Posts by Cold Steel

3

OMG! Just watched a pile of LDS TV - JW.tv is like it. and

by hamsterbait in

the mormons have the "quorum of the twelve apostles" leading them.

they sit at the front of the temple and are looked up to.

is this where all the emphasis on the gb is going?.

Cold Steel

Being LDS, myself, I can't argue with you on how awful some of our "official" videos are. The prduction values are terrible because, like yours, they're written, cast and produced by committee. One of the most famous ones is "Johnny Lingo." For years, people would refer to an engaged woman or as a very attractive LDS woman as being a real potential "nine-cow wife." It's probably on YouTube if you're really desperate for entertainment. It still shows up on DVDs and CDs that mysteriously appear on the back of cars of couples that are just married. It's so bad it refuses to die. There are some good videos, though, but they're all produced outside the church. The JOURNEY OF FAITH videos are good examples (also on YouTube).

90

Killing In Self Defense

by Cold Steel in

the man was moving around in the darkness of j's home with a gun.

he was certain j. and his family weren't there, but he was wrong.

when a door suddenly opened and a dark figure fumbled for the hallway light, he had only a moment to act.

Cold Steel

Just because you don't need guns now, CantLeave, doesn't mean you won't need them later.

When superstorm Katrina hit the state of Louisiana, police and other emergency services providers were strained to their limits. Many threw away their badges so they could return home and care for their loved ones. The remaining resources were stretched so thin that people had to literally fend for themselves. Stores were closed, there was precious little food, and water had to be brought in by federal and out-of-state organizations.

Two other things to consider: How do you think the U.K. would fare with Mexico on its southern border? Guns and drugs flow in all directions. The United States has no military presence there and Americans have only themselves to rely on for protection. The U.S. would be out of its mind to outlaw guns with the immigration policy (or lack thereof) it now has. Secondly, the U.K. lacks the wide open spaces and dangerous wildlife that the U.S. has. How long could a Brit last in the American West and Northwest with one of those cute little Walther PPK .32 or .380 to use against a black bear or Grizzly? Oh, and I just thought of a third aspect. Why did the U.K. take out full page ads in newspapers asking Americans, in haste and desperation, to donate their guns to the U.K. when that man with the funny little mustache began invading other European nations? The ads emphasized the dire need of the Brits for small arms the Brits knew Americans had by way of its God-given right to keep and bear arms.

What happens if, God forbid, London and other British cities, get hit with an EMP event or a destructive natural disaster? Things can happen very quickly and if a nation or community loses its emergency services, a diverse people will have to get together and use clubs and farm implements against whatever threats come along.

90

Killing In Self Defense

by Cold Steel in

the man was moving around in the darkness of j's home with a gun.

he was certain j. and his family weren't there, but he was wrong.

when a door suddenly opened and a dark figure fumbled for the hallway light, he had only a moment to act.

Cold Steel

I was thinking the same thing, Apognophos. Any man who would say that publicly I would call a coward publicly. I think if it actually happened, the man would find his conscience kicking in, especially if he had the means of stopping it.

You're right about your Dirty Harry Complex observation as well. There have been police officers who have killed in the line of duty. A few days later someone comes up to him, treats it all like a big joke and the officer knocks the guy down. I met a guy in Cancun, a retired police officer from the Bronx. He was going in to a 7-11 or something just as a crook was coming out (he'd just robbed the place). The guy shot him once with a .357, but the officer deflected it and, pulling out his own gun, shot the guy several times, fatally as it turned out. As we left the surf, I could instantly see the damage. The bullet had torn down his leg, lengthwise. The power of a .357 is incredible and he had profound scarring and a debilitating limp. Later, when he and his wife had dinner with me and mine, he told me that he suffered several years of nightmares and insomnia over the shooting. He went through both physical and emotional therapy and his wife told me what she went through -- his spontaneous weeping and changing moods. Military people don't tend to suffer the same, probably because they're trained to fight. He also wasn't religious. I think people who are (and who don't think such are going to be annihilated or spend the rest of eternity in flames) tend to look at it in a different light.

