How do Jehovah's Witnesses respond to accusations of the Watchtower's involvement with the United Nations?

In my opinion, the United Nations issue is one of the most powerful things you can bring up to a Jehovah's Witness in providing evidence that the Watchtower is not a reliable guide for truth. Here is one way you can present this information:



Many JW's will not know how to respond to this information when shown. The usual reaction will consist of immediate denial and will never want to discuss this issue again. In fact, many JW's will end all contact with you at this point as they will suspect that you have been looking at "apostate literature," or worse, talking to apostates themselves. But the honest JW will take this information and investigate it. However, their search will very quickly end in vain when they realize that there is nothing in the Watchtower's literature (in particular, the CD Library) that addresses the accusation. Thus, in an act of desperation they will use the trusty google search engine to find out if any JW's online know anything about this. Here is what a google search of "Watchtower United Nations" will pull up:


(Click picture to enlarge)

If the JW is looking carefully, he will immediately disregard the first hit as an "apostate website," as the first thing one sees is the Watchtower riding the scarlet beast. However, if the JW is open minded, he will notice that the "Randy TV" website is filled with full documentation on the issue including official U.N. letters and scans.

The second hit contains the U.N. public letter in addressing the extent of the WT's involvement. The third hit is another "apostate" website that the JW will avoid. The fourth hit is a Wikipedia article that contains a basic overview of the Watchtower's history of views with the U.N. And if the JW hasn't given up already, he will find the final answer; the be-all-end-all to this "silly accusation" that will set "opposers" straight once-and-for-all. It is the Jehovah's Judgment Website. No one knows exactly who authored this website, which is unsurprising since the Watchtower discourages JW's from creating unofficial websites like these. But the JW can now rest at ease, because there is an "answer" to the accusation. It doesn't really matter to the JW if the answer is legitimate; he just cares that it is in depth and "addresses" the full scope of the issue.

The interesting thing is, JW's on the internet will immediately point you to this website. But JW's in person will almost never do this. The reason being, JW's on the internet are anonymous 99 percent of the time. And there will be no way for the elders to find out that they are using non-WT literature or websites in answering questions about the organization. In my experience, JW's who you meet in person will very rarely even bring this issue up again and will especially not point you to this website for the reason mentioned above. The website will simply set their mind at ease and they will likely never ponder the issue ever again.

But what if they do point you to this website? How do you respond? In my experience, it has done no good to provide any sort of "refutation" of the issue. To them, its already settled and the website has fully refuted the accusation. And unfortunately, this website contains the latest argument of the issue. That is, practically all websites, like Randy TV, which address this issue were written before the Jehovah's Judgment website. Thus, there are no specific refutations of the website (though the actual documentation of the issue speaks for itself). But now, someone has finally taken this website to task:



I haven't yet checked out all of the information on this website (I plan on doing so in time), so it is not recommended that you show this to JW's until you have ensured that the information and arguments are solid (though I have no reason to doubt that they are, as I personally know the author). The website can be found HERE. So, the next time a JW tells you to check out THIS WEBSITE to find out all the "answers," you can tell him, "Thanks for the link, but that website has already been debunked by THIS ONE. But we can go all day in passing websites back and forth. So why don't we just look at the documents themselves and discuss them?"

As of right now, I am in the process (actually, in the final editing stages) of an in-depth paper on the subject. Though there are more than enough websites that address this issue, I believe that my paper will provide a fresh look at the issue and will be written with the Jehovah's Judgment website in mind so that the arguments are as solid as possible and based on the best available reasons.

Thus saith Colbert...

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Word - Symbol-Minded
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Michael Moore

(ht: Ben Witherington)

Question for Jehovah's Witnesses: Was the Watchtower Involved in Politics? (Video)

Marriage: ordained and created by...Obama?

You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman.(Applause)

--President Barak Obama, October 10, 2009

Al Mohler has recently offered his commentary that I feel is worth reading in light of the President's recent speech. James White offers his thoughts as well. My two cents go as follows:

Marriage was ordained by God, not by men. And because I believe God to be the Almighty judge and creator of this Universe, what He says goes. I simply know of no other way to say it. So whether you "like" His laws and stipulations is something that you have to take up with Him. But given the President's comment cited above, how can I "admire" what God has deemed sinful? Am I to go against my Creator because of what is politically correct in today's culture?

My problem is, on what basis can President Obama make such a declaration? What is his moral standard? Mine is the Bible. And regardless of how progressive morality is today, I cannot go along with it no matter how popular it becomes. This isn't about "hating" gays or denying them their rights as American citizens; this is about my moral views that are based on God's moral views. And who does my President think he is to tell us what we should or shouldn't admire?

Was the Watchtower Involved with the United Nations?

