Posts by wannahelp

i started reading the november 15th watchtower this mroning.. you guys really have to read it.. on page 21 there is an article entitled, "how do you handle hypocrisy?".

in light of all of the things that have transpired during the last month and a half concerning all of the talk about the wt and their involvement with the united nations, i read it right away.

one of the paragraphs has a statement that reads: first, we must learn to identify hypocrites.

wannahelp

I heard a rumor that the very same Nov 15 WT has an article in it that bashes the UN? Is that true (I don't have a WT available)..

Is it possible for you to scan the Hypocrisy article for us? And if there is also an article on the UN, that too??

Thanks a bunch..

46

LOOKING FOR THE TRUTH - I AM NEW HERE

by erik in

jw
friends

hi, my name is erik.

this is my first posting.

i was a witness from the age of 2-18. i was baptized in 1990 as a jehovah's witness.

wannahelp

Hi Erik,

Welcome to the board..

I assume you have Read Ray Franz' book, Crisis of Conscience, right?

If so, he pointed out alot of stuff in that book that you need to take a good hard look at (remove the fear, first and foremost)..

The JW's claim to be god's earthly channel of communications, right? That would mean that they have claimed to have spoken in God's name? Right? This being true, they have made prophetic errors in god's name. Check the bible, and you will see what God himself said of prphets that speak in his name:

-- Revised Standard Version --

Deuteronomy 18:20 - But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.'

Deuteronomy 18:22 - when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously, you need not be afraid of him.

Reread Crisis of Conscience and then cross reference all the statements Ray points out in his book with the actual literature from the organization.. You'll see that Ray is quoting directly from their literature..

You'll also see that the organization on many occasions has stated infatically that they are god's channel, only they can speak for god, etc.. etc.. etc..

Now, look at their prophecies they have made over the years.. How many of them have come true? NONE!

Then, to address your fear I say this (From the inspired word of GOD himself):

Deuteronomy 18:22 - when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously, you need not be afraid of him.

Erik: "You need not be afraid of him" (or them)

I'm sure others will have even more potent stuff to point out to you, but here is some food for thought...

11

NGO status let the WT inside

by Norm in

jw
friends

the wt representatives was definitely using the benefits of their ngo status.

imagine being in the same room as so many "babylon the great" representatives:.

commonwealth of australia.

wannahelp

From a quote from OutNFree on another thread..

NEUTRALITY

Definition: The position of those who do not take sides with or give support to either of two or more contending parties. It is a fact of ancient and moder-day history that in every national and under all circumstances true Christians have endeavored to maintain complete neutrality as to conflicts between factions of the world. They do not interfere with what others do about sharing in patriotic ceremonies, serving in the armed forces, joining a political party, running for a political office, or voting. But they themselves worship only Jehovah, the God of the Bible; they have dedicated their lives unreservedly to him and give their full support to his Kingdom.

-- Hmm, how can talking to politicians and trying to convince them of their "point" on religious freedom in any way be considered neutral?

-- Hmm, how can standing up to the french authorities who decided they are taxable (To the tune of $50,000,000 in back taxes), or standing up to the russian authorities trying to show they are a legit religion be neutral?

For that matter, I thought they claimed that at some point the "world" would turn on them and stop them from practicing their religion.. That would be a sign of the end, I thought (Sorry, not tooo well versed in this part of their theology).. What, are they themselves trying to keep the end from coming? <G>..

NEUTRALITY: There goes one of the "points" they use to prove they are the "true religion" :-)

Not to mention the fact that they themselves are keeping the end from coming, by constantly going against Jehovah and taking a stand in political matters of the governments of the world.. Oh, how angry Jehovah must be at them... I'm glad I'm not them <G>..

Am I correct in assuming that they believe the "world" will turn on them in the end and keep them from practicing their religion?

11

NGO status let the WT inside

by Norm in

jw
friends

the wt representatives was definitely using the benefits of their ngo status.

imagine being in the same room as so many "babylon the great" representatives:.

commonwealth of australia.

wannahelp

Ok tina,

I give..

What does this say?

"si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes"

11

NGO status let the WT inside

by Norm in

jw
friends

the wt representatives was definitely using the benefits of their ngo status.

imagine being in the same room as so many "babylon the great" representatives:.

commonwealth of australia.

wannahelp

Tina,

No, you are correct also.. They do take and never give back...

You were not on a side tangent at all.. That is correct..

I just also wanted to point out that it appears to me that they are involved in politics, no matter what they say!!!

The criteria for political involvment, along with anything else they do is simply "Because it can benefit me"..

11

NGO status let the WT inside

by Norm in

jw
friends

the wt representatives was definitely using the benefits of their ngo status.

imagine being in the same room as so many "babylon the great" representatives:.

commonwealth of australia.

wannahelp

Hi Tina,

Actually, if you ask me, the very fact that they were at this "commission" isn't a legal thing, it was a political thing.. They were trying to "lobby" to make sure the law supports their freedom of cult (oops, sorry, religion)..

They were talking to Senators and such... !!!!! The Lawmakers!!! (Not that I know much about Austrialian politics, but I assume a senator there is similiar to a senator here in the US..).. They were lobbying the lawmakers is what they were doing!!!!

