The WTS fornicating with CESNUR

by greendawn 44 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  AlanF

  Your comments here, SBF, are precisely what peg you as a semi-apologist for the JWs.

  Tell me, was Martin Luther King involved in politics?

  AlanF
• 

  done4good

  While I certainly can understand the society's attempts to maintain basic human rights for thier position, and while I don't neccesarily view this as "fornication", the double standard here is another example of what is considered OK for the org, but not for the r&f, as individuals. It would be frowned upon, at best, to join a "human rights" organization of sorts by the r&f witness. At worst, one COULD be df'd for what really would be defined as involvement with an interfaith movement. The same standards should apply to the organization. But sadly, they don't.

  j
• 

  M.J.

  SBF, so what makes it okay is the fact that such involvement is for "Jehovah's interests" rather than for personal interests?

  I bet one could make the same sort of case for involvement in Al-Quaida.
• 

  Finally-Free

  SBF's comments are typical of warped JW reasoning. JWs feel free to condemn any person, religion, government, or organization they please for whatever reason they please in their recruitment efforts, and they've done so countless times throughout their history, but the minute someone points out that they fail to live up to their own standards they squeal like the worthless, diseased swine they are.

  W
• 

  slimboyfat

  SBF, so what makes it okay is the fact that such involvement is for "Jehovah's interests" rather than for personal interests?

  That is exactly correct, and so obviously so that I cannot understand why you think it odd. Am I the only voice of reason on this board? When charging hypocrisy it is a lack of consistency that must be identified, and such actions to defend their freedom of worship is consistent with their beliefs. Jehovah's Witnesses may be "warped" from an outside perspective, but they are consistent.

  Alan F

  Your comments here, SBF, are precisely what peg you as a semi-apologist for the JWs.

  And your refusal to give the Witnesses a break, even when it is clear they are being falsely accused, is what convinces me you lack balance in your views on the Witnesses.

  When Witnesses appeal to the courts, are they cavorting with the whores of the Satanic state?

  And when they apply to be a registered charity in Britain, are they doing a deal with the two-horned beast?

  How far you gonna take this?

  Slim
• 

  under_believer

  sbf, I would have to argue that your questions can't be answered. The Society wants to be "no part of this world." They want their followers to be "no part of this world." The question then becomes where to draw the line.
  
  Look, there are three branches of the US government--the judicial, the executive, and the legislative. Clearly, being involved with any of these three is political involvement. The Society engages with the judicial branch, obviously on Paul's example, but they can't say that they're no part of the world, then, can they? They're attempting to affect the laws of the land and the way that those laws are enforced. In some cases they're even getting laws struck down. Is it materially different whether they do this through the legislative branches or the judicial branches?
  
  Remember, Paul wasn't campaigning for Christian rights or freedom of speech or anything. He was there for himself.
  
  I'd argue that line the Society drew in the sand as far as participation in government is completely arbitrary and was drawn out of convenience rather than any specific scriptural reasoning. If they really wanted to be "no part of the world" then they'd eschew court cases, governmental registration, and everything else. They'd ignore those things as if they didn't exist, and trust in God.
  
  But they don't. They're definitely "part of this world." Their involvement with a wacko fringe cult defense organization is yet one more example of this. If Jehovah is looking out for them, they need no such association.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Underbeliever,

  Their involvement with a wacko fringe cult defense organization

  Is that CESNUR you are talking about? Surely not.

  Slim
• 

  AlanF

  I asked you a simple question, SBF:

  Was Martin Luther King involved in politics?

  If you continue to refuse to answer, I'll explain why you refuse. It will show you up for what you are.

  AlanF
• 

  under_believer

  SBF, way to pick out one tangential thing in my post and pick on it. What about the gist of my post? I notice you don't even try to address that.
  
  In any case, yes, any group that runs a forum for that list of organizations to proudly proclaim to the world that they're not cults is a wacko fringe cult defense organization, regardless of their stated goals.
• 

  M.J.

  SBF, so what makes it okay is the fact that such involvement is for "Jehovah's interests" rather than for personal interests?

  Let me give a few other examples. Martin Luther King could certainly make a case for his involvement in the political arena as being not for his own personal interest but for a higher interest.

  Anti-abortion groups (whether extreme or not) are in "it" for a higher interest.

  I could go on.

  But the WTS would condemn anyone taking part in any such involvement.