Posts by Cold Steel

17

Does God's word apply to God?

by mauiboy in

the tv news about syria is truly disgusting, and it is only the tip of a much bigger situation that has been going on for milleniums.

:"mans inhumanity to man".

but i can't get the scripture at james 4:17 out of my mind.

Mauiboy: “Therefore, if one knows how to do what is right and yet does not do it, it is a sin for him.” Unless Jehovah God has a second set of rules for us and him, how can this not be corrected by Him? Or is he letting his own word condemn him?

Actually, you’re quite correct. God and man are governed by different sets of laws. Man is under divine obligation to do good and right. God also does what is good and right, but He has an obligation to allow man his free agency, with only limited interference from Him.

When the wicked slay the wicked, God is under no obligation to prevent it. But when man fails to prevent it, the sin lies at his door. The purpose of this life is for man to be tried and tested. Nothing that happens, no matter how horrible, is of any lasting hurt...only what we do to ourselves. When people perish, whether it’s in the waves of the sea, or whether they fall from the air or are killed by maniacal tyrants or filthy degenerates, there are no lives that blink out of existence, even for a fraction of a second. Both people and animals simply change environments. That’s why the Lord said to not fear those who have the power to kill, but rather, him who can destroy both body and soul. In some situations, God has preserved the lives of his servants and others. In other situations, He allows atrocities to be committed so as to allow the free agency of mortals to play out to their condemnation. For, as the scriptures state, a murderer hath not eternal life abiding in him.

So the Lord, to an extent, must let things play out. If He prevented our mistakes and sins, and stopped our wars and atrocities, He would actually be violating His own edicts. Noah and his family came through the great flood, but within three generations, his offspring had refused to spread out over the face of the land and, under the leadership of his great grandson, Nimrod, his descendants had slipped back into the degradation of the pre-flood conditions. Thus, instead of destroying them, the Lord confounded their languages.

So man, for better or for worse, is the steward of this world under the protecting hand of God. If man becomes the product of greed and corruption and seeks for power and gain, he listens to the voice of Satan and his angels. But his is the choice between good and evil. Atheism wasn’t an issue with Nimrod and the other offspring of Noah. The knew God lived and bitterly resented His destruction of their fathers through the flood. His tower was his symbol of rebellion and resentment.

Finally, God allows Satan to tempt man and to foster rebellion. The constant presence of evil and good are necessary so that man can make a choice. For God to abrogate that choice and nullify man’s free agency would destroy His entire plan.

14

The Fullfillment of Prophecy about the last days in The 1st Centruy

by cassuk11 in

the last days were about the destruction of jerusalem and the temple in the 1st centruy.

the messiah was talking to those who asked the question , he replied tot hem and did not lie or mislead.he told them not us that soem would still be alive when he returned.

they fully expected it andwere waiting.he did not lie .he cmae back for his chosen ones and took them back where they serve in the kingdom .most of the apocolyptic language used were symbolic metephors randt akenform the old testamant.

Cold Steel

The only problem is that we can't fully trust the ancient manuscripts we have since none are original. It’s entirely likely that some later scribe manipulated the Savior’s words in the hopes that the Second Coming would be in his day or, at the least, earlier.

If one accepts these prophecies, then it’s clear these prophesies failed, right? Zechariah 12-14 describes the events, not of the Roman assault, but of a future assault during which God would bolster Israel, and the Messiah would rescue the Jews in the day of their redemption. According to prophecy, a number of things had to happen. First, the Jews would be scattered throughout the nations of the earth. Then, wolves in lambs’ clothing would enter the church, not sparing the flock. This would be followed by a “falling away” or mass apostasy. Centuries passed, the keys of the kingdom, or administerial authority, would pass away. The coming of Elijah, who would “restore all things,” was destined to occur, and then the gathering of Judah spoken about in Isaiah 11 would come to pass, followed by the building of the third temple (See Rev. 14). Once established, a great power from the north would come down on the holy city and the Lord would raise up two prophets. Three and a half years later, the Lord comes in his glory and rescues the remnant Jews and destroys Judah’s enemies, leaving only a sixth of the enemy intact.

At that point he descends upon the Mount of Olives, and an earthquake tears a rift into the mount, splitting it asunder. The remnant of the Jews flee into the valley and the Messiah reveals himself, converting the Jewish state in a single day. That’s a lot to happen in one’s lifetime; that’s why I dismiss any prophecies that seem to push the event in the Lord’s generation.