That isn't using the laws, that's trying to influence the law.. That's politics if you ask me!!!!

11

NGO status let the WT inside

by Norm in

jw
friends

the wt representatives was definitely using the benefits of their ngo status.

imagine being in the same room as so many "babylon the great" representatives:.

commonwealth of australia.

wannahelp

Wow Norm!!! EXCELLENT!!!!

I just had to quote one of the JW's giving his testimony here:

--------------------------
Mr Toole—
I guess so, and I guess it is the same thing—you will disagree but yet you are the best of friends. That is the view we take. The fact that people do not necessarily share our particular understanding and they think, ‘Oh no, that is the not the way I want to
believe it,’ is fine. We are really trying to educate people and teach tolerance. That really is
getting at the very root cause of the problem. It is fanaticism that causes some of these
problems, where people have a singular view that their way is right and woe betide anybody
who disagrees with it. It gets to the stage, when you start having that elevated to a level of
government, where you have a very dangerous situation because then you are only one step
away from totalitarianism, where you have people in high places deciding what you can and
cannot believe on a whole host of things.

Or another quote, that hit's kinda home:

CHAIR—So if, for argument’s sake—heaven forbid—a terrorist bomb exploded and this building crumbled and we were all killed, there are people in this room who are Catholics, there are yourselves and there are those who have no faith at all. That is on the public record this morning. After the initial trauma and so on, it is likely there would be a memorial service. Would you join with other religions or churches in a joint memorial service for those who perished in this terrible tragedy or would you stand aside from that and have your
own totally separate service? I think this is what Senator Harradine was getting at.

Mr MacLean—We will take an example of what happened with that terrible train crash in Britain. Individuals certainly have a feeling of compassion and concern for those people who perished and we certainly want them to be remembered by God, as well as, naturally,
by their loved ones and so on. That would be an individual matter of choice. Some individuals from our people may want to go along and express condolences, and even say a prayer on behalf of those people that they might be remembered by God.

CHAIR—There were multidenominational commemorative services there.

Mr MacLean—Yes.

CHAIR—You are saying that your church as an organisation would not officially participate in that?

Mr MacLean—As an organisation we would probably not be there, no, but individuals have that right.

And yet a third quote:

Senator PAYNE—I have read in a number of the submissions a reference to voting. Do members of the church not vote?

Mr MacLean—No. We do not take sides politically; we avoid that. We maintain a neutral stand in regard to those things.

Senator SCHACHT—You do not vote?

Senator PAYNE—That is what he said.

Mr MacLean—No. We take advantage of the laws in each of the states in this country which allow people who have conscientious religious feelings not to vote if they wish not to.

Mr HOLLIS—Don’t you feel that you have a moral responsibility to vote?

Mr MacLean—I will just make this point: please do not feel that because we do not vote that we do not believe in order and the law and the support of Caesar, as the Bible terms it. We have a moral obligation to be strictly obedient to the law of the land. We support it and we believe it is correct to do that. We have a God-given right to do it and we should do it. But as far as supporting one party against another, we have never done that.

Mr HOLLIS—It is an interesting point and I do not want to labour it, but many people would argue that thousands of people in Timor lost their lives because they took advantage of their democratic right to vote. But I do not want to pursue that.

Mr Toole—In answer to that question—just so that you get a bit more of an overall picture—the world over we do not vote. We are neutral politically the world over.

Mr HOLLIS—We do not accept that, but that is—

Mr Toole—No, I am not asking you to, but of course it is nice that we can share those differences at the table. That is what we are all about. On the other hand, we do not go to war either. Hitler tried to get people to say, ‘Heil, Hitler.’ As far as religious organisations
were concerned, we were basically the only religion in the whole of Germany that stood its ground. He put our members in concentration camps, tried to exterminate us, and thousands lost their lives, but they would not compromise because they felt that killing people was
incompatible with being a Christian. The world over we are endeavouring to be neutral. To take Mr MacLean’s comment just a little further, we do conscientiously do what all governments would like their citizens to do—we pay their taxes and obey their laws.

There is one exception: if the government asks us to do something that we feel God has commanded us not to do, or vice versa, then we feel we have a prior obligation to obey God. That is the only limit on our obedience to governments. If all subjects of Australia, for
example, took that view it would be a very obedient country.

Senator PAYNE—We would possibly be out of a job.

Mr HOLLIS—Or it could go the other way. You make much of obeying the laws of the country, but it often is because of the laws of the country that people vote. If everyone decided not to vote, you may get laws in the country that you may have a little bit more
difficulty invoking. I personally think it is a bit of a cop-out when people use these arguments about not voting.

CHAIR—We are now into subjective judgment. We have asked the question and we have got the response, which is what we needed.
----------------------------------
Very interesting indeed...

I particularily like the "There is one exception: if the government asks us to do something that we feel God has commanded us not to do, or vice versa, then we feel we have a prior obligation to obey God. That is the only limit on our obedience to governments." quote....

I guess they felt god had commanded them to be present at this very political meeting expressing their views (basically, ehh, lobbying for their view).. God likes lobbiests.. Who would have thunk?