Posts by Cold Steel

139

Ever consider joining The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

by rawe in

has anyone here left jehovah's witnesses to join the churuch of jesus christ of latter-day saints?

what was your motivation for doing so and how has it worked out?.

if you haven't joined the lds or considered it, as an ex-jw, what is your general view of the lds faith?.

Cold Steel

Interesting comments.

I've been LDS for more than 40 years and I've never seen any shunning. But if there is, it's not in any way condoned by the church. In fact, the church strongly discourages shunning. Why? Because it runs counter to the gospel of Christ, which teaches love and forgiveness. In one revelation to the church, the Lord states, "I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive; but of you it is required to forgive all men." The church can't control who gets shunned, and people are people.

As for those who call us a "cult," well, granted. We are a cult in the same sense that first century Christianity was a cult. Jesus was head of a small but eclectic group of followers that grew into a large, mobile community that threatened the religious structures of the day. Jesus declared himself the messiah in a day when the Jews thought he would come and free them from their enemies (see Zech. 12:12-14). Revelation had ceased for more than 400 years and suddenly an angel appears to the priest, the father of John the Baptist, and declares a new dispensation. John prepared the way, and then Jesus fulfills his destiny.

Joseph Smith was a poor New York farm boy who did odd jobs for people to get money to plant crops. He experienced a miraculous vision in 1820, and ten years later began to fulfill his own destiny. Was he a con man? Not according to those who knew him best. Of course there were affidavits signed by many of the townsfolk, but those who hired him and those who grew up with him said he was a hard worker and an honest man. But then Jesus had those who swore he wasn't such a sterling character and that he was sired by a Roman soldier, so who are you going to believe?

Scientifically, the Book of Mormon has only gained credibility and has lost none over the years. The DNA tests were on the wrong people and the entire issue has received a scholarly response from our apologists, which, unlike people in the Society, were encouraged to seek higher educations and are recognized as being some of the tops in their fields. These include professors of ancient scripture, archeologists, historians, antropologists and geologists. And the evidences for the Book of Mormon grow each year. They have a huge list of possible "problems" regarding the book and each year they check mark the areas they've eliminated. The book has one leg in 600 B.C. Jerusalem and Arabia and the other in Mesoamerica, where the Lehites are thought to have arrived and flourished. If anyone wants information in any of these areas, PM me, and I'll send you info backing up my claims.

Finally, the LDS church is the only Christian sect with apostles and prophets, and which claims its leaders are called and ordained by divine authority. We have bishops, seventy, elders, teachers, priests -- all offices held by the ancient church. When our leaders speak, we listen because we believe they are true apostles, and that the revelations they receive are of God.

Most of the people on this site know very little about what they're talking about when it comes to the LDS faith. When I've commented on the JW faith here, I make damn sure I know what I'm talking about or I apologize. I mean, it's fine if you don't want anything to do with our church or any other for that matter. I hate to see people driven to atheism by religion, but it happens when people feel bamboozled. I have read extensively on every issue brought up here and yes, some of our doctrine clashes with traditional Christianity. But we've learned from the Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hammadi fragments that ancient Christianity believed many of those same doctrines, like theosis and premortality of the soul. But one has to be open. The Lord will provide a great deal of evidence, but he won't give you proof (though I think he comes pretty close).

If you really want to follow the path to see if there's anything at the end, drop me a line.

See this comprehensive article if you're interested. It covers just about all the misinformation above.

The LDS church follows the law of witnesses for all conferrals of authority. The
Book of Mormon also had numerous witnesses, and none of these ever retracted
their testimonies, but carried them to the grave.

.

22

What's With INVISIBLE ??

by Cold Steel in

the 'dubs' came by today just as the wife and i were on the way out.

we chatted a few moments and the two guys wanted to know if i had any questions about the bible.

so i asked them to drop by in a day or two and they left me with two thin magazines and a book they jokingly referred to as "the gold nugget.".

Cold Steel

TD: Not to hijack a perfectly fun thread, but don't JW's believe that these 'spirits' were the horny demons who came down and took wives?

