by JosephAlward 78 Replies latest jw friends
Saint Satan,
If you will construct a Word file, not zipped, and send it to me, I will put it up on the web for you, and everyone will be able to read it. However, 221 KB is fairly large, so I would appreciate it if you would strip from the articles any information that is not relevant, if that's not too much trouble.
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
I received the Word file from Saint Satan and placed it on the web at
* http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Watchtower_Doctrine.htm
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
I've looked at the two articles Trevor asked me to analyze. One of them, "The International Year of Volunteers" has already been described on my web page at
* http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Watchtower_Propaganda.htm
The other article on aging is incomplete; only page 3 is given. Nothing but pro-UN material is on this page. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the next page--which was not provided--will explain subtly why readers should believe that the UN is failing in its efforts to deal with the problem of aging. If you have the rest of the article, Trevor, I would be happy to evaluate it.
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
Joseph,
You have yet to respond to my previous post.
Let's recap. You said that the articles printed in Awake! constitute UN propaganda "as far as the UN was concerned."
I responded with this:
"Of course it was UN propaganda as far as the UN was concerned. That's kinda the point. Since it was the UN that the wts agreed to support, it would have to be UN propaganda "as far as the UN was concerned." Otherwise they wouldn't really be showing support to the UN, now would they?"
Do you see the point? The UN was calling the shots. If the wts had to support the UN, including disseminating UN propaganda, then who should define that propaganda? It would have to be the UN, right? It would have to be UN propaganda as deemed such by the UN. Now you have already conceded that the material published by the wts was UN propaganda "as far as the UN was concerned."
So it seems to me this debate is already over, since you have made my point for me. The wts was disseminating UN propaganda, as deemed such by the UN itself. This is precisely the point I have making since August of this year.
One the other hand, if you can hold two contradictory thoughts in your mind at the same time, and believe both of them to be true, then you really would make a good jw and I will choose to end this debate for other reasons.
I really have to wonder about someone who sees a half-page ad for the 1999 UN International Year of Older Persons, including comments from Kofi Annan, along with a photo of Annan and a nice UN logo, and considers it not UN propaganda, but "Watchtower propaganda".
TS,
Did the Watchtower Society "support" the scarlet beast of Revelation?
: http://www.geocities.com/watchtowersociety/beast.htm
Thanks for the information Trevor. I will contact the bible examiner if I need anything. He is my main Watchtower man for documents.
I see good old Joe is still trying to stickhandle his way through this.
I see that first he won't respond to the library stuff after I showed how the WTS was lying and now he won't respond about the material that you provided Trevor. I made the exact same point that you did with Joe a while back either on this thread or on another thread that was orginally intended to support Zev's web site. Of course he sluffed it off with this was WTS propoganda.
What can I say .....Joe refuses that the WTS voluntarily approached the UN, agreed to the UN's conditions, filled out the form, got accredited and promoted the UN.
What can I say if he even refuses to believe what was officially written by Paul Hoeffel. What can I say when he won't even acknowledge the bold face lying going on in the WTS letters over this issue.
Sad.
hawk
Paul Hoeffel wrote,
Paul Hoeffel said that the "By accepting association with the DPI, the organization agreed to meet criteria for association, including support and respect of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations,"Hawk writes,
What can I say if he even refuses to believe what was officially written by Paul Hoeffel.Of course I don't believe Hoeffel, and either do you. You know perfectly well that the Watchtower did NOT agree to support and respect the principles of the Charter of the United Nations. What you really mean to say is that the Watchtower—at worst--allowed the United Nations to conclude on its own that the Watchtower's aims and goals were consistent with the United Nations goals.
Nobody--not one single person on this forum--believes that the Watchtower agreed to accept the aims and goals of the UN, so why do you keep insisting that we should take Hoeffel's words literally? One would suspect that you might have been a biblical literalist in your former life, and some of that credulity remains with you today.
Hoeffel was NOT in the NGO office in 1991, and he never said he saw any form which the Watchtower signed on which the Watchtower agreed to any such thing. All the Watchtower ever did was request affiliation, and in doing so it had to describe its business. The UN took the Watchtower's statements that it was interested in world peace and just assumed that the Watchtower accepted the aims and goals of the United Nations. What Hoeffel meant to say, but didn't have the wits to say, was that he assumed that the people who reviewed the 1991 application thought that the Watchtower's aims were the same as the United Nations. There was NEVER a form which anyone ever had to sign stating that they accepted the aims and goals of the United Nations.
