Posts by JosephAlward

58

Question about WTS/UN scandal

by gilwarrior in

ok we know that the wts was, until recently, associated with the un even through the wts clearly condemns it.

of course the reason they gave for associating with the un is lame.. my question is this: what do you think is the real reason that the wts decided associate themselves with the un?.

i don't think that anyone has ever answered that question.

JosephAlward

If someone besides Hartley wishes to present the "Portuguese" argument in a dispassionate, objective manner, I would be happy to try to rebut it.

Hartley makes repeated references to my education and my profession, even though I've never breathed a word about it on this or any other JW forum. I've never told anyone on this forum what I do, and I've never said anything about my education, or lack of it, because it doesn't matter. But, for some reason, he seems preoccupied with it, having made remarks about it in six different posts over the last week.

I've never acknowledged those comments, but he keeps coming back with more of them. Not one other member has ever seen any reason to mention my profession even once, and indeed, why should they care? What matters is the argument, not the man making the argument. The argument either stands, or falls, on its own. I fail to see what Hartley's repeated reference to my education or my profession has to do with refuting my arguments, and his continual reference to it kind of creeps me out. Especially after he said he was done with this thread, then he came back 20 nanoseconds later.

Until I better understand what seems to be his unnatural and unprovoked preoccupation, I'll be inclined to believe that he is not completely centered emotionally. Thus, I would prefer to argue the Portuguese question with someone else. In fairness, I will finish whatever threads in which Hartley and I are currently active, however.

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

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

58

Question about WTS/UN scandal

by gilwarrior in

ok we know that the wts was, until recently, associated with the un even through the wts clearly condemns it.

of course the reason they gave for associating with the un is lame.. my question is this: what do you think is the real reason that the wts decided associate themselves with the un?.

i don't think that anyone has ever answered that question.

JosephAlward

Hartley claims documenting research interests would have been the benign remedy:

for JWs would ask - well, then why did you register instead of taking the benign approach of simply documenting your research interests?

I think the answer to that question may be found in the words of the Head Librarian:

Passes are granted to serious researchers upon presentation of a letter with the raised seal of your institution and subject to clearance by both the Library and UN Security.

Perhaps the notion of having a lowly librarian pass judgment on the worthiness of the research interests of God's organization might have been more distasteful to the Watchtower than getting on the list of affiliated NGOs. It seems that there is a measure of discomfort either way, so it's not so cut and dried.

Add to that the possibility that the passes to graduate students and other research institutions may not have been for a full year, as is the case for affiliated NGOs, and we might imagine that the balance tips in favor of affialiation.

Finally, the Watchtower may not wish to portray itself or its representives as a collection of "serious researchers." The association with the worldliness of university scholars might have been more than they wished to endure.

Thus, I can think of at least three answers the Watchtower could give to questioning Jehovah's Witnesses. I can see the downside to either path followed by the Watchtower: affiliation, or becoming "serious researchers."

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

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

58

Question about WTS/UN scandal

by gilwarrior in

ok we know that the wts was, until recently, associated with the un even through the wts clearly condemns it.

of course the reason they gave for associating with the un is lame.. my question is this: what do you think is the real reason that the wts decided associate themselves with the un?.

i don't think that anyone has ever answered that question.

JosephAlward

Alward wrote,

The alternative meaning is more benign. What the Watchtower could have said is,

"it became necessary either to present documents proving a legitimate research interest, or to register as an NGO to have continued access.

Hartley accuses me of misrepresentation:

Actually, you are misrepresenting the WTS by putting words into their mouth. That you do it to make them look good is no more honest than the supposedly deliberate misrepresentation that you accuseed me of.

There's a big difference between what I did and what Hartley did; I made it clear that the words I was writing were the words the Watchtower could have said; it was clear to the readers that added words were my own, not the Watchtower's, so no deception can be alleged. On the other hand, when Hartley said that the main librarian "was confident," he did NOT tell his readers that the word "confident" was HIS word, not the librarian's.

I'll let forum members be the judge of who is guity of misrepresentation.

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

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

58

Question about WTS/UN scandal

by gilwarrior in

ok we know that the wts was, until recently, associated with the un even through the wts clearly condemns it.

of course the reason they gave for associating with the un is lame.. my question is this: what do you think is the real reason that the wts decided associate themselves with the un?.

i don't think that anyone has ever answered that question.

JosephAlward

Saint Satan,

I understand why some members think it is serious. To many members, the affiliation was an astonishing act of betrayal and hypocrisy. The teachings against the United Nations made such a strong impression on one forum member, that he would cross the street rather than walk past the United Nations building; it's no wonder that so many people are up in arms after learning of the affiliation. However, being angry at the Watchtower for whatever personal wrongs or betrayals were suffered at the Watchtower's hands is not sufficient grounds for exaggerating perceived wrongs, which is what I fear is going on with accusations about the affiliation.

Thanks for the interest.

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

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

58

Question about WTS/UN scandal

by gilwarrior in

ok we know that the wts was, until recently, associated with the un even through the wts clearly condemns it.

of course the reason they gave for associating with the un is lame.. my question is this: what do you think is the real reason that the wts decided associate themselves with the un?.

i don't think that anyone has ever answered that question.

JosephAlward

but in that year it became necessary to register as an NGO to have continued access.

Hartley evidently still wants the above words to mean that the Watchtower was claiming that the only way to have continued access was by affilation. As I've said before, this is one possible meaning; it is the one Hartley and other accusers prefer because it makes liars out of the Watchtower.