Ah-ha, yes. But in the very next chapter (Chapter 4), Peter writes:

Note how Peter refers to Jesus as "ready to judge the living and the dead." How could he judge the dead if they were non-existent?

Peter here is talking about people who had not heard the gospel, those who revel in excess and live their own lives oblivious to the gospel. Because there are such people, Peter writes, it's for that reason that the gospel is preached to them that are dead. The "horny demon" theory is, in my view, ridiculous. In many instances in the scriptures, the people of God are referred to as the "sons of God." The daughters of men are the pagan gentiles who seduced the sons of God and led them into their own vile practices.

The dead are thus judged as though they were in the flesh, but they live as spirits, or "in the spirit."

The horny angel idea was first written as fictional accounts in works like the the book of Enoch. Spirits cannot materialize bodies for, as Jesus said, "a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see I have."

.

22

What's With INVISIBLE ??

by Cold Steel in

the 'dubs' came by today just as the wife and i were on the way out.

we chatted a few moments and the two guys wanted to know if i had any questions about the bible.

so i asked them to drop by in a day or two and they left me with two thin magazines and a book they jokingly referred to as "the gold nugget.".

Cold Steel

AbleBodiedMan: Can you now rationalise what you said above with Paul's words here,
which also do not mention anything about invisibility?

What’s there to rationalize?

God presently is veiled and dwells in a realm of “everlasting burnings” which we have no access to, in glory that would turn unprotected men to cinders. That glory will destroy the unprotected wicked when Jesus returns, while those who are good, decent, honorable human beings will be spared and subsequently taught the gospel.

People who have had near death experiences report seeing a light far more brilliant than the sun, but is not uncomfortable to look upon in the spirit. Almost all comment on the beauty of this light.

When Jesus returns, every eye shall see him and he will come in the clouds of heaven, as the two angels said he would. It will not be invisible, and all the nations of the earth will know he has returned and that he’s the Christ.

.

22

What's With INVISIBLE ??

by Cold Steel in

the 'dubs' came by today just as the wife and i were on the way out.

we chatted a few moments and the two guys wanted to know if i had any questions about the bible.

so i asked them to drop by in a day or two and they left me with two thin magazines and a book they jokingly referred to as "the gold nugget.".

Cold Steel

Thanks. I just don't want to get into another situation where an elder shows up.

Anyone notice how those guys can be a bit disagreeable at times? Arrogant at others? My wife hates religion and wasn't listening to our discussions, but she heard the guy's tone and noticed the other two fellows were looking at him as though he were Gandhi! The deference they were giving this elder was palpable.

After that, they never came back. All I'd done was ask a few innocent questions....

18

How would you respond?

by MsGrowingGirl20 in

ok so this is a conversation that i am having with a friend that i really love.

i have some points that i want to say but tell me, how would you respond to this email?.

not gonna try to defend anyone i can really only speak for myself.

Cold Steel

Wow.

The way I’ve always responded to such people is that religion is revealed. Noah didn’t decide there would be a flood and then appoint himself and his family the sole survivors. God came to Noah. God acted and Noah and his family were acted upon. In the days of the Egyptian captivity, God appeared to Moses, calling him by revelation and directing the work to be done. There were no scripture students who appointed themselves to positions of power and then called down “invisible” plagues which could neither be felt, heard or perceived.

And so it was throughout history. God chose his servants, called them and ordained them. Then he directed and guided them in those callings. The Jehovah’s Witnesses speak truly about manmade religions; however, ever since Charles T. Russell, every leader, every elder and overseer, every member of the Governing Body are self-called and self-appointed. Whereas God flooded the earth, the choosing of the Bible Students was an “invisible” event; whereas Moses parted the Red Sea, Jesus came in 1914 (invisibly) to cast Satan to Earth.

