We did not choose the names of the days of the weeks or the months of the year. But we live in a world that correlates everything by the Gregorian calendar, so we are stuck with the present system for dating things for now.
You are remarkably inconsistent in your logic.
If I recall, Jehovah Witnesses didn't choose our holidays either. Yet that doesn't stop them from shouting "Pagan!" when they hear Easter or Christmas.
Be
consistent in your assertions Deeje. If you're going to rail against Easter, rail against Sunday as well.
The present calendar, incidentally, was introduced by Pope Gregory, replacing the old Julian calendar. Perhaps you need to take this issue up with the Catholic church and ask why "Christians" would have chosen to stay with the names of pagan deities ?
But it is not the historic church that has an issue with Easter, Christmas, or by extension the days of the week. What exactly would you have us take against the Catholic church? Wouldn't that put us on the same unequal footing you find yourself in now?
The months of the year and days of the week are not ever acknowledged as part of our worship. Like names that are chosen for us by our parents, we might hate them but we are stuck with them for the present.
Sure they are! You acknowledge them all the time.
I posted one of your signs stating that services will be held on the day of the Sun god, rather than the 1st day of the week. If you doubt this, look up the origins of "Sunday". As KJW would say, the pagan origins of Sunday are "100% fact".
Christmas and Easter are an intrinsic part of Christendom's worship...there is a big difference.
Difference???
Your worship days are intrinsically linked with Sunday (Sun god), Tuesday (Tyr, god of war), Wodin, the "Supreme Deity" of the Norse, Thursday (god of Thunder), and Saturday (Saturn, god of fun and feasting) when they can just as easily be held on 1st day, 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 7th day if you wish.
I'm hard pressed to see this "intrinsic" difference.
Hmmm...so you are not open or honest with someone who was once considered like a brother?
We still consider ourselves brothers, and yes, I am quite open with him.
That says a lot about you actually. I wish I could show my brother your true colors.
Thank you! You have me blushing now.
I'm sure he would be incredibly disappointed to hear what you have said about our brotherhood on these boards. Like Judas.
Probably no more disappointed then I was to hear what the Watchtower said about the brotherhood who attend "Christendom" churches. The flyer claims "Christendom" "tolerates" child molesters when, at the time, the very Kingdom Hall that left the flyer on my door was being investigated for allegations of child molestation.
Even thought the Kingdom Hall was being investigated, neither my church nor any other Christian church left flyers on the doorsteps of neighbors claiming Jehovah Witnesses "tolerated" child molesters. If our reluctance to point fingers makes us a "
Like Judas" in your eyes, so be it.
Again, I much rather find
consistency than
scapegoat with your assertions.
The 'shunning' (disfellowshipping) is Biblical....The apostle Paul warned the Corinthians of the danger of allowing willful (unrepentant) wrongdoers to remain in close company with fellow members of the congregation. He compared the bad influence of such ones to that of leaven in a lump of dough...
“A little leaven ferments the whole batch of dough". He then counseled them:
“Remove the wicked person from among yourselves.” (
1 Corinthians 5:6, 11-13; Ecclesiastes 8:11)
Those who fail to follow the Bible's admonition will pay the price.
Apostates will not be tolerated either for the same reason.
I don't have a problem with shunning if shunning is something you feel you need to do. It's what you shun for that I have a problem with. A lot of it is not at all biblical.
For example, nowhere in the bible does it say we should not speak with an unrepentant sinner. Instead, Christ tells us we should treat them as we do "...a pagan or tax collector". Matthew 15:18-17
In other words, tread them like the unsaved or someone who needs to be evangelized. If Jesus refused to speak to pagans and tax collectors I am unaware of it.
As for apostates, that is a label you slap on the back of folks leaving a Kingdom Hall for another church, but for some reason, never the ones leaving a Christian Church to enter a Kingdom Hall.
It just smacks of more inconsistency.
"But reject empty speeches that violate what is holy, for they will lead to more and more ungodliness, and their word will spread like gangrene. . . . and they are subverting the faith of some. Despite that, the solid foundation of God remains standing, having this seal, “Jehovah knows those who belong to him,” and, “Let everyone calling on the name of Jehovah renounce unrighteousness.” (2 Timothy 2:14-19; Hebrews 12:6)
Well the next time an unrepentant sinner petitions your Elders to make a speech before the entire Kingdom Hall, including those new, just introduced, or weak in the faith, you can remind him of these verses.
However there should be no problem even if he made an empty speech before your baptized members because it is they who have "...the solid foundation of God" and can "remain standing, having this seal" because "Jehovah knows those who belong to him".
Remember, their is a specific order to be followed:
Moreover, if your brother commits a sin, go lay bare his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take along with you one or two more, in order that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every matter may be established. If he does not listen to them, speak to the congregation. If he does not listen even to the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector. (Matthew 18:15-17)
The person has a right to be bring his case before the congregation, not just before two or three witnesses Deeje. You can't skip a step here or there. Biblical principals must be followed otherwise you introduce "error".
It is only after he refuses to listen to the
congregation that you can treat him as a "man of the nations" (pagan) or "tax collector",
not before.
If the sinner was denied his biblically mandated opportunity to address the congregation, he was not biblically discharged from the body of Christ.
We do what the Bible recommends and it always turns out for the best. Discipline will humble righteous ones but it will only inflame the proud and haughty. Its the way God sifts out those whom he deems to be "unsuitable fish". (
Matthew 13:47-50)
Dis-fellowship from the body of Christ is an extremely
serious spiritual matter and the bible provides specific enumerated safeguards that are designed to protect the flock. When an Organization short circuits or circumvents a biblical directive they do so at their own spiritual peril.
In short, "It makes Jehovah sad."
Its a "cap fits" kind of thing.
The "cap" doesn't fit. Your Organization too quickly hands the accused a cap in order to get them out their doors.