Bookmark and Share

Viewed 3341 times

Official WTBTS JW Chat Room

    M Corvin posted Tue, 02 Nov 2004 02:00:00 GMT(11/2/2004)

    Post 1729 of 1710
    Joined 3/1/2004

    Didn't the official WT site once have a chat room for JW's?

    I stumbled onto it a few years ago, but can't remember if it was the official site or not. I remember trying to access the chat room but they wanted my congregation name and location along with my PO's name and all my other personal information, so I bagged it . . .

    Corvin

    XQsThaiPoes posted Tue, 02 Nov 2004 02:38:00 GMT(11/2/2004)

    Post 1277 of 1455
    Joined 3/9/2004

    No idea but bethel has an intranet which is kinda weird. The NY boys being so corporate and the JWs so rural. I mean when I talk to my bethel friends it is like that corporate monestary they work at is a whole nother religion. Maybe the lack of personal freedom grants you more spiritual privilages. Sorta like the military. I mean how many places will let 19 year olds opperate billions of dollars of machinery with the capability of killings 1000s of people every day and only pay um a few 100 bucks a month.

    Marvin Shilmer posted Tue, 02 Nov 2004 02:58:00 GMT(11/2/2004)

    Post 379 of 3237
    Joined 5/6/2001
    ?I mean how many places will let 19 year olds opperate billions of dollars of machinery with the capability of killings 1000s of people every day and only pay um a few 100 bucks a month.?

    The US military, for one.

    M gumby posted Tue, 02 Nov 2004 04:22:00 GMT(11/2/2004)

    Post 8963 of 13036
    Joined 7/22/2001
    few 100 bucks a month.?

    It was 15 last I recall. It might be 20 by now.(Bethel ...that is)

    Gumby

    F blondie posted Tue, 02 Nov 2004 05:18:00 GMT(11/2/2004)

    Post 10449 of 37364
    Joined 5/28/2001

    The WT administration does not and has never had an official chatroom. They don't even have an official e-mail address.

    There have been individual JWs or groups of JWs who have set up chatrooms, some of the elders/POs. But they were never official.

    Mostly these JWs set up DBs. Chatrooms are verboten by the WTS but somehow these JWs reason DBs are all right. It does stop people from posting their ICQs or equivalent and communicating that way.

    JWs have ingenious ways of circumventing WTS "rules."

    ***

    km 11/01 p. 6 Develop Your Perceptive Powers ***

    As a result, they have fallen victim to radio and television talk shows with Scripturally objectionable content, to debasing music, or to bad influences in computer chat rooms.

    ***

    km 11/99 p. 3 Use of the Internet?Be Alert to the Dangers! ***

    Electronic mail can be sent to and received from people you do not know. The same is true when you converse electronically in a forum or in a chat room. Participants may at times claim to be Jehovah?s Witnesses, but often they are not.

    Consider, for example, some Internet sites set up by individuals who claim to be Jehovah?s Witnesses. They invite you to visit their sites to read experiences posted by others who claim to be Witnesses. You are encouraged to share your thoughts and views about the Society?s literature. Some give recommendations about presentations that could be used in the field ministry. These sites offer chat rooms for individuals to connect to, allowing live communication with others, similar to talking on the telephone. They often point you to other sites where you can have on-line association with Jehovah?s Witnesses around the world. But can you tell for certain that these contacts have not been planted by apostates?

    Sadly, some who were once our brothers and sisters have had to be disfellowshipped because of association that started by meeting worldly individuals in chat rooms on the Internet and eventually led to immorality.

    In shocked disbelief, elders have written that some had actually left their husbands or wives to pursue a relationship that began on the Internet. (2 Tim. 3:6) Other individuals have disowned the truth because of believing information provided by apostates. (1 Tim. 4:1, 2) Given these very serious dangers, does it not seem reasonable to be cautious about becoming involved in chat sessions on the Internet?

    M gumby posted Tue, 02 Nov 2004 05:44:00 GMT(11/2/2004)

    Post 8966 of 13036
    Joined 7/22/2001
    Sadly, some who were once our brothers and sisters have had to be disfellowshipped because of association that started by meeting worldly individuals in chat rooms on the Internet and eventually led to immorality.

    And some sisters just plain ol' screw around with worldly men or brothers at the hall whether the internet is involved or not" Gumby 3:14

    In shocked disbelief, elders have written that some had actually left their husbands or wives to pursue a relationship that began on the Internet.

    "Elders have also written that witness husbands and wives sometimes cheat on each other whether the internet is involved or not" Gumby 18:5

    M El blanko posted Tue, 02 Nov 2004 09:21:00 GMT(11/2/2004)

    Post 503 of 706
    Joined 1/7/2004

    Hey Corvin - you have gone all 'cold war' on me again - that avatar is fantastic. Glad to see it back.

