|
TheHeretic
68,057 posts
124 months
|
elster said: Papa Hotel said: It's a legitimate religion, they're not into the whole "fleecing the vulnerable" thing. EFA All religions exist on fleecing the vulnerable. They all need money to survive, and that is frankly their main goal.
|
|
|
MP85
646 posts
64 months
|
|
|
TwigtheWonderkid
6,065 posts
19 months
|
Papa Hotel said: It's funny, how some religions are seen as fair game yet people are afraid to attack certain others. A lot of guff gets talked about the various Christian sects yet I've rarely seen anything properly anti-Islam without the PC brigade jumping all over it. And the Jews, we mustn't speak ill of Judaism. It'd be like saying we love Hitler! You can't accuse me of that. I despise them all.
|
|
|
marcosgt
6,200 posts
45 months
|
I don't have much truck with any organised religion, but a number of my wife's family are active members.
The upside is that they are a very supportive, community church where members help each other out in real terms.
The downsides are that they appear have some rather puritanical views (No Birthdays or Christmas - They do make a big fuss about Wedding Anniversaries, no blood transfusions) and the evangelical commitment to knock on people's doors.
Lots of their pretty young female members seem to marry older male ones, so if you're a middle-aged, single man, it might be a great place to get a pretty young wife!
Members do donate to the church. No different to the Catholic or CofE variant, although there doesn't seem to be a super-wealthy central authority, like those churches.
Whilst your sister might worry about the anti-blood transfusion thing (they would counter that there are other non-blood options that don't preclude most operations, but I've never been interested enough to explore the validity of those claims), there are a lot worse people your mother could be influenced by.
The new 'friend' with no religious affiliation is, in my experience, much more likely to be stealing your mum's valuables and helping herself to her savings than JWs...
M
|
|
|
TheHeretic
68,057 posts
124 months
|
marcosgt said: The new 'friend' with no religious affiliation is, in my experience, much more likely to be stealing your mum's valuables and helping herself to her savings than JWs...
M That is quite a statement? The non-religious are more likely to be thieves, or criminals that the religious? Really?
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
elster
16,648 posts
79 months
|
TwigtheWonderkid said: Papa Hotel said: It's funny, how some religions are seen as fair game yet people are afraid to attack certain others. A lot of guff gets talked about the various Christian sects yet I've rarely seen anything properly anti-Islam without the PC brigade jumping all over it. And the Jews, we mustn't speak ill of Judaism. It'd be like saying we love Hitler! You can't accuse me of that. I despise them all. Snap. Getting people to believe in sky fairies and hand over their money is the ultimate goal of almost all organised religions.
|
|
|
longshot
922 posts
67 months
|
The blood transfusion thing would trouble me if a relative got involved with them.
I don't really know anything about them other than having them on the doorstep, but my g/f knows a couple of them.
She plays in a band and they are members too.
If they have a job anywhere other religion related, they refuse to play presumably as it may aid their enemy.
|
|
|
Nyphur
2,910 posts
57 months
|
TheHeretic said: marcosgt said: The new 'friend' with no religious affiliation is, in my experience, much more likely to be stealing your mum's valuables and helping herself to her savings than JWs...
M That is quite a statement? The non-religious are more likely to be thieves, or criminals that the religious? Really? I think he's saying that any individual "new friend" who arrives at a time of need is more likely to be exploiting someone vulnerable, than a group of people brought together by their chosen religion who also arrive on the scene at the same time. Not plainly religious vs not religious. Hope I've explained myself clearly there.
|
|
|
TheHeretic
68,057 posts
124 months
|
Nyphur said: I think he's saying that any individual "new friend" who arrives at a time of need is more likely to be exploiting someone vulnerable, than a group of people brought together by their chosen religion who also arrive on the scene at the same time.
Not plainly religious vs not religious. Hope I've explained myself clearly there. Nope, don't get that either. Churches exist primarily to raise funds to continue their ability to raise funds in the future. I see no reason why JW's are less likely than anyone else to try to get cash, either via a will, or via donation. It's what they do. I certainly don't see why a new 'friend' would be more likely than. JW to attempt a cash grab.
|
|
|
Lippitt
869 posts
78 months
|
Very similar to what happened in my family. Long story short, my Mum has always been looking for a religion where she 'fits' and I guess feel she belongs and they nearly convinced her this was it. The more I tried to speak to her about it the more she pushed against me. Luckily I found out I was pregnant and that seemed to snap her out of it (because if she converted she couldn't see me or Grandchild they told her as I'm not married) but when she told them she had decided not to convert they got very nasty and she had quite a few weeks of harrassment/upset (they told her that we had infected her with the devil etc) and it was horrible, because she genuinely thought they were her friends and nice people.