The question is one of spiritual integrity. “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established,” the law states. Yet there are no witnesses to the invisible events. At Sinai, Yahweh appeared to Moses, Joshua, Aaron and seventy elders of Israel. But instead of being invisible, it was actual:

Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel: And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness. And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink. (Exodus 24)

It did not say that God was invisible, did it? In fact, the elders ate and drank in Jehovah’s presence!

The Catholics have the same problem with the doctrine of transubstantiation. When a priest blesses the holy emblems of Christ, the people are told, a great miracle occurs, and one that cannot be comprehended or collaborated (that’s the beauty of it). It happens when the bread and wine of the Eucharist are miraculously transformed by the priest into the actual body and blood of Jesus, although to the people it remains quite invisible. A hundred microbiologists with a hundred electron microscopes could not detect it. Another miracle! It’s like the fastest gun in the West.

Wanna see it again?

When Jesus was baptized, he had two of the greatest witnesses one could hope for: the Father and the Holy Spirit. When he called his apostles, he ordained them, saying, “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you and ordained you.” Every miracle he performed was witnessed. When Jesus went up to the mount of transfiguration, he took with him Peter, James and John, three witnesses of the event. And when he was resurrected, he told his apostolic witnesses to inspect his wounds. “Handle me and see,” he said, “for a spirit hath not flesh and bone as ye see me have.”

In the Dec. 1, 2013 issue of the Watchtower, we’re told, “When Jesus arrives invisibly with his angels, he will judge mankind.” And when it rhetorically asks, “In what form does Jesus return? He was resurrected as an invisible spirit person.”

Is this even remotely what the scriptures teach? “Handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bone as ye see me have.” And what of the prophet Zechariah, who testifies that at the conclusion of the battle of Armageddon, Jehovah will appear to save his beleaguered people:

And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn. In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of [Armageddon]. And the land shall mourn.... (Zech. 12:10-12)

Here Jehovah says: “...and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced....” If Jesus was resurrected with an invisible spirit body and will come invisibly, how will it be possible for the Jews to look upon him? And how will they know he was pierced. The land shall mourn because the Jews will realize that their fathers handed over their Messiah to the Romans to be lifted up and killed. Zechariah promises us there will be witnesses to this event, which will happen on the Mount of Olives; yet the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society can’t even acknowledge that Jesus will return to the Jews and minister to them. The centerpiece of their religion is Armageddon, and they fail to understand what it is, what it leads up to it and where it will be.

John also assures us that Yahweh will raise up two prophets, who will give their lives protecting the city of Jerusalem. (See Rev. 11) And he calls them “witnesses.” They also will minister to the Jews for a number of years, again fulfilling the requirement that in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

Who amongst the Governing Body of the Jehovah's Witnesses can claim to being called by God and having at least two others testify that it’s so? If they’re wrong about the resurrection of Jesus, and if they’re wrong about Jesus’ return and if they’re mistaken about the nature and events leading up to the biblical Armageddon, then they have testified against themselves.

That’s what I would tell your friend.

.

22

What's With INVISIBLE ??

by Cold Steel in

the 'dubs' came by today just as the wife and i were on the way out.

we chatted a few moments and the two guys wanted to know if i had any questions about the bible.

so i asked them to drop by in a day or two and they left me with two thin magazines and a book they jokingly referred to as "the gold nugget.".

Cold Steel

The 'dubs' came by today just as the wife and I were on the way out. We chatted a few moments and the two guys wanted to know if I had any questions about the Bible. So I asked them to drop by in a day or two and they left me with two thin magazines and a book they jokingly referred to as "the gold nugget."

Cute.

On the back of the Watchtower, under the Bible Questions and Answers section (Dec. 1, 2013):

Q: In what form does Christ return?

A: He was resurrected as an invisible spirit person. (1 Peter 3:18) Then, he went to heaven and sat at God’s right hand. (Psalm 110:1) Much later, Jesus was brought before Jehovah God, “the Ancient of Days,” who granted Jesus power to rule over mankind. So Jesus returns, not as a human, but as an invisible King.—Read Daniel 7:13, 14.

