NOTE: TO READ THE FULL CONTEXT OF QUOTES CITED CLICK HERE1. "3W" brings up the fact that the Society has registered other NGO's in several countries, such as the "Former Soviet Republic of Georgia" etc. He does another little word play here when he says Clearly, just because an organization is an “NGO” does not mean it is automatically anything to do with the United Nations. This is true that a general NGO (non governmental organization) is not automatically involved with the UN but an associated one is. He doesn't tell us that such registered (associated is the correct word) NGO's (branches really) of the Watchtower are in fact involved with the UN (and other political agencies) just like Bethel NYC was/is, and to this very day. This reality will be addressed in the next chapter.
2. We are told that The UN staff member who wrote that widely-circulated e-mail is wrong. On the one hand the UN representative says the requirements did not change since 1991, yet the UN's own website and scans of forms we have in our possession tells us the exact opposite. Once again this is an "us" verses "them" setup. As we have seen in previous chapters, such a statement from "3W" simply is not true. The requirements for association haven't changed since 1991, but there was a "relationship" change in 1996 hence the 1996/31. This resolution gave associated NGO's more of a presence at the UN, allowing them to be involved in a more formal partnership. "3W" apparently hopes that you'll blur all of this together.
3. The question is asked Why would the UN send a “welcome” booklet to all of the existing NGOs every year? The reality is that every NGO has to reapply every year, hence the accreditation form. To me it's common sense, but to be sure, I called the UN to verify this as true.
4. "3W" brings up a statement from the UN-I believe referring to the 2002 March 18th UN letter-that says they don't trick organizations into becoming NGO's. For starters, we already know that the WBTS was already an NGO, so I'm not sure of his choice of wording here. He says that it's a "strawman" argument without knowing the content of the letter or phone call this UN letter was addressing. I know of no one that believes or thinks that the WBTS was tricked into joining the DPI.
5. We are asked Doesn't the Watchtower teach that the UN is the unclean thing and should not be touched? We already addressed this in chapter 9. Refer to the 1952 Watchtower January 15th page 54.
6. "3W" says The actions of the Society were clearly innocent and it's letters regarding the matter honest, as the evidence in this work shows. The ones doing the stumbling are the apostates who twist the situation and present misleading evidence to others. To illustrate: if I start slandering a brother in your congregation by using selective evidence, mis-applying quotes, and hiding all contrary evidence, who is doing the stumbling? Is it the brother, or myself? By now, it should be clear who's using selective evidence and misapplying quotes.
7. "3W" brought up the hypothetical question If the Society is innocent, how come they haven't sued the United Nations for lying? This is another straw man argument: if the Society is innocent how come that...? The fact is the UN has not lied or misled the Society in any way, therefore there are no grounds for a lawsuit whatsoever. It's interesting that he now says that the UN hasn't misled the Society in any way, when in previous chapters he said they were lying to hide their "incompetence" etc. Refer to chapter 7 if necessary. I've never actually heard anyone assert that the WBTS should sue the UN for anything. Where does he come up with this?
8. He mentions that the DPI says “The financial records of the organization must be turned over to the UNDPI for review.” He says Critics try to twist this requirement to make it look like something sinister — as if the Watchtower Society were somehow giving control of their finances over to the UN, when this is really nothing but crazy, ignorant paranoia. Yet another red herring, no one is saying (that I've ever heard) this means that the WBTS is giving the UN control of their finances. I would like to see direct quotes of where people are saying this. Just another rabbit trail in my opinion.
9. He brings up how he got his data but the data is based on false reasoning. In this chart he compares how many times the Awake references God's Kingdom being the only hope of mankind verses the United Nations. The WBTS didn't have to say that the UN is the "only hope" in order to support the "Scarlet Colored Beast", but "3W" makes it seem that such language or lack thereof would prove or disprove the Watchtower's support and promotion of the United Nations.
10 *sigh*
2. We are told that The UN staff member who wrote that widely-circulated e-mail is wrong. On the one hand the UN representative says the requirements did not change since 1991, yet the UN's own website and scans of forms we have in our possession tells us the exact opposite. Once again this is an "us" verses "them" setup. As we have seen in previous chapters, such a statement from "3W" simply is not true. The requirements for association haven't changed since 1991, but there was a "relationship" change in 1996 hence the 1996/31. This resolution gave associated NGO's more of a presence at the UN, allowing them to be involved in a more formal partnership. "3W" apparently hopes that you'll blur all of this together.
3. The question is asked Why would the UN send a “welcome” booklet to all of the existing NGOs every year? The reality is that every NGO has to reapply every year, hence the accreditation form. To me it's common sense, but to be sure, I called the UN to verify this as true.
4. "3W" brings up a statement from the UN-I believe referring to the 2002 March 18th UN letter-that says they don't trick organizations into becoming NGO's. For starters, we already know that the WBTS was already an NGO, so I'm not sure of his choice of wording here. He says that it's a "strawman" argument without knowing the content of the letter or phone call this UN letter was addressing. I know of no one that believes or thinks that the WBTS was tricked into joining the DPI.
5. We are asked Doesn't the Watchtower teach that the UN is the unclean thing and should not be touched? We already addressed this in chapter 9. Refer to the 1952 Watchtower January 15th page 54.
6. "3W" says The actions of the Society were clearly innocent and it's letters regarding the matter honest, as the evidence in this work shows. The ones doing the stumbling are the apostates who twist the situation and present misleading evidence to others. To illustrate: if I start slandering a brother in your congregation by using selective evidence, mis-applying quotes, and hiding all contrary evidence, who is doing the stumbling? Is it the brother, or myself? By now, it should be clear who's using selective evidence and misapplying quotes.
7. "3W" brought up the hypothetical question If the Society is innocent, how come they haven't sued the United Nations for lying? This is another straw man argument: if the Society is innocent how come that...? The fact is the UN has not lied or misled the Society in any way, therefore there are no grounds for a lawsuit whatsoever. It's interesting that he now says that the UN hasn't misled the Society in any way, when in previous chapters he said they were lying to hide their "incompetence" etc. Refer to chapter 7 if necessary. I've never actually heard anyone assert that the WBTS should sue the UN for anything. Where does he come up with this?
8. He mentions that the DPI says “The financial records of the organization must be turned over to the UNDPI for review.” He says Critics try to twist this requirement to make it look like something sinister — as if the Watchtower Society were somehow giving control of their finances over to the UN, when this is really nothing but crazy, ignorant paranoia. Yet another red herring, no one is saying (that I've ever heard) this means that the WBTS is giving the UN control of their finances. I would like to see direct quotes of where people are saying this. Just another rabbit trail in my opinion.
9. He brings up how he got his data but the data is based on false reasoning. In this chart he compares how many times the Awake references God's Kingdom being the only hope of mankind verses the United Nations. The WBTS didn't have to say that the UN is the "only hope" in order to support the "Scarlet Colored Beast", but "3W" makes it seem that such language or lack thereof would prove or disprove the Watchtower's support and promotion of the United Nations.
10 *sigh*
No comments:
Post a Comment