Posts by JosephAlward

122

Zev's UN/WTS Scandal Web Site - Part 2

by hawkaw in

jw
friends

http://www.geocities.com/plowbitch69/.

over 1,440 hits in a few weeks..

woooooohoooooo!!!!!

JosephAlward

First of all, let me thank Saint Satan and Six for their efforts; I now have a better understanding not only of the UN issue, but of Watchtower idealogy.

What is upsetting is the wt act of signing the paper, saying they agree w un ideals and also egreeing to propagate those goals. This is the big bogey.

I still have a few questions.

Does there exist a copy on the web of a paper signed by the governing body on which it is stated that the signers of the document agree with the ideals of the United Nations? Zev's site is temporarily down, so I can't look for this document, if it's there.

If the answer to this question is Yes, then I think all here agree that governing body was lying. Now the question becomes, if a JW had similarly lied to a government agency, would he or she have been disfellowshipped? If the answer to this question is Yes, then you all have the right to be outraged, in my opinion. On the other hand, if you think the answer is No, then I don't see any reason for anger.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

122

Zev's UN/WTS Scandal Web Site - Part 2

by hawkaw in

jw
friends

http://www.geocities.com/plowbitch69/.

over 1,440 hits in a few weeks..

woooooohoooooo!!!!!

JosephAlward

Well, let me ask this, Outlaw: Would the Watchtower have disfellowshipped any JW who used the UN libraries? Has it already done so? If so, then I will concede that the Governing Body is guilty as charged, and should be condemned.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

122

Zev's UN/WTS Scandal Web Site - Part 2

by hawkaw in

jw
friends

http://www.geocities.com/plowbitch69/.

over 1,440 hits in a few weeks..

woooooohoooooo!!!!!

JosephAlward

Dino,

Thanks for the constructive comment.
.....................................

To others:

In a previous post I wrote,

Then such public pronouncements about the good things the United Nations has done predate the current "scandal"? If so, then why is anyone upset at the recent revelation that the Watchtower availed itself of the opportunity to use some of the resources of the United Nations? This doesn't make sense.

Someone responds to me:

You're such a jackass!!!
The quotes on the JW website quote articles which have been published by the Society subsequent to their association with the UN/DPI.
You obviously have NOT done your homework.

Alward responds: Are you saying that it's NOT true that the six articles mentioning the UN favorably do NOT predate the current scandal? Did this person misread my comment above, or do I not understand his response? I thought the recent revelation about the UN affiliation was more recent than the articles in question. Am I wrong about that, or is the other person the one who hasn't done his homework--or perhaps failed to understand the meaning of the word "predate"?

Now, if it's true that the articles from 1998 and 2000 which mention the UN favorably do, indeed, predate the recent revelation that the Watchtower obtained a "library card," then I STILL fail to understand why so many people are so upset at learning that the Watchtower has given the appearance of accepting the goals of the UN.

Please understand that I am not saying that JWs don't have the right to be upset at the apparent hyprocrisy of the governing body. What I don't understand is why there wasn't a furor back in 1998, when the first article favorable to the UN appeared. I hope no one will answer back with insults and words containing "ass" in them; I've had enough of that. All I want to is learn more about the emotions surrounding this issue and to have explained to me--calmly, if possible--why people are upset NOW, but apparently weren't upset THEN, when those articles came out.

This is not my only concern. I would also like to have someone explain to me (again, let it be someone who is willing to respond without anger or insults, if possible) why Jehovah would not approve of a Witness lying to satan. If the forum believes that the JW IS justified in deceiving the most evil force in the universe, then why should it not be appropriate for the governing body to lie to the United Nations--to mislead its agents into believing that the signers of the papers subscribed to the goals of the United Nations?

Now, we perhaps cannot know what was in the minds of the signatories to the agreements, renewed each year, apparently. But, should they not be forgiven--indeed, applauded, for outwitting the purple beast and using its resources? If not, why not?

I hope the members of this forum who have grown impatient with my questions will think of me they way they would if this were a courtroom, they are the prosecutors, and I am the jury who brings to this discussion an open mind. Show me your evidence, and I'll let you know what I think--if anyone is interested. Keep in mind, however, that no jury is likely to look favorably on prosecutors who shout at it, scold it, and call it names.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

122

Zev's UN/WTS Scandal Web Site - Part 2

by hawkaw in

jw
friends

http://www.geocities.com/plowbitch69/.

over 1,440 hits in a few weeks..

woooooohoooooo!!!!!

JosephAlward

BTW, if you go to the official site for JW's and do a search for UN, you will find a list of quotes in favor of UN activities.

Then such public pronouncements about the good things the United Nations has done predate the current "scandal"? If so, then why is anyone upset at the recent revelation that the Watchtower availed itself of the opportunity to use some of the resources of the United Nations? This doesn't make sense.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

109

Matthew Makes Another Error

by JosephAlward in

the 1 chronicles author lists the descendents of david; some of these, in order, are jehoshaphat, jehoram, ahaziah, joash, amaziah, azariah, jotham, ahaz, hezekiah, manasseh (1 chronicles 3:10-13 niv).

the matthew author contradicts this genealogy; he leaves out the four consecutive descendents underlined above, and in their place puts uzziah, who he says is jehorams son.

