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 said that once already, and you’re wrong. The WT thanked the guardian for bringing the NGO changes to its attention in the 2001 letter, changes that violate their beliefs, and they withdrew.
There were no "NGO changes". There was nothing new brought to the attention of Watchtower. The criteria for NGO membership were the same in 1991 as they were in 2002. The same factors that you yourself admit "violate their beliefs" were at play in 1991.
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..
An individual JW is free to have affiliation with any organization he wants, granted his association does not require a violation of his beliefs.
...and any affiliation with the UN indeed is a "violation of his beliefs", as has been outlined repeatedly here. If it weren't the case, WT would not have disconnected itself as soon as the public found out.
You are doing great exJW work here Doubter. Thank you!
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 for one am glad Doubter is here. That way lurkers can see how apologists resort to word play and blatant dishonesty.
A JW would know that ANY voluntary affiliation with the UN would be inappropriate for all JWs, including those at the top. A JW would know that an individual JW would be reprimanded for it. The fact that WT disconnected itself upon public becoming aware of it proves so as well.
A lurker would thus see the obvious double standard and hypocrisy at play.
So Doubter can attempt to deflect and excuse all that he wants, he's not gonna get anywhere in trying to justify and excuse WT's affiliation with the UN.
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.
