Anglicanism isn't going anywhere. The church is broad now. To quote gay activists in the church, "We've always had gay priests and bishops. When Henry VIII established the church, gay men were priests and bishops. This merely lets the men be open." I've attended several churches with openly gay priests. In fact, I met Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop. Here in the States, we expect the English church to follow us. We are fully prepared to cut off the millions of Anglicans in Africa. US dollars support the homophobe bishops in Africa. It might split the communion apart but what did we do with Henry Tudor but split apart.
Is the U.N. preparing to attack Religion
by confusedandalone 51 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
-
Giordano
When I checked out the article I also checked out the 750 comments that it drew.
http://www.examiner.com/article/is-the-un-preparing-to-attack-religion scroll down for comments.
What I noticed was the JW's who commented were ill equipped to argue their case on the other hand the ex JW's (as more showed up to present a different view point) were able to quote from the publications (thank you jwfacts.com).
It became almost funny/painful at the way JW'S reacted:
"And with that I choose to no longer respond to you. I'm sorry, Dan. You are not interested in the truth. As you said, "It's that simple." So I am going to shake the dust off my feet and go to bed."
"They dont get to the point that it isnt we are runaway runners when they say otherwise, they miss the entire point that they hate us and no matter how much we use everything to proove them wrong all they care about is win their tergiversational arguments!"
I am pretty sure that is not a word.
"This is a perfect example of pearls before swine. Jesus could see who were the Sheep, and who were the Goats. it is pointless to argue with someone who is blinded to the truth when it is right in front of them."
"same as you from satan"
"It's there for anyone to see in secular history but you're clearly not interested in facts and evidence.
"Obedience before truth", that is WTS policy." -
Band on the Run
How could the UN attack religion? I don't understand why fundies hate a one world government. What are the fears?
-
BackseatDevil
I'm not sure why this question keeps coming up. As stated, the United Nations has no real authority to attack, invade, dismantle, or in other ways maim any country on the face of the planet. They have multiple cases of human rights/civil liberties abuses in North Korea, Iran, Somalia, and now Russia. The U.N. has not been able to do anything. Russia has taped torture of young gay men on the internet... the U.N. has done nothing. Even when a country goes off on its own (think Iraq, or the United States going to war with Iraq), the U.N. has limited power about what it can do and prevent.
Their own Human Rights Act prevents religious intolerance and works for peace between faiths, cultures, and languages. The U. N. are humanitarian blue helmets with automatic weapons filled with vaccinations and strongly worded letters, nothing more.
So what, in all this, says that they have the want, desire, or even the ability to go against an expansive, world-wide immeasurable generalized philosophy concept like “religion?”
-
Band on the Run
I keep seeing reference to how horrid a one world government would be. As a Star Trek fan, I welcome the Federation. There is something in the concept that gets fundies going. Is there something in Revelation of which I am not aware?
-
BackseatDevil
Also (I added this comment) "war on religion" is absurd because something like "religion" is not able to be attacked. Think of George W. Bush's "War on Terror." THAT was a complete mess, and that was with the most powerful military force on the planet. No one can war against concepts or philosophies and be successful. It doesn't work.
-
transhuman68
LOL, like a lot of Watchtower doctrine, this one is past its use-by-date, and now looks silly. But back in the day- the 50's & 60's- the U.N. with the godless commies (USSR & Red China) having the veto in the security council must have seemed like a threat to the American way of life. The U.S. has always been wary of other authorities such as the Geneva Convention and the ICJ, and the U.N. must have seemed like a good fit to be the 'wild beast'. That seems to have been the view of a lot of people; not just the WTS; who probably just jumped on the bandwagon.
-
kassad84
A nuclear bomb being detonated in the hands of a muslim extremist, for example, would change opinions just as fast
-
bruh2012
How can they prepare when JW teach that GOD puts it in THEIR HEART! It will come out of the blue! LOL
-
Vidiot
Band on the Run – “I keep seeing reference to how horrid a one world government would be. As a Star Trek fan, I welcome the Federation. There is something in the concept that gets fundies going. Is there something in Revelation of which I am not aware?”
Not in Revelation, per se (and Transhuman’s comment is accurate, but there’s more to it)…
The idea has its origins in post-WWII Right-Wing conspiracy theory…
Many on the Right were suspicious of the UN because it was viewed by them as essentially League of Nations v2.0 (i.e., a candidate for inevitable failure), not to mention that a significant number of individuals who drafted its Charter were Europeans with Soviet connections…
The establishment of the State of Isreal caused a measure of furur in American Evangelical circles and was viewed by some as a possible fulfillment of Biblical prophecy (which stoked suspicions about the UN further, due to its involvement in the matter)…
McCarthyism was in full bloom by the 50s, and it wasn’t hard to drum up paranoia about “godless Communism” trying to subvert “decent, God-fearing America”…
And giving the Vatican a (non-voting) seat on the Security Council probably didn’t help, either, as evangelical Protestanism has long viewed the RCC as a kind of religious supervillain…
All this created a perfect storm that enabled hack born-again writer Hal Lindsay to pen The Late, Great, Planet Earth, a nonfiction book that mixed it all together to form a radical new type of spin on Revelation for the second half of the 20th Century. In fact, many of Lindsay’s concepts persist to this day and can be found in a somewhat evolved form in - for example - the Left Behind series of novels.
There was a lot more cross-pollination of ideas between apocalyptic millennialist groups back then, so it was inevitable that some of Lindsay’s theories found their way into the theology that Fred Franz was scripting for JWs (albeit in a heavily WT-centric form). The USSR’s casting as the “King of the North” was a perfect foil for the somewhat less villainous Anglo-American “King of the South” (remember, the WTS was first and formost an American corporation), and back when it was all daisy-chained together during the height of the Cold War, it probably seemed much more plausible than it would have today.
They never talk about it, but have no doubt whatsoever that the WTS was gobsmacked when the Iron Curtain fell in the early 90s and communism petered out in Russia.
Unfortunately, since Franz left no protégé, and thusly no successor to rejigger WT eschatology for the 21st Century, his interpretations of Daniel and Revelation have become essentially set-in-stone canon, and the WTS is now stuck with an End-Times script containing increasingly powerless and/or nonexistent bad guys, outdated half-century-old geopolitics, and an almost Mad-Max-style anarchy-fuelled social landscape that seems more and more bizarre and implausible with the inevitable passage of time.
Why else do you think they never study the Revelation Climax book any more?