Posts by Cold Steel

11

When Captain America Throws His Mighty Shield!

by Cold Steel in

how does the society feel about two of marvel's most popular avengers?.

first, captain america.

the star-spangled man with a plan.

Cold Steel

So anyone see the Captain America Civil War trailer yet?
It looks like War Machine may kick the bucket while Captain America and Bucky are just hammering Iron Man.
Its gonna be soooooo sweeeeeet!

I think the plot stinks. Just a few movies ago Tony Stark told a military subcommittee that they couldn't have his suit. Now he's going to roll over for a law that would register super heroes? That makes no sense. Especially when the ranking senator trying to get the suit was a member of Hydra! {«Hail Hydra!»}

Now ordinarily I wouldn't know where Captain America would stand. Being a patriot, would he be willing to sustain the laws of the land? Or would he rebel at a government that had grown tyrannical and oppressive? And Stark? He wouldn't even register his guns much less his suit! But in this movie he supports the law.

What about War Machine? I doubt he'll die for two reasons for two reasons. First, I don't think you'll see one Avenger kill another hero. Cap and Iron Man would experience a rift that could never be repaired if that happened. Reason two is that War Machine is black, and unless you want the NAACP banging on your door, you better not only let him live, but make sure he's nominated for best supporting actor. If WM is whacked, I'll bet it will be by the bad guys -- the ones that will cause the Avengers to reunite and eventually save the day.

All in all, those writers should be getting off drugs long enough to figure out how to bring back Pietro.

Someone has to be around fast enough to beat the Flash into the ground. So if WM has to go, he is redundant.

But we'll have to wait to hear from the GB about Cap and THOR. If Caleb is allowed to see it, I reckon everyone else can as well.

11

When Captain America Throws His Mighty Shield!

by Cold Steel in

how does the society feel about two of marvel's most popular avengers?.

first, captain america.

the star-spangled man with a plan.

Cold Steel

How does the Society feel about two of Marvel's most popular Avengers?

First, Captain America. The star-spangled man with a plan. He may not have a military uniform, but he sports the red, white and blue and has a spangled vibratium shield (or whatever). He's a fighting flag!

Next is THOR, a false Norse god...but one heck of a nice guy.

So can JWs watch these movies, or will they have to settle for two new Caleb movies?

36

Seriously....We have to start attacking this cult!!! Enough is enough!!

by DATA-DOG in

i propose that we make pintrest accounts and start openly challenging this crap.. .

seriously.... any suggestions?

this crap cannot be left unchallenged.

Cold Steel

Ummm...how about Caleb's father? Why is it only his mother who is making him throw away the warrior-sorcerer? I've seen that video and it scares me.

What software program do they use to make those videos?

6

A question for you Mormons out there

by joe134cd in

i just have a question regarding the mormon faith.

could a practicing mormon women who didn't work, but who was a married to a none practicing mormon man who was the sole income provider.

could she still get a temple recommend if he flatly refused to tithe.

Cold Steel

Could a practicing Mormon woman who didn't work, but who was a married to a non-practicing mormon man who was the sole income provider. Could she still get a temple recommend if he flatly refused to tithe?

Hi, Joe. I'm LDS, true blue all the way.

To answer your question, yes, the woman could still get a recommend. She cannot be sealed to her husband in the temple because he's ineligible, but she would have no problem getting one.

133

What are the biggest holes in evolution?

by shadow in

how honest are the proponents of evolution?

idk but curious to see what type of response there is on a topic like this or does their study only seek to confirm their preconceptions and ignore uncomfortable facts?

Cold Steel

I do not think that it is possible to disprove evolution. Anything seeming not to conform to evolution can be shown to reconcile some way, and even if it can't, that doesn't invalidate evolution, it only means that aspect of the evolutionary process is not understood. So, I think that it is a waste of time to attempt to invalidate evolution.

Yes, and if there's no God it would be my theory of choice. And I can't even say it's a bad theory, but there are holes in it, I think, that try too much to infringe on God's role. Too many atheists use the theory as a weapon. As I see it, how can evolution be true and Adam also to have lived? And if there's no Adam there's no fall. And if no fall, there is no need for an atonement, so there is no need of Christ nor any reason for the resurrection. But my faith in Christ greatly outweighs my faith in man or science.

