You Know,
Greetings.
Nonetheless, the question should be: How does Jehovah view such an alliance?
What alliance? The so-called alliance that you speak of essentially was no more meaningful than the piece of paper that is called an application form. As an example: A JW can join a Labor Union and pay union dues. But that’s as far as it goes since he won’t SUPPORT the Union, by voting in who the new officers will be etc. Merely because he signed his name and is willing to pay Union dues doesn’t mean that he has ALLIED himself with the Union and its cause or ideals. So, I fail to see a TRUE alliance with the UN that you imply.
As you know, an NGO is an organization that supports the goals and values of the United Nations.
Yes, that’s what the UN’s INTENTION surely was for any applicants, nobody would argue that point. But the fact that the WTS would never ‘support the goals and values of the UN’ argues that it was an NGO only as far as a piece of paper is concerned. To put it simply and bluntly, the WTS made use of a worldly institution … for which I do not condemn it for doing. Those who cannot appreciate what it is like bearing the burdens that the GB shoulders will of course find fault with such a strategic maneuver on the part of the GB. These same ones would no doubt also find fault with the many examples in the Scriptures where God’s servants used shrewd methods to defeat their enemies. There’s no question about it that Jehovah’s Witnesses live in a world surrounded by figurative Philistines or Cannanites. Therefore, all I can say is, Watch out you Philistines, because we might just put one over on you while you’re asleep! When I’m reminded of the awful way that JWs have been treated in the past by such ones as for example, The American Legion, it makes me want to say hip-hip-hurray when I am made aware of the WTS having succeeded with getting in a punch themselves for a change. I think that those who would not allow the WTS the prerogative to defend itself, even in this manner, are being quite unfair. Those who are biased against the WTS will think up all sorts of ways to condemn the Society over the issue being discussed here in this thread. So what! Christians expect such a thing, and are used to it. So hammer away you apostates.
The stated goal of the United Nations is to bring peace and security to the whole planet…. To bring about that goal though the United Nations feels that individual nations must relinquish their claim to national sovereignty.
Has the UN really been that outspoken to date? I mean, has the UN actually suggested to its member nations that they must get ready to relinquish their sovereignties in order for the dream of “peace and security” to become a reality? I would really like a reference to this effect, if you can supply it.
Globalists visionaries have in fact declared the nation state system of independent sovereign nations to be the most destructive and devisive force on the planet, which it is not. The empire is by far the most dangerous human institution. Nationalists rightly are horrified and see the unspoken agenda of the UN's backers as a cunning ploy to establish a global empire. (Prophecy seems to indicate that they will succeed.)
Ditto!
NGO's are enlisted by the UN to help promote the globalist's view, and to in subtle and overt ways undermine nationalism while promoting the One World religious, political, and social propaganda. Our Christian neutrality requires that we be neither for or against any political system. So, while we are under obligation to follow the laws of Ceasar, to the extent that we can in good conscience, it is also recognized that we cannot promote the anti-God policies or politics of any institution.
Once again, the WTS, by its merely being listed on a piece of paper as being an NGO with the UN, it hasn’t ‘promoted the anti-God policies or politics of that institution’. In a similar fashion, a JW that’s listed along with other employees as a member of a Labor Union isn’t necessarily “behind” the Union’s concerns simply because of a piece of paper that requires the payment of union dues.
I remember back during the Gulf War when George Bush called for UN action against Iraq. It was the end of the Cold War and Bush described the new cooperation among the nations as a "New World Order." Shortly after that time the Society advised us to stop using that term "New Order" to describe the new system. That's because we didn't want people to connect us in any way to the political New Order of Satan's devising. So there is definitely a problem here with the Watchtower aligning itself with a political organization that acts as a counterfeit of God's kingdom.
In view of my previous statements, I don’t believe that you truly have grounds any longer to think that the WTS had for a fact aligned itself with the UN … as you stress once again in the quote above.
quote: The Society has the right and responsibility to use strategy in the best interests of the preaching work, and looking after the interests of true worship throughout the earth.
I agree. But there is a very thin line between using whatever legal means are at our disposal and compromise.
My opinion: The WTS has definitely NOT compromised its principles here with regards to this issue. It has outwitted the world, don’t you see. Yeah WTS!!! Hurrah!!! Remember the case that involved David in which he feigned madness? Shall we fault David for being so shrewd? Surely not.
I would remind you of Jehovah's displeasure with Israel when they made political alliances with Egypt.
Yes, but in THAT case Israel had for a fact crossed the line … there really having been a political alliance made with Egypt. Such is not comparable with what the WTS has done, simply because the GB doesn’t sympathize with the cause of the UN. The WTS remains unpolluted with regards to this issue!
True, they were seemingly acting for their own self preservation, and they could argue that they were protecting the interests of God's true worship from the threat of Babylonian invasion, but Jehovah viewed such an alliance as an act of unfaithfulness.
Yes he did, because it was just that … an act of UNFAITHFULNESS. Israel HAD FOR A FACT been unfaithful. For it to be a true comparison, however, the WTS would have to render at least moral support to the United Nations. That it has not done.
The accusations of apostates are a trivial thing as far as I am concerned. It is the accusations of Jehovah that we have to worry about. And, I am well aware that at some point we must bear Jehovah's scathing denunciation in order to later receive his healing blessing.
The accusations of those who have left our ranks are as dust on the scales, they have nothing to do with what truly matters … only in their own self-deluded minds. Yes, they can, and have made a little trouble for the WTS … but such ones will come to find out in the end that it will all have been in vain for them.
Thanks for the interesting exchange, You Know. Please reply further if you wish. If not, I hope to have perhaps given you good reason for reconsidering your stance regarding this issue.—lefty.
