Posts by Cold Steel

31

the Witch of Endor

by Magnum in

1sa 28:3-25 (nwt - not revised version).

7 finally saul said to his servants: seek for me a woman who is a mistress of spirit mediumship, and i will go to her and consult her.

then his servants said to him: look!

Cold Steel

Cold Steel, on the subject of witches, is this your belief?

No, Nancy Pelosi is more in line with my view [shudder!]

39

The Real History of Mormonism - Outstanding Lecture

by cofty in

if you think the mormon church is off-the-scale crazy you probably don't know the half of it.. the historical information in this talk by david fitzgerald is fascinating.

the good news is that, just like the watchtower, their growth is being stunted by the internet.. grab a coffee and be amazed at just how gullible millions of people can be.. lucy harris has become my new heroine.

don't miss the section from 8:50.

Cold Steel

You made the following two points.
1. God didn't leave the plates because he doesn't like giving anybody. Therefore he took the plates away.
2. If we still had the plates it would not have been proof of anything.
Which is it?

Even in your responses you are trite and you misrepresent the facts.

As stated previously, two-thirds of the plates were sealed (Isaiah 29:18-29), which means that no one -- not even Smith -- was permitted to view them. Also, the Lord, for whatever reason, doesn't _ever_ provide anyone with proof of His work until they have built an adequate foundation of faith. Why? Because you would then be obligated to accept it and comply to the Lord's will or be condemned for rejecting it. And apparently the Lord feels that this would violate your free agency.

But He left plenty of evidence for the Book of Mormon.

http://youtube.com/?#/watch?v=YL-NXToiksQ

Your video also sought to impugn the witnesses of the Book of Mormon. Perhaps you would like the entire story rather than the baseless misrepresentations on your video.

http://youtube.com/?#/watch?v=V38jsyMnyIs

Evidence, yes, but definitive proof, almost never. So hypothetically, even had Smith _produced_ the plates for all to see, would that have proven his translation correct? No, all it would have proven was that he was in possession of an ancient artifact, and a valuable one at that. And do you believe he would have been able to keep them? How about the man upon whose land Smith found them? Wouldn't he have claimed a right to them? “After all, ol' Joe Smith found them on my land! He only came up with that 'translation' after he found them on my property!“ The stone box was still intact on the hill as well as the large rock covering it. Some of the early saints reported seeing them for some time and said they were there for all to see. But of course anyone could have constructed such and no one would have been the wiser.

But then why didn't the Lord let the plates be inspected? I _suspect_ it was that He eventually wanted the two-thirds to be translated, and I _suspect_ they would have fallen out of the hands of the Church. Archeologists would have undoubtedly broken the seal, as well, in an attempt to read it's contents.

So there you have it. That's my answer. You'll have to ask the Lord for _His_ answer. But since we're asking questions, let me ask you this: If there were _actual PROOF_ that the Book of Mormon was what it claimed to be, you would be forced to reject atheism, right? Would you then cease to be a skeptic regarding it and dedicate yourself to its precepts?

If you want evidence, there is plenty. Back in the 90s, two guys with a video camera, a land rover, a compass and a Book of Mormon set out to follow Nephi's directions by going down the coast by the Red Sea, turning east when where the mountains meet the sea. Figuring 25 miles per day by camel, they found themselves following an ancient caravan route. As they approached the 75-mile mark, they had still not dead-ended in a wadi or found themselves blocked by a mountain, but then it was still seemingly still out in the middle of nowhere. At mile 73, things suddenly began to change. They came to a beautiful oasis with springs of water, grain and fruit and then, miraculously, a stone passage that led to a deep valley of granite that rose to 2,000 feet and, more significantly, a perennial river of water that flowed through the valley -- just as described by Nephi. They also found the remains of an ancient campsite which, according to the Saudi Ministry of Antiquities, dated back to 600 B.C., the year Nephi and his family found that same valley. The Book of Mormon said that Lehi built an “altar of stones,“ and they found two, one higher than the other. Additionally, other researchers found a tribal area called Nahom (NHM), which was an ancient burial site. It was exactly where Nephi said they buried one of their party named Ishmael. After that, the account says they travelled east, across one of the most treacherous deserts on Earth, the Empty Quarter. But when they reached the coast, they found a beautiful, lush, tropical area they called Bountiful, where they built their ship.