|
|
|
otolith
Original Poster
19,389 posts
73 months
|
slopes said: BlackVanDyke said: It sounds like they're filling a pretty major need for company/companionship, as such if you feel uncomfortable enough to want to bring it to an end, your mum's going to need a similar source of attention and friendship - any ideas where she might find that? The local WI, the local round table any organisation such as these can provide what she needs, she could even take up lawn bowls for example  Yes, the local WI is something we are exploring. Essentially, she's lonely. She is retired, hubby still working long hours. She doesn't have the car while he's at work (and it would be impractical to do so or to run two cars) and her confidence in getting about on her own by PT isn't good. I'm about four hours drive away, my sister lives reasonably nearby but has two small children and a nursing degree to cope with. Mum's sister (and husband and grown up kids) lives a half hour drive away but has her own responsibilities. I've spoken to both my sister and my aunt about this because realistically they are the only people in a position to help. I haven't spoken to my stepfather about it, because he doesn't know that she's doing this, which makes the situation a bit more delicate.
|
|
|
otolith
Original Poster
19,389 posts
73 months
|
Lippitt said: Very similar to what happened in my family. Long story short, my Mum has always been looking for a religion where she 'fits' and I guess feel she belongs and they nearly convinced her this was it. The more I tried to speak to her about it the more she pushed against me. Luckily I found out I was pregnant and that seemed to snap her out of it (because if she converted she couldn't see me or Grandchild they told her as I'm not married) but when she told them she had decided not to convert they got very nasty and she had quite a few weeks of harrassment/upset (they told her that we had infected her with the devil etc) and it was horrible, because she genuinely thought they were her friends and nice people. Thank you - this is exactly the kind of thing that worries me.
|
|
|
marcosgt
6,200 posts
45 months
|
Nyphur said: TheHeretic said: marcosgt said: The new 'friend' with no religious affiliation is, in my experience, much more likely to be stealing your mum's valuables and helping herself to her savings than JWs...
M That is quite a statement? The non-religious are more likely to be thieves, or criminals that the religious? Really? I think he's saying that any individual "new friend" who arrives at a time of need is more likely to be exploiting someone vulnerable, than a group of people brought together by their chosen religion who also arrive on the scene at the same time. Not plainly religious vs not religious. Hope I've explained myself clearly there. Indeed - TheHeretic's interpretation did seem quite a leap! M.
|
|
|
TheHeretic
68,057 posts
124 months
|
marcosgt said: Indeed - TheHeretic's interpretation did seem quite a leap!
M. A leap? The non-religious new freind being more likely to be stealing her stuff than the JW's? That was what you said. No leap required, it is right there in black and white.
|
|
|
marcosgt
6,200 posts
45 months
|
TheHeretic said: marcosgt said: Indeed - TheHeretic's interpretation did seem quite a leap!
M. A leap? The non-religious new freind being more likely to be stealing her stuff than the JW's? That was what you said. No leap required, it is right there in black and white. TheHeretic said: That is quite a statement? The non-religious are more likely to be thieves, or criminals that the religious? Really? But it's not what you said... You also left out the 'in my experience' bit. I don't personally know anyone who's been conned by JWs, but I did have relatives fleeced by those non-religious 'new friends' that suddenly appear when a vulnerable person/opportunity presents itself.. M.
|
|
|
TheHeretic
68,057 posts
124 months
|
Ah, the old 'anecdotal' evidence. Gotcha. I presume if I were to tell you anecdotal evidence the other way it would cou ter the argument?
|
|
|
otolith
Original Poster
19,389 posts
73 months
|
They aren't after her money, or if they are, they're barking up the wrong tree.
|
|
|
OLDS
118 posts
21 months
|
Originally, it was 12 tribes of 12,000 ascending to heaven. I guess when the world ends.
So I asked the a-holes on my porch one morning, "are you two included in the 144,000?" No answer. They had to change the rules when membership passed 144k.
FAIL!
|
|
|
milu
952 posts
135 months
|
OLDS said: Originally, it was 12 tribes of 12,000 ascending to heaven. I guess when the world ends.
So I asked the a-holes on my porch one morning, "are you two included in the 144,000?" No answer. They had to change the rules when membership passed 144k.
FAIL! The 144k hasn't changed. This is the number of people they believe will ascend to heaven regardless of the number of 'members'. The rest look forward to living on earth. I'm not a member but was as a young adult ,my parents still are. it's not for me,however there are some really badly informed people spouting crap on here.
|
|
|
Boshly
1,734 posts
105 months
|
milu said: OLDS said: Originally, it was 12 tribes of 12,000 ascending to heaven. I guess when the world ends.
So I asked the a-holes on my porch one morning, "are you two included in the 144,000?" No answer. They had to change the rules when membership passed 144k.
FAIL! The 144k hasn't changed. This is the number of people they believe will ascend to heaven regardless of the number of 'members'. The rest look forward to living on earth.I'm not a member but was as a young adult ,my parents still are. it's not for me,however there are some really badly informed people spouting crap on here. I guess you mean "the rest of the JW's look forward to living on Earth"? What happens to the non JW's when the world ends then? Maybe you'd care to enlighten us? 
|
|