Do the people who answer these questions actually ever read the verses they're citing? When one goes to 1 Peter 3:18, it reads:

For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

Actually, do they really not understand this means that while Jesus was dead for three days, that his spirit went to preach to those who had lived in the days of Noah -- the spirits in prison? Wait, since they believe the dead "sleep," then how can there be spirits in prison? And when Jesus was resurrected, it wasn't as an "invisible spirit person." Didn't Mary see him? Didn't the apostles see him, and didn't Jesus go through incredible lengths to show the apostles that he wasn't a spirit? "For a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have," he said. He even called for food and ate a fish. Was he really hungry or was he trying to teach them an object lesson? Oh, and didn't he let them inspect his wounds and "thrust" their hands into his side? Again, for what purpose? To prove he was a spirit? Didn't Peter also say that " for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit"? (1 Peter 4:6)

Doesn't this mean that people who are dead, after they've been preached to in the spirit world, can then be judged as though they were men in the flesh, yet continue to live on as spirits? How else can it be interpreted?

When Jesus ascended into Heaven, didn't two angels appear and ask the apostles, "Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven." If he was invisible, how could the apostles see him? If he was visible, then why did they say he would come back invisibly??

It makes me feel like I'm in the Twilght Zone!

Why would Jesus go through so many lengths to trick everyone...to deceive his own apostles into thinking he wasn't a spirit when he really was? And how does the writer know that the Ancient of Days is God the Father? Where in the scriptures does it say that? One can read both Old and New Testaments and not see a single reference to whom the Ancient of Days is.

Q: What will Jesus do when he arrives?

A: When Jesus arrives invisibly with his angels, he will judge mankind. He will destroy wicked people but grant everlasting life to those who accept him as King.

Why would Jesus return invisibly? And if he did so, how could anyone see him? He came in 1914, we're told, but no one saw him and, thus, no one could prove whether he did or he didn't. How do you suppose Jesus will be able to do anything if he can't be seen?

So what's this thing with Jehovah's Witnesses and invisibility? When Jesus returns, if he comes invisibly, how is it that "every eye shall see him"? Yet in the same issue of Watchtower, a writer complains people don't feel they need God any more. "They consider him too remote, too inaccessible to play any meaningful role in their lives." Why, I wonder, would that be? Jesus sneaking around invisible all the time, doing invisible things with invisible people, telling his apostles that he's not a spirit yet his body's gone and is nowhere to be seen. What if I ran a lottery and someone won and I said, "Yes, you get ten thousand dollars, only they're spiritual dollars and, by the way, invisible. We left it in cash on your front porch!"

.

38

Bible Has Problems, Yet Its One Verse Can Solve All Our Problems!

by abiather in

science shows that humans have been living on earth more than 6000 years (contrary to ot chronology).

again inconsistency is pointed out in nt too which says jesus who did countless good worksincluding control over forces of nature and even death itselfyet people killed him, just like killing the duck that lays golden egg!.

despite such inconsistencies, a single verse in the bible can solve all our problems: don't call anyone on earth 'father,' because you have only one father, the one in heaven.

Cold Steel

Design: The NT is full of scary psychotic proclaimations. For every nice thing Jesus says it is outdone by the genocide he threatens humanity with.

Jesus never threatened genocide nor humanicide, unless destroying the wicked is genocide. He created the earth, gave man knowledge which was written down as scriptures and revelations to apply in his daily life and make him happy. But the wicked stand as a threat to others. They seek to get power and gain, and care little for the happiness of others.

Jesus does threaten to eliminate the wicked if they persist, but that's not genocide. Once such people are eliminated in this life and transferred to the spirit world en masse, they are restrained and caused to evaluate their lives from various perspectives in which they see their lives as God sees them. In some ways they become their own tormentors. Many Christians think of Hell as eternal torture in a lake of fire; however, everything God does regarding people is remedial. The fire of God isn't intended to torture, but to purge. When men are made to see their own wickedness, and the evil in their hearts, it's not a pleasant experience...it's Hell...literally.