The scriptures do not say, "Thou shalt not kill." They say, "Thou shalt not murder." Big difference. Murder is the taking of innocent life and, I think, applies to animals killed for sport as well as people. There are some people who corner wild hogs using dogs. Then, when the hogs are trapped, they jump in and stab the beasts to death using long, sharp knives known as "pig stickers." In short, these people delight in the screams of the animals and their blood when they could have just as easily shot them. They then take photos of themselves holding their bloody knives, with their clothing drenched in blood and looking like something out of a horror movie.

A number of years ago, I used an illegally-carried Rossi 88 stainless steel 3-inch .38 Spc to spook off about six very intimidating...ummm...young men after taking a date to a late night play in a seedy section of Washington, D.C. My date knew one of the people in the production, so when we got out the place looked like a war zone. I had parked in an underground garage and when we got to my car, there were only two -- mine and theirs. Not a good sign. The young men were standing around and seated on their car like they were waiting for someone -- likely the owner of my car. My date was very attractive and here I was dressed in my best suit, overcoat and some spiffy shoes...an easy target with only about twenty bucks. Enough to satisfy one of them, perhaps, but six? My car door was locked and these guys began whispering to each other. As they walked towards us, my date got behind me and dug her fingers into my arm. At that point I just turned, faced them, and pulled out just enough of my gun so that they could see it. And when they did, it had its hoped-for results. They slowed and, after a very brief staff meeting, they glared at us and began back for their car. Fearing they might be going back for weapons of their own, I quickly unlocked her door, let her in, then got myself in. Having been as cool as glass moments ago, I was now so nervous I could barely get my keys in the ignition and beat a hasty retreat. The point is: I DIDN'T HAVE TO FIRE A SHOT! So the gun really can be a weapon of peace.

31

JWs and Exclusivity

by Don Schneider in

jesus, mark 9-40 (nwt).

the jehovahs witnesses assert exclusivity.

that is, they are the only true christian faith.

Cold Steel

As a Latter-day Saint, I don’t see anything necessarily wrong by exclusivity — and by that I mean there’s nothing wrong with the concept that there’s a single church with administrators called and ordained with divine authority. Where I find a major problem is when a single faith deviates into the concept, doctrine or creed that exclusivity carries with it exclusive rights to salvation.

I do not wish to debate the relative merits of Mormonism, but to me it makes sense that for administrative and doctrinal purposes, there should be a chain of authority from On High. But it must be countered with the recognition that we are all the children of God, and that we are here for a purpose — not to carry upon our shoulders the sin of Adam and Eve. And being apt to make mistakes and errors of judgment, choosing the wrong religion should not result in expulsion into hell (which most Christians believe is eternal, everlasting fire, which burns but never consumes).

Studying these religions has become a hobby of mine. Whether it’s the churches of Christ, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Church of God, Philadelphia Church of God, the Restored Church of God, Evangelical Christians, Catholicism or you name it, those who fail to enter in by their door or tread the path that they dictate are doomed to fire or annihilation.

The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has tenuous claims to exclusivity to begin with, but its fatal flaw is that it’s a society, not a church — and the New Testament is unmistakably clear that Jesus established an actual church with apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, deacons, elders, bishops, priests and so forth, with spiritual gifts such as prophecy and revelation. Yet what does the Society provide? Not a church. In fact, one can be disfellowshiped for reading a church’s pamphlets or worshipping in its buildings; yet read the New Testament and look how often the Church of Jesus Christ (not Jehovah) is mentioned. “For upon this rock I will build my church,” he told Peter, “and the gates of [death] shall not prevail against it.”

So that’s the reason the Society neither ordains its elders or members, nor its chief executives. It would be meaningless and would be lacking in divine authority. Perhaps they realize that behind the smoke and mirrors, they would be reaching for something it had no legitimate claim to.

In my view, there should be an exclusive authority upon the earth — like I said, a chain of authority. For several months I debated a Catholic friend who wanted to enter the priesthood. He was fascinated with the various Marian apparitions which were occurring throughout the world. It was evidence of God speaking, he said, and that was thrilling after so many centuries. But if the Pope was God’s representative on Earth, I countered, why wouldn’t Mary be speaking to him rather than these peasant girls? Why should the Pope be pouring over these visions and mysteries and trying to determine whether they’re of God or not when he’s the one appointed to issue infallible declarations and edicts?

