GB disassociates itself!!

by lulu 162 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  Yadirf

  It's funny how you only responded about not defending liars, yet made no reply about defending people who protect pedophiles and punish children victims.

  Nope, your diversionary tactic (switching subjects) won't work. You're not going to be permitted here to introduce and try to highlight an entirely different subject as a ploy to take the spotlight off of the issue that you yourself raised, but can't defend. You contended that the WTS deserves the reputation of "liar" with regards to the UN/NGO thing. You insinuated that their indulgence in Theocratic Warfare/Strategy is an ungodly practice. But now, now that you've seen for yourself that you haven't a leg to stand on, you hope to divert attention off of that issue. When you're ready to conclude with the issue at hand then we can tackle the "pedophile" question, you spineless weasel.

  .
• 

  link

  Yardif,

  Im sorry to come in on this at this stage of your private battle but something worries me greatly.

  You seem a sincere person and Im sure you will do your best to clarify something for me. My apologies if any of this information is contained elsewhere in this tangled web but can you define for me your understanding of the term Theocratic Warefare? I would also like to understand how you relate the Watchtower Societies actions in their involvement with the UN to the Scriptural account of Ehud.

  The Society could well have claimed Theocratic Warefare (as I understand they see it) when they first became aware that the matter was in the public domain. They chose not to do that but to make their position untenable by embarking on a string of lies therefore departing from all Scriptural principles.

  Firstly they stated that they had found it necessary to align themselves with the UN as a Non Governmental Organisation for the purpose of accessing the library facilities, which was a lie. There was never any requirement for them to associate as a NGO in order to access the library. Then they said that they disassociated themselves in 2001 because the UN had changed the wording on the terms of membership as a NGO, again an outright lie.

  I have copies of letters from the UN showing that what I have stated in the previous paragraph is true. I will not provide you with this documentation because it is too easy to forge but if you are the sincere person that you appear to be you will contact the UN and obtain the information for yourself, first hand.

  Having done so I would ask that you come back to the board and answer one simple question, YES or NO: Do you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the Society has acted in strict accordance with Biblical principles where their involvement with, and departure from, the UN is concerned.

  The true reasons for the Society associating with the UN as a NGO have not been stated openly but you would not need to qualify as a brain surgeon to work it out for yourself, particularly after checking the advantages and benefits that NGOs enjoy.

  link
• 

  Yadirf

  Link,

  I'm a bit reluctant to make a reply of any sort to your post, because I know that UnDisfellowshipped will see something in it to use as just another diversionary tactic in order to deliver himself out the hotseat that he finds himself seated upon. He's no doubt sitting there idle, waiting and hoping that one of his buddies will say something ... because a cat has surely gotten his tongue.

  Having done so I would ask that you come back to the board and answer one simple question, YES or NO: Do you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the Society has acted in strict accordance with Biblical principles where their involvement with, and departure from, the UN is concerned.

  I can answer that question with a firm "YES," doing so in full view of the following:

  Link stated:

  Firstly they stated that they had found it necessary to align themselves with the UN as a Non Governmental Organisation for the purpose of accessing the library facilities, which was a lie [merely a convenient excuse]. There was never any requirement for them to associate as a NGO in order to access the library. [I love this game, don't you?] Then they said that they disassociated themselves in 2001 because the UN had changed the wording on the terms of membership as a NGO, again an outright lie [shrewd manuever when it comes to practicing the art of Theocratic Warfare].

  Then you said:

  The true reasons for the Society associating with the UN as a NGO have not been stated openly but you would not need to qualify as a brain surgeon to work it out for yourself, particularly after checking the advantages and benefits that NGOs enjoy.

  Right, on both counts. Yet you could still benefit from a few lessons having to do with the Biblical art known as "Theocratic Warfare/Strategy". But your problem is that you don't appear to qualify for the course. If you did qualify, you wouldn't be needing to ask the following question:

  I would also like to understand how you relate the Watchtower Societies actions in their involvement with the UN to the Scriptural account of Ehud.

