by zev 52 Replies latest jw friends
SaintSatan
I remember studying that old book 3 times.
Also, wouldn't you think it was reproachful and disgusting if an earthly anything could claim only what God can do.
Maybe the JWs want this system to end quicker by this ploy. Get the beast(s) to turn on them, by their own device, so to speak, and get it all over with. Right now.
the WTBS turns on the UN to encourage the UNs wrath. Martyrdom.
wizzkid....
dont think THAT thought didnt cross my mind!
it is possible.
argh! i get so upset about this whole thing.....
goodnight
-Zev
-The "Truth" is out there! TRUST NO ONE!
I WANT TO BELIEVE!
Wiz wrote:
Maybe the JWs want this system to end quicker by this ploy. Get the beast(s) to turn on them, by their own device, so to speak, and get it all over with. Right now.
the WTBS turns on the UN to encourage the UNs wrath. Martyrdom"
That thought occurred to me briefly too. However, the way you present does not fall in with their end games timetable unless I am missing something.
Makena
Not worried about end games anymore
wiz
I could see the martyrdom angle.
'wouldn't you think it was reproachful and disgusting if an earthly anything could claim only what God can do'
In wt-ville, gods method of peace enforcement is to kill all non-jws. I find that rather reproachful and digusting, especially since many problems are slowly being reduced.
'As far as I could tell it was just a list of humanitarian orgs and what services they can provide. Many of the things the UN stands for any witness would agree with. Peace, who doesn't want that? '
The wt doctrine is that only god can bring peace, so by their standards, when you defend the wt as above, you are supporting satans false hope, the peace beast.
You appear to be labelling the un as reproachful and disgustung, while agreeing with their main aim, peace.
SS
SaintSatan
If I gave credit to someone else for a thread you started, or I gave credit to someone at work for an idea you came up with, and then showered that person with praises and raises and promotions a new job title and responsibilities how would that make you feel?
It's a good idea for everyone, it's just you aren't getting the credit. Forget the raises. Think just about the recognition. Think about the value your company has for you. If nothing else, it means more security in your job. Your company appreciates having you rather than despising you.
Would you appreciate being exonerated for anything that you might have been falsely accused? Of course you would, anyone would.
It all boils down to one thing... truth. Are people, able to straighten out their own affairs? Without prejudice, bias, bribery, extortation, some kind of monetary gain or recognition, the list can go on and on. I emphatically say, "No, we can't. And to say that we can, is untruthful and disgusting."
The first thing the UN would say in an Edward G. Robinson voice, "Look what we did, WE did this, where your silly God now, Moses? ...see, where's your God NOOooow?"
Go ahead and discredit me by throwing a zinger in there. "You sound like a parrot for the WTBS. We've got a spy. Another Fred." -a valid argument falls to pieces because someone throws in a zinger.
BTY - how'z Meye Spelin'?
hey thewiz....
whats your take on all this un stuff?
have you read the threads and research?
just curious on your opinion.
-Zev
-The "Truth" is out there! TRUST NO ONE!
I WANT TO BELIEVE!
My son, who was studying with two witnesses, asked about the changed blood doctrine. They told him that it was up to a person's conscience. Ah, they made a fatal mistake when they told him that. Because the assembly that he just attended stated, "Don't Trust Your Conscience." Imagine that. This statement, along with the UN letter and other info I gathered, gave him insight into their lies. He left a note on his door that he never wants them to return. In the note he gave them some scriptures to look up and a copy of the UN letter.
To hawkaw,
You said:
"I just don't buy you anymore"
That's entirely up to you. You are not the ultimate judge of my character, so it matters little what you think of me.
You said:
"Weren't you the one whining that this UN thing wasn't a big deal?"
Whining? No, my computer doesn't have voice capability.
As to whether or not it is a big deal, maybe it is. It's big enough that I'm looking into it and posting about it. It's big enough that I'm talking to a friend at the Hall about it. But is it big enough to leave the organization over? I'm not convinced of that. And I am not convinced I have the whole picture yet, particularly the Society's explanation for their actions. All I've seen so far is one letter from Britain.
You said:
"Then when people set the record straight we didn't hear boo from you"
What? You mean you're responding to a ghost message?