    F Sunnygal41 posted Tue, 02 Nov 2004 11:07:00 GMT(11/2/2004)

    Post 1795 of 3597
    Joined 4/5/2001

    And some sisters just plain ol' screw around with worldly men or brothers at the hall whether the internet is involved or not" Gumby 3:14
    In shocked disbelief, elders have written that some had actually left their husbands or wives to pursue a relationship that began on the Internet.
    "Elders have also written that witness husbands and wives sometimes cheat on each other whether the internet is involved or not" Gumby 18:5
    LMAO@Gumbolicious! Or, they use the old fashioned "before the internet" method........they meet them at work and develop a "thang". Sunny 66:6

    M rocketman posted Tue, 02 Nov 2004 13:46:00 GMT(11/2/2004)

    Post 3512 of 3892
    Joined 12/7/2002

    I've gotta get the Book of Gumby. It appears to be much cooler (and more truthful) than that other "holy" book.

    M Jim_TX posted Tue, 02 Nov 2004 14:46:00 GMT(11/2/2004)

    Post 619 of 3260
    Joined 5/12/2002

    You know... their stance against the Internet is just wtBtS (can you pick out the proper letters?).

    You could substitute the word 'Internet' with 'telephone' - and that would ban their using telephones. After all... you cannot 'see' the person that you are talking to on the phone... you could be deceived ya know... talking to some evil person... *rolls eyes*

    Did they also 'ban' CB radio when it was a fad? What about Ham radios? I knew a Ham radio operator who I know talked to folks... not JWs.

    GET REAL!!!!!

    Regards,

    Jim TX

    M dmouse posted Tue, 02 Nov 2004 15:18:00 GMT(11/2/2004)

    Post 1239 of 1541
    Joined 4/3/2001
    Did they also 'ban' CB radio when it was a fad?

    They don't ban things as such, just demonise 'em so any self-respecting JW would 'choose' not to use them.

    Awake 1977, 3/8 5-9

    **************************************************************************************************************************************

    Also, in view of the sound Biblical principle that "bad associations spoil useful habits," can one say that because many of those who use CB equipment are not lawbreakers, foulmouthed and immoral, one is justified in spending a lot of time on the air with them for other than purposeful information? Would you pick up a telephone, dial any number at random, and associate with whoever answered??1 Cor. 15:33.

    It is worth while to consider the practical outlook of the Bible on this matter: "Someone will say, ?I am allowed to do anything.? Yes; but not everything is good for you. I could say that I am allowed to do anything, but I am not going to let anything make me its slave." Hence, one would not want to become enslaved to one?s CB equipment any more than to a television set or to any pursuit that can squander valuable time.?1 Cor. 6:12, Today?s English Version (1976).

    If a person has a CB radio for his personal or secular business?fine. But why not use it as a tool, not a toy? "If the individual CB user would be a little more polite, a little less talkative, not trying to hog the airways," says the FCC?s head of CB operations, "it would make our problem less severe. You know, there?s a lot of people who don?t want to talk indiscriminately; ?they have installed their units for a very specific purpose." Certainly this is the view that a Christian would take.

    ******************************************************************************************************************************************

    M Jim_TX posted Wed, 03 Nov 2004 01:43:00 GMT(11/3/2004)

    Post 620 of 3260
    Joined 5/12/2002

    Well... they may have twisted their way outta/through that one... but...

    CQ... CQ... CQ... DX....

    Ham radio operators always use this to prefix their calling - at random - for ANYONE to respond - as far away as they can get. They don't 'screen' them with

    CQ... CQ... CQ... JW... DX....

    I have known several JWs who were Ham Radio operators. Of course... this was ages ago - prior to the modern cell phones, etc.

    Regards,

    Jim TX

    M Happy Guy :) posted Wed, 03 Nov 2004 02:01:00 GMT(11/3/2004)

    Post 290 of 771
    Joined 9/23/2004

    I mean how many places will let 19 year olds opperate billions of dollars of machinery with the capability of killings 1000s of people every day and only pay um a few 100 bucks a month.

    XQ, just because the WT has billions in cash does not mean they used it for the JW cult in purchasing billions on machinery for Brooklyn publishing. In fact, just the machinery itself used to publish the magazines in N.Y. (and I now understand that publishing will be shifting to Canada), is worth millions and to be more specific probably well under 40 million.

    By the same token we are not talking about a nuclear bomb here. In the event of a mishap, it might kill a couple of people. Even if there was a fire there would be alarms and evacuations and automatic sprinklers etc.

    Where do you get this "billions of dollars of machinery" stuff and "capability of killing 1000s of people". You may not realize this but we are not talking about a U.S. aircraft carrier.

    XQsThaiPoes posted Wed, 03 Nov 2004 04:12:00 GMT(11/3/2004)

    Post 1283 of 1455
    Joined 3/9/2004

    HG GD it I was talking about a US aircraft carrier! I have to learn how to write, or others need to take time reqadings. Probally the former, and not the latter.

      Close

      Confirm ...