Comments for Michigan Skeptics Association

Comment on Notre Dame Professor Debunks Christian Myth of Persecution by Brenton Jefferson

Brenton Jefferson — Tue, 14 May 2013 12:16:05 +0000

The rule is apparently to read skeptically the writings of the past, but not to doubt the imaginations of present-day scholars. The whole book, however, begs for the latter suspicion. Her framing chapters on the dishonesty and dangers of “persecution” claims by contemporary conservative political voices and religious leaders easily identify her bias. But does her deconstruction of early Christian persecution really undercut the reality of present-day persecution?

Comment on Shunning: How Jehovah’s Witnesses Discipline Their Own by The Atheist Geek

The Atheist Geek — Sun, 12 May 2013 13:26:17 +0000

I don’t see anything in your comment that contradicts the article, Meghan. Were you just adding some information about the appeal process, or was there something you disagreed with?

Incidentally, I know of very few appeals that have been successful. Most of them simply delay the announcement to DF by a week or so. But that may be different where you’re from. As I keep saying, congregations vary more than many JWs and XJWs think.

Thanks for leaving a comment, BTW.

Comment on Notre Dame Professor Debunks Christian Myth of Persecution by Jake Silvera

Jake Silvera — Sun, 12 May 2013 02:11:51 +0000

I am sure that i understand the point of the article.
I say above that
“just because the Romans were not directly persecuting christians, they were persecuting anyone who would not sell out their beliefs skeptic, christian, and anyone else who wouldn’t worship Caesar.”
They were persecuting people based on their beliefs, or non-belief in Caesar’s Godhood
Thank You for the reply
Sincerly
Jake Silvera

Comment on Notre Dame Professor Debunks Christian Myth of Persecution by Adam Bourque

Adam Bourque — Sun, 12 May 2013 01:57:31 +0000

You missed the entire point of the article. The laws applied to all people. They were not specifically targeted to just Christians. So the argument for “persecution” disappears.

Comment on Notre Dame Professor Debunks Christian Myth of Persecution by Jake Silvera

Jake Silvera — Sun, 12 May 2013 01:46:29 +0000

She is just mincing words
The christians were “prosecuted” because they would not involve themselves in rituals and sacrifice to Caesar as a god.
It would be the equivalent of the united states declaring that everyone had to sacrifice to the president as a god, but you as a skeptic would not and were “prosecuted” for not doing so based on you beliefs
the definition of persecute from Merriam Webster online “to pursue with harassing or oppressive treatment, especially because of religion, race, or beliefs; harass persistently”
The government prosecuting you for not following that law, would be oppressing you because of your beliefs, therefore you would be persecuted; just like the christians of Rome.
just because the Romans were not directly persecuting christians, they were persecuting anyone who would not sell out their beliefs skeptic, christian, and anyone else who wouldn’t worship Caesar.
Christians get credit, because they were the only group that resisted the Romans.
Yes i am a Christian
Sincerly
Jake Silvera

Comment on Shunning: How Jehovah’s Witnesses Discipline Their Own by Meghan Chen

Meghan Chen — Fri, 10 May 2013 18:19:13 +0000

When a judicial committee decides that a baptized Witness has committed a serious sin and is unrepentant, the person is disfellowshipped. A person can appeal if they believe that a serious error in judgment has been made. Requests for appeal must be made in writing and within seven days of the decision of the judicial committee. If the decision is not appealed, an announcement is made at the Service Meeting that the named individual “is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses”, without any further explanation. Shunning starts immediately after the announcement is made.

Comment on Shunning: How Jehovah’s Witnesses Discipline Their Own by The Atheist Geek

The Atheist Geek — Mon, 06 May 2013 15:44:00 +0000

The thing is that many JWs deny that they shun. Some will come to sites like this and purposefully deny it because they don’t want others to know. They are also OK with denying certain practices in court (look-up “theocratic warfare”). That’s why I felt like I had to address denials in the article.

I have heard of congregations with liberal-moderate elders that allow some communication, but this is still forbidden by the Society and their literature hammers that point home time and time again. The truth is that their local elders are acting against the Society’s clear instructions and that these situations are rare and atypical. Also, moderate KHs are looked down upon by all their conservative neighbors. I know because I’ve seen it.

When JWs do admit to shunning, they deny all responsibility for it by quoting scripture, as if there isn’t any other possible interpretation. (Joseph gave us some examples that there are, in fact, choices on this point.) Clearly, that’s not an excuse to enforce this sort of policy.

If their Governing Body changed its policy on shunning and decided it was actually scriptural to seek out those who have disassociated themselves so as to encourage them to return, most JWs would immediately change their ways. So in the end, they shun because the WTS tells them to shun, not because the scriptures tell them to. The GB has the power to change this cult-like practice any time it wants.

Comment on Notre Dame Professor Debunks Christian Myth of Persecution by Charlie Sitzes

Charlie Sitzes — Sun, 05 May 2013 17:23:57 +0000

She won’t last long.

Comment on Shunning: How Jehovah’s Witnesses Discipline Their Own by Joseph Zarola

Joseph Zarola — Sat, 04 May 2013 14:38:44 +0000

The act of shunning has been perfected by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Disregarding the command to “Love your enemies” issued by the Lord Jesus, these religionists have usurped the very intent of His coming, Love, Grace and Mercy.

Jehovah’s Witnesses refer to the Psalms of King David, preferring his admonition to “hate them with a complete hatred”, to Jesus’ new command of Love.

It is more convenient for the JW’s to shun someone with questions or doubts, than to research and give an answer based on the ample provided Biblical direction, of a God of love.

To remove a man’s dignity, for the interpretations of men, is tantamount to social murder.

Comment on Shunning: How Jehovah’s Witnesses Discipline Their Own by F. Bacon

F. Bacon — Fri, 03 May 2013 23:04:20 +0000

My former Conservative Wesleyan congregation did something similar, but perhaps not so extreme. Yes, you can attend and even have dinner with a congregant in good standing, but little you say will be taken seriously. You will be viewed as “worldly” and your opinions will be viewed with suspicion.

Your manner of dress will be viewed as subversive unless you continue to dress exactly as dictated by their belief system. You will not be allowed to share worldly literature (though if they are kind enough to accept it, they will quietly dispose of it without reading it), worldly entertainments will not be discussed (TV, cinema, plays) questions as to what their god is will never be handled in any manner except as they choose (not on your terms) and you may eventually be requested to leave their homes, (since “Satan” is not welcome there), nor do they wish to allow you to influence any of their family members. Translations and interpretations of scripture outside KJV and Arminianism will not be considered fit material to be discussed in any degree of seriousness.

In short, anything average people do will not be treated with any kind of dignity and you are faced with being entirely alone in any of your Earthly pursuits.