This is not to denounce science in any way, but historically science has had some spectacular failures. I'm old enough to remember scores of times when science had to back off on things it thought it had all figured out. This isn't to condemn it; it's just that for all its failures, science lacks humility. Pick up any astronomical, archeological, geological, medical or any other text book that's more than twenty years old and you can toss it in the nearest trash can. That great college textbook on astronomy I paid thirty dollars for back in 1977 ended up in the trash in 1995 because it was pathetically obsolete. So I see all the benefits of science, and many are amazing, but I've also seen science with its share of egg on its face.

133

What are the biggest holes in evolution?

by shadow in

how honest are the proponents of evolution?

idk but curious to see what type of response there is on a topic like this or does their study only seek to confirm their preconceptions and ignore uncomfortable facts?

Cold Steel

The next reply is not to mock you or make you an atheist. I just want to make you think about your reasoning.

Thank you for that. I don't take offense at any civil exchange of ideas and will, of course, consider your comments. As to your first reply, I will concede that evolution does not rule out God, but it certainly has been used by atheists to attack the concept that there is a divine creator. But the Catholic, Anglican and other Christian sects that hold out the possibility that though evolution may be the instrument used by God in the creation, only God can create man's immortal soul. The "Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God," that church states. "So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are." Though I can't say that most Christian churches accept evolution, some apparently do.

You said that the theory of evolution explains how all life on Earth evolved, and that everything we understand so far "does not need divine action to be explained." Perhaps not, but it doesn't explain how life sprang from the the seething cauldron of the Big Bang nor how those simple organisms can mutate into increasingly complex ones over any period of time. You answered by asking if it is easier to accept that an omniscient, omnipotent invisible being always existed or came to existence without cause? It's a good enough question, but it's a deflection.

The entire heart of the theory of evolution is very simple organisms mutating into very complex ones. Remember, too, that Christians see the creation as only part of the overall package -- not the whole -- while the theory of evolution exists solely to answer the question of the development of life. I see the beauty and complexity of life as evidence of a creator. Whether it came by way of evolution or not is a question I can't answer, but then, speaking of the invisible and unquantifiable, explain dark matter. Many scientists believe in the stuff but they can't produce a thimble of it. Like God, I believe in it even though I can't see it, measure it or even detect it.

You also ask if the level of evidence I require to accept evolution is equal to the level of evidence I require before accepting the existence of God, noting that the Bible contains "claims about God, not evidence."

First, my faith in God comes not from or in the Bible, but through revelation. When Peter told Jesus that he believed he was the Messiah, the Son of the living God, Jesus told him that "flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father, which is in Heaven." In fact, this is the only way man can know the nature and reality of God at all. Again, it's like dark matter in that we can know God lives, yet not be able to see him or detect him. We also can have faith in God through the testimonies of those who have seen him and who have known him. If one can actually see God and commune with him as easily as one man speaks to another, one doesn't actually have to question his existence. He may not be believed, but others may find the testimony credible.

Finally, can life and intelligence evolve from a spontaneous action? Again, a deflection on your part by asking: "as in...a living and intelligent God?" Yes, certainly. I've never heard the theory of evolution address it. But in my faith, the universe is composed of two primordial, eternal elements: intelligence and matter, or simply, that which acts and that which is acted upon. All life is intelligence, even God, the greatest of all. Matter has no intelligence, but can be changed or acted upon. It can be altered, but not destroyed. God used it to create the earth.

Intelligence, on the other hand, also is eternal; however, as far as we know, it cannot be recycled as can matter. I believe that anything that is intelligent cannot be created. Intelligence has no beginning or end. It can be developed, added upon and nurtured, or it can be returned to what it was. All humans, animals and things that can move and act upon matter are made up of intelligence. But though God can and does manipulate matter, he cannot create either out of nothing.