Do you seriously still continue to believe that the lawyers for the Watchtower were so stupid as to not realize that having the Watchtower agree to support the principles of the United Nations would be tantamount to suicide—at least for those who supported the “agreement”? It could NOT have happened, unless it is only in the hopeful imaginations of those who want to make the Watchtower out to be as evil as possible in order to further their own agenda. Not that I disapprove of any efforts to destroy the Watchtower by peaceful means, mind you; I just don’t like to see it done in an intellectually dishonest way.
How many times have we heard it repeated by Hawkaw, and others who parroted him, that Gillies lied when he said that the “only way to gain access to the library was to register as an NGO with the United Nations”? Repeatedly, I think. Hawkaw and the others who repeated what Hawkaw said, were wrong, repeatedly. And Hawkaw realized that after I challenged him to show his evidence. All Gillies actually said, as everyone knows now, was that the “only reason” they registered was to gain access to the library, not that the “only way,” as Hawkaw had been insisting, to gain access was by affiliating with the DPI. Thus, we all been witness to too much carelessness in accusations against the Watchtower.
Why does Hawkaw keep insisting to be true something he knows cannot be true? The Watchtower CANNOT ever have agreed to accept the principles of the United Nations, everyone knows that. There is not--and never has been--any piece of paper which any organization had to sign which stated that they accepted the principles of the UN. Hoeffel didn't mean what his words imply, and Hawkaw must know that perfectly well, so why does he keep pretending to believe something everyone knows he doesn't really believe?
In summary, Hoeffel was wrong, or else was just careless with his words. The Watchtower did NOT agree to support the aims and goals of the UN; the Watchtower merely registered with the Department of Information and agreed to write about the United Nations, something it had already been doing, and wanted to continue to do. By registering with the DPI, the Watchtower was able to easily gain access to the Dag Hammerskold library, the main UN library; much has been made of the fact that with a little extra work, the Watchtower could gotten a grounds pass without becoming affiliated with the Department of Public Information, but this question really just casts doubt on their judgement; it would indeed have been better, in hindsight, to have gained access by a somewhat more involved process.
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
I have changed my mind about another post on this thread.Joseph Alward don`t tell people on this board what they think.We know what happened.We also know how WBTS works.You do not.The only thing you`ve shown anybody on this board is what a moron you are!The next time you come on this board and tell every body what they think,remember something.Its been tried before and we have no use for bullshit,and you are full of it!...OUTLAW
Calm responses with carefully chosen words, logically ordered, generally make a better impression on readers than shouted insults, I think. Those who would be witnesses against the Watchtower would be more effective, I think, if they would moderate their tone and present their case without anger. Shouting and swearing is for children, or those with the mind of a child.
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
Joseph,my response is calm and thought out.The point is I know bullshit when I see it.If you read my post you would also know I don`t care what you think.If you print crap about a subject you know nothing about I have no problem pointing it out.And if you don`t like this post guess what?..TOO BAD!...OUTLAW
Nobody--not one single person on this forum--believes that the Watchtower agreed to accept the aims and goals of the UN, so why do you keep insisting that we should take Hoeffel's words literally?
Thoughtful of you to speak for everyone on the forum Joseph.
I beg to differ, by the way. I would challenge that just about everyone on this forum believes that the Watchtower Society **DID** agree to accept the aims and goals of the UN. I for one do.
But guess what Joe? I also know that when the Watchtower Society did this, they were lying through their collective teeth!! That is not to say the wts did not offer token support to the UN; they very clearly did. But of course, this was only token support - lip service as I said previously. But support none the less.
When the wts "supported" the UN, did they "mean" it? Not a chance, but they still did the deed, and that's what counts.
Tell me Joe, is it ok to bow down to an idol if I don't mean it?
The Watchtower CANNOT ever have agreed to accept the principles of the United Nations, everyone knows that. There is not--and never has been--any piece of paper which any organization had to sign which stated that they accepted the principles of the UN.Once again speaking for everyone on the board. You really oughta work on that.
The Watchtower may or may not have signed on the dotted line. But it really doesn't matter whether they did or didn't. (I refer you to my bank robbery example.) The WTS entered into a relationship by which it was expected and well-understood (clearly defined) that they would support the UN. The knew what the requirements were. To that end, they have published articles in their rags promoting the UN. In other words, they lived up to the expectation. THESE ARTICLES WERE REVIEWED BY THE UN, and apparently they constituted an acceptable level of support, as the wts was not punted as an NGO.
One of these articles is right now listed on the UN website as a "commemoration of the signing of the UDHR and the role of Eleanor Roosevelt" - sounds like UN propaganda to me, and guess what Joseph? The UN agrees with me.
: http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/materials/articles.htm
I see once again you have ignored my last post. You are reminding me more and more of a jw...
TS,
Did the Watchtower Society "support" the scarlet beast of Revelation?
: http://www.geocities.com/watchtowersociety/beast.htm