36

The Great Tribulation Was in the 1st Century and WIll Never Occur Agian

by cassuk11 in

the messiah told the discipels they would live through it, they would ,see it, they would experience it and it would never occur again..

Cold Steel

Cassuk11: I don’t believe in the preterist view. I just listened to what Messiah said. The fact that it lines up with some school of thought is irrelevant. He plainly said to the disciples they would not finish going through all the cities of Israel before the son of man comes in his Kingdom. Also he told the high priest he would see the son of man coming on the clouds. Also some of those standing right in front of him would still be alive when he returned.. SO as it stands we either believe what the Messiah said or we don’t. The prophecies were about the destruction of Jerusalem and more importantly the temple.

The only problem is that we can't fully trust the ancient manuscripts we have since none are original. It’s entirely likely that some later scribe manipulated the Savior’s words in the hopes that the Second Coming would be in his day or, at the least, earlier.

If one accepts these prophecies, then it’s clear these prophesies failed, right? Zechariah 12-14 describes the events, not of the Roman assault, but of a future assault during which God would bolster Israel, and the Messiah would rescue the Jews in the day of their redemption. According to prophecy, a number of things had to happen. First, the Jews would be scattered throughout the nations of the earth. Then, wolves in lambs’ clothing would enter the church, not sparing the flock. This would be followed by a “falling away” or mass apostasy. Centuries passed, the keys of the kingdom, or administerial authority, would pass away. The coming of Elijah, who would “restore all things,” was destined to occur, and then the gathering of Judah spoken about in Isaiah 11 would come to pass, followed by the building of the third temple (See Rev. 14). Once established, a great power from the north would come down on the holy city and the Lord would raise up two prophets. Three and a half years later, the Lord comes in his glory and rescues the remnant Jews and destroys Judah’s enemies, leaving only a sixth of the enemy intact.

At that point he descends upon the Mount of Olives, and an earthquake tears a rift into the mount, splitting it asunder. The remnant of the Jews flee into the valley and the Messiah reveals himself, converting the Jewish state in a single day. That’s a lot to happen in one’s lifetime; that’s why I dismiss any prophecies that seem to push the event in the Lord’s generation.

At the end of our fleshly life span we will be changed in the blink of an eye into the Kingdom the which has been here for 2,000 years it is within. It cannot be seen or touched. But those who want to seek it will find it. Eventually all people will enter in the gates of the New Jerusalem are never shut. It is symbolic metaphor language to describe the spiritual state you will be in for eternity.

Yeah...the blinking of the eye transformation occurs during the Millennium when one reaches the age of man, which is about a hundred years old. At that point, he will change from mortality to immortality in the twinkling of an eye. The resurrection for those who are dead will begin to happen at the Lord’s coming at that will be the resurrection of the just. The resurrection of the unjust comes at the end of the Millennium.

4

JW vs Christianity Debate

by zound in

haven't watched it all yet, but thought some may be interested.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkjbsxm6_ue.

Cold Steel

James White is a tough guy to out-debate. He could probably lose a written debate, but he has a near-photographic memory of the scriptures and can quote them extensively without once looking at a note. Substance-wise, he's more flash than anything. If you're facing someone who's convinced that the Bible is the complete, inerrent word of God and that all other sources are superfluous, you can just keep getting shouted down.

In debates, you have to form some basis of agreement before you can find a basis to disagree. In debates with atheists, it does little good to quote scripture.

Beating up JWs doctrinally, theologically or from an eschatological standpoint isn't very tough. Almost anyone who knows anything about the Society, history and the scriptures can make mincemeat out of them. (It's like beating up Shirley Temple, but more satisfying.) And Bethel brings much of it on their own heads by their secular snobbery, sense of injustice and blatant ignorance. The fact that it discourages higher education also keeps the membership nice and dumbed down.

3

What About the Resurrection? The JUST and the UNJUST?

by Cold Steel in

the scriptures speak about the resurrection of both the just and the unjust.

all will be resurrected.

paul teaches that although all will be resurrected, not all will be resurrected to the same glory.

