Typical JW Apologist

by TheStar 185 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  hector3000

  >>There was no "latest" version. The version they signed is the same one that exists today.

  Reply: Wrong!
  The latest NGO brochure we find that there was in fact an official change in the relationship and requirements of NGOs. (< http://www.un.org/MoreInfo/ngolink/brochure.htm>;)
  Quoting from the brochure:

  "After three years of negotiation, ECOSOC reviewed its arrangements for consultation with NGOs in July 1996. One outcome was ECOSOC Resolution 1996/31, which revised the arrangements for NGO consultation with ECOSOC....A second outcome...Decision 1996/297, which recommended that the General Assembly examine, at it 51st session, the QUESTION OF THE PARTICIPATION OF NGOS IN ALL AREAS OF WORK OF THE UN...Subsequently, in the General Assembly Working Group looking into the STRENGTHENING OF THE UN SYSTEM a sub-group on NGOs was formed."
  The above clearly confirms exactly what the WTS has said: That *after* they applied for NGO status there was a change in the language of the "Criteria for Association."
  Going to the movies, see ya later.
• 

  Will Power

  ECOSOC decides on consultative status for NGOs based upon the recommendation of the inter-governmental Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations. This Committee is composed of nineteen Member States and meets yearly.

  This area of the UN has nothing to do with the Watchtower's involvment with the DPI. any changes to this arrangement are irrelevant.

  by the way that is not the right url
  try this
  http://www.un.org/dpi/ngosection/brochure.htm
• 

  hector3000

  Jerome: A word of warning.
  Your website contains information that is DEFINETILY NOT approved by the GB of Jehovah's Witneses.
  You are breaking down the barrier of information controll that the JW leaders use to maintain their authority. Your sight contains information pertaining to prophecy, child abuse etc...
  Unfortunately unbeknown to you the watchtower dosent handle matters shuch as the above by discussing them but by sweeping them under the carpet.
  Your site puts them into the spot light which may not be too good for your reputation as a witness.
  There has been a recent trend where pro Witness sites are being shut down on the internet.
  Could yours be next?

  Reply: Why do you people embrace misinformation so?
  No sites have been shut down.
  My site has been there since the 90's, often with 6000 visitors a month. I am not breaking down any info control, in fact, I often write/submit religious articles to my local newspaper with the elders blessing.
  WTS members have contacted me...with approval, so all you have written above is, like everything else here, an overblown fairy-tale.
  Making mountains out of molehills, isn't that what other churches do?
  http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com
• 

  Will Power

  hect

  were you planning on responding to my post? The misinformation you reported on the dpi thing above is like an overblown fairy-tale.
  Just like other churches who can't explain their hypocrital actions your common bond with the rest of christiandom is blatantly apparent.

  will
• 

  hector3000

  hect
  were you planning on responding to my post? The misinformation you reported on the dpi thing above is like an overblown fairy-tale.

  Reply: Willp
  I did not respond because your comments were in error. The URL has not changed for one, it is still at http://www.un.org/MoreInfo/ngolink/brochure.htm
  You also said:
  "This area of the UN has nothing to do with the Watchtower's involvment with the DPI. any changes to this arrangement are irrelevant."

  Reply: This is also incorrect, as at the top of the page it clarifies things the NGO/DPI involvement when it says,
  "Over 1,500 NGOs with strong information programmes on issues of concern to the United Nations are associated with the Department of Public Information (DPI), giving the United Nations valuable links to people around the world. DPI helps those NGOs gain access to and disseminate information about the range of issues in which the United Nations is involved, to enable the public to understand better the aims and objectives of the world Organization."
  And why not, as we are often the brunt of the UN Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
  "the "authority" can serve for good, as it was intended; and we have a right to take advantage of it for good if we remain law-abiding persons. Do we not appeal to the authorities of the land for them to render us some good in cases where our rights are being violated by enemies? In many such cases they have been ministers for our good, have they not? Why should we appeal to them at all if they were not appointed to minister good to us or if no good was possible to issue from them? Even in behalf of the preaching of God's kingdom, which in many cases some officials have persecuted, Jehovah's witnesses have appealed to the "authority" for the right handling of the situation adversely affecting us. Why should we do this if the "authority" was not really and essentially appointed to minister good things and benefits to all the people, to all who are lower than the "superior authorities" or "higher powers"?" W62, 711

  "It is altogether right for me to think this regarding all of YOU, on account of my having YOU in my heart, all of YOU being sharers with me in the undeserved kindness, both in my [prison] bonds and in the defending and legally establishing of the good news." Php 1:7 NWT
  http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com
• 

  hawkaw

  Hect,

  The WT rags of 1991 and 1976 are clear.