I'm hoping to do some more research on this as well as get some feedback from JW's to make sure its a solid case. If so, i'll hopefully do a more detailed video unless, that is, someone beats me to it. Either way, I don't see how a JW could look at this and not be shocked, considering how stern they are in condemning political involvement.

"Freedom of speech" in the U.K.

From The Telegraph:

It is understood that among the topics debated was whether Jesus was a minor prophet, as Islam teaches, or whether he was the Son of God, as Christianity teaches.

Among the things Mr Vogelenzang, 53, is alleged to have said is that Mohammad was a warlord. His wife, 54, is said to have stated that Muslim dress is a form of bondage for women.

The conversation, on March 20, was reported by the woman to Merseyside Police. Officers told the couple that they wanted to interview them over the incident.

After being questioned on April 20, they were interrogated again three months later before being charged on July 29 with a religiously-aggravated public order offence. They appeared in court on August 14 and are now awaiting trial.

I wonder if the same would have applied if the Christian were offended by the Muslim? I doubt it. Ah, political consistency! You gotta love it!

(ht: Answering Muslims)

I didn't believe it until I saw it

Surely, western nations aren't banning respectful, public, moderated dialogues on important issues concerning religion? Think again. I was absolutely blown away by this. If you are a thinking individual who actually cares about your freedom of speech, then you must watch this video. I was honestly laughing out loud (I should have been crying) at the complete and total absurdity of the U.N. "hate speech policy" defender. This is unbelievable. It really is time to wake our nation up and encourage interaction on the public square. Too many are becoming apathetic in the name of "political correctness." And if we keep burying our heads in the sand, you can watch our freedom get flushed right down the toilet. Please pray for our leaders, that we not lose our most precious freedoms.

You can watch the video HERE.

Its coming folks, and don't say I didn't warn you.

And, following a 2008 U.N. resolution urging nations to outlaw "defamation of religion," several nations - including Italy, the Netherlands and France - are attempting to ban "hate speech" against religious groups.

Right. I can see the U.N. banning the publication of Richard Dawkins' next anti-Christian book. The U.N. is consistent, right? I mean, surely they aren't singling out Muslims and would prosecute anyone who degrades the name of Jesus Christ?

This kind of "political correctness" really disgusts me. When is radical Islam going to grow up and stop strapping bombs to their chests every time someone slanders their "holy prophet?" I hope and pray that our example as Christians can become an example to radical Islam, that responding with sound argument and rationality is far more productive than blowing yourself up. Its truly sad.

The article above can be read HERE.

Mormons get a taste of their own medicine

If you've been keeping up with the news lately, then you'll notice a lot of controversy over proposition 8, which is an attempt to define marriage as "one man and one woman." In this video, the Mormons are very falsely portrayed as bigots who are trying to force their views down others' throats. Take a look.



Anyone who's ever encountered Mormon missionaries knows that this would never happen. But the point is, this is what the world is portraying them to be, since they are "taking away their rights." The reason I find this ironic is because Mormons often find those of us who point out the errors of Mormonism to be "hateful, mean," or whatever. Even if their errors are pointed out in a gentle and respectful way; we are still categorized as opposing bigots. I've always found this odd since Joseph Smith himself disagreed as sternly with regards to the churches of Christendom as Christian apologists do with the LDS church today.

Now, the Mormons are finally seeing what its like to be falsely categorized into the realm of "hateful opposers." I hope and pray that at some point the Mormons will learn that disagreement is not the same thing as hate.

Some thoughts on the election

This video isn't exactly about who won and who lost. Nor is it about whether or not our next President will follow through with his promises. This is about thinking through these matters with an eternal mindset. The following video is an excellent presentation on how this should be done.



*dislcaimer* A few "factual" statements are made in regards to Obama's personal faith, views on abortion, homosexuality, etc. on which i've not checked the accuracy on.

But aside from all that, I think that James White was right on the money.

Wow, can you say "culture wars?"

Wow, this is going to strike up some interesting conversations amongst conservative evangelicals!






ht: Fred Butler

Obama and infanticide

Is this not the consistent and logical outcome for those who defend abortion?

Louisiana public school science teachers allowed to criticize evolution.

THIS is definitely a step in the right direction. Hopefully, this will seep into all 50 states and allow all science teachers the right to present evidence for and against evolution.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal this week signed into law the Louisiana Science Education Act, which allows school districts to permit teachers to present evidence, analysis and critique of evolution and other prevalent scientific theories in public school classrooms.

The law came to the governor's desk after overwhelming support in the legislature, including a unanimous vote in the state's Senate and a 93-4 vote in the House.

The act has been criticized by some as an attempt to insert religion into science education and hailed by others as a blow for academic freedom in the face of pressure to ignore flaws in politically correct scientific theories.

Robert Crowther, director of communications for The Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank on science and culture, called the act necessary.