We read in the book of Jude: "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." (Jude 1:6) As with the angels, the Lord gives man every opportunity to better himself. We on the earth kept our first estate and now are undergoing our second estate, whereas Satan and his angels purposely sinned, fully knowing the consequences of their actions. They are beyond redemption; but the vast majority of humans haven't reached that point. And if humans can be salvaged, the Lord will do, and has done, everything he can to redeem them. But I can't blame Jehovah's Witnesses because the God they worship doesn't exist (thank God!).

21

A Religion of Assumptions

by Cold Steel in

the jehovah's witnesses are a strange cultural phenomenon and one that has always puzzled me.

members call it "the truth" and, more boldly, "jehovah's organization.

" but many of those on the outside remain dumbfounded.

Cold Steel

GaryBuss: What religion's not a religion of assumptions? Just curious.

You’ve got a point. All belief systems are comprised of observations, assumptions and subjective conclusions, even science. But there are levels of assumptions, some made from observation and others based on supposition.

Assumption is defined as,

The act of:

taking to or upon oneself
taking over
taking for granted
accepted as true without proof
a presumption

It also can mean the act of:

taking to or upon oneself
taking over
taking for granted
something taken for granted
accepted as true without proof
a supposition: a valid assumption or presumption

As we can see, some aspects of the word are more insubstantial than others. So at what levels are the Jehovah’s Witnesses guilty of assumption? I always thought the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society was one of the few religions that met the entire gamut of the word.

Carmel: Christ wished by suggestion, or an allusion, to confirm the words of Peter; so...He said: "and upon this rock I will build My church," meaning, thy belief that Christ is the Son of the living God, will be the foundation of the Religion of God....

It was more than a belief at that point, I think. Peter knew that Jesus was the Christ because the Father had revealed it through the power of the Holy Spirit. “Flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto thee,” Jesus said, “but my Father in Heaven.” As you said, this irrefutable knowledge was to be the driving force of the church, and the “rock” was revelation from God, the life’s blood of the church, or the sure knowledge that God was leading his people. Not Peter, for he was flesh and, left unto himself, was nothing. Looking at the Jehovah’s Witnesses, we have, I think, a case of the blind leading the blind.

Should great tribulations come upon the earth, of what worth would the Governing Body of the Jehovah's Witnesses be? As far as I know, in the past the members of this group have seldom been correct in scriptural exegeses on nearly everything. Their dates for significant happenings have always been wrong, their views on prophecy and eschatology issues like Armageddon are consistently incorrect. Their historical understandings also are frequently off (like the destruction of Jerusalem and their insistence that Jesus died on a stake, not a cross). And they miss critical eschatological events like the gathering of Judah back to the lands of their forefathers.

So when the asteroids begin hitting the earth and the ground opens up and starts moaning and quaking, do these men in the Governing Body have a given track record to inspire confidence and to lead people to places of safety, as the apostles did in the days of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans?

Such guidance requires two things: first, a church, because Jesus said he would build his church; and knowledge that flows from God in the form of revelation—the type that “flesh and blood” cannot provide. The Jehovah’s Witnesses say they aren’t a church and, until recently, they have denied receiving the type of revelation the apostles did.

6

May Jehovah rebuke you

by Londo111 in

8 despite this, these men too are indulging in dreams, defiling the flesh, despising authority, and speaking abusively of glorious ones.

9 but when michael the archangel had a difference with the devil and was disputing about moses body, he did not dare to bring a judgment against him in abusive terms, but said: may jehovah rebuke you.. the watchtower uses this passage in jude against its critics, and applies the term glorious ones toward those in the watchtower hierarchy.. however, a little research will uncover that these glorious ones are as some translations say, not human religious leaders, but angelicmajesties.

the word for speaking abusively is blasphemeo which means to speak reproachfully, rail at, revile, calumniate, blaspheme.. similarly, bring a judgment against him in abusive terms, a similar word blasphemia arises, which means slander, detraction, speech injurious, to another's good name.. here jude contrasts those who thought so much of themselves, likely gnostics, so as to blaspheme angels, to the archangel michaels approach toward the devil.

