Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses congregational discipline/Archive 1
Latest comment: 18 years ago by Joshbuddy in topic removal of Bible from sentence
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Jehovah's Witnesses congregational discipline. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
New title?
Should this article perhaps be renamed Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational dicipline or something? Maybe other kinds of dicipline should be discussed as well in the article.Summer Song 09:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- I think the title fits.George 03:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
removal of Bible from sentence
Hello, Joshbuddy!
- I disagree with your removal of the phrase "by Bible requirements as understood by Jehovah's Witnesses". The portion "as understood by Jehovah's Witnesses" distinguishes the Bible requirements as something inpterpreted by JWs, which is perfectly NPOV, unless you're debating the fact that there are requirements in the Bible which have been diversely inpterpreted by many groups claiming faith in the Bible.
It seems that this removal attempts to take away the strong attachment to the Bible felt by Witnesses. The statement was worded such that it acknowledged that these Bible requirements are "understood" in a certain way particular to the Witnesses, which is all that is needed. Please, explain why "Bible" needed to be deleted from the statement. - CobaltBlueTony 14:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- The phrase "Bible requirements" did not seem inclusive enough to me. I would prefer maybe, doctrinal requirements. After all, two paragraphs later we have "Some reasons for disfellowshipping are not explicitly listed in the Bible, and are the Governing Body's interpretation of Bible-based principles (not rules or laws) for Christians." which really seems to cover the point. Why state it twice? joshbuddy, talk 15:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- It seems to me that this sentence qualifies (and was perhaps added after the fact because of) the deleted phrase. After all, the most fundamental disfellowshippable offenses are directly related to widely recognized Scriptural principles: moral fidelity, honesty, respect of property not one's own, respect of life, and so forth. The first statement covers the more usual and obvious reasons for disfellowshipping; the second sentence you mentioned covers the more principle-based reasons, which are not usually on the minds of Witnesses when they think of what could get one disfellowshipped. - CobaltBlueTony 15:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- "beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses" is still a more inclusive. The 1994 Question from readers that always gets cited would prefer that phrase I think. It says something like "beliefs perculiar to Jehovah's Witnesses". I need to look up that source. Seeing as the entire article is unsourced anyways (well, large parts of it are) I think there are probably bigger fish to fry here. joshbuddy, talk 18:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)