  In the interests of Israel, Ehud outsmarted King Eglon and delivered his people out from under the heavy tax burden which that greedy man had been requiring them to pay. In the interests of spiritual Israel and it's duties before Christ to go into all the world and make disciples in EVERY nation, the WTS made strategic use of the UN (by means of taking advantage of "the advantages and benefits that NGOs enjoy").

  .

  Edited by - Yadirf on 7 December 2002 19:12:3

  Edited by - Yadirf on 7 December 2002 19:14:25
• 

  Yadirf

  Link,

  I was just thinking ... thinking about what thoughts must have ran through the minds of those of Eglon's countrymen whom discovered him dead. Can't you just hear them: "What the HELL?!" Sorta compares to what must be the inward thoughts of the apostates on this board, after their having dug and dug and worked and scraped, all in hopes of having come up with something really substantial to use against the WTS ... only to find out that the WTS simply outsmarted everybody. You all must surely be saying to yourselves: "What the HELL?!"

  (Now look at me, I've done went and shot myself in the foot--in the eyes of UnDisfellowshipped that is. He'll be coming back claiming that I used a word unbefitting a Christian. He sure won't be coming back to defend his original allegation against the WTS. Yes, he's already side-stepped that opportunity too many times for anyone to expect otherwise now.)

  .

  Edited by - Yadirf on 7 December 2002 19:38:58
• 

  Celia

  To Yadirf and all . . . . . . . . . .

  Edited by - Celia on 7 December 2002 20:24:36
• 

  Yadirf

  Is that the satanic Star of Bethlehem represented atop that tree there, Celia? Or, is that just any ole star?

  -----------------------<*>-----------------------

  .

  Edited by - Yadirf on 7 December 2002 21:43:23

  Edited by - Yadirf on 7 December 2002 21:45:4
• 

  UnDisfellowshipped

  I think it is the Satanic Star of Yadirf!

  I really don't care what you say Yadirf.

  I really don't care what you think.

  I would rather be destroyed in a painful death at Armageddon than to live forever under the direction of the Watchtower Society!

  So, I dare your "god of the pedophiles" to BRING IT ON!

  I am under no obligation to answer any of your questions (I am using Apostate-Warfare! LOL).

  However, I definitely will post actual replies to your questions, when I am really bored and have absolutely nothing that is important to do.
• 

  link

  Yardif,

  Very many thanks for your concise reply to my previous post.

  This is the clearest statement that I have ever seen from anyone that Theocratic Warfare Strategy and lying and deception are one and the same thing in the eyes of Jehovahs Witnesses. This answers a lot of questions for me. Thank you.

  I believe that a religion that has to resort these practises can in no way be considered Christian.

  link
• 

  Yadirf

  Link,

  I believe that a religion that has to resort these practises can in no way be considered Christian.

  In that case then you would have to be one who would condemn Ehud for having practiced the same thing. Are you prepared to do that? Probably, since you are possibly one of those who has no respect for the Bible to begin with, you could care less about what such an example (Ehud) might teach. Your words, as quoted, show you to be a shining example of a person who is going to think what they want--regardless of what facts they are presented with--simply because you're going to think WHAT YOU WANT TO THINK. Any reasonable person can see that you're a person that is incapable of reasoning, and are a terribly biased individual.

  .
• 

  Yadirf

  UnDisfellowshipped,

  I really don't care what you say Yadirf.

  I really don't care what you think.

  Do you really think that is news to me? I new from the start that you weren't capable of anything but spouting off. You best avoid getting involved in any dabate, you haven't the spine for it.

  I am under no obligation to answer any of your questions (I am using Apostate-Warfare! LOL).

  But you have already condemned any such warfare as being BAD, and unscriptural. Are you going to practice what you yourself have judged as immoral? You hypocrite! The fact is, that when you were presented with a Biblical example--yes, an example that came from the very book that you profess to believe in--you couldn't meet the challenge. And because you couldn't meet the challenge there was nothing left that you could do except go into your being silly mode. Ohhh, but to begin with (just check out his first comments folks), you were here to show us all how BAD the WTS was with regards to this issue. You've proven only one thing, and that's that you are full of hot air! Too bad that this thread can't be published along with your name and photo in a newspaper where you live, so that you would have to live with your peers knowing the unreasonable fool that you are.

  .