The alternative meaning is more benign. What the Watchtower could have said is,

"it became necessary either to present documents proving a legitimate research interest, or to register as an NGO to have continued access.

But, then they would have to add another sentence explaining why they chose the second path, and not the first, so they may just have given us the short version without thinking about it too hard. They can be faulted for the imprecision, as I've noted before, but it is too great a leap to brand the statement as a lie; it is just an incomplete explanation which allows for the possibility of lying. However, a possible lie is not the same as the big LIE which forum members have been so fervently advertising.

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

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

58

Question about WTS/UN scandal

by gilwarrior in

ok we know that the wts was, until recently, associated with the un even through the wts clearly condemns it.

of course the reason they gave for associating with the un is lame.. my question is this: what do you think is the real reason that the wts decided associate themselves with the un?.

i don't think that anyone has ever answered that question.

JosephAlward

Nice to hear from you again, Saint Satan.

Studying brainwashing methods and having home bible study sessions will not provide evidence that the Watchtower lied about its reason for affiliation. Furthermore, I am already convinced that the Watchtower engages in thought control, ruins lives, and intentionally breaks apart loving families. I don't need to have Jehovah's Witnesses into my home to know that the Watchtower is among the most destructive legal institutions in the world.

Thanks for the comments.

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

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

58

Question about WTS/UN scandal

by gilwarrior in

ok we know that the wts was, until recently, associated with the un even through the wts clearly condemns it.

of course the reason they gave for associating with the un is lame.. my question is this: what do you think is the real reason that the wts decided associate themselves with the un?.

i don't think that anyone has ever answered that question.

JosephAlward

In an earlier post I had absent-mindedly called Saint Satan "Saint Susan," then corrected myself with an apology. Lionel Hartley thinks this is a laughing-out-loud faux pas, evidently, and that my apology was unacceptable.

LOL! And you think that makes it ok - to refer to nonexistent people and then merely apologize?

Does he really think that I deliberately made up a fake name to mislead forum members into thinking that the list of those who misrepresented facts was longer than it really was?

I bring this up to show forum members what happens when someone loses their balance in an argument. Hartley was caught in a deliberate misrepresentation made for the purpose of strengthening his argument, and he lashes out with feigned laughter at my innocent mistake and apology, then he runs away.

What happened to Hartley will happen times ten when trusting forum members take their UN "case" to loved family members or friends trapped in the Watchtower. They will find their facts thrown back in their faces, declared not only "apostates," but foolishly misinformed ones at that, and this will surely make reconciliation all the more problematic. Be sure of your facts before you go to court, or you will be laughed out of it.

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

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

58

Question about WTS/UN scandal

by gilwarrior in

ok we know that the wts was, until recently, associated with the un even through the wts clearly condemns it.

of course the reason they gave for associating with the un is lame.. my question is this: what do you think is the real reason that the wts decided associate themselves with the un?.

i don't think that anyone has ever answered that question.

JosephAlward

I'm not surprised Hartley abandoned this thread; he's afraid if he continues I will show the forum some more of his misreprentations.

Here's another one:

The Head Librarian and also the letter higher up in this thread have confirmed that it was not necessary to be an NGO to get a library card

Hartley evidently wants trusting forum members to believe that the Watchtower claimed that it was necessary to be an (affiliated) NGO to get a library card. This is not true.

We been over and over this issue, but Lionel seems deliberately to be ignoring what everyone else seems already to have accepted as fact: The Watchtower never said that it affiliated because that was the only way to gain access to the library. It said quite clearly that it only affiliated because it wanted the access, not that it affiliated because that was the only way to gain access. The difference in meaning has immense implications, and Hartley seems deliberately to want forum members to attach to the Watchtower's words a meaning that was clearly never intended.

All forum members, I think, would be well advised to ask themselves what they think they "know" about the Watchtower-UN affair, and why they think they know it. They may find that the facts to back up what they believe do not exist, and that could be because they have trusted others to think and interpret for them. Perhaps old habits die hard.

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

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

58

Question about WTS/UN scandal

by gilwarrior in

ok we know that the wts was, until recently, associated with the un even through the wts clearly condemns it.

of course the reason they gave for associating with the un is lame.. my question is this: what do you think is the real reason that the wts decided associate themselves with the un?.

i don't think that anyone has ever answered that question.

JosephAlward

This thread has been accessed fifty-two times in the past two hours, so someone other than Hartley must be paying attention.

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

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

58

Question about WTS/UN scandal

by gilwarrior in

ok we know that the wts was, until recently, associated with the un even through the wts clearly condemns it.

of course the reason they gave for associating with the un is lame.. my question is this: what do you think is the real reason that the wts decided associate themselves with the un?.

i don't think that anyone has ever answered that question.

JosephAlward

My apologies to Saint Satan, whom I mistakenly called "Susan."

Now, in regards to the propriety of falsely characterizing another person's statement:

Unless that person has actually said, "I am confident that there were no changes," one should never lead others to believe that she said she was "confident."

There is a huge difference between saying, "I am not aware of any changes," and, "I am confident there were no changes." The latter misrepresentation would lead trusting readers to believe that she was so certain of her beliefs that she wanted to emphasize her certainty by using the word "confident."

I am sure everyone except perhaps Hartley would agree with that. Thus, Hartley seemingly deliberately distorted the Head Librarian's words to make his case stronger, and that is unconscionable. Am I the only one on this forum who believes this was wrong?

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

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