The valley, the “river of water“ and such a place as Bountiful were all considered the utmost fantasy. Yet if you begin at Nahom and travel due east, you reach a beautiful coastal area in the Dhofar region in Oman near Khor Rori (anciently, Sumhuam). Joseph Smith couldn't have known about this area because it wasn't discovered by Western explorer James Theodore Bent until 1894 and really wasn't publicized until much later. This means that no one in 1830 could have incorporated it into the text. This region has bird life, honeybees, trees, rocks rich in iron ore, grain, fruit, several protected harbor areas where a ship could be built in safety, water, several mountains and an area with cliffs overlooking the sea. There also were workers who could have been employed too help build ships. It's also an area where frankincense was shipped from the east. There are, according to our scholars, more than 170 points where Joseph Smith could have been wrong, yet he was not wrong in one of them. Only someone who had been there anciently could have written it.

31

the Witch of Endor

by Magnum in

1sa 28:3-25 (nwt - not revised version).

7 finally saul said to his servants: seek for me a woman who is a mistress of spirit mediumship, and i will go to her and consult her.

then his servants said to him: look!

Cold Steel

Again, the account reads as though Saul genuinely believed that he could speak with Samuel.

But if Saul tried to gain communication from God and failed, why would God let it come through a medium? That's what makes me believe it was a deception.

31

the Witch of Endor

by Magnum in

1sa 28:3-25 (nwt - not revised version).

7 finally saul said to his servants: seek for me a woman who is a mistress of spirit mediumship, and i will go to her and consult her.

then his servants said to him: look!

Cold Steel

God has left open the possibility that Satan might do so. He is, after all, capable of “every unrighteous deception.” (2Th 2:9, 10)

If true, how do we ever know which manifestation is from God and which is of Satan?

In the case of Samuel's appearance to Saul, there are several possibilities. First, of course, is that despite God's prohibition of spirit mediums, he permitted Saul burst through the veil despite the witch and deliver his horrible message. Second, it may have been an evil spirit. Such spirits knew much more than any man. They can observe armies from the air, watch them make their war plans in secrecy, tally the strength of their leadership and analyze war plans. They may even know some of God's plans. But we're not told and the author of the account may not know himself. That Saul took his own life is of little consequence. He was done for and God, who knows all things from the beginning, already was arranging for David's star to rise.

By the way, has anyone here ever visited a spirit medium? Even for a hoot?

15

Sketches of Revelation, this and that

by TerryWalstrom in

i've been rummaging around on bart ehrman's blog and such and managed to distill six cogent views about.

the book of revelation, i thought i share for whatever it is worth.

1. parts of the book of revelation could scarcely be explained if it were written by jesus own disciple, john.

Cold Steel

Viviane: When they mention Jerusalem being destroyed, I mention that the Bible doesn't say when or by whom, they are adding that, all the "prophecy" is doing is saying that something that happened before would happen again DURING a time a rebellion was going on (assuming it was written prior to the events described, which there is no proof for).

I recommend a book entitled The Islamic Antichrist, by Joel Richardson. I believe you would find it compelling. He's also written a follow-up book entitled The Mideast Beast. It's amazing how much Islamic and Jewish/Christian eschatology parallels each other. The only difference is that the good guys in biblical eschatology are the bad guys in Islamic eschatology, and vice versa. Even the black flags being used now are part of Islamic prophecy, but one can always say it's self-fulfilling prophecy. As a believer, I'm amazed at how the fulfillment of prophecy is playing out. But I'm also amazed at how awful Watchtower exegeses is. There is no U.N. in the Bible, nor do I believe Obama is there. 🐲

Here's how the end is viewed by many Muslims:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=dY2uVNcUSbc

The Mahdi and the Muslim “Jesus“ in Islamic prophecy very carefully parallel the Antichrist and false prophet of Christian prophecy. In both scenarios, Jerusalem is attacked, by the Muslim forces in Muslim eschatology, and by Gog (Antichrist) in Jewish/Christian eschatology. The only difference is, the Dajjal (Islamic Antichrist), which is the Jewish Messiah, appears and is defeated or, as Christians see it, defeats the armies of Gog.