Cold Steel

The scriptures speak about the resurrection of both the just and the unjust. All will be resurrected. Paul teaches that although all will be resurrected, not all will be resurrected to the same glory. Even as there are differences in heavenly and earthly glories, variances exist throughout both. “So also,” he said, “is the resurrection of the dead.” (See 1 Corinthians 15)

But according to Jehovah’s Witnesses, there will be only two resurrections. One will be the resurrection of the just (“just” Jehovah’s Witnesses). The other will be the unjust. But how does that work? As I understand it, and please correct me if I’m wrong, all people who have died in the past will be resurrected and then given a choice regarding whether they support or oppose Jehovah in his great war against Satan. Those who go with Jehovah are saved and those who don’t...well, they will be destroyed.

So what about those who are destroyed in Armageddon? In every article it seems that the wicked end up dead...permanently. So are those destroyed in Armageddon resurrected or not? Paul wrote, “For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order....”

Jehovah's Witnesses don’t seem to make any provisions for those killed at Armageddon. Why? It also doesn’t make sense that God would bring the unrighteous back, then destroy them. Doesn’t that make Christ’s suffering and death ineffectual? At least for some...or most?

“All flesh is not the same flesh,” Paul writes, “but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead.”

Why, if only the righteous are resurrected (for good), would there be so many different degrees? Paul also declares, concerning the body, “It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.”

Keeping in mind that a “natural” body is mortal and a “spiritual” body is a resurrected physical body (animated by spirit), we have to determine why there should be many different types of resurrections if Jehovah is going to destroy all but the faithful.

Speaking of Jehovah’s enemies, a Watchtower writer gets a bit carried away. “If, as it were, they should go into the mountainous region of Bashan and onto its high peaks, from there the inescapable Jehovah God will bring them down and back to punishment. If, even in atomic-powered submarines, they should try to hide themselves in the depths of the sea, the unavoidable Jehovah God will bring them back. To what? To face slaughter, that their lifeblood might be poured out.” (Watchtower, November 1, 1967) I have this image in my mind of a giant stern-faced bearded man plucking a nuclear Seawolf-class submarine from the sea, shaking it a few times and smashing it against an asphalt street in a ruined U.S. city.

Is Jehovah-God is going to then resurrect those poor sailors and destroy them again? What sense does that make and, again, what does it mean about the efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice? How do the Jehovah's Witnesses explain this?

293

AGM 5 OCTOBER 2013 (UNOFFICIAL RUMORS)

by WatchTower87 in

- 23 day to go .. annual meeting unofficial rumors.

- new bible.

- new nwt (revision).

Cold Steel

The Faithful and Discreet Slave will shock members by announcing it's support of homosapien marriages.

It also will declare a change of its designation. It will now be called The Faithful and Discreet Leaders of Everyone Else.

It also will announce that Armageddon may have already happened...invisibly.

30

Whats the "current light" on standing vs sitting during the national anthem?

by BU2B in

this is something that seems to be conterversial in dubbieland.

i have always seen jws stand when at sporting events, but i have heard conversations in which the dubs said they would either linger in the hallways until it was over, or else sit down during it.

most of the time when there is such discrepancy between jws it means the light has been flicked on and off so often it leaves them dazed and confused.

Cold Steel

The Jehovah's Witnesses cannot salute the flag because so doing would denote their allegiance to the nation it represents. But one can show respect for a nation that preserves his or her rights to worship as they choose and not subject themselves to military and other forms of service. There's a difference between worship and common respect. It's one reason that JWs are not more...ummm...popular...than they are. If they were to walk into a room with a priest, would they refuse to shake hands?

No one's asking JWs to grovel on the ground in worship of flag or country. There are no deranged emperors (just a deranged president), no state religions. In short, standing would not be inappropriate. I'm sure that if all the early Christians had to do was stand when a Roman dignitary dropped by, that most likely would have complied.

40

I'm Perfect, You're Doomed - a review

by Farkel in

"i'm perfect, you're doomed" by kyria abrahams, 2009, touchstone.. if you want a way to get people out of that horrible cult, easily, quickly and expeditiously, then here is how to do that.. i can say with a vote of confidence that anyone who reads this book will never and i mean never become a dub.

dubs who read it (assuming they have at least one or two brain cells left) will run from their religion like flies on shit when you pour bleach on it and blow it up with dynamite.. toss away crisis of conscience, apocalypse delayed, 30 years a watchtower slave and all those other very nice books and read this one.

i read those and all the other ones.