Also, you may feel the information provided "sets the matter straight." But as I said above, weighing BOTH sides means getting ALL the information possible, not just from the UN or this board, but from the Watchtower Society. Like the Scripture says, "If one is replying to a matter before he has heard it, it is foolishness and a humiliation on his part."
You said:
"Weren't you the one whining about the fact that some people didn't have any proof showing the criteria in 1992 was the same as today? Even though I told you that you could easily confirm the "supporting the UN charter criteria" was the same since 1968 by contacting the UN's DPI. Then I and others, clearly and using the UN's own writen information (such as the Hoeffel letter, 4 press releases (2000, 1999, Aug 1992 & Feb. 1992), 2 1968 ECOSOC Resolutions, the 1996 updated ECOSOC resolutions, the DPI 1999-2000 Directory of NGOs) provided the proof you desired."
Hawkaw, I haven't disregarded these links or the info contained in them. I've seen enough information to be concerned. Otherwise, I wouldn't even be here discussing it, would I?
You said:
"I haven't heard boo from you since then. Not a peep."
If that were true, we wouldn't be posting right now. But even if it were true, it's my choice whether I want to communicate with you or not. I don't have to answer to you. Neither do I have a quota of posts to fulfill.
You said:
"Didn't you explain you have a husband who is in this Borg."
Yes
You said:
"I have already read one article on this board about a couple getting marked over asking questions on the UN thing. Are you telling me that it is different in your congregation in so far that you can ask the CO (and yet you won't discuss it with hubby)?"
No, it's probably not different in my congregation. If I decide to approach the elders or the CO about it, I very well may be marked. That's a chance I'll take if I decide it's necessary.
You said:
"If you write to the Society about this isn't your hubby going to find out?"
Absolutely. If I write to the Society, I will give a letter to every elder and MS in the Hall. And of course, my husband will be the first to know. But until I have enough information to feel sure I have the whole picture, I'm not jumping the gun.
You said:
"Why are you talking to a sister when I haven't heard you talk to your husband about it?"
Tactful version:
My husband struggles with manic depression and has enough problems to worry about without me dumping more on him at this point in time.
Blunt version:
Who I choose to discuss the UN/NGO issue with is none of your business.
You said:
"Your whole reasoning is out to lunch."
As is your whole method of "tactful persuasion."
You said:
"The WTS has given you countless articles explaining that the beast is evil and where it stands on neutrality. There is one in the Nov. 15/01 WT just before the Religious hypocrisy article. Now you have found out, just like Ray Franz showed you with the Malawi inicident, that there is a clear double standard that hurts people. Whether the leadership did it for access to the UN or for prestige, they let people rot in jail and they prevented people from voting and they disassociated and shunned people who waved the flag. They have also whined about persecution in Malawi and Germany on the neutrality issue these past 10 years but look at their record since 1992. They sold out their doctrine and sacrificed their people all for either prestige or for a measely library card."
The subjects of Malawi, voting, shunning, and neutrality are all worthy of discussion, but THIS thread is about the UN/DPI issue.
You said:
"That is the ultimate in evil. All organizations have problems but this is beyond the minor problems. This is a sell out that kills and hurts people."
Hawkaw, I know this is how you feel. You have a right to think and feel whatever you want to. However, so does everyone else, even when their viewpoint doesn't match yours.
You said:
"What kind of spin are you looking or waiting for unless you are just trolling?"
I'm not waiting for any kind of spin. Just trying to gather all the facts. I've said this time and again. Hawkaw, I try to respond to your posts with tact, but you test my patience. You really do.
wiz
If people ever could straighten out their affairs or not, i think is a matter of opinion. I'm not sure if they will succeed, but a study of history, shows that human affairs are slowly becoming more orderly, more respectful, more peaceful. Of course, there are always bumps in the graph. Just compare ot savagery of the jews with the society in which you live. It has improved, wouldn't you say?
