Not every criticism. Even first century Christianity had its problems (as does organic evolution). The important thing is that we not deny them, but recognize them. I've seen some Mormons try to deal with problems, but ineffectively. If modern Christians and Mormons say there are no problems, they're only deceiving themselves. I know of no religion or scientific theories that has zero problems.
Cold Steel
JoinedPosts by Cold Steel
-
7
Ex-Mormon talks about cognitive dissonence
by LevelThePlayingField inthis guy gets right to the point and talks about how mormons deny truth and their phraseology.
very similar to jw's.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlupmkdfhlu.
-
-
-
7
Ex-Mormon talks about cognitive dissonence
by LevelThePlayingField inthis guy gets right to the point and talks about how mormons deny truth and their phraseology.
very similar to jw's.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlupmkdfhlu.
-
-
Cold Steel
Yeah, he sounds like someone who would know! I agree many LDS aren't up on the things they should be, and I'm the first that would criticize them, but I've been LDS for 45 years, and this guy's doing a strawman. They're are three fairly recent, and critical, books on Mountain Meadows, and none of them point the finger at Brigham Young as the one that ordered the massacre. The reason? He had nothing to gain and everything to lose. He had no love for those who were massacred -- they were of the same stock as those who murdered, raped and pillaged the saints in Missouri. But when he learned there was conflict, he sent a personal message to the church leaders telling them to leave the people alone and let them pass.
Cognitive dissonance works in both directions and all religions, even atheism, wrestles with it. But this guy is just like the peckerhead who gets up in front of his congregation and boasts about how he bested an evolutionist who wasn't able to withstand his creationist arguments.
It's like the fable of the statue of Hercules beating the lion. It all depends on who's creating the sculpture. Honesty rarely enters the debate.
-
10
Will there ever be an accounting for religious leaders that go beyond what's written?
by Chook inall including wt prophets may be surprised.
-
-
Cold Steel
I've seen some of the addresses given by JW leaders and they act as though God has selected them. Yet how do they come to that conclusion seeing that they're self appointed? As far as I know, Jehovah has not spoken to any of them. It makes me wonder what the folks at Bethel who see these guys on a daily basis have to say. Are they friendly, personable? Do they socialize with the other Bethelites or stay in a restricted area of the building? Do they do any pioneer work in their spare time or are they expected to spend all their time feeding the household of God?
I've always been curious about how the Governing Body governs and how they get along.
-
16
How to respond when JW's invite you to the memorial
by krismalone inthe yearly rejection of the blood of christ aka jw memorial is coming soon.. jw's will be engaging in an invitation campaign.
elders are instructed to personally visit inactive ones or faders.
some sarcastic ideas of how to respond to the memorial invitation that will scare or piss off the cult members:.
-
-
Cold Steel
I've never understood the rationale for not partaking of the emblems. If people got together beforehand and decided to partake of the emblems, it would send a message to the hierarchy. It's another doctrine that is arbitrarily interpreted without an ounce of inspiration. Thus, in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul states:
For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. (Verses 23-28)
Is there is anything in that scripture to indicate that this only applies to the anointed, the "faithful and discreet slave"?
But earlier in the same chapter, we read:
For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man...neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. Which in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. (Verses 8-17)
If we apply the same scriptural exegesis to this scripture as we do the one before, then this, too, applies only to the anointed. So if you're gay or if you're a male who wants to have long hair or a female who wants to have short hair, don't fret! The scripture only applies to the anointed class! Isn't that what the Governing Body has determined?
The GB says it does not receive revelation, not is it inspired. So how is it qualified to determine what a scripture means?
We have two directions from an apostle, yet the GB declares that one scripture applies to the anointed class and the other doesn't.
-
16
How to respond when JW's invite you to the memorial
by krismalone inthe yearly rejection of the blood of christ aka jw memorial is coming soon.. jw's will be engaging in an invitation campaign.
elders are instructed to personally visit inactive ones or faders.
some sarcastic ideas of how to respond to the memorial invitation that will scare or piss off the cult members:.
