http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/watchtower-un-ngo/
The UN/DPI is obviously part of the UN i agree but an NGO registering with it doesn't become part of the UN, its that simple. as 3w rightly pointed out, the UN themselves state:
“association of NGOs with the DPI does not constitute their incorporation into the United Nations system, nor does it entitle associated organizations or their staff to any kind of privileges, immunities or special status.”
..................yep thats what my sister said to me today.
apparently after the dc, it was said that there may not be a convention next year and that its obvious the society knows something.
she said the whole congregation are really excited and people are making plans to pioneer this year.
There is no Armageddon that will annihilate 6.5 billion people,and install Watchtower leaders as world rulers.
You know full well thats not what they believe.
At the conventions in the UK, the bethel speaker giving the last talk said there were going to be 3 day conventions next year just like every year.
http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/watchtower-un-ngo/
My answer would be no.
he was an elder in the rugby congregation in england.
here is the bbc report.
zenpunk posted about him here.
Interesting. Thanks for the info. His son is a good lad, i didn't know anyone else in his family, but its such a shame what they went through, whether he's guilty or innocent, I still have no clue.
I heard many interesting things at the time it was all happening but you just don't know who to trust, one source would say something that would convince me he's innocent, then the next day i would hear just the opposite.
he was an elder in the rugby congregation in england.
here is the bbc report.
zenpunk posted about him here.
He's been reinstated? are you sure, whats your source. i kind of knew him before he was accused of child abuse, and I heard about a year ago he was now in stetchford congregation? I heard all sorts of odd goings on when he was df'd, what he actually testified to in his trial etc,i was never quite sure what was going on with him, everyone seemed really split, some said he was definately innocent, some said he was definately guilty.
have posts been made on him before on this forum besides the link you posted?
I am most interested in this case. thanks to anyone who knows any more!
Cheers
LearnToSwim
why are jws so against blood transfustions, do they not see that this is exactly the oppositie of what jesus taught.
jesus taught that healing was allowed on the sabath, even though if violated the rule of not working on the sabath, he was teaching that in the event of an emergency life is more important than the law.
how would a jw feel if a loved one died and then 2 months later the wt said new light told them that transfusions are ok. (do not say this will not happen, becasue they originally said vaccinations were a direct violation of the everlasting covenant with god and must be avoided, now they say vaccines are good.
Hi GA thanks for your response. This is how I would answer your questions.
1. No they wouldn't agree with me and I wouldn't say it. In their case it would be working, because as mere mortals, healing people involves work. In the case of a doctor or nurse in a hospital, a lot of work is involved in healing people, whereas in the case of Jesus Christ he had miraculous power from God that meant no work was involved. So if Jesus had set up a first aid tent and started working away with scalpals and such, then I believe that would have been breaking the sabbath rule. But he didn't do any of those things, he spoke to the man for a few moments, then miraculously healed him.
2. The difference in eating and transfusing blood is in my view nullified by taking a look at the reason why God said not to eat it. I believe this is very important to the issue. When you look at the commands God gave to the Jews, he on many occassions explained that the blood means the life, it is something he views sacred. It should be poured out on the ground, and not ingested. It is apparent to me from this that God was not just saying, don't eat it because I don't want it to go into your stomachs, rather the actual principle is he would hate for anyone to take in blood into their bodies. I know it sounds like a strange thing for him to want his people not to do, but my view is, Gods way of looking at things is far higher than us humans.
3. No, I don't think they would know best. The new covenant meant the jews were no longer Gods chosen people. Modern day judaism is severly tainted with man made traditions and laws, as it was in Jesus day.
4. The prohibitation on eating fat went out with the Mosaic law. Remember the apostles words in Acts chapter 15: 28 For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU, except these necessary things, 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!" Its this verse that shows that God still feels the same way about blood, even though the Mosaic law was now non existant. As for why JWs eat blood in meat, my view is, all meat has a small amount of blood left in it, because it simply wouldn't be possible to get it all out. Even kosher meat still has a little bit left, as I understand it. And God would have known this when he expressly told Noah that humans could now start eating animals. As for eating steaks with blood, I personally would be careful when eating or ordering steak because as you say, sometimes the meat can be bloody. Good question tho.