Credit and recognition where due are good, but are really connected w an ego problem. When we are young, the ego is strong. When we become older, shouldn't it be reduced? I know you are saying god is upset when he doesn't get credit for peace he is supposed to bring. You contend that the aims of the un in solving problems of hunger, war, and exploitation are wrong. Are not these aims natural to human nature? Jesus, in defending his own efforts at releaving suffering asked, who wouldn't pull an animal out of a hole on the sabbath? In fact he commanded his followers to exorcise demons, feed the hungery, heal the sick, visit the prisoners, etc. The wt doesn't believe in doing these, especially to non-jws. Along comes the un, whos goal is the very same as jesus', and you believe its wrong because, you calim it isn't giving god credit somehow. What about the isaiah plaque in front? Not good enough for you.
To me a part of spirituality is taking the rap for others occassionally, or at times letting others get the credit due me. The idea being that ideally, i shouldn't need boosting or support from others. Ideally my love of myself, and knowing that i am doing the right thing should be enough. Some traditional theologiams believed that god is the ultimate example of this. That is, he needs nothing from anyone. He is the ultimate mover, while himself not being moved or changed by anything. It follows that our praise or worshop doesn't make him happier. Anyones neglect or taunts don't make him angry. He has no ego. Only 'puny humans' have egos. The old testement god got his ego from the humans who wrote it.
If jehovah really was love, he would applaud any reduction in suffering. You and the wt would like to see no efforts whatever in peacemaking or starvatoin reduction. Doesn't that show a lack of love. Didn't jesus, according to the bible, feed thousands of 'rice christians'? It says he felt pity for the masses. The wt doesn't.
Jesus said to give secretly, not letting your left hand know what your right is doing. This principle contradicts your premise of the importance of getting credit where due. Jesus, according to christian theology, took the rap for all of us. He (whom some christians think is god) took the punishment that was our due. God had no problem w the transference in this case, in fact, it was gods idea. On top of that, the righteoussness that accrue to jesus for his death are being trasfered to christians continuoussly, again going against you originaal premise.
From the above, i would have to conclude that the wt construct of an egotistical god who hates a political entity such as the un which has a similar goal as god is supposed to have, was originated from someone who had a a mental illness.
SS
I've read that letter over-and-over and it is fairly vague. It's been a while since I read those NGO-DPI docs though.
Again, I agree with the principles of the UN and I believe the WTBS does too. Better then 6 years ago I read the entire UN charter, I do not remember seeing anything there that would be against bibilical principles.
It is the recognition that humans give it. They replace it with God's Administration (and I don't mean the G.B. or WTBS) for straightening things out. It is also worshipped.
Read the account of how GOD brought Babylon against Jerusalem It acted as his servant to carry out justice. They were aware of the curse of maladies that would be brought upon them if they broke the commandments they agreed to.
Then what does God do to Babylon for destroying his people. He curses Babylon and has it destroyed by the Medes/Persians as retribution.
GOD can use who he wants to function as his servant for the cause at hand. His name means, "He causes to become." He becomes what he needs to be to carry out his purpose.
Also on the issue of EATING blood. All that was required, was to bleed the animal properly. Could every ounce or molecule be extracted as not to break the divine mandate? Sounds like the Pharasiess picking on Jesus' diciples, not washing up to the elbow.
The issue at hand is not the consuming of blood cells/molecules. per se. It is the act of the recognition of the sanctity that GOD placed on it, that does. And that makes ALL the difference in the world.
Just as I support laws that the U.S.A. comes up with, and at least if I don't agree them I am compelled to by enforcement, obey them. Does that mean I want them to replace the functions that God's kingdom is supposed to bring?
I think they may have withdrawn their association with the UN to remove a false suspiscion that they support it like the Catholic church supports it. However, their actions, no doubt especially in response to being outed is questionable. It is more than coincidental. It appears to be guilt by association.
Personnaly, I still do not see what the big conflict is all about.
Read the charter. When I find it, I'm going to read it again and critique it even more closely.
If you guys want to establish some kind of "legal" precedent or outed hypocrisy with this letter, you're going to have to come out of the witch hunt phase and get on with more than just a gossip, hearsay, assumption, tabloid kind of method reporting.
I've often read about the reliability of any kind of info you can get on the internet (and I'm not saying the document isn't legit). Just because Kent posts it on his WEB site doesn't somehow validate it. It needs something more.
If anyone is a lawyer that posts here, what would be needed to establish REAL incriminating evidence in regards to the WTBS withdrawel from the NGO. I mean we have the docs, now you need the ESTABLISHED PROOFS.