Cold Steel

I just read the sample of the book on Amazon and then ordered a copy. Mine was 6¢ plus $3.99 shipping and rated as "Like New." Based on the part I read, I would have paid full price...though I think at $13.62 for the Kindle version is a bit pricey. Also, the Kindle version doesn't have that wonderful cover. The book is remarkably well written and flows so quickly that it never bogs down. It's not about Jehovah's Witnesses, it's about a nice Jewish girl who grew up in an unusual, slighly dysfunctional family. It's not so much about escape from a dangerous cult, but life in a ridiculous religion with an overinflated view of itself. If you're expecting a dark, foreboding work of resentment and hatred, it's not the book for you. Instead, it's a comical book that makes the religion look and appear absurd.

77

Thoughts on Jesus' Resurrection

by Perry in

i think that in our various discussions about life after the wt, we many times forget about the cornerstone of christian life - the resurrection.

the implications of the existence a man who holds the power of life and death is manifold.

it makes discussions about the existence of god obsolete.. for all of scientists' accomplishments they have never been able to make even one amobea come alive from non-life.

Cold Steel

Ravens: ...the jehovahs witnesses believe that jesus was reincarnated from a man who died and came back as an angel.

Say what?

44

Disfellowshiping: Why the Terror?

by Cold Steel in

the more i read about ritual shunning and disfellowshiping in the society, the more i wonder how the governing body and elders have pulled the proverbial wool over the eyes of the congregation.

first, the society doesnt consider itself a church (unlike the ancient christians, who did consider themselves to be part of a church).

yet, like other sectarians, they have their hands out for contributions and exercise immense power over their members.

Cold Steel

Resistance is Futile: I wasn't asking specifically about who he married. I was asking about the claims that he had sex with teenage girls in his community while he was married to his first wife Emma. Do you feel that the claims that he had sex with Fanny Alger (age 16), and Marinda Johnson (age 16) are credible?

No, I do not. Many of those claims came from sensationalist sources after the saints arrived in Utah.

According to the Mormon Church how many official wives did Joseph Smith take? You said there is no evidence he had sex with his 15 year old bride Helen Kimball; was this true of his other wives? What I'm asking is, were all his other marriages asexual? Did he publicly deny the practice of polygamy [while] secretly taking multiple wives? Why would he feel the need to cover-up what he was doing?

No, it was not true of his other wives. That said, there were many women he was sealed to simply so they would be under his care and protection. Some of our critics howl because Joseph married Elder Orson Hyde's wife whilst he was on his mission to exercise the keys or restoring Judah to the land of its inheritance. He was gone a considerable time, yet when he returned, his wife was sealed back to him and about nine or ten months later they had a child. It was not Joseph's.

How many wives did Joseph have? That's difficult to say. Some were sealed to him after his death, but for those known to have been sealed to him during his life, for whatever reason, the most accurate number I've come up with is...29.

As for your other questions, the answers are yes, he publicly denied the practice of plural marriage. Why did he feel the need to cover it up? Because the Lord told him not to reveal the doctrine. In the past, God had given patriarchs their wives, and their only sins were in taking wives not given to them, especially to cement political relationships with their heathen neighbors. Since joseph Smith was called to oversee the restoration of the ancient church and Kingdom of God, or, as Peter said, "the restoration of all things," then part of that restoration was bringing back that practice. No one was happy with the commandment, especially Hyrum and Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, yet they lived it. Eventually, the Lord let the practice come to an end, primarily because of the effects it would have on missionary efforts and looming federal hostility.

After decades of the saints stubbornly supporting the doctrine they were convinced was from God, the Lord suddenly said, Enough! And Wilford Woodruff, the president of the church, told the saints:

The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it, you would have had no use for … any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice. Now, the question is, whether it should be stopped in this manner, or in the way the Lord has manifested to us, and leave our Prophets and Apostles and fathers free men, and the temples in the hands of the people, so that the dead may be redeemed.

I suspect that if Joseph Smith were to have been up front about this doctrine, that the people of his day would reacted harshly. Short answer: for the same reason Abraham and Sarah were less than honest about their relationship. (And that, too, was the Lord's idea).