When there’s a “body” of believers that constitute one true church, how does God expect to get the word out? If he called a prophet among this body of believers, can you imagine how he would be received? He goes to the Methodists, Baptists, Anglicans, Lutherans, Amish and evangelicals, how would this prophet ever gain credibility? So exclusivity can be a good thing — even a necessary thing — if God is going to speak to man. But if it’s going to claim Heaven to the exclusion of everyone else, it will debase God’s Love, his Fatherhood and his Justice. People are imperfect and, in a diverse world, to hold them to such an awesome responsibility to judge perfectly (or else) would be the height of injustice. The scriptures state that ultimately “every knee shall bend and every tongue confess Christ,” including those of atheists. To what end would it be to then just blow them out of existence?

[Background: In the June issue of The Watchtower 2004, two articles addressed the issue. The first article was “Should You Belong to a Church?” The followup article was entitled, “Which Religion Should You Join?” Since we know what the answer will be, notice the subtle...very subtle...switcheroo. It’s not which church you should join, but what religion should you join? Why didn’t the editors use the word church in the second article? Because the WTBTS is not a church. If I were an article JW, I’d want to know why, if Jesus had a church, there’s no church today. And if there is a church, why doesn’t it have priests? Also, why, if the Society has compared the Governing Body with the ancient apostles (which means “sent ones”), who received guidance from the Holy Spirit, why members of the Governing Body don’t share that term? They don’t even claim to be the same office, just using a different term. They do, however, equate themselves with the apostle John class. As the Navy has a primary ship class, like the Arleigh Burke class, which is the first of other ships just like it but with different hull numbers, the John class of leaders are just more, later, versions of John. In the second article, the writers compare the leadership of the Society with the ancient prophets and apostles. Yet, strangely, no one has ever called them, or ordained them, to prophetic offices. And instead of building on previous leaders and their once-inspired writings, they seem to pave over them with new light...er...new asphalt.]

90

Killing In Self Defense

by Cold Steel in

the man was moving around in the darkness of j's home with a gun.

he was certain j. and his family weren't there, but he was wrong.

when a door suddenly opened and a dark figure fumbled for the hallway light, he had only a moment to act.

Cold Steel

The reason Jesus did not resist at first was because he was able to use the power of God to escape. When he was arrested, he did not resist because he had a destiny. He voluntarily partook of the bitter cup and brought salvation to the children of men. He was atypical of people in our positions because he could have saved himself without deadly force had he chosen and when he returns he will destroy an incredibly powerful army with the "brightness of his glory."

Since God does not change, why should his laws change? Much earlier he commanded: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." (GEN. 6:9) This law was given before the Mosaic Law, so the argument cannot reasonably be made that it was replaced by the gospel law.

Another aspect in all this is that at least 90 percent of all confrontations (and probably more) in which armed citizens successfully defend themselves from assailants end up NOT killing them. The mere presence of a gun is enough to stop the assault. Thus, an armed woman who stops a rapist isn't going to gun him down in cold blood because she's not a killer. I bought one magazine years ago because the cover story was about a drop-dead gorgeous woman who stopped an intruder who had a long history of rapes, attempted rapes and armed assaults. I didn't buy the magazine because she was a beauty. I bought it because in the cover photo, she was brandishing a stainless steel Ruger Security-Six .357 revolver with a 6-inch barrel (my favorite revolver). The combination of the two was more than I could resist.

The intruder first attempted a physical attack with a knife, snarling and carrying on in an attempt to intimidate her. But when she produced the .357, he changed instantly (and isn't encouraging positive changes in people what the gospel promotes?). Now he was a guy who lost his job and had been unemployed for a long time. He was only trying to get enough money to support his wife and kids. Naturally, she didn't buy a word of it and she next forced him to do the greatest indignity imaginable -- she made him call the police and tell them the address and what had happened. The police arrived a short time later and he was promptly arrested. She made the local news and then made the cover of this magazine. Beautiful...just beautiful...gun. As for the blonde, what does she look like these many years later? Who knows? But the gun, what of it? Just as gorgeous as ever! Mine never changes, and undoubtedly not many years hence it will most likely belong to someone else...and his kids and grandkids after that.