5. The link didn't work and i couldn't look up the article you refer to. Charles Russell said a lot of things that JWs have since realised weren't quite what the scriptures were trying to say, as did Russell himself. The question you've got to ask is, what scriptures did he cite to back up his point? I suspect he may have said because the ruling in Acts on not having blood was made after the elders went to see them after a big dispute, so the ruling was made to help with the difficulties involved with the transition from one law to another?
6. As I understand it the ban on blood has more scriptual backing than the ban on vaccines. I know the WTS would not turn around and say, "we realise the ban on blood was wrong" because it goes against the scriptures. It has been explained to my satisfaction and for that reason I would be very shaken if the GB changed their view on blood. Regarding vaccinations, be careful how much faith you place in the medical profession, especially in the area of vaccinations. You state that many JWs may have died by following the council of the GB at the time, and that "small pox has been completely eradicated from the world as a result of the vaccine" when critising the WTS for banning them. Yet what do the facts show? An article recently made the following observations:
The consensus among leading medical historians that have studied the question have maintained that the eradication of the zymotic, or "filth" diseases, like cholera, dysentery, typhus, plague, in the past that are popularly attributed to mass vaccination campaigns, had actually been due to improvements in diet, hygiene, sanitary measures, non-medical public health laws, and to a host of new non-medical technologies, like refrigeration, faster transportation, removing horse manure from cities, and the like (McKinlay, 1977; McKeown, 1979; Moberg & Cohen, 1991; Oppenheimer, 1992; Dubos, 1959).
The CDC reported (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, July 30, 1999, 48:621-628) that improvements in sanitation, water quality, and hygiene had been the most important factors in control of infectious diseases in the past century. Although vaccines were mentioned, they were not included among the major factors.
One of the conclusions in Thomas McKeown's seminal work, The Modern Rise of Populations (1976, also endorsed by a Lancet editorial, 2/1/75), was that the decline in mortality in the 18th and 19th centuries was essentially due to the reduction in deaths from infectious diseases, and that it was not the result of immunizations. Similar studies by scholars John and Sonia McKinlay (1977) shows that almost all the increase in human lifespan since the year 1900 is due to reductions in infectious disease, with medical intervention (of all kinds) accounting for only about 3 percent of that reduction. According to World Health Statistics Annual, 1973-76, Vol.2, "there has been a steady decline of infectious diseases in most developing countries regardless of the percentage of immunizations administered in these countries."
Not only had poor sanitation and nutrition lain the foundation for disease, it was also compulsory smallpox vaccination campaigns in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that played a major role in decimating the populations of Japan (48,000 deaths), England and Wales (44,840 deaths, after 97 percent of the population had been vaccinated), Scotland, Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, Holland, Italy, India (3 million -- all vaccinated), Australia, Germany (124,000 deaths), Prussia (69,000 deaths -- all re-vaccinated), and the Philippines. The epidemics ended in cities where smallpox vaccinations were either discontinued or never begun, and also after sanitary reforms were instituted (most notably in Munich -- 1880, Leicester -- 1878, Barcelona -- 1804, Alicante -- 1827, India -- 1906, etc).
In many nations, mortalities from smallpox hadn't begun to decline until the citizenry revolted against compulsory smallpox vaccination laws.
By 1919, England and Wales had become one of the least vaccinated countries, and had only 28 deaths from smallpox, out of a population of 37.8 million people. By contrast, during that same year, out of a population of 10 million -- all triply vaccinated over the prior 6 years -- the Philippine Islands registered 47,368 deaths from smallpox
Did the WTS really cause people to die from smallpox because they at that time believed vaccinations were unscriptual? It may not be quite as bad as people like to make out. Anyway I'm being a bit off topic!
I hope these answer your questions, thanks for asking them.
why are jws so against blood transfustions, do they not see that this is exactly the oppositie of what jesus taught.
jesus taught that healing was allowed on the sabath, even though if violated the rule of not working on the sabath, he was teaching that in the event of an emergency life is more important than the law.
how would a jw feel if a loved one died and then 2 months later the wt said new light told them that transfusions are ok. (do not say this will not happen, becasue they originally said vaccinations were a direct violation of the everlasting covenant with god and must be avoided, now they say vaccines are good.
