What I think is more egregious by the activity of the WTS is that for the longest time the WTS has proclaimed that the UN is Babylon The Great, not just some local political organization.
The Governing Body / Jehovah`s Witnesses and the Sin Of Omission ,How guilty are they ? Can you give an example ?
by smiddy3 146 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Finkelstein
-
StephaneLaliberte
JWs take pride in preaching that they are politically neutral and stay clear from anything that even resembles a political stand. For instance, kids won't try to become student leaders or even vote for one. Adults won't take part of any strikes and any jobs for the government is expected to be citizen services, not political in any way.
The UN is obviously not neutral. It acknowledges government, supporting and condemning them.
So, yes. it is a "sin".
-
Doubter
You’re attempting to point out hypocrisy without pointing it out.
All you really have to do is show that they agreed with things in the charter that violated their beliefs in 92.
That is really easy to do, if those violations actually exists.
Until then, I’ll simply sit back an observe you all refusing to post the 1992 UN Charter.
The Charter is your gold mine.
Posting about the YMCA and blood banks (which the UN is neither) are merely laughable red herrings.
-
StephaneLaliberte
Finkelstein, it has accused that nation to be part of the great beast. But babylon the great is the "empire of false" religion. It has accused Babylon the Great at length of collaborating with the great beast (aka: the governments of the world), all the while, getting a membership, leading many into believing that the JW supported the charter of something that represented the great beast.
-
Finkelstein
Doubter says ......
What did the charter say in 92?
The same thing of which the UN registration says now regarding NGO organizations.
Doubter your diversion tactics aren't working and shows an element of intellectual dishonesty by you .
-
Sanchy
Where does it say the same thing about the UN as it does the YMCA and a blood bank?
So the principle behind what's written matters not?
-
Doubter
Finklestien,
Prove it.
Post the 1992 Charter and the current one.
-
StephaneLaliberte
Doubter, by this point, anyone reading this thread will likely come to the conclusion that agreeing with the charter of an organization dedicated in controlling the politics of the world is obviously not being politically neutral. That is the sin.
Not seeing the obvious is called "cognitive dissonance" where you do not acknowledge the obvious as it conflicts with your religious and emotive beliefs.
If you truly want to test this, make a small resume of what happened and submit that to people who have never ever been JWs. They have no bias, couldn't care less one way or another. Simply ask them: Is the UN politically neutral and can a religion claiming to be politically neutral support the UN, going as far as becoming one of its members?
-
Finkelstein
Lets play with the corrupt Doubter, WTS/JWS supporter ....
-
Sanchy
Doubter:All you really have to do is show that they agreed with things in the charter that violated their beliefs in 92.
The very first point of the charter would be something WT claimed was blasphemous and wicked proclamation:
The Purposes of the United Nations are
- To maintain international peace and security, to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace
This is in direct conflict with WT belief. WT claims the UN is the symbolic beast that slanders God and promises what only his "kingdom" can deliver: Peace. Here's a direct quote from WT:
"Such dwellers on earth wondered admiringly at the revived scarlet wild beast. Much reliance was placed in its ability to be a power for world peace and security. Great expectations were held out for it, and it was given designations that were really blasphemous from the standpoint of the Holy Bible. How so? In that to this wild beast powers were ascribed and tasks were assigned that really belong to Gods kingdom and its Messiah or its Christ. Back in 1919 the scarlet League of Nations had been seriously called the political expression of the Kingdom of God on earth. And now the United Nations, the successor of that League, has been called the best means for peace, yes, even more than that, the last hope for peace. So today we can see in actuality what the apostle John saw in symbol, that that scarlet-colored wild beast is full of blasphemous names. Those expressions of admiration for it turn false religionists, not to the worship of Jehovah God the Creator, but to idolatry of a man-made creation, the worship of a political image, the worship of an international organization for world peace and security. Rev. 17:3." Watchtower 1963 Nov 15 p.697