In the woman's case and many, many others, the gun prevented an assault -- a potentially bloody one. I don't know if any of you guys reading this have been badly cut, but it's a horribe experience. The sensation of the bite of the steel and the blood that follows; very difficult to stop unless you know what you're doing. Then there's the violation of the assault and the possibility of having your throat cut. Which, according to the elders, is preferable to Jehovah? Is it better to let such criminals back on the streets where they can vicimize someone else (maybe a family man with kids)? Heck, the courts may do that, but people have the right to self defense. Call on Jehovah?? Maybe you can sit at your dining room table and he can get you a steak, baked potato, salad and some wine. Or perhaps you can call on him to fill your gas tank and keep your car mechanically tuned.

The WTBTS policy is potentially more dangerous than its blood policy. (How do you think you'd fare if the guy sliced into you with a knife because you are prevented from defending yourself, and you bled out and now needed blood? That's one hell of a predicament!)

90

Killing In Self Defense

by Cold Steel in

the man was moving around in the darkness of j's home with a gun.

he was certain j. and his family weren't there, but he was wrong.

when a door suddenly opened and a dark figure fumbled for the hallway light, he had only a moment to act.

Cold Steel

Are Witnesses really supposed to not take self defense classes? There are many reasons why it should be permitted. Mastering one's self physically and disciplining one's self emotionally is at the heart of many SD courses. People are taught to restrain themselves when they might otherwise not. If J. had taken such courses, he might have physically disarmed the intruder instead of killing him. That way the intruder, who has a long rap sheet of violent crimes and has spent three stints in prison for rape, assault, and wantonly removing tags from bed matresses, will be spared to rape, pillage and murder another day. Can someone actually be disciplined for taking such courses? If counseled, could a brother be disfellowshiped if he continued taking self defense courses? And what of courses for learning how to use and carry a gun? If J. had been legally carrying a small .357 and shot and killed two attackers, would he be in trouble then? Or if the elders learned that J. had acquired a concealed weapons permit, what then?

90

Killing In Self Defense

by Cold Steel in

the man was moving around in the darkness of j's home with a gun.

he was certain j. and his family weren't there, but he was wrong.

when a door suddenly opened and a dark figure fumbled for the hallway light, he had only a moment to act.

Cold Steel

It boils down to whether an "ordained" minister of the gospel has the God-given right to self defense or whether they're expected to live by a higher standard? One question is, would it be an entirely legal issue or would the BOE get involved? I've heard that in some jurisdictions, Witnesses are counseled not to own guns for self defense. So I surmise it's a strictly local theocratic matter.

20

Gog of Magog is still SATAN!!!

by ADJUSTMENTS in

during the public discourse today the brobot talked about the gog of magog, and he stated that he was satan!!!

i had to ask my wife if i heard him correctly, and she said yes he said it is satan.... i couldnt wait to run up to the brobot after the meeting and inform him of he "new light" we just recieved yesterday!!!

when i approached him i asked him : what is gog of magog?

Cold Steel

Doctrinely, what is the NEW Gog and Magog? When people get up and speak on such things, do they actually READ Ezekiel 38-39 in different Bible versions, or translations, or do they just read the pertinent WATCHTOWER articles. How do they interpret the fact that Gog will come out of the North and decimate Israel? If they also read Zechariah 12 and 14, this intended destruction of Judah and Jerusalem will culminate in the Messiah's return. John also says Gog (or "the beast") will attack Judah and Jerusalem (Rev. 11, 14). In fact, he says it will be against Judah in the city where our Lord was crucified. How can that be anywhere except Jerusalem? If anyone's an active JW, please explain, or send me a PM. I'm just interested in prophetic exegesis, nothing more. Thanks!