(matthew 1:8-10 niv).

JosephAlward

Pom's recent post about the magic sevens is nonsense and unworthy of comment. If this is all he has to offer, he should be ignored.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

109

Matthew Makes Another Error

by JosephAlward in

the 1 chronicles author lists the descendents of david; some of these, in order, are jehoshaphat, jehoram, ahaziah, joash, amaziah, azariah, jotham, ahaz, hezekiah, manasseh (1 chronicles 3:10-13 niv).

the matthew author contradicts this genealogy; he leaves out the four consecutive descendents underlined above, and in their place puts uzziah, who he says is jehorams son.

(matthew 1:8-10 niv).

JosephAlward

Good question, Cyllon. If it's true that Matthew intentionally left out those three names, and it's by no means clear that he did this on purpose, then this is not an error. Instead, it should be called a deliberate deception. Matthew told his readers something he knew was NOT true: there were not fourteen generations between David and Jesus; there were seventeen. He knew the truth and didn't tell it, and he didn't tell it because he wanted to create the impression that Jesus was, indeed, the messiah. How else could one explain the divine pattern of "sevens" that linked David to Jesus? That would have been Matthew's thinking if the omission was deliberate.

Now, if the omissions were deliberate, then Matthew didn't know what the actual genealogy was, and therefore he wasn't inspired by God--who knows everything--when he wrote the Bible.

Thus, either way, the Bible is wrong.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

109

Matthew Makes Another Error

by JosephAlward in

the 1 chronicles author lists the descendents of david; some of these, in order, are jehoshaphat, jehoram, ahaziah, joash, amaziah, azariah, jotham, ahaz, hezekiah, manasseh (1 chronicles 3:10-13 niv).

the matthew author contradicts this genealogy; he leaves out the four consecutive descendents underlined above, and in their place puts uzziah, who he says is jehorams son.

(matthew 1:8-10 niv).

JosephAlward

One fact is VERY clear, 3 were PURPOSELY removed exactly in the middle of the middle of 3 sets of generations...

I think Pom may be doing what got Matthew into so much trouble: he seems to be attaching mystical or divine significance to a number. In Matthew's case, it was the number "seven," in Pom's case, it seems to be "three."

Pom evidently thinks that God inspired Matthew to erase "exactly" three names out of the middle of (exactly) three generations, because God was planting a divine message there that only faithful folks like Pom can read.

If you can read the message from God, Pom, will you share it with us?

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

122

Zev's UN/WTS Scandal Web Site - Part 2

by hawkaw in

jw
friends

http://www.geocities.com/plowbitch69/.

over 1,440 hits in a few weeks..

woooooohoooooo!!!!!

JosephAlward

I think our debate has unraveled and is moving unproductively in the wrong direction, so I'll try to refocus the discussion.

I think that most faithful Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jehovah would want them to lie to the purple beast, if the opportunity presented itself, especially if such deceit would save more souls for Jehovah.

Do you agree with this?

Now, assuming you do agree with this, why do you think it is wrong for the governing body to lie to the United Nations--the purple beast, and to pretend to accept the goals of the beast?

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

122

Zev's UN/WTS Scandal Web Site - Part 2

by hawkaw in

jw
friends

http://www.geocities.com/plowbitch69/.

over 1,440 hits in a few weeks..

woooooohoooooo!!!!!

JosephAlward

Dino wrote,

You see, the WT could NEVER say that their machinations were really just a "tactic to defeat the purple beast". They have ALWAYS said that Jehovah would do so.

I challenged Dino to support this, and he wrote back with this quote from the Watchtower:

"And the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin,... It will crush and put an end to all these(failing human)(parentheses theirs) kingdoms

This does not say that Jehovah alone will crush the purple beast. Just as Jehovah saves souls by having his publishers go door to door, then so does Jehovah destroy the beast through the efforts of his organization.

I'm afraid your references fail to support your argument, Dino.

You didn't answer my question, Dino: Do you believe it is proper for Jehovah's Witnesses to lie to satan?

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

122

Zev's UN/WTS Scandal Web Site - Part 2

by hawkaw in

jw
friends

http://www.geocities.com/plowbitch69/.

over 1,440 hits in a few weeks..

woooooohoooooo!!!!!

JosephAlward

The WTS for years have called all other religions - false religion - and these religions ride the back of the evil beat (the great harlot) because they support the evil beast. The WTS have taken great pains at slaming all christian religions about this.
Now we find out the WTS has been doing the exact same thing.

That's what I don't understand. WHAT has the Watchtower done that shows it wanted to "support the evil beast"? If you say that they signed a piece of paper saying that it agreed with the mission of the Jehovah Witnesses--I'll concede this point for the sake of argument, even though I've yet to see a copy of such a document--that STILL doesn't show hypocrisy, in my view. It might just show that the Watchtower was willing to lie to the purple beast in order to have access to the tools which might help it fight against it. As I asked Dino in the previous post, do you really think that lying to satan is wrong?

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html