Both the Mahdi and the Antichrist will rule for seven years.

That's just a little too close for coincidence. I've always wondered why, when the Messiah comes, the Antichrist attacks him. The reason is, they think he's the evil one foretold in their prophecies.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=nwr3fC_jY0s

15

Sketches of Revelation, this and that

by TerryWalstrom in

i've been rummaging around on bart ehrman's blog and such and managed to distill six cogent views about.

the book of revelation, i thought i share for whatever it is worth.

1. parts of the book of revelation could scarcely be explained if it were written by jesus own disciple, john.

Cold Steel

Yet the Armageddon of scripture is so vastly different than that taught by the adventists, including the Jehovah's Witnesses, who regard it as an endtime judgment of God upon the world, which only they will escape. But the early Christians viewed it far differently. They, as well as the Jews, saw Armageddon as an endtime assault on Jerusalem in which the messiahs of Joseph and David would deliver the city from its enemies, establish peace and order and usher in an era governed by a theocracy.

Clearly the Jews hoped for such deliverance from the Romans -- a deliverance that was not forthcoming. The Christians, however, knew that Jerusalem and the temple were doomed, and they fled to Syria under the guidance of their leaders, who presumably were guided by revelation. They knew, in my view, that many things remained to be done. They knew about the scattering of the Jews and that Judah would eventually be gathered to the lands of their inheritance. This began happening in the 1870s and continues to this day. Eventually, however, Jerusalem would face an enemy it could not prevail against; and in the final hours of that conflict, the great Messiah ben David would personally appear and save his people and destroy all but a sixth of the invaders. (See Ezek. 38-39, Isaiah 11:10-12, Zechariah 12-14)

2

The Two Witnesses SHOCK

by artcritic in

i have done extensive research into finding out who really is the two witnesses of rev.

this may be a shock to some in the watchtower yet i give you evidence from paul and peter.

i would copy it here but some forums dont like you doing that.updated blog link below https://artcriticman.wordpress.com/the-t...the-great/

Cold Steel

Well, I suppose people will come up with many interpretations, but I see the two prophets as two individual prophets...literal witnesses that will protect Jerusalem for the space of 3.5 years as prophesied. There are only so many levels of representations that can be given. The lampstands represent two prophets...two witnesses who, with the power of God, will withstand Gog's onslaught. John specifically calls them prophets. A group of people cannot constitute a single prophet to produce the power these two prophets will wield.

Some believe these two prophets to be Moses and Elijah. The scriptures say Moses died; however, all Joshua and the other Israelites saw was Moses caught up in a cloud. We also know from Joel that Lucifer had a dispute with Michael regarding Moses' body. So, was Moses also translated and taken up without tasting death?

I personally think these prophets will be living mortals, called to minister to the Jews. Why bring in prophets from bygone dispensations when it's never been done before?

But it's anyone's guess.

39

The Real History of Mormonism - Outstanding Lecture

by cofty in

if you think the mormon church is off-the-scale crazy you probably don't know the half of it.. the historical information in this talk by david fitzgerald is fascinating.

the good news is that, just like the watchtower, their growth is being stunted by the internet.. grab a coffee and be amazed at just how gullible millions of people can be.. lucy harris has become my new heroine.

don't miss the section from 8:50.

Cold Steel

Please explain how the presentation of facts, evidence and reason is equivalent to bullying.