-
-
Cold Steel
I've never understood the rationale for not partaking of the emblems. If people got together beforehand and decided to partake of the emblems, it would send a message to the hierarchy. It's another doctrine that is arbitrarily interpreted without an ounce of inspiration. Thus, in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul states:
For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. (Verses 23-28)
Is there is anything in that scripture to indicate that this only applies to the anointed, the "faithful and discreet slave"?
But earlier in the same chapter, we read:
For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man...neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. Which in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. (Verses 8-17)
If we apply the same scriptural exegesis to this scripture as we do the one before, then this, too, must apply only to the anointed. So if you're gay or if you're a male who wants to have long hair or a female who wants to have short hair, don't fret! The scripture only applies to the anointed class! Isn't that what the Governing Body has determined?
The GB says it does not receive revelation, not is it inspired. So how is it qualified to determine what a scripture means? We have two directions from an apostle, yet the GB declares that one scripture applies to the anointed class and the other doesn't.
-
8
Jehovah God and Jesus Christ the difference in the "Old Testament " and the "New Testament"
by smiddy inwhen you compare all the communications jehovah god had with humans whether it was by angels ,dreams ,or prophets as well as his intervention in human affairs when it suited him and their are many examples in the old testament to look at for about 4000 years .
the same cannot be said for jesus christ as king of kings to sit on the throne to rule over the earth for a thousand years.
in one sense he was king of christians 2000 years ago in another sense according to jw`s he was enthroned in 1914-18 for the next 1000 years.. whether you believe he was king over christians on his ascencion to heaven or his enthronement in 1914-18 for 2000 + years we have not had any communication from either god jehovah or christ jesus in any form one way or another.for the past 2000 years.. for the first 4000 years you couldnt shut jehovah up ,and the next 2000 years you dont here a beep out of jehovah or christ jesus.. for jw apologists when god gave a ruling/decree in the old testament how many times did he adjust /redefine/change what he said using the excuse "the light gets brighter and brighter" ?
-
-
Cold Steel
And how did Jesus contradict Yahweh?
-
8
Jehovah God and Jesus Christ the difference in the "Old Testament " and the "New Testament"
by smiddy inwhen you compare all the communications jehovah god had with humans whether it was by angels ,dreams ,or prophets as well as his intervention in human affairs when it suited him and their are many examples in the old testament to look at for about 4000 years .
the same cannot be said for jesus christ as king of kings to sit on the throne to rule over the earth for a thousand years.
in one sense he was king of christians 2000 years ago in another sense according to jw`s he was enthroned in 1914-18 for the next 1000 years.. whether you believe he was king over christians on his ascencion to heaven or his enthronement in 1914-18 for 2000 + years we have not had any communication from either god jehovah or christ jesus in any form one way or another.for the past 2000 years.. for the first 4000 years you couldnt shut jehovah up ,and the next 2000 years you dont here a beep out of jehovah or christ jesus.. for jw apologists when god gave a ruling/decree in the old testament how many times did he adjust /redefine/change what he said using the excuse "the light gets brighter and brighter" ?
-
-
Cold Steel
Smiddy » For the first 4000 years you couldnt shut Jehovah up, and the next 2000 years you dont here a beep out of Jehovah or Christ Jesus.
Actually, while your point is valid, the above isn't the case at all. There were many long stretches where God didn't speak. As I noted elsewhere, when Gabriel appeared to Zachariah, the father of John the Baptist, and told him his elderly wife was going to have a son, it had been more than 400 years since God had spoken. There were many false prophets over the years, and they spoke frequently; however, real prophets came along only when it was necessary, and for the benefit of the people.
Also, the early Christians believed that Jesus was Jehovah. They viewed Jehovah as being the Son of God and the great Mediator between God and Man. When Moses and his people "saw the God of Israel," and when Moses spoke to God "face to face," (see Exodus 28 and 33), they were not speaking about God the Father. Moses wasn't the great Mediator between God and Man -- it was Yahweh, the Son of the Father.
Matthew tells us of a lamentation made by Jesus while he was yet in mortality:
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! (Matthew 23:37)
This clearly doesn't apply to the thirty two years he had lived in mortality. Many of those years he most likely didn't know himself who he had been in premortality. Plus, in his lifetime he had more miracles, and there were many more angelic visits and laws given than at any other time in history. Jesus began his church, gave detailed instructions on how it should be run and after his resurrection spent 40 days giving his disciples special instructions, none of which the JWs have any inkling of. Then Paul speaks of going to the third heaven and seeing and hearing things it wasn't lawful to repeat, again which the Governing Body knows nothing about.