So yes, for me to accept the theory of evolution, it would need to be compatible with my spiritual beliefs. Evidence is like a compass; it doesn't always point the right way under all circumstances. I believe when the Lord comes, he will reveal everything you and I want answered, and that it will make perfect sense. It may not turn out the way either of us now thinks, but the knowledge will completely satisfy us. And remember, the Bronze Age tribal chief may have been amongst the first of those who heard from God, but he certainly wasn't the last, so you can't put this at his feet.

133

What are the biggest holes in evolution?

by shadow in

how honest are the proponents of evolution?

idk but curious to see what type of response there is on a topic like this or does their study only seek to confirm their preconceptions and ignore uncomfortable facts?

Cold Steel

I don't know enough about evolution to either argue for it or against it. My primary concerns, however, include the following:

1) It seems predicated on the assumption that there is no God, or intelligent designer.

2) The idea that simple organisms can mutate into increasingly complex ones. I'd like to see some evidence this is possible. To think 1-cell organisms can mutate, without a great deal of outside help, into modern humans over a long period of time, is difficult for me to accept.

3) That life and intelligence can evolve from a spontaneous action.

If the Big Bang happened (and I believe it possible), then everything that erupted from it must have been sterile. How can life spring from sterility. Can life and intelligence come from the interactions of electricity on amino acids? I would like to see it. I also would like to see intelligence come from any green slime that might appear.

If evolution can be shown to be consistent with theism, I might be willing to accept it. Nevertheless, I'm also willing to wait until the Lord's coming for answers. "Yea, verily I say unto you, in that day when the Lord shall come, he shall reveal all things—things which have passed, and hidden things which no man knew, things of the earth, by which it was made, and the purpose and the end thereof—things most precious, things that are above, and things that are beneath, things that are in the earth, and upon the earth, and in heaven."

31

The GB know it's all lies and wants to dismantle the WTS ... then what?

by Simon in

so imagine the gb have a sudden attack of honesty and realize "crap, this whole thing is lies - we're not god's spokespeople at all !".

how do you dismantle a religion that has +8 million members in a responsible way?

you can't just publish a watchtower saying "we were wrong" because that would be irresponsible - you need to let people down gently, put people off gradually.

Cold Steel

But how would most of the organization's members handle it if they suddenly learned everything they believed in is a lie? Would most give up on Christianity? After all, the outfit teaches some pretty harsh things against other Christians. If they die and suddenly realize they are spirits and not asleep, what would they think?

Oh my gosh, I'm an anointed one! We don't die at death!

Or would they look at their bodies on the slabs and think, Well, we were wrong about that!

What would you do?

16

Do People Have Spirits? What Do the Early Texts Say?

by Cold Steel in

for years adventist sects, including the jws, have believed that the dead sleep at death and remain non-existent until the resurrection.

its strongest argument seems to be text in the non-escchatological book of ecclesiastes in the old testament.

although a part of the canon of scripture, the book is not written by a prophet, nor is there any prophecy or recognizable doctrine contained therein.

Cold Steel

For years adventist sects, including the JWs, have believed that the dead sleep at death and remain non-existent until the resurrection. Its strongest argument seems to be text in the non-escchatological book of Ecclesiastes in the Old Testament. Although a part of the canon of scripture, the book is not written by a prophet, nor is there any prophecy or recognizable doctrine contained therein. Solomon, the Son of David, had spent the last part of his life sinning against God. He was old, tired and most likely not positively disposed towards a rosey afterlife. In fact, he seems to have a poor disposition towards life and the purpose thereof. Theologians within these adventist sects argue against the rest of Christianity that Ecclesiastes teaches a doctrine that the rest of the scriptures don't seem consistent with. Instead, they argue, it was the encroachment of heretical Greek thought on a susceptible church that was opening its preaching to increasingly large numbers of gentiles.