If we use your logic that the old testament in exodus says we should not work on the sabbath and this does not mean healing acording to you (even thought the early jews felt it was)
According to me? God never outlawed healing on the sabbath, there is no-where in the scriptures that indicates this. The whole point of the sabbath was it was a provision from God to provide his people with rest, giving them physical and spiritual rejuvination, that was the idea, that was, if you like, the spirit of the Sabbath.
Let me spell it out to you:
Your whole original argument is flawed because there was no law about healing on the sabbath for Jesus to break.
The law about not eating the blood God reinforces many times in the old testement. He explains how detestable it is to him that anyone should consume blood. This is again reinforced in Acts when it is reported that abstainance from blood is still a requirement for those wishing to follow Christ.
Its when we look at the principles God gives for not eating the blood, that we can see that would also include injecting it into our veins.
why are jws so against blood transfustions, do they not see that this is exactly the oppositie of what jesus taught.
jesus taught that healing was allowed on the sabath, even though if violated the rule of not working on the sabath, he was teaching that in the event of an emergency life is more important than the law.
how would a jw feel if a loved one died and then 2 months later the wt said new light told them that transfusions are ok. (do not say this will not happen, becasue they originally said vaccinations were a direct violation of the everlasting covenant with god and must be avoided, now they say vaccines are good.
above learntoswim has claimed that working on the sabath was a law made by man and not God and jesus was mocking the pharases by not following it. However this is not true the law of not working on the sabath was from God himself.
oh for goodness sake i didn't say that not working on the sabbath day was a law made by man, i said not healing on the sabbath was a law made by man, read it again, i said:
the law you refer to, that of not healing on the sabbath was a man made rule. The Jewish religious leaders had made tons of arbitrary rules that were based on nothing more than the tradition of man. So by breaking the law, Jesus was simply defying the Pharisees and their man made traditions, not breaking Gods law because of an emergency.
I fully agree that working on the sabbath day is against the Mosaic law, its in the bible for all to see as you pointed out. But that didn't rule out doing anything at all. In fact the priests were to continue their duties even on a sabbath day. Jesus recognised the spirit of the sabbath law.
And when I said he was defying the Pharisses i didn't mean he was doing it to actually mock them. I meant it seems that he did it because he wanted to heal the man, regardless of what their thoughts on the matter were, rather than doing it because it was an emergency (in fact was it even an emergency? is the event you refer to the time when he approached a man who had been ill for 38 years?).
why are jws so against blood transfustions, do they not see that this is exactly the oppositie of what jesus taught.
jesus taught that healing was allowed on the sabath, even though if violated the rule of not working on the sabath, he was teaching that in the event of an emergency life is more important than the law.
how would a jw feel if a loved one died and then 2 months later the wt said new light told them that transfusions are ok. (do not say this will not happen, becasue they originally said vaccinations were a direct violation of the everlasting covenant with god and must be avoided, now they say vaccines are good.
In resposnse to that argument that some one posted earlier on how they would respond, if you read the verse prior to that in mathew 16:24 jesus says take up your cross and follow me, by saying this supports the jw position is wrong because following jesus would be, as i said in the first post, to not let a law override the importance of life just as he did with the sabath rule
the law you refer to, that of not healing on the sabbath was a man made rule. The Jewish religious leaders had made tons of arbitrary rules that were based on nothing more than the tradition of man. So by breaking the law, Jesus was simply defying the Pharisees and their man made traditions, not breaking Gods law because of an emergency.
why are jws so against blood transfustions, do they not see that this is exactly the oppositie of what jesus taught.
jesus taught that healing was allowed on the sabath, even though if violated the rule of not working on the sabath, he was teaching that in the event of an emergency life is more important than the law.
how would a jw feel if a loved one died and then 2 months later the wt said new light told them that transfusions are ok. (do not say this will not happen, becasue they originally said vaccinations were a direct violation of the everlasting covenant with god and must be avoided, now they say vaccines are good.
this is exactly the oppositie of what jesus taught. Jesus taught that healing was allowed on the sabath, even though if violated the rule of not working on the sabath, he was teaching that in the event of an emergency life is more important than the law
Well I think they would quote the following, where Jesus explains that following him means placing the value of our life below what he requires of us.
(Matthew 16:25) 25
For whoever wants to save his soul will lose it; but whoever loses his soul for my sake will find it. . .