  They knew exactly by their own words in the June 1, 1991 WT rag never mind the 1976 rag that a religion who was an "associated NGO" with the UN meant you belonged to false religion and the great harlot. Neither article offers a free pass around the doctrine for "special reasons" such as getting a library pass (that it could have gotten another way). Yet, that is exactly what the WTS did and you have no weasel room around it. And all for going to a library? Yikes!!! They broke their own doctrine to go to the "scarlet coloured wild beast's" library - unbelievable but true!!!

  WRT to changes in criteria or anything else - phone the UN - they make it clear just like Resolutions of 1968 make it clear - NGO's "associated" with DPI must support the aims and goals of the UN Charter and support the UN. It has been that way from the start and they can't weasel out of that either.

  hawk
• 

  hector3000

  And all of that was covered even before that, as stated, despite the fact that you wish to ignore it:

  "the "authority" can serve for good, as it was intended; and we have a right to take advantage of it for good if we remain law-abiding persons. Do we not appeal to the authorities of the land for them to render us some good in cases where our rights are being violated by enemies? In many such cases they have been ministers for our good, have they not? Why should we appeal to them at all if they were not appointed to minister good to us or if no good was possible to issue from them? Even in behalf of the preaching of God's kingdom, which in many cases some officials have persecuted, Jehovah's witnesses have appealed to the "authority" for the right handling of the situation adversely affecting us. Why should we do this if the "authority" was not really and essentially appointed to minister good things and benefits to all the people, to all who are lower than the "superior authorities" or "higher powers"?" W62, 711
• 

  hawkaw

  The fact remains that the 1976 and 1991 article clearly and specifically told any JW that if any religion joins up (associated or whatever) with the UN as an NGO, that religion is showing itself to be part of false religion. There was no "special" out.

  And of course that is exactly what the WT did and all for a library pass (how embarrassing).

  You can't get around it. They even had the gaul to hide the immediate sentence of Muller's quote in the 1991 article that specifally dealt with NGOs.

  Sad, really sad

  hawk
• 

  hector3000

  Well Hawk, let us break this down for you:

  "A recent book gives an idea when it states: "All major world religions are accredited to the United Nations as non-governmental organizations. For example, No less than twenty-four Catholic organizations are represented at the UN."

  Reply: How many JW organizations ar presently NGO's?

  "Several of the world's religious leaders have visited the international organization. Most memorable were the visits of His Holiness Pope Paul VI during the General Assembly in 1965 and of Pope John Paul II in 1979."

  Reply: How many visit have we made to the Gen. Assembly?

  "Many religions have special invocations, prayers, hymns and services for the United Nations. The most important examples are those of the Catholic, the Unitarian-Universalist, the Baptist and the Bahai faiths."

  Reply: How many JW's "have special invocations, prayers, hymns and services for the United Nations?"
  Have we declared the UN "the chief temporal hope" for humanity? W76
  Nope!
• 

  hawkaw

  Paragraph 11 in the June 1, 1991 WT rag provided clear examples of what religions did to be false religions that rode the back of the scarlet coloured wild beast.

  It clearly talked to the 24 Catholic organizations as being one of the many ways that the Catholic religion is showing that they are "false religion" and belong to the great harlot.

  The paragraph gives NO special "out" that a religion had to have all of the examples listed in paragraph 11 to be false religion. Anybody with half a head clearly sees that being an NGO with the UN means you represent false religion. There was no "special" exemption.

  The WTB&TS is still presently an NGO and it was "accredited" between Feb. 14, 1992 until October 9, 2001 with the UN's DPI. Thus, as per the 1991 WT rag, the WTS was practicing in the same way as all the rest of false religion.

  The WT of 1976 was also just as clear. Here - let me restate the key portions from the 1976 article for you:

  ... Do they act like the harlot, "Babylon the Great"?....

  ... Sixteen Catholic international organizations contribute formally to the work of ECOSOC and various Specialized Agencies through the medium of consultative status with these bodies, and Catholic groups and individuals in various countries contribute to the formation of national policy and action with regard to the UN.”—Vol. 14, p. 423.

  Will all such friendliness with the world be of real benefit to any religious system? No, the Bible declares that “Babylon the Great,” the harlotrous religious empire, will experience a great shock. Revelation 17:16 says: “The ten horns that you saw, and the wild beast, these will hate the harlot and will make her devastated and naked, and will eat up her fleshy parts and will completely burn her with fire.”

  So there is real danger in becoming involved with the “scarlet-colored wild beast.” Never will it bring real peace and security ....

  ... For that reason those who join in any U.N. cry of “Peace and security!” face disaster, even if they are not in sympathy with “Babylon the Great.”

  Are you acting in harmony with this advance knowledge? Have you separated yourself from the world’s ways, attitudes and actions?...

  Clearly being like one of the 16 NGOs would be considered by the 1976 Watchtower as becoming involved with the beast - and that was and still is a big time no no.

  You can't weasel your way out of it.

  hawk