To those who claim that the U.N. is a "superior authority," I say baloney! The U.N. is an organization, not a government. The only power it has is that given to it by its member nations. And they are not willing to give up their sovereignty, so it is hardly a world power. Paul appealed to Rome because he was a Roman citizen. Citizens of the U.S., Britain, or elsewhere are not citizens of the U.N. I certainly don't directly pay taxes to it. Do you? If the U.S. pays taxes to it, I have no control over that, anymore than I have over tax money that goes to the war effort. Do you have dual citizenship Renaia? What does the U.N. do for you? Does it make the laws for the nation you live in--laws that you must abide by? I personally am a subject of the U.S. but I am not subject to the U.N. Are you?
WTS attends as a NGO to OSCE in July- 4 branches present!
Reniaa Whore of Babylon: Get up on that seven headed very horny beast! Make sure you get Christendom off the saddle. Or maybe you can have a gang bang with your fellow spiritual sodomites.
Your moral torpidity is on the same level as the filthy hearted pharisees of Watchtowerdom.
cabasilas; I think your missing the point , the leader of the wt are still ngo/dpi etc. within the U.N. they are just NOT USING THE CORPARATE NAME WTBTS. they use other jw corp. names. ie. christian cong. of jw's etc. an other misunderstanding you have , is to become an NGO you have to register with the U.N. and be accepted , and say that you follow the U.N. charter. I can't see why you are quazi defending the wt on their sleeping with the wild beast. the wt leaders are doing the same thing with the U.N. TODAY that they were doing before 2001.
I've addressed your points in my earlier posts in this thread. I am not quazi defending the WT on this. When people confuse the facts it gives the JW apologists ammunition against the awful reality of what happened with the UN/DPI scandal.
to become an NGO you have to register with the U.N. and be accepted , and say that you follow the U.N. charter.
You're wrong on this. An NGO is simply a "non-governmental organization" and does not mean one has been registered with the UN or that one follows the UN Charter.
Now, the Watchtower, as an NGO, did just that in the 1990s and that was the scandal of the UN/DPI affiliation with the WT Society that was exposed right here on JWN.
You know, the JW interpretation of Revelation really hits the nail on the head describing the UN as a 'beast'. I mean... nothing scares the shit out of me more than opening my door and holy crap - UN representatives. Hide the children!
Oh wait... I got that wrong, I meant the opposite.
Personally, when I think of a 'beast', I think of something scary. Something huge, with big claws that sends you running when it roars. What I don't picture is a bunch of washed-up politians too irrelevant in their own countries that they've been deligated to UN duty.. sitting in orderly rows of chairs, and discussing how best they can take no action. How many times in your daily life do you even remember that there IS a UN?
And look at all the fornicating its doing! With religions! See, its forcing them to fill out paperwork and then discuss religious policies and freedom out of concern for the public welfare (and determining how best to take no action in response). Cover the eyes of the screaming children! We don't want them tramatized by this pornographic paper-pushing.
Yes, this is it. This is certainly the beast from Revelation. Sure, God exaggerated a tinesy little bit in the vision. He gave the UN teeth... and claws... then there is the highly exaggerated sexual prowess... and that pesky ability to 'roar' - but there is no doubt that the UN is the beast described.
Ok, so that's a little off topic here... but in the end, it's rediculous. The GB set up the UN as some sort of 'beast'.. and then when it turned out that it was the "DMV" kind of beast instead of the "smashy, killy, rapey, drink-the-blood-of-the-holy" kind of beast, they just keep teaching the same whacky nonsense and quietly get in line.
Perhaps the recent Awake article on the Freedom to Choose One's Religion without Social or Family Consequences ....was written to be "handed out" at this UN Conference and/or placed in the hotels, bathrooms, restaurants around the UN meeting? The purpose of doing so would be to make other delegates wonder why France and Russia are claiming that the WTS "breaks up families", etc. Perhaps this Awake article was "damage control" and an appeasement to Russian and French authorities?
Even if the article is an appeasement, it doesn't negate the fact that the WTS shuns ex-followers. This Awake article is a ploy on semantics, just like the change in policy towards "disassociating" JWs who accept blood transfusions on their deathbed in an careful ploy to dupe Bulgaria and the UN Court that heard that case. (Either disfellowshipped or disassociated, the ill JW is to be shunned, a fact that was not brought out in the blood opinion).
There's the other recent article on why it's "ok" to lie to apostates. This paves the way for the WTS representatives to lie their a** off in front of the UN authorities.
I'm sorry, but I've got to call bullshit on the whole "Paul appealed the Romans because he was a citizen" thing.
Citizenship wasn't fucking handed out like candy to non-romans. You had to earn it by at least 20 years of military service.
If Paul wasn't a citizen (and spoiler alert: he wasn't) then how could he have even appealed anything to the Roman government?
megachusen- Nice point.
You are right on the Roman citizenship thing.
The WT obviously knows this, because I remember a picture on one of the Loooong study books where Saul of Tarsus is holding the robes of people persecuting Christians. He is dressed as a Roman soldier, with a metal breast plate.
I think too that his illustration of "spiritual armor" was based on his experience and training as a Roman Soldier.
If the WTS actually said that he was a member of the Roman legion then we'd have something to go on.
Though the idea of a Jewish Pharisee joining sounds incredibly absurd.
I believe one of Paul's parents was a Roman citizen (father?) so yes, he could legitimately claim Roman citizenship. Of course, THIS thread is not about that so let's not let it get diverted off-topic. :)