In an article posted on The Discovery Institute's evolution news website, Crowther wrote, "The law is needed for two reasons. First, around the country, science teachers are being harassed, intimidated, and sometimes fired for trying to present scientific evidence critical of Darwinian theory along with the evidence that supports it. Second, many school administrators and teachers are fearful or confused about what is legally allowed when teaching about controversial scientific issues like evolution. The Louisiana Science Education Act clarifies what teachers may be allowed to do."

Specifically, the act allows teachers in the state's public schools to present evidence both for and against Darwinian theories of evolution and allows local school boards to approve supplemental materials that may open critical discussions of evolution, the origins of life, global warming, human cloning and other scientific theories.

Teachers are still required by the act to follow the standardized science curriculum, and school districts are required to authorize both the teachers' classes and additional materials. The state's Board of Elementary and Secondary Education will have the power to prohibit materials it deems inappropriate, and the act prohibits religious instruction.

ection 1D of the act states that the law "shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion."

Despite section 1D, many national voices, including the Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a New York Times editorial, and the American Civil Liberties Union opposed the measure.

Marjorie Esman, state director of Lousiana's ACLU told the New Orleans Times-Picayune, "To the extent that this might invite religion in the public school classroom, we will do everything we can do to keep religion out."

John West, a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute, however, said opponents of the bill are misunderstanding it. Rather than being about infusing intelligent design or creationism into the classroom, he contends, the bill is about giving teachers the freedom to talk about the debates that already exist in science, even among evolutionists themselves.

"This bill is not a license to propagandize against something they don't like in science," West told the Times-Picayune. "Someone who uses materials to inject religion into the classroom is not only violating the Constitution, they are violating the bill."

Gov. Jindal released a statement at the time of the signing that read, in part: "I will continue to consistently support the ability of school boards and (the state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education) to make the best decisions to ensure a quality education for our children."

You think this is bad? Just wait 15 years...

This lawsuit might happen, or it might not. If such a thing is even being considered in our courts, what do you think is going to happen in 20 years? My friends, our days of free speech are coming to an end.

Lawsuit against Zondervan complains about Bible statements on homosexuality

CASCADE TOWNSHIP -- A Canton man is suing Zondervan Publishing and a Tennessee-based publisher, claiming their versions of the Bible that refer to homosexuality as a sin violate his constitutional rights and has caused him emotional pain and mental instability.

Bradley LaShawn Fowler, 39, is seeking $60 million from Zondervan, based in Cascade Township, and another $10 million from Thomas Nelson Publishing in the lawsuits filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Fowler filed the suit against Zondervan on Monday, the same day U.S. District Judge Julian Abele Cook Jr. refused to appoint an attorney to represent him in his case against Thomas Nelson, a Tennessee publisher. Fowler filed a suit against Thomas Nelson in June. He is representing himself in both claims.

"The Court has some very genuine concerns about the nature and efficacy of these claims," the judge wrote.

Fowler alleges Zondervan's Bibles referring to homosexuality as a sin have made him an outcast from his family and contributed to physical discomfort and periods of "demoralization, chaos and bewilderment."

The intent of the publisher was to design a religious, sacred document to reflect an individual opinion or a group's conclusion to cause "me or anyone who is a homosexual to endure verbal abuse, discrimination, episodes of hate, and physical violence ... including murder," Fowler wrote.

Fowler's suit claims Zondervan's text revisions include and then delete the reference to homosexuality without informing the public of the changes.

The other suit, against Thomas Nelson and its New King James Bible, mirrors the allegations made against Zondervan for "manipulating" Scripture.

Read the article here

Freedom FROM religion? Or freedom OF religion

When I first saw this clip, I was sick to my stomach. Many emotions went through my mind; one of these emotions being, "I shouldn't be feeling this way." I only say this because something inside me wanted to have the "go get em', take one for the team!" type attitude. But I couldn't.

I couldn't get past the fact that we live in a country where we all have the freedom to pray to and worship whoever we please. Rather than disagree with AK47's, we can disagree by using education and good argumentation. But is there a difference in freedom FROM religion and freedom OF religion? Let's look at the latter.

If we have freedom OF religion, and we choose to abide by this, then in no way should we stop such a man making such a prayer in the Senate. Now, you may disagree with his religion completely. I do, anyways. But just because I disagree with it doesn't mean that he has rights too.

But what about freedom FROM religion? If we declare that hindu's don't have the right to pray at a Senate meeting such as this, then what rights do Christians have? Are we going to be consistent in upholding the law of the land or not? At any rate, I found the behavior of those who interrupted the prayer to be repulsive and disrespectful. I couldn't imagine a more rude way at getting your message across.

Since i'm not much of a politician, these are still issues i'm thinking through. I'd appreciate all your thoughts on the matter.

*By the way, all the quotes mentioned in my last blog were from the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society; also known as Jehovah's Witnesses.

