by Change Name 130 Replies latest watchtower scandals
Change Nameyou posted
Hi there Uncantnome - Okay, got it. You discount anything presented by the JW's because you lack interest. Your interest centers around bringing down "the Watchtower" and will read anything (even if it is factually wrong) to feed this interest. Gotcha..
I don't know where you got this from
Your interest centers around bringing down "the Watchtower" and will read anything (even if it is factually wrong) to feed this interest. Gotcha.
Maybe you misunderstood my post.
How about responding to this changename ? It seems that everytime someone backs you in a corner you just come up with another topic to deflect the question a good example of this is the following....
"Hi again recovering - I could be misinformed. Then, so can you. They claim that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BCE. They claim Bible chronology is more accurate and reliable than the secular evidences. That is their defense. They trust the Bible.
Thank you for your answer, however i challange you to quote the book chapter and verse where the bible says 607bc is the date of Jerusalem's destruction. If you can I will apolagize and attend the closest kingdom hall."
Please answer this changename before you go off on another tangent.
Poor Changename. He keeps saying that nobody answers his questions. I think we should at least do it. So here we go:
1) Do you find yourself ignoring anything that Jehovah's Witnesses bring out in regards to their former status as an NGO?
A: Not at all, it has been considered. Just in the same manner that a wife considers that reasons why her husband had an affair. Does that change the facts? NO.
2) Do you find yourself automatically discounting this interesting information? [link]
Not at all. Nothing is discounted. Please see answer 1.
3) Do you find yourself searching for a counter argument to this information in order to keep your belief that the "Watchtower" is an evil publishing corperation?
Not at all. I have looked at the explanations that the Watchtower society has provided and in find them illogical in the context that it is supposed to be God's organization. We then can ask why the Watchtower society compromised it's position of neutrality? It is this a reasonable compromise if the return is really just a "library card"? Also why would Jehovah in all his wisdom would allow His organization to associate with the UN in any way? Surely he would know that this would bring dishonor to his name, no? Additionally, why does the Watchtower society continues to send representatives to participate in UN-led programs even after the NGO membership was discontinued? Certainly, it seems that association with the beast is permissible behind closed doors then.
4) If you answer yes to any of those questions, what does that mean about you personally?
I have not answered yes to any of the questions.
Change Name says ....
I am not sure why you think it outrageous to this that the JW's became an NGO/DPI because of information gathering. If they became an NGO/DPI "to find out information about health, ecological and social problems", why think anything but that? If they state this was their goal, information gathering, why call them liars? If they became an NGO/DPI in addition to finding out information about health, ecological and social problems ,to help progress their ministry in lands like Russia and China, would that not be a good thing?
The point of this situation is did the WTS. commit an act of hypocrisy in their using and involving themselves with outside worldly government
institutions. ???
The UN as itself has been greatly identified and admonished as one of these worldly organizations and has been for a very long time by the WTS.
What has happened in this situation is that the WTS. side stepped over their doctrine of NO INVOLVEMENT WITH WORLDLY GOVERNMENTS
just so to help them in their own individual directive, taking a ride on top of the wild beast themselves as it were.
Sorry chap but you cant say one thing then go on conducting yourself in opposition to what you previous set.
Is the UN and the adjoined NGOs a wordily government institution ? YES IT IS
Is the OSCE in Europe a worldly government institution ? YES IT IS. no matter what particular reason you have for joining these institutions.
If you do not accept this your very disingenuous and exposing yourself as a true hypocrite to the presented facts.
Loosen up Change Name. I'm just messing with you because I know you start these threads as a joke and I'm trying to help you keep it that way.
And the pictures are still on topic.
I guess I will answer the questions as well:
Do you find yourself ignoring anything that Jehovah's Witnesses bring out in regards to their former status as an NGO?
I don’t personally know many Jehovah's Witnesses who have knowledge of the UN/NGO scandal. Besides, JWs were never an NGO…it was the Watchtower who was.
