Fatal Error

Joined

• started 11 topics
• posted 121 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Fatal Error

• 
  45

  CO talk

  by Fatal Error in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  we had our second co talk yesterday, the topic of which was loyalty, thinly veiled as to one another, but dripping with threats toward those who might go against the society.. after the usual drivel about the society being god's organisation, and appreciating their junk food (as an aside, has anyone actually vomitted up any of this "food"??

  just wondering...), i was rudely dragged out of my slumber by the co's harsh declaration that we should shun all those who slipped away from the thruth, as they inactivity is a bad influence.

  he went on to heap the blame on them, "if they feel this way, then they should expect their due", "they bring shunning onto themselves" etc.... has it always been this way?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fatal Error

  Hiya waiting

  That was what I was expecting to hear, but what threw me was the fact that his talk was directed to peeps who were in the Truth, who accepted the Truth, who probably went to a few meetings now and then, but due to personal circumstances couldn't involve themselves more. I wouldn't consider these any threat to the Org, apart maybe from setting a bad example. But the CO stated, "association above the minimum required with such ones can and will lead you away from the Truth, as the lure of wordliness will be too strong and palatable".

  Attacking those who are in the Truth but might have difficulties in witnessing as much as hoped were never critisised so openly, were they?

  And (sorry, i'm still finding my way around the bible, lol!) doesn't this seriously contradict at least one scripture, that each should do what he/she can, depending on their circumstances?
• 
  45

  CO talk

  by Fatal Error in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  we had our second co talk yesterday, the topic of which was loyalty, thinly veiled as to one another, but dripping with threats toward those who might go against the society.. after the usual drivel about the society being god's organisation, and appreciating their junk food (as an aside, has anyone actually vomitted up any of this "food"??

  just wondering...), i was rudely dragged out of my slumber by the co's harsh declaration that we should shun all those who slipped away from the thruth, as they inactivity is a bad influence.

  he went on to heap the blame on them, "if they feel this way, then they should expect their due", "they bring shunning onto themselves" etc.... has it always been this way?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fatal Error

  Oh, and pass that bag when you're done Gospels, I find that I often feel nauseous after the meetings, tastes like the sort of crap you'd buy off a street-stall...
• 
  45

  CO talk

  by Fatal Error in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  we had our second co talk yesterday, the topic of which was loyalty, thinly veiled as to one another, but dripping with threats toward those who might go against the society.. after the usual drivel about the society being god's organisation, and appreciating their junk food (as an aside, has anyone actually vomitted up any of this "food"??

  just wondering...), i was rudely dragged out of my slumber by the co's harsh declaration that we should shun all those who slipped away from the thruth, as they inactivity is a bad influence.

  he went on to heap the blame on them, "if they feel this way, then they should expect their due", "they bring shunning onto themselves" etc.... has it always been this way?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fatal Error

  This being my first CO talk (well second, but the first was after the service meeting, and I have no recollection of what it was about ), I didn't think to take notes, so I'm just posting what I remember as I remember it. I actually had the CO round for a quick study earlier in the day, and asked him about the organisation, its purpose, yadda yadda.. The two words he used most were "loving" and "trust".

  As for the his talk, he quoted 1.Cor 5 throughout, and maintained that it was a "loving gesture" to shun, leading to realisation from the weak JW that they did in fact need the brotherhood and Society. For someone who (I hope!!) is still capable of remaining objective about it all, this smakced of the lowest form emotional blackmail. From what I gathered, his point was through shunning, these weak spirited JWs would be in a position where they consider themselves still within the fold, and yet need to involve themselves more to recieve the loving companionship of their fellow witnesses.

  So even those not actually agrieved with the Society's teachings, who just so happen to have a time-consuming job, or a large family to look after, or anything else for that matter which might take up their time, are to be considered on the same level as those who don't (have a different understanding of the bible that is).