Probably the only time you'll see me discussing politics

Should we pay taxes? No. that is not the question. A better question would be, "Is it wrong not to pay taxes?" My friend, Daniel, responded to my last blog saying that Kent Hovind is innocent for not paying taxes to the government. First, read the pensacola news article and then read what Daniel commented on my last blog:

Kent Hovind is completely innocent of any sin or wrong doing in regards to paying taxes- First of all- It is in complete defiance of the US constitution that the Government actually collects taxes- it is illegal, and it is wrong of the Government to steal money from its citizens. So, although you will eventually lose your freedom for not paying taxes, It is no more wrong than trying to hide valuables in your house from thieves that might break in and steal it. So it is not Kent who has broken the law here it is our very government that has broken the laws set for it in the original bill of rights which states- "

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

This means that the Government has no rights other than what has been given it in the constitution- all other powers belong to individual states or individual people. And taxation is not a power given to the Federal Government! So I support anyone who does not pay their taxes just as much as I would support someone hiding valuables from a thief although the ramifications are horrible when the thief is the most powerful organization in the world.

I don't know guys. I am no politician, but I am leaning more towards Kent Hovind being guilty. But before I come to any kind of conclusion, i'd really like to know what more people thought. So please leave me your opinions!

How "Christian" is America?

Check this out and ask yourself: How Christian is America? From now on when people ask me, "Why do you waste so much of your time studying theology, discussing, debatine, writing blogs, etc. etc.," I am simply going to direct their attention to this recent poll. Ask yourself another question: what do you think is going to solve this problem? Do you think that voting for the right president is going to change it? Here's my answer: The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only thing that is going to change this. But how is the Gospel going to change this? Glad you asked. And I refer you to Frank Turk's recent blog where he says,

"And how can they know who to trust if they haven't heard of the One who can be trusted? And how can they hear if nobody tells them? And how is anyone going to tell them, unless someone is sent to do it?

Sound like a solution? I think so. So I leave the challenge up to you, the reader to decide for yourself how important truth is in America today.

Oh, and on a brighter note, I will be speaking at SNA this saturday. The topic: God is most glorified when we are most satisfied in Him. Yes, if you are a John Piper fan, then this is a must. So, if you are anywhere near Dawsonville, GA and ages 18-30, then you should soooo come! We will have music and a pretty amazing horror movie that we made last weekend that will pretty much change your life.

Six days and Gay marriage

So what does the six days of Creation and gay marriage have in common? Absolutely nothing! But first things first; my interesting day. If anyone wants to see me get my butt kicked in a debate, then look no further than today. In one of my sociology classes we had to debate on gay marriage. Luckily, I was chosen to oppose gay marriage rather than defend it. But what was so difficult about this debate was that I had to defend my position from a sociological perspective. And if you know anything about sociology, you know this; the duty of a sociologist is not to determine right and wrong. Basically, this meant that I could use no subjective evidences to build my case. Or in other words, I couldn't appeal to my personal beliefs! So, needless to say, I was destroyed. But I did learn quite a bit! For one, I learned that I absolutely suck at politics. And two, I learned that I suck at politics! And three, I learned that it is very difficult to defend Marriage sociologically! So yes, I admit defeat. If you want to know the details, just ask the vast majority of class that voted my team as the losers :-P

Ok, now let's switch gears shall we?

"Six days?"
"Yep!"
"Six truly really days?"
"Yep!"
"You're sure it says six days?"
"Yep!"
"I wonder why He took so long?"

Have you ever wondered that? If God is really so powerful, couldn't He have created everything in 6 seconds? One second? One thousandth of a second? Or even in no time at all? Why did God take so long to create? Well, that is what an atheist asked recently in response to my article, "Evolution and the Bible." And I appreciated the question so much that I thought i'd answer it here! So why six days? Let's see what the Bible says...

"Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work...For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." (Exodus 20:8-11)

The answer is simple! God created in six days as a model for us to live our lives; Six days of work and a day of rest! But think about this for a second. If those days aren't literal days but rather millions or billions of years, what would that mean to us?

"Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work...For in 4.4 Billion years the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested for 200 million years . Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." (Exodus 20:8-11)

Does that make any sense? God created in billions of years and rested for millions so that we might work for six days and rest on the seventh? Next time you go to work, ask your boss if you can take off work on the Sabbath. If he says yes, don't go to work for the next 10 years. Chances are you'll get a call asking, "Where are you? You were only supposed to take off on the Sabbath!" Then you would say, "Yes, that's true. But God rested on the Sabbath for millions of years, so why can't I rest for 10 years?" See the problem? We must let the text of Scripture interpret itself rather than inserting our own ideas into the text. And if we choose to go down that slippery slope of redifining words according to what we think they should mean in Genesis, then what is going to stop us from doing that in other parts of the Bible as well?