But what of the pseudopigraphical works produced by the Jews? Or the libraries of rival Christians who were even further removed from Greek thought, such as the Nag Hammadi library, discovered in 1947 at about the same time as the Dead Sea Scrolls? Of particular interest is the Apocalypse of Abraham, a Hebrew work written from 75-150 A.D. and later translated into Slavonic. This was originally a Hebrew writing that is not produced by the Greeks, but by the Jews. Yet it not only teaches men live on after death (like most near death experiences from all cultures around the earth), but that men had pre-mortal lives:

And while [Yahweh] was yet speaking, the expanses opened, and there below me were the heavens, and I saw upon the seventh firmament upon which I stood a fire widely extended, and the light which is the treasury of life, and the dew with which God will awaken the dead, and the spirits of the departed righteous, and the spirits of those souls who have yet to be born, and judgment and righteousness, peace and blessing, and an innumerable company of angels, and the Living Ones, and the Power of the Invisible Glory that sat above the Living Ones.

The Christians who wrote and kept the Egyptian library also believed in the spirits of mankind and the separation of the spirits of the just and unjust. These are considered the oldest Christian documents known -- significantly earlier than any of the scriptures in the present canon. Yet they teach man has an immortal spirit, and a number teach premortal life.

In other words, far from being Greek heresy, the doctrine that man has an eternal spirit appears to be a well-entrenched Jewish/Christian doctrine. But why doesn't the WTBTS change?

28

Satanic Temple’s Seven Tenets - Makes 10 Commandments Sound Facile

by cofty in

the so-called 10 commandments are a post-biblical construct.... there is an elohist list at exodus 20 and a yahwist one at exodus 34 that contains such gems as "you shall not cook a kid in its mother’s milk.".

any intelligent adult could create a more useful list of ethical precepts before the end of a coffee break.. it is interesting to compare the satanic temple's seven tenets.

i think you might agree that it makes yahweh's rules look like they were written by a bronze age power-hungry, misogynistic priest.

Cold Steel

...you totally ignored the inconvenient fact that your god advocates slavery.

I did not ignore the fact. I asked you to give me an example of immoral codes of God's law and you said slavery. I then asked you to explain how you knew slavery is wrong? Instead of answering me, you ask me to just accept it and answer the question. But by doing that you put the burden on me to explain an evil we haven't agreed was evil. It's an old debate trick and I can spot it a mile off. Besides, trying to discuss anything with you is very difficult because you're sloppy in your statements, which take only a moment to make but considerable time tip answer. It's clear you're getting this stuff off a website because I hear other atheists make the same points...unless you get your History doctorates from the same university.

It's a fact that the moral concepts of the ancient Hebrews were light years ahead of any of their neighbors (compare them to your Canaanite friends, for example). That law did not tolerate the mistreatment of any bonded servant or slave, and it commanded Israel to take in their servants and make them better people and eventually part of your family. You can check it out here.

It would have been within God's laws to torture a slave to death. So long as the death doesn't immediately follow the beatings. Agonisng prolonged deaths of beaten and tortured slaves are sanctioned by your almighty God.

Not so. Deliberately torturing a slave to death would be against the entire tone and tint of God's law, which was based on compassion, brotherhood and betterment. Why critics can't maintain even a modicum of objectivity and comment on the Mosaic codes in the context of the times, place and culture of the people is beyond me. Many of those codes are far superior to anything man has developed, and I'm an admirer of Greek law and culture as well as Roman civil law, as well as the civil teachings of Ma'at, previously discussed. But how did man develop these things and know instinctively that they were "good"? Or that some things were "evil"?

Many of the American founders knew enough of what to incorporate into our civil law to promote freedom and ensure domestic tranquility, and it's a fine balance. They knew slavery was wrong, but they laid the groundwork for a system of government that would transcend the practice. But it requires a balance. At the end of World War II, General MacArthur refused to be an active force in developing the New Japanese constitution. He gave them copies of other codes and constitutions and told them to write theirs. The only stipulation he made is that they had to guarantee the equal rights of women. He introduced the concepts of labor unions and free trade without the adversarial components, and it all turned Japan around and made it the foremost industrial power in the Far East.

But despite man knowing good from evil, there are plenty of times they deliberately chose evil to get power or gain. Whether it's abortion or the burning of infants (which the Canaanites delighted in), the question of good versus evil was viewed more subjectively. The fact remains, the Hebrews and their laws were far above any of the other peoples of their day.