  Numbers must be dropping pretty sharply and funds drying up...
• 
  45

  CO talk

  by Fatal Error in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  we had our second co talk yesterday, the topic of which was loyalty, thinly veiled as to one another, but dripping with threats toward those who might go against the society.. after the usual drivel about the society being god's organisation, and appreciating their junk food (as an aside, has anyone actually vomitted up any of this "food"??

  just wondering...), i was rudely dragged out of my slumber by the co's harsh declaration that we should shun all those who slipped away from the thruth, as they inactivity is a bad influence.

  he went on to heap the blame on them, "if they feel this way, then they should expect their due", "they bring shunning onto themselves" etc.... has it always been this way?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fatal Error

  I agree with anewperson,

  What with all the talk of "loyalty to the brotherhood", it definitively sounded like they were digging trenches and ordering closed communication with the outside, and especially those who were half in, half out, who they probably view as the greatest threat. Shame no-one thought of registering the word apostate, someone would have made a fortune in the last few weeks...
• 
  45

  CO talk

  by Fatal Error in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  we had our second co talk yesterday, the topic of which was loyalty, thinly veiled as to one another, but dripping with threats toward those who might go against the society.. after the usual drivel about the society being god's organisation, and appreciating their junk food (as an aside, has anyone actually vomitted up any of this "food"??

  just wondering...), i was rudely dragged out of my slumber by the co's harsh declaration that we should shun all those who slipped away from the thruth, as they inactivity is a bad influence.

  he went on to heap the blame on them, "if they feel this way, then they should expect their due", "they bring shunning onto themselves" etc.... has it always been this way?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fatal Error

  out4good3---

  There was one girl there, whose parents spoke up, and condemned her teachers and career advisor for telling her she would have a lot of success at university, and she should seriously consider it. Her father ranted on about how this was a ploy to steer her away from the truth, etc... That's his perogative, but what bothered me most was that the poor girl was squirming, and obviously unhappy about something.

  I "accidentaly" bumped into her later, and made a passing comment on this, to which she replied that she'd been told by her parents not to discuss it with anyone, and that the decision was final, she was not going to university. She's 18, nearly 19.
• 
  45

  CO talk

  by Fatal Error in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  we had our second co talk yesterday, the topic of which was loyalty, thinly veiled as to one another, but dripping with threats toward those who might go against the society.. after the usual drivel about the society being god's organisation, and appreciating their junk food (as an aside, has anyone actually vomitted up any of this "food"??

  just wondering...), i was rudely dragged out of my slumber by the co's harsh declaration that we should shun all those who slipped away from the thruth, as they inactivity is a bad influence.

  he went on to heap the blame on them, "if they feel this way, then they should expect their due", "they bring shunning onto themselves" etc.... has it always been this way?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fatal Error

  We had the pioneer assist "talk" a couple of weeks ago, and yes, it wasn't so much advertising or recommending, rather stating you were weak in faith to pass up the opportunity... A LOT of peeps were asking to get involved at the end.

  As well as this, I get the impression that there's a large amount of pressure on younger members to pioneer, even though the Society has relaxed its views on schooling, a few comments were made, by the speaker, that school was a waste of time, using the fisherman example, I'm not sure if anyone else has heard this. I have been studying for only a couple of months, but I'm already being "asked" to come into service, and I'm not exactely meek, lol!
• 
  45

  CO talk

  by Fatal Error in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  we had our second co talk yesterday, the topic of which was loyalty, thinly veiled as to one another, but dripping with threats toward those who might go against the society.. after the usual drivel about the society being god's organisation, and appreciating their junk food (as an aside, has anyone actually vomitted up any of this "food"??

  just wondering...), i was rudely dragged out of my slumber by the co's harsh declaration that we should shun all those who slipped away from the thruth, as they inactivity is a bad influence.

  he went on to heap the blame on them, "if they feel this way, then they should expect their due", "they bring shunning onto themselves" etc.... has it always been this way?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fatal Error

  Thanks Path :)

  While I get what you're saying, thing is the CO did include those who were "too busy" etc.. as they were "promoting worldly activities taking precedence over spiritual ones". That's what got me. The gist of it was that by minimising communication with these ones, we'd be showing them that it was necessary to put the Truth abve all else, and change their lifestyle, quit their job, whatever.