The curious thing about this unofficial website is that the Watchtower itself, the Governing Body (for JWs, the “Slave”) forbids JWs from having such websites. There is only one website allowed regarding JWs: JW.ORG. Therefore, the existence of this unofficial website is contradictory to official Watchtower teaching.
Therefore, JWs themselves are supposed to ignore this information, because it comes on a website that is not sanctioned by the Watchtower Society.
Do you find yourself automatically discounting this interesting information?
I believe the unofficial website listed seemed plausible on first read. Therefore, I do not feel I automatically discounted this. However, upon further examination, its arguments fell apart. At the very least, this website has many outstanding questions it cannot answer and does not try to answer. If you read up on logical fallacies, you will find this website is full of bad argumentation.
Reading what this website has to say on 607, a subject I’m more familiar with, made me less likely to be accepting of what it says about issues like the UN/NGO scandal, something that interests me much less and was never a factor in leaving the JWs after 40 years to become Christian.
Do you find yourself searching for a counter argument to this information in order to keep your belief that the "Watchtower" is an evil publishing corperation?
I’m not that interested in the UN/NGO issue personally and it rarely comes up in my conversations with others about the Watchtower. However, I did not just take the information presented on this website at face value, but I dug a little more, and the information presented proved wanting.
Even if this website was correct about the UN/NGO issue, it would matter little to me. There are other greater issues. Many of the individuals in the Watchtower are most likely sincere, display zeal (but not according to accurate knowledge), believe they are doing an “act of godly devotion” (but so did those who stoned Stephen). As a Cooperate entity, the Watchtower itself does enough to show itself as “evil”.
If you answer yes to either of those questions, what does not mean about you personally?
I don’t believe I can answer either question affirmatively, but even if I did, I don’t believe an individual can be defined by it. Individuals are very complex and not so easily evaluated.
###
I am very curious about why the UN/NGO issue means so much to you? There are many issues to focus on. If it were found that the Watchtower was an UN/NGO for reasons other than information gathering, and had to support the UN charter, would it bother you? Is this why you are spending so much time on this issue?
He is spending time on this issue because it is a big deal. The GB know it is a big deal as well, that is why they lied to their own Elders. If it was defensible, why not show why it was scripturally ok to join? Why claim that a membership was needed to access the Library when that was not the case? Why not send a follow-up letter to all the BOE's containing 100% transparent reasoning? Why not just say, " We messed up big time, and it will NOT happen again."
Hi there Data-Dog - I am still not understanding why it was wrong for them to become an NGO/DPI for information gathering. If the JW's are the only Christians (or as you said it, God's true channel), then why would it be wrong for them to gather information from the source for its time?
Well..I cannot help you develop a sense of right and wrong. The WTBTS did not have to be a NGO/DPI to get information. That is easily verifiable. Would it help if I wrote a letter to the UN and double check this for you?
Your second question is just plain silly. If the Kings in ancient Israel were appointed by YHWH, then why was it wrong for them to form alliances with other nations, or set up a local altar for worship instead of traveling to the Temple? IF the WTBTS was God's one true channel, that would not exempt them from punishment for wrongdoing. It certainly would not give them license to engage in hypocritical behavior and then lie about why they did it. At least King David was cut to the heart when confronted with his errors.
I have a solution! We should all shun this JW apologetic and problem solved . Hit the road jack!
Hello Change name. My comments are in BLUE.
Hi there problemaddict - I am always open to a different opinion on a subject.
Wonderful. So am I.
It has to be accurate and with evidence used in an honest way.
Evidence by its nature cannot be honest or dishonest. Evidence is simply evidence. I think I understand what you are trying to say here however. I do not believe the society has been very honest or forthcoming, and I do not believe evidence has been manipulated on this subject by those who used to be JW's. Do you have "evidence" of dishonest manipulation of information, or is it the interpretation of this information that is at the heart of your concern?
When a group of Christians tells the world that the UN is the political expression of God's government on the earth, then people should reconsider what the source is saying. When a group of Christians tells the world that the UN is the only hope for mankind, then it would be time to reconsider that source. The Jehovah's Witnesses did neither. Mainstream Christianity has.
