by possible-san 131 Replies latest watchtower bible
Exactly, Curiousbutterfly! doesn't get any clearer than that.
Reniaa said It is also dishonest to only use the appelation "NGO" since being an NGO for the DPI (Department of information) is not the same type of involved NGO for the UN itself.
The DPI is a department of the UN. As a member, the wt distributed supportive information about the UN. So, as a member, they supported the Beast by their own words. Is that ok with you?
Spinning won't help you....just digs you deeper.
Coffee
What amazes me is how JW'S will even carry news clips with them in the door to door work showing people how a Catholic priest
was found guilty of sexual abuse..... then say "by their fruits you will know them !!!" Yet whether it be the UN involvement ,OR sexual
abuse exposed on W Five ( Canadian program ) involving JW 's .. these people are all "haters of the truth ".. "EVIL TROUBLE MAKERS"
Or say " even the news media is against God's people" .
Matt 7: ...1 For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you
Often said by a school teacher of mine to the class.. "Give me one good reason not a thousand verifying excuses !!"
Debator Coffee is correct. Do a simple google search and this is what I found. If the DPI is not part of the UN then why are they included on the UN website as:
The above photo is the DPI-UN on the"top bar" of web site. How can you say they are not the UN??
No proof just dubious accusation I see.
Nowhere on those forms is there anything which would compromise the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses. If there was something there then we could read it on those forms ourselves — as some critics would expect — but instead there is simply nothing there.
the forms themselves if you are brave enough to look!
However, some critics claim that the Society is being deliberately misleading. They claim that NGOs had to renew their status with the DPI each year and re-apply.
No, the argument is not valid. In fact, the critics are being deliberately misleading and are hoping you won't notice. If we actually take the time to read through the 2005 “Accreditation Form”, yes the very document they present as “proof” that the Society renewed it's application each year, what do we find? We find that is says this:
“In 2002 we instituted the review process for NGOs associated with DPI.”
That's right — the renewal process where the NGO must reapply and sign a form each year was not started until the year after the Watchtower Society resigned as an NGO! This very fact is stated in the document apostates use a “proof” that the Society “renewed their application each year”! Evidently, the apostates just hope you will believe what they say and won't notice what's written in the text of the document. Amazing.
This brochure acts as an introduction to new NGOs and stipulates the requirements of being an NGO.
“What are the Criteria for NGOs to become associated with DPI? The NGO must support and respect the principles of the Charter of the UN and have a clear mission statement that is consistent with those principles;”
Apostates often use the above quote, and repeat it endlessly as “proof” of the Watchtower Society's support of the UN. Yet this appears in the 2005 brochure, do we know if it appears in the older brochures? We already stated that we have a copy of the 1994 brochure, so does that phrase appear there? No, not at all. On the contrary, in the 1994 brochure we find that the above statement has replaced the following original statement:
“Who is eligible for association with the DPI? Non-profit organizations which: share the ideals of the UN charter;”
Notice the difference. In 2005, NGOs must support the principles of the UN Charter. In 1994, the NGOs must simply share the same ideals.
Just a few snippets of real info instead of false accusations.
The fact of the matter is that every single one of the rank and file JW's are required to research any group they wish to join.
If the average JW joined this group on their own, including signing the pledge of allegiance that the WT signed to join as a NGO, they would be immediately disfellowshipped.
You know this is true, debator. There's no possible way to deny it.
abuse exposed on W Five ( Canadian program ) involving JW 's
I remember watching that program, it was something.
The famous line from Matthew:
7 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
Debator ... Do you think it was" fair and honest" for the WT to condemn ( 1986) the churches for simply supporting the principles of the UN ?
Was the Society deliberately misleading us ?
Notice the difference. In 2005, NGOs must support the principles of the UN Charter. In 1994, the NGOs must simply share the same ideals.
Nowhere on those forms
Debator, you are making my head hurt!
It is not about the forms...it's about them joining of an organization the wt itself condemned.
You really do keep digging youself deeper.
“Who is eligible for association with the DPI? Non-profit organizations which: share the ideals of the UN charter;”
So the wt "shares the ideals" of the UN....the very ones the wt itself identifies as the BEAST. They share the ideals of the BEAST!!!!! And you just admitted it. So you obviously don't have a problem with that. Wow!!!!!!! I wonder what the response would be in the cong. if there was a study article in the wt. that said they share the ideals of the Beast of Revelation.
Coffee
Debator, I will look at that document this week. Believe me I just want to know what is true.
Notice the difference. In 2005, NGOs must support the principles of the UN Charter. In 1994, the NGOs must simply share the same ideals.
Splitting hairs on support/share and principles/ideals? What are the obvious differences with these definitions? In all seriousness I would love for you to explain what the complete difference are on these phrases? When I read that those phrases are similiar in meaning.
Note: I attempted to post the definitions of support, share, priniciples and ideals....the HTML code was messed up.
That's right — the renewal process where the NGO must reapply and sign a form each
year was not started until the year after the Watchtower Society resigned as an NGO!.....Reniaa/Debator
The WBT$ Resigned days after they were "Exposed" on the Internet..
The WBT$ could have Quit the NGO anytime before that..
The WBT$ had to be Shamed into Resigning..
If the WBT$ was`nt Ashamed of being Associated with the United Nations..Why Resign?..
Your not a Truthful person Reniaa/Debator..
Your misleading,deceitful..You should consider becoming a Real Jehovah`s Witness..
Of course you would have to follow WBT$ Rules..
But we all know..Your above WBT$ Rules..You`ve Publicly admitted it..
Thats why you can never be a Real Jehovah`s Witness..
Fortunately for all Ex-JW`s..
You`ve decided to become a Public Embarrassment to the WBT$..
......................
...OUTLAW