  To me, that sounded like a distinct change of direction...
• 
  45

  CO talk

  by Fatal Error in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  we had our second co talk yesterday, the topic of which was loyalty, thinly veiled as to one another, but dripping with threats toward those who might go against the society.. after the usual drivel about the society being god's organisation, and appreciating their junk food (as an aside, has anyone actually vomitted up any of this "food"??

  just wondering...), i was rudely dragged out of my slumber by the co's harsh declaration that we should shun all those who slipped away from the thruth, as they inactivity is a bad influence.

  he went on to heap the blame on them, "if they feel this way, then they should expect their due", "they bring shunning onto themselves" etc.... has it always been this way?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fatal Error

  We had our second CO talk yesterday, the topic of which was loyalty, thinly veiled as to one another, but dripping with threats toward those who might go against the Society.

  After the usual drivel about the Society being God's organisation, and appreciating their junk food (as an aside, has anyone actually vomitted up any of this "food"?? just wondering...), I was rudely dragged out of my slumber by the CO's harsh declaration that we should shun all those who slipped away from the Thruth, as they inactivity is a bad influence. He went on to heap the blame on them, "if they feel this way, then they should expect their due", "they bring shunning onto themselves" etc...

  Has it always been this way? It seemed to me that inactive ones were not to be shunned, maybe not associated with on a regular basis, but not cast out as it were? The point he seemed to eb making is that by being inactive, they are in effect going against the teachings, and thus are no better than a full blown apostate... This lasted for a good half hour, concluding on the opening thought that loyalty to the each other and to the organsition is vital, and that maintaining any kind of contact with inactive ones is showing lack of loyalty.

  Any thoughts on this?
• 
  49

  I've been studying.........

  by bchapp in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i have been studying with the jw's for several years.

  they have been pressuring me to become one of them, but something seems to be holding me back, instinct maybe?

  i agree a lot of their teaching are good, and i'm sure are the truth but here are a few of the things that bother me: jw's use the scripture hebrews 10:25 not forsaking the gathering of yourselves together...... to justify their meetings.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fatal Error

  I'm sure they would all sit on a rock and plan which rows of huts they were gonna work on that morning, and place bets on how many heathens each would baptise...
• 
  49

  I've been studying.........

  by bchapp in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i have been studying with the jw's for several years.

  they have been pressuring me to become one of them, but something seems to be holding me back, instinct maybe?

  i agree a lot of their teaching are good, and i'm sure are the truth but here are a few of the things that bother me: jw's use the scripture hebrews 10:25 not forsaking the gathering of yourselves together...... to justify their meetings.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fatal Error

  Hi bchapp

  You're right, some of the things they teach are wrong, purely and simply because their interpretation goes beyond what the bible actually says. Inregards of the meetings, it's just a ploy to take up your time and limit your association with the real world. The door to door issue comes from the fact that right at the start of the movemnt, there were some "witnesses" who acted as colporteurs, or door to door salesmen, peddling Russells's Studies books. BTW, try and have a read of those, they're enough to have you seriously questioning the foundation of many of the Society's teachings. What early christians actually did, was just talk to those interested, they didn't "sell" anything, only inform, and the mention of being welcomed into an interested person's home is brought up by the witnesses, in context it was purely to indicate that a christian should be willing to teach, and not go knocking on doors, hoping to be invited in. And you're right about Yahweh, see other posts on the board.
  Some of this might be slightly off, but I'ver only been studying for a couple of months... I'd recommend reading your way through this site, it'll answer many of your questions!