by undercover 20 Replies latest jw friends
I heard talk on a news channel that the events leading up to war in Iraq could start a chain reaction in which the UN could become practically useless.
Actually, I've thought the UN was pretty much useless all along. The JW's just think of it as being a big, powerful political entity because of the position that the WTS assigns it in prophecy.
I'm not saying that we should do it, but what would the WTS say if the U.S. bombed the UN building. What could they say? They can't be in favor of war but they can't be in favor of the beast either.
I think you forgot to take your medication again, starScream. The UN building is located on a couple of city blocks in one of the largest cities in the world. I have, many times, worked in sales right across the street or up the block from the UN. Bombing the UN is an idiotic scenario (at least as far as the US doing it - I'm not saying terrorists might not give it a try). If relations really fell apart that badly, the worst that would happen is that they would be told to leave the country and hold their meetings somewhere else.
FI FHI FO FHUM!!
sKally
The UN is toothless and feeble.
The 9/11 terrorists told the world the truth: Although the UN building is very easy to recognize on land or by air,
they choose to attack the World Trade Center. Why waste resources blowing up the UN? Bin Laden
sees everyone as guilty somehow and deserving of death but sends the planes elsewhere.
metatron
Actually, I've thought the UN was pretty much useless all along. The JW's just think of it as being a big, powerful political entity because of the position that the WTS assigns it in prophecy.
That's a pretty good point. I've never really given it that much thought but how powerful(or not) the UN ever was. It would be interesting to see how the WTS would explain the demise of the Wild Beast before Christendom fell though wouldn't it?
NO IMAGE OF THE BEAST IN REVELATION CHAPTER 17
The Watchtower says that the beast with seven heads and ten horns in Revelation Chapter 17 must be the image of the the two horned beast in Revelation Chapter 13.
If you read Revelation 17 there is no mention of the "image of the beast." It simply speaks of a scarlet beast with seven heads and ten horns. So how can the assertion be made that there is an identity between the "image of the beast" and the scarlet colored beast. Since it never mentions the "image of the beast" in Revelation 17 you can't make that claim.
The Watchtower makes a simple error to arrive at this conclusion. Since the Scarlet Beast "looks like" the beast in Revelation 13 it is believed it is therefore "the image" of the Revelation 13 beast. But there is a simpler reason the beast of Revelation 17 looks like the beast of Revelation 13. It is because they both resemble their power source which is Satan the Devil who in Revelation 12:3 is described as having Seven heads and ten horns.
Since Revelation 17 specifically calls the beast a "beast" we must assume that the beast is what it is named a "beast." Not the "image" of the beast. Because the beast of Revelation 13 and the beast of Revelation 17 are homologous in structure you can make a better case that the beast of Revelation 17 is the same as the beast of Revelation 13. Not only are they similar in structure but they both go through a similar cycle of death and rebirth.
compare
| Revelation 13:3 "And I saw one of its heads as though slaughtered to death, but its death-stroke got healed, and ALL THE EARTH FOLLOWED THE WILD BEAST WITH ADMIRATION." | Revelation 17:8 "And when they see how the wild beast was, but is not, and yet will be present, those WHO DWELL ON THE EARTH WILL WONDER ADMIRINGLY." |
No mention here of an "IMAGE" of the beast.
I can't defend the Watchtower interpretation on this point. Can anyone?
What if the WTS was full of crap? Oh yeah...
If the UN fell apart?
My goodness, what would I do in the morning without a regular pointless resolution regurgitating yesterday's regular pointless resolution? Maybe I'd be reduced to reading about French politicians using Iraq to rescue their all-but-dead political careers, or British politicians disguising maneuvering for a leadership challenge as a moral decision.
Doesn't bear thinking about.
Expatbrit
Well if the UN were to "fall apart" who would cry "peace and security?"...Certainly not the US...we would just find the next dictator that needed to go and kick their ass too...and so on and so on...now that would piss the WTBTS right off...just more prophecy that could never come true...and did anyone mention what a behemoth the UN organization is? "falling apart" would indeed take an act of dog! *LOL*
Sincerely,
District Overbeer
I can't defend the Watchtower interpretation on this point. Can anyone?
Nope. Not on this point or a thousand others. No one can. The pity is that people still put their faith in that vacuous, deceptive organization.