For JW apologists when God gave a ruling/decree in the Old Testament how many times did he adjust /redefine/change what he said using the excuse "the light gets brighter and brighter"?
NONE
And yet JW`s would have you believe God has been continuously doing this for the past 100 years not being able to give a precise or concise direction that didnt need to be changed after a couple of years.
Absolutely. If God spoke anciently when he wanted to do something, it shows God was an active force in accomplishing his will. "For ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you and ordained you," Jesus told his apostles. And in the Old Testament, God told Jeremiah, "Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee. And before thou camest forth from the womb, I sanctified thee and ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."
Yet now, in the last days, God has decided to change from active to passive. The church forms first, then the Lord comes out and selects them. Anciently God speaks to man and man complies; now man speaks and God complies! But while it's a great setup if you can get it all worked out, there is the problem of God never changing. In the past, God was visible when he appeared. Now he's invisible when he comes.
It's also strange that the saints are now called "Witnesses" when they really haven't seen or heard anything. "Well, what are you witnesses of?" Answer: nothing, really, because everything was invisible! His coming, his being appointed King, his selection of a publishing company as his divine will. And instead of being chosen and ordained, they choose God and ordain themselves!
Active versus passive. And they've never explained that aspect of their foundation.
-
23
God’s silence teaches more than what the “revealed scriptures” do!
by anointed1 inobjective reading of scriptures can see many human thoughts in them.
objective analysis of religions would show that they exist primarily for their own benefit.
is science too travelling in the same direction?
-
-
Cold Steel
So why do you assume God is silent?
When Zachariah, the Father of John the Baptist, was in the temple, an angel appeared and told the old man that his elderly wife was going to have a son. Before the appearance, there had been no recorded word from God in 400+ years. And the first thing Zachariah did was question the angel's authority! So the angel struck Zachariah dumb as a sign that he was of God.
The wickedness of the people caused the long period of apostasy, and in less than 35 years they had crucified the Messiah and John had been murdered. It didn't take long for the Christians of that day to begin replacing their appointed leaders and again their was a long reign of silence.
Paul had prophesied that in the last days, man's learning would be greatly accelerated. I just finished watching RUN SILENT, RUN DEEP (which took place in 1942). The U.S. submarines were rust buckets, yet they were running all over the Pacific. And twenty years later we had nukes, any one of which could have single handedly won the war. Weaponry, speed, ability to stay submerged, size, depth and, of course, expense -- the advances have been incredible.
Air, land, sea and space, the advances have been unreal. I'm not a supporter of Glenn Beck by any means, but the Book he recommends -- The Five Thousand Year Leap -- is a book I found fascinating. We hit a certain point and technology just exploded.
So no one really knows that God is silent. Presently it's moot.
-
11
How clean is Heaven?
by pleaseresearch inso when i think of the word heaven.
i see angels, clouds and harp players.
but in reality when we think about it, for thousands of years it's been occupied by the devil himself and his demons.
-
-
Cold Steel
The early views of the church is far different than what most think. I was reading an address by Dr. Hugh Nibley that delved into this in a paper on what some of the earliest Christians believed based on early extra-biblical accounts. Here is an excerpt:
The first thing to get clear, when we start talking about other worlds, is that we know nothing about them. It comes only by revelation. These things are not the extent or the projection of our own scientific world or literary experience, and not the production of our own imagination. Those who have seen other worlds in vision tell us that we simply cannot imagine what they are like.
Remember what Paul said after he talked about going to the third heaven: I can talk about one who was caught up. I've seen those things. And what about it? "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither has entered into the heart of man." Nobody has seen anything like it. Nobody has heard anything like it. You can't imagine what it is like -- it has not "entered into the heart of man." So you shouldn't try to make yourself a picture of what heaven is like. You'll be completely wrong. And that's good, because I don't want it to be more of the same, more of this. It would be an awful bore, wouldn't it?
The Pistis Sophia: "Other worlds cannot possibly be described in terms of this world. Not only is there less in common between other worlds and this world, they differ as widely among themselves as any of them does from us."
