i would like as many people that can, to respond to this appeal as i am sure their are many examples out their that may help lurkers and fence sitters to make a decision on where they stand regarding the "truth".
i look forward to your comments either negative or plus..
I said that the charter doesn’t say what you claim it says. In other words you’re forcefully interpreting it and watchtower articles.
Can you remind me again what I claimed "the charter said that it didn't really say"? As far as I remember the charter quote I posted was from the original charter, way before 1992.
i would like as many people that can, to respond to this appeal as i am sure their are many examples out their that may help lurkers and fence sitters to make a decision on where they stand regarding the "truth".
i look forward to your comments either negative or plus..
You will end up having to show that every year from 1992-2001(?) or 2004, I don’t remember which, they agreed to support to UN as the solution it peace so to maintain DPI NGO status.
Non-sense. Why would I need to prove this?
To make my point easier for you to understand: Your insistence in claiming that the NGO membership in 1992 didn't require charter agreement is a moot point since WT had to renew it's membership yearly. Do you understand now?
i would like as many people that can, to respond to this appeal as i am sure their are many examples out their that may help lurkers and fence sitters to make a decision on where they stand regarding the "truth".
i look forward to your comments either negative or plus..
Since there are/were many NGOs, also look up the 1992 requirements to qualify for DPI NGO status (which WT was).
Just saying, accusing someone of being in cahoots with the UN requires much more than selectively interpreting WT articles.
Watchtower had to renew it's membership yearly, so this argument of only looking at 1992 is moot.
The fact that Watchtower disconnected itself from UN NGO membership and began creating excuses as soon as it became public shows that it's membership was, at best, inappropriate. It created a double standard for itself and acted hypocritically.
i would like as many people that can, to respond to this appeal as i am sure their are many examples out their that may help lurkers and fence sitters to make a decision on where they stand regarding the "truth".
i look forward to your comments either negative or plus..
Interestingly, as soon as it became public that WT was an NGO member, it took action to disconnect and create excuses. Why do so if it "didn't go against any JW beliefs"?
i would like as many people that can, to respond to this appeal as i am sure their are many examples out their that may help lurkers and fence sitters to make a decision on where they stand regarding the "truth".
i look forward to your comments either negative or plus..
This why interpreting this stuff fails
It does not give direct support for, nor does it directly oppose, God’s Kingdom IN THE CHARTER, which this is about.
Watchtower claims otherwise, as shown on the quote i pasted on previous post. Any claims of peace seeking coming from the UN are blasphemous. No need to interpret it. It's pretty direct.
i would like as many people that can, to respond to this appeal as i am sure their are many examples out their that may help lurkers and fence sitters to make a decision on where they stand regarding the "truth".
i look forward to your comments either negative or plus..
This will be spelled out in the charter/contract.
None of the references to peace within the charter invoke God's kingdom. Instead, it outlines the general policies and procedures it would take on it's own.
Even Watchtower understands this:
Great expectations were held out for it, and it was given designations that were really blasphemous from the standpoint of the Holy Bible. How so? In that to this wild beast powers were ascribed and tasks were assigned that really belong to Gods kingdom and its Messiah or its Christ. Watchtower 1963 Nov 15 p.697
i would like as many people that can, to respond to this appeal as i am sure their are many examples out their that may help lurkers and fence sitters to make a decision on where they stand regarding the "truth".
i look forward to your comments either negative or plus..
I think my police analogy was appropriate.
No, it was not, for various reasons:
1) The police departments are not attempting to reach "world peace and security", a goal WT claims belongs only to God's kingdom.
2) The WT has repeatedly written that the UN is a beast that blasphemes against God. What is the "blasphemy" in question? Seeking world peace through means other than the kingdom. WT has never claimed the same about police depts.
3) By WT "signing the paper", it wasn't agreeing with just a generic goal of achieving peace, it was agreeing with the "blasphemous" goal of seeking such world peace without God.
i would like as many people that can, to respond to this appeal as i am sure their are many examples out their that may help lurkers and fence sitters to make a decision on where they stand regarding the "truth".
i look forward to your comments either negative or plus..
You haven’t proven your case. You went from the YMCA, to blood banks, to your interpretation of principles, to agreeing they support peace, to agreeing with me that they don’t look to the UN, etc
Your ineptitude in deciphering and analyzing my arguments is not a valid counter-argument. You have nothing left.
i would like as many people that can, to respond to this appeal as i am sure their are many examples out their that may help lurkers and fence sitters to make a decision on where they stand regarding the "truth".
i look forward to your comments either negative or plus..
You obviously have nothing left.
-The principle behind the YMCA quote applies to the UN. As per WT's own word, no association or link whatsoever should exist between a servant of God and these "wicked" organizations. Your claim that since WT didn't specifically write about the UN it wouldn't be wrong to associate oneself with it is both frivolous and blatantly dishonest.
-The WT does support peace, but it's publications claim it absolutely abhors the idea behind the UN's goal of peace without God's kingdom.
Keep the lies coming, you are doing great service for lurkers here!
i would like as many people that can, to respond to this appeal as i am sure their are many examples out their that may help lurkers and fence sitters to make a decision on where they stand regarding the "truth".
i look forward to your comments either negative or plus..
No matter how you try to spin it, Watchtower publications show it would NOT agree with the goals of the UN of achieving peace WITHOUT God's kingdom. In fact, it demonizes such a goal and labels it blasphemy against God. Keep the lies coming.Vouching support for the UN to achieve its goals, and agreeing with it goals (the same ones you have) are really not nearly the same thing.