Well since mainstream Christianity has no chief spokeperson, the onus is on you to provide evidence that this is what Christians believe. In fact, I can all but guarantee that any apologetics Christian forum you go to will in no way say that they believe the UN is a political expression of God on earth. Is it possible you ahve taken quotes from a couple people quoted in WT publications, and painted over all of "mainstream Christianity" with a broad stroke? Is that fair. Their are Christian leaders that belive hurricane Katrina was punishment for the USA's tolerance of homosexuality, but certainly that does not mean you think all, most or even more than a surprising few would believe this.
I do not find it hypocritical to tell people that the UN is not the political expression of God or that the UN is not the only hope for mankind.
Who said you did? If you are attempting to redux the societies view, you are soft peddling it. It is the "disgusting thing" standing in a holy place (?). The Whore of Babylon rides this beast with many heads in Revelation. To avail yourself of the opportunities even minimal association can bring from the "beast" while also holding Christians to high standards of morality and devise under threat of shunning, is the very definition of hypocricy. At least on some level. Perhaps you are not familiar with the details by which the society likes to have control in your life because you are not a member? If there was nothing wrong with it, why did they terminate this NGO status?
The UN has nothing to do with God. It is mankinds creation.
Right.
The Jehovah's Witnesses used this "government" as a source for information gathering about the different countries of the world.
The UN is not a government. It isn't even a quote unquote government. You and I don't know what they used their association for. By their admission the used the library, and there is honest evidence they have also taken part in community exercises no doubt for the furtherence of their cause. Once again I have no issue with this, if they didn't teach that this instrument by which they are doing it is actually an instrument of SATAN.
They did not put it on a pedestal as the government all should bow to because it is the only hope for mankind.
I don't think anyone actually believes this, althoguh I am sure there was much rhetoric when it was initially set up. The UN does many good things, but I do not believe anyone believes it is the solution to mankinds problems. A little cooperation between countries for mutual benefit only makes sense don't you think?
I do not know anything about one being disfellowshiped for joining the YMCA.
The article has been sited here. You can do a search in your in your CD rom. I believe the article is in 76'. Do your research. Herin lies the hypocricy.
I know that people are disfellowshiped for their attitude and lifestyle.
Interesting you acknowledge one can be disfellowshipped for an "attitude". Who determines what that attitude is? Who interprets someones actions as the kind of attitude that is apparently worthy of excommunication?
If their attitude is not Christian, or if their lifestyle is in direct opposition to how a Christian should live, and they are vocal in their decisions, they will be disfellowshiped. This is what I have read about and what I have observed.
You have observed this while not being a JW? I thin there are situations that are extremely called for in disfellowshipping. Child molestation for example. However, you can be disfellowshipped for simply not believing what the GB teaches currently, and vocallizing it to others....even WITHOUT doing so with an attitude. You see....attitude is open to interpretation. Our kind of shunning is practiced by the Amish, Scientologists, and to a lesser extent the Mormons. Do you think they all have it right?
Here are your answers to your OP questions.
Do you find yourself ignoring anything that Jehovah's Witnesses bring out in regards to their former status as an NGO?
No.
Do you find yourself automatically discounting this interesting information?
No.
Do you find yourself searching for a counter argument to this information in order to keep your belief that the "Watchtower" is an evil publishing corperation?
No.
If you answer yes to either of those questions, what does not mean about you personally?
I don't know I didn't answer yes.
The final conclusion to this debate is that Change Name thinks and supports the WTS. motion of being slightly hypocritical toward their position of
standing away or associating with world Government institutions, as long in doing that this endeavor helps in their own directive of expanding
their own organization.
There really isn't much otherwise to say, the man is obviously indoctrinated with the garbage false theology of this religious organization
and whatever this organization is offering him, which might be even his own circumventing power as an elder in a congregation. ???
Try another topic now Change Name, there's much much more to be concerned about than this UN association.