Cold Steel

How these guys fit scripture to themselves is amazing. Also, if Michael is Jesus, he would hardly need Yahweh's assistance in rebuking Satan. Clearly the early Christians believed that Jesus is the incarnation of Yahweh, not that Jesus was the incarnation of Michael.

So why did Michael not "dare" to bring a judgment against Satan? Because it was not his place.

One scholar notes:

Commentators assume, and it surely must have been so, that Jude had before him and was quoting from a then current apocryphal book, The Assumption of Moses, which has been preserved to us in fragmentary form only. This non-canonical work presents the doctrine that Moses was translated and taken up into heaven without tasting death. It appears to deal "with certain revelations made by Moses," and "with his disappearance in a cloud, so that his death was hid from human sight... Michael was commissioned to bury Moses. Satan opposed the burial on the ground (a) that he was the lord of matter and that accordingly the body should be rightfully handed over to him; (b) that Moses was a murderer, having slain the Egyptian. Michael having rebutted Satan's accusations proceeded to charge Satan with having instigated the serpent to tempt Eve. Finally, all opposition having been overcome, the assumption took place in the presence of Joshua and Caleb." Another "Hebrew Apocalypse tells of Moses' transformation into the form of a fiery angel and his ascent through the seven heavens." And yet another deals "with the temporary translation of Moses before his death into heaven... When translated into heaven the heavenly Jerusalem and the Temple were revealed to him, and he was told these would descend to earth after God had gathered Israel a second time from the ends of the earth." Included in these same works are a number of statements not found in the Bible.... "Moses was prepared from the foundation of the world to be the mediator of God's covenant with his people," and that "during his 'life Moses was Israel's intercessor with God." (R. H. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, vol. 2, pp. 407-413.)

Satan's title is that of "accuser" and if the above is true, he brought accusations against Moses and Michael defended him. His only charge against Satan was in relation to instigating the serpent into tempting Eve. But he had no part in deciding whether Moses was translated or buried. Thus, it wasn't for fear of Satan that Michael "durst" not bring judgment against him, but respect for Yahweh's position of authority in judging the matter. Satan was the prosecution and Michael was merely the defense; he was not the judge. Thus, there is quite a bit of confusion over this matter. But it's also true that the scripture in Jude clearly was in reference to those who were rebellious and accusing of church leaders at the time.

If the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses is the formal mouthpiece of God, and that they were somehow chosen and ordained by God into their present positions, then many of you, and me as well, are wrong to criticize them and to rail against them. But if they are not chosen, called and ordained by God, then GB members are false prophets, false teachers and antichrists. It's most likely better to be a false teacher than a false prophet, because the latter claims he is speaking for God, but the former only teaches what he believes, taking not the honor of representing God unto themselves.

.

1

God is in Satan, the demons, and the pope

by processor in

see http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/266012/3/the-alternative-daily-text-by-the-witchtower-editor.

or http://dailytext2.wordpress.com/2013/12/05/if-anyone-acknowledges-that-jesus-is-the-son-of-god-god-lives-in-them-and-they-in-god/.

Cold Steel

What does it mean, "God lives in them"? Does it mean they are saved in the Kingdom of Heaven? Or does it mean that when they acknowledge that Jesus is the Christ, they do so by the testimony of the Holy Spirit? The Pope and all his minions can know that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of the Eternal Father by the power of the Holy Spirit; however, it does not translate into the Pope and the Catholic Church possessing the truth over anyone else.

The Society teaches that all worldly people will be destroyed at Jehovah's coming and the conflict they call Armageddon. This means that what people believe condemns them. Even good, decent, honorable people who think they're doing God's will face certain destruction because they told a couple of Jehovah's Witnesses to get lost early one Saturday morning six years ago. In my way of looking at things, it shows a fundamental contempt of one's fellow man. If we're supposed to love our neighbors, praying for their destruction seems to be a bit off kilter.