90

Killing In Self Defense

by Cold Steel in

the man was moving around in the darkness of j's home with a gun.

he was certain j. and his family weren't there, but he was wrong.

when a door suddenly opened and a dark figure fumbled for the hallway light, he had only a moment to act.

Cold Steel

The man was moving around in the darkness of J's home with a gun. He was certain J. and his family weren't there, but he was wrong. When a door suddenly opened and a dark figure fumbled for the hallway light, he had only a moment to act. As the light came on, he launched himself at the figure, whom he instantly recognized as J's wife. Using his revolver as a club, he delivered a blow to her head. Just as suddenly he saw another figure emerge. The last thing he saw was the automatic in J's hand -- a small caliber Ruger pistol. Without a word, J. began shooting. The intruder dropped his .38, but not before J. had unloaded his 10-shot magazine into his head and chest. He was pronounced dead on the scene.

But the plot thickens, as they say. J. is an active Jehovah's Witness. It was ruled by the cops justifiable homicide and the state's attorney agreed. So how about the elders in J's Kingdom Hall? Do they initiate any sort of any inquiry, or investigation, on their own? In short, do they back J., or are they upset that J's affiliation with the Watchtower Society might reflect poorly on them? The intruder's family is angry because their dear P. was shot ten times in rapid succession. Did he have to fire so many shots? Both J. and his wife, considered ordained ministers in Jehovah's "organization," and they testiy that P. had not dropped his weapon until all the shots had been fired.

Is this going to be a theocratic issue or will J. be vindicated because it was a clear cut case of self defense? In the Old Testament, killing an intruder after dark was justifiable. Does that cut J. any slack? And will J. be in trouble because he grabbed his wife and used her as a human shield while he emptied his weapon into P.?

15

Christians: Question about, "Be obedient to those who are taking the lead among you..."

by Zoos in

Cold Steel

What Paul was saying, I think, is that the saints should be obedient to leaders who are chosen and ordained by God (and both kings and emperors have claimed such appointment). That's not to say that people should put their faith in self-appointed leaders who seek to control others. The central aspect of Christianity is free agency -- that men should have the freedom of choice.

The ancient apostles had authority because they were ordained by Jesus. "For ye have not chosen me," he told them, "but I have chosen you and ordained you." (John 15:16) Those apostles received revelation for the guidance of the people. For example, they counseled the Christians to desert Jerusalem and flee to Pella and other cities to avoid the slaughter that came as a result of the Roman destruction of both the city and the temple. No one was forced to leave, but the instruction came from God, who spoke to his trusted servants.

People like Jim Jones, David Koresch and even more rational claimants like Alexander Campbell, John Calvin and others were never called of God, despite the fact that they believed they had been called of God. Thus the WTBTS freely admits: 1) it is not a church; 2) its leaders are not ordained and have no priesthood; 3) they have received no revelation in the form of angels, theophanies or visible manifestations that would confirm that they were actually called of God; and 4) that they lack the spiritual gifts of the ancient church. Thus, those who put faith in their words are putting their faith in the arm of flesh. It's amazing, but I've heard JWs who say that when God's judgments come, they believe that then the GB will receive the manifestations they need to save them. In the meantime, they should question their leaders' credentials, just to make sure that their leaders will be able to get those revelations if and when the sky falls. They also should ask themselves why, if Jesus had a church, why they're putting their faith and trust in an "organization" whose leaders exercise outrageous dominion over their followers -- telling them what they can and can't read, where they can and can't go in the way of churches, what they can and can't display in their own homes and which possesions are inhabited by demons.

Finally, the NWT managed to screw up what Paul was trying to say. He didn't say, "Be obedient to those who are taking the lead among you," which implies that they took the authority unto themselves. He said, "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account." Only those appointed by God must give account of their stewardships. Those who take the lead on their own volition are assuming authority they don't have, and those following them are putting their faith in the "arm of flesh."

Hebrews 13:17

Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you. (KJV)

Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit to them: for they watch in behalf of your souls, as they that shall give account; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief: for this were unprofitable for you. (ASV)

Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls and will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with sighing—for that would be harmful to you. (NASV)