"In the limited confines of the flesh," the new and valuable writing of James explains, "which condition all our thinking, we can't possibly grasp the nature of other existences or even begin to count the number of other worlds.
"We are necessarily prone to think in terms of our world. Of course we can't think in any other terms. We haven't the remotest idea of what it's like. We use the words we do because we don't have any others. As St. Augustine says, "This is the wrong picture I have given you, but at least it's a picture." (lmpar imago, sed imago.)
"When we say Light," says the Sophia Christi, "we think of our kind of light. "But that's wrong. When we say marriage, for example, in the other world, it'll be entirely different from what it is here, though of course we must designate earthly and heavenly marriage by the same name. Even though spirits may be eternal and thus equal in age, this writing explains, they differ in intelligence, in appearance, and in other things. And these differences are primary, as unbegotten as the spirits themselves. It is not something that's acquired. We are just different, primary and unbegotten, and no two alike.
The Lord tells the Apostles in the Epistle of the Apostles, "Where my Father is, is entirely different from this world. There you will see lights that are nobler than your kind of light. In the millions of worlds that God has made for his son, every world is different from the others and wonderful in its own radiance." Quoting the Odes of Solomon: "Hence, one of the joys of existence is that the worlds constantly exchange with each other what they have, each possessing don't see two faces alike here." Isn't it marvelous. No two alike. "Vive la difference!"
"In the Hebrew Universe," writes Pederson, "the world consists of a number oF lives that are intermixed but can never become merged because each has its special character. Individuals remain forever themselves." Among ten thousand times ten thousand worlds, says the Ginza, you will find no two alike.
A prayer from the Mandaean Prayer Book reads, "Before this world there were already a thousand thousand mysteries and a myriad myriad planets, each with its own mysteries." The multiplicity of worlds, as taught by the Early Church, formed a perfect unity as do the strings of a lyre. Each plays a different note; together they make marvelous harmony. If two strings play the same note, there is not much point to that. There must be a great orchestration. This is a common idea among the ancients. Plotinus taught that each star existed for the sake of the whole, to which it contributed its individuality. Each has its particular part to play; by being uniquely itself it can make a contribution of maximum value.
There is the great difference, and among the differences there is a hierarchy. Some are greater than others. That is the concept of the three degrees of glory. The one thing they all have in common is that there are three main degrees. "You can visit the orders below you," says the Pistis Sophia, "but not the level or orders above you."
The three degrees are described in a great number of manuscripts. Ignatius, writing to the Trallians, says the same thing. Ignatius was the last church father who knew the mysteries of the church; the Saints have asked him to tell them about some of these mysteries and the levels of other worlds.
And this is what he says in reply: "I could write to you about the mysteries of the heavens, but I am afraid to do so. It would do you harm. I am able to understand the orders of the heavens, the degrees of the angels, the variations among them, and the differences of dominions, of thrones and powers, and of the elevation of the Holy Ghost and of the kingdom of the Lord, and the highest of all rules of God over everything else. There is an infinity of hierarchy in the world." But he died and took his knowledge with him. "You're not ready for it yet," he said, "and the Church is not going to have it." An early hymn says, "Christ rules in second place. His rule exactly duplicates the Father's but over a more limited number of cosmoses." Methodius explains this, he being in my opinion the last church father to correlate what stuff remained of the concept. He says, "If other stars are greater than our world, then it is necessary that they contain life greater than ours, and greater peace, and greater justice, and greater virtue than ours."
-
13
undeserved kindness vs. grace
by nowwhat? inundeserved kindness means- you puny humans are irredemable and worthless, but because i am such a benevolent and magnanimous god.
i give you a way for salvation.
but you better keep working day in and day out for the rest of your miserable lives and perhaps i'll save you on my day of wrath.
-
-
Cold Steel
The Watchtower takes the fragments of what is known regarding the purpose of man, fills in what is not known, then expects its followers to make sense of it. If God had absolute power to do anything, as many sectarian assume (but which the Bible doesn't say), why did it take Him seven "days" to complete the earth? Why didn't He just "speak" the earth into existence with merely a thought? And if He had limitless power, why did He not just forgive mankind without there having to be an atonement? It's clear from scripture that, if true, we're not being given the complete picture.