Very well. You post a virulent anti-Mormon video without first checking out its validity. Then, when caught, you say you don't care, you still like it. The facts were wrong, the evidence lacking and the reasoning was comedic. Bottom line, mate, it's if we can't trust you to check out a video or to apologize when confronted with the facts, how can we trust you to tell us the truth about atheism, Darwinism or anything else? I've never posted anything I was unsure of and then not apologized when wrong. But as an atheist, you lack a moral dimension about such things because you don't see the harm in it. It doesn't matter to you because it's a religion, and it deserves to be ridiculed. Last time we discussed atheism, I brought up this rationalization problem and shifting ethics that change to accommodate society. It shifts because it's not grounded in a firm and moral foundation.

39

The Real History of Mormonism - Outstanding Lecture

by cofty in

if you think the mormon church is off-the-scale crazy you probably don't know the half of it.. the historical information in this talk by david fitzgerald is fascinating.

the good news is that, just like the watchtower, their growth is being stunted by the internet.. grab a coffee and be amazed at just how gullible millions of people can be.. lucy harris has become my new heroine.

don't miss the section from 8:50.

Cold Steel

This is why I get pissed with cult members who come here trying to recruit ExJWs to a new kind of crazy.

Well let's get something straight. I didn't start this message thread. I'm only responding to a staggering display of ignorance on the part of a hit and run sophomoric fellow who has, unfortunately learned to write before learning to think. I don't know, but I suspect he's in high school, has read a few books and thinks he has figured out just how the Universe is run. And BTW, he's also an atheist, which certainly qualifies as a religion. So some of us are not atheists, despite the wont of many of them that this all should be a board dedicated to ex-JWs who are now militant atheists. But many still want to be Christians and are bullied by outspoken critics of all religion.

If people here want to slam Mormonism, I believe I have the right to respond. And while I'm not here recruiting, I do encourage people not to reject Christianity, but to believe in Christ and continue searching.

39

The Real History of Mormonism - Outstanding Lecture

by cofty in

if you think the mormon church is off-the-scale crazy you probably don't know the half of it.. the historical information in this talk by david fitzgerald is fascinating.

the good news is that, just like the watchtower, their growth is being stunted by the internet.. grab a coffee and be amazed at just how gullible millions of people can be.. lucy harris has become my new heroine.

don't miss the section from 8:50.

Cold Steel

Why would God or Maroni need these plates back? Why didn't they leave them if God wanted believers?

Actually those aren't bad questions. But first, if Smith was telling the truth he was not a fraudster, right? So why did the angel take the plates back? First, about two-thirds of the plates were sealed (see Isaiah 29:11-14; 18-21) and Smith wasn't permitted to translate them or even look at them. Also, the Lord, for whatever reason, doesn't ever provide anyone with proof until they have built an adequate foundation of faith. Evidence, yes, but definitive proof, almost never. (See reply to Cofty below.) Had Smith produced the plates for all to see, would that have proven his translation correct? No, all it would have proven was that he was in possession of an ancient artifact, and a valuable one at that. And do you believe he would have been able to keep them? How about the man upon whose land Smith found them? Wouldn't he have claimed a right to them? “After all, ol' Joe Smith found them on my land! He only came up with that 'translation' after he found them on my property!“ The stone box was still intact on the hill as well as the large rock covering it. Some of the early saints reported seeing them for some time and said they were there for all to see. But of course anyone could have constructed such and no one would have been the wiser.

Finally, if we had the plates today for all to see, would you become a Latter-day Saint? Something tells me you would simply find another objection.

Cofty: I thought the video was fascinating and informative. Your cult is crazier than the Watchtower.

So what you're saying is, “I care not what the truth is, I choose to believe it anyway!“ Joseph Smith said, “It is true [that men ] have eyes to see, and see not, but none are so blind as those who will not see.“ He also said that anyone can have proof if it is built on a foundation of faith, prayer and seeking. “And thus by learning the Spirit of God and understanding it,“ he said, “you may grow into the principle of revelation, until you become perfect in Christ Jesus.“ Thus, any person can attain the visions and power that Joseph Smith, Moses or any prophet who ever lived. “God hath not revealed anything to [me], but what he will make known unto the Twelve, and even the least Saint may know all things as fast as he is able to bear them....“

Believe what you will, then; you are only limiting yourself.