, rather than just, for all intents and purposes, declare that you read it in a book.

Shunning demonstrates no generosity of spirit or empathy, it can clearly do harm, it is effectively a form of revenge, and it appears to bolster the vanity of those who connive to subject others to it.

I'd say this can hardly be described as "moral behaviour" in any respect, and it's interesting that all you can come up with is "the practice is Biblical" and then claim you are being "tyrannised over" when asked to explain the substance of the morality of the practice.

Originally posted by galveston75
Thanks. But if you've read any of his postings you will quickly learn his negative motives on just about every subject he responds too. I can't explain why but he's pretty consistant with that.
I guess he's apponted himself as some kind of judge here in the forums.

Yes indeed, ask him about the nature of his God and hes is at a loss to explain a single
facet, yet he deems himself adequately qualified to judge the house servant of
another. He harbours the pretence that his opinions, which for the most part are self
certified as bone fide are of some importance and to my knowledge has never
produced a shred of empirical evidence to back up a single claim. He modus operandi
is to try to draw emotive assertions with the use of sensationalistic language in the
hope of tripping up a poster with some inconsistency or to play one poster against
another with the hope of achieving the same. I have never learned a single thing from
any of the lengthy texts that i have exchanged other than my time is better employed
elsewhere.