Tuesday, March 19, 2013

The Talking Jackasses in the Philadelphia Church of God



The ministry in the Philadelphia Church of God has never been know to be the brightest of the lot.


The PCG seem to have attracted the worst of the worst from the COG ministry when it comes to legalistic ministurds who shackle their members in oppressive leg-irons.

When Lord Six-Pack threw his hissy-fit and stormed off to Oklahoma things have gotten progressively worse in his personalty cult.  Excessive spending, destroyed families, suicides and more. The ministurds apparently are getting crazier and crazier!

On the Exit and Support Network there is a page that lists asinine things that Philadelphia Church of God ministurds tell their members.  Its no wonder that Gerald Flurry demands that sermon tapes be destroyed.

Here are a few of the "Words of Wisdom" from these frauds:

  • One time our pastor said, "You can't study the Bible too much or you'll get wacky." (No chance of that happening to those guys, right?)
  • During a weekly sermon, our minister said, "Because I am a minister, I will always be over you in authority in the World Tomorrow." Somehow I can't find that concept in the Bible.
  • When we were new in the PCG, our daughter had just been fitted with braces to widen her upper jaw and bring her molars in line so she could actually chew. The local elder found out about the braces and told us quite seriously that we could have had the same result just by "picking up a sturdy stick out of the yard and having her bite on it every day."  
  • One time our pastor bellowed out, "I treat my wife like a queen, but she has to remember I AM THE KING!" What about loving her as his own body? Of course, no mention was made of that. 
  • To justify spying on members, the minister told all of us, "We need spies in the church to help keep Satan out."
  • One of the most ridiculous statements I ever heard was out of the mouth of Craig Winters. It came from a disagreement of what the Bible actually said and what he said it said. The end statement was: "What you need to do is get your head out of the Bible and stick to reading Mr. Flurry's books."
  • Wayne Turgeon [Flurry's son-in-law] once told me, "It does not matter if Gerald Flurry was preaching outright heresy, I would still follow him."
  • In a Spokesman Club meeting one time, Craig Winters instructed us, "You should not wear slip-on shoes, loafers or penny loafers, and don't wear shoes with tassels. Tie shoes are the shoes that you, as leading men in the church, should wear." We were discouraged from wearing "burgundy shoes" but "black and sometime brown shoes would be okay." Months after this lecture, the local minister and his three sons were all still wearing slip-on" shoes.
  • When I said in a counseling session that I was not perfect, our local elder said, "Of course you're not perfect. If you were perfect, you'd be sitting here (pointing to his seat) and I'd be sitting over there." (pointing to my seat)  
  • I will never forget the time I sat in services and heard Gerald Flurry yell, "He should have his head shot off! Then we will resurrect him, put his head back on, and teach him a thing or two about government!" (He was referring to a former member who had written GF a letter to ask him to repent.) 
Who knew jackasses could talk!

46 comments:

Anonymous said...

A lot of people probably feel that Gerald Flurry should have _his_ head shot off.

Anonymous said...

Oh yeah, and not put back on.

Joe Moeller said...

Winters Flurry!

Nice snow seasonal combination!

Joe Moeller
Cody, WY

Douglas Becker said...

Herbert Armstrong, ego; Gerald Flurry, ego; Davy Pack, ego; James Russell, ego; Roderick Meredith, ego; E.W. King, ego; Robert Thiel, ego; James Malm, ego; Ronald Weinland, ego; Neville Stevens, ego....

Is it possible there's a trend here somewhere?

Anonymous said...

Yes, and the trend will put them over the cliff, soon!

Anonymous said...


"Wayne Turgeon [Flurry's son-in-law] once told me, 'It does not matter if Gerald Flurry was preaching outright heresy, I would still follow him.'"


Gerald IS preaching outright heresy, and Wayne STILL follows him.

Going along with outright heresy for the power and the paycheck and the paycheck and the paycheck is what virtually all ministers on earth do.

Anonymous said...

A personal comment:
I do know much about Gerald Flurry, but I am aware of some of the exclusivist activities. I admit that it is extremely puzzling that he can exercise such control, but the biblical warning in
(Luke 21:8 GWT) Jesus said, "Be careful that you are not deceived. Many will come using my name. They will say, 'I am he!' and 'The time is near.' Don't follow them!” gives a principle that could apply, especially when we are dealing with people who are caught up in “prophecy”.

Apparently Flurry’s programs are convincing to some of the prophecy buffs. My brother who is caught up in prophecy, but never embraced HWA prophecy came to me and asked about Flurry. He was quite impressed until I mentioned that Flurry’s group had some exclusivist teachings that were damaging to family relationships. He came to me later and said I had saved his life.

I hesitate to apply scripture in this manner, but I believe the principle applies whether it is related to prophecy of not. It seems that religious people are more vulnerable than we would like to think.
A. Boocher

Anonymous said...


"The PCG seem to have attracted the worst of the worst from the COG ministry when it comes to legalistic ministurds who shackle their members in oppressive leg-irons."


Actually, the WCG ministers who went with a splinter group went where they could get the paychecks that they were used to (UCG, GCG, but NOT PCG). Furthermore, the WCG ministers seem to have been able to recognize a drunken, lying runt like Gerald for what he was.

The so-called "ministry" in Gerald Flurry's PCG consists of a bunch of perverts that Gerald himself set up as "ministers." They are some of the worst, power-hungry, former WCG elders, deacons, ushers, and lay members around. They are utterly unqualified to be ministers but now get to pass themselves off as such in the PCG.

There is an old and true saying about the PCG "ministry" that goes something like this: "In the PCG, each lying, slandering, local tyrant gets to pass off his own, personal, satanic abuse as the government of God."

These godless bums that Gerald set up as his fake PCG "ministers" have a perverseness about them that far exceeds what you will normally find in even a bad WCG minister.

DennisCDiehl said...

Best member comeback I ever heard was in one of my churches where a woman told me her loving husband told her he was king in the home and she was nothing.

She said,

"Great! Then you are King of Nothing!"

Anonymous said...


"Its no wonder that Gerald Flurry demands that sermon tapes be destroyed."


That is a great idea. Just remember to destroy them BEFORE anyone listens to them and gets harmed by the evil noise on them.



whatmeworry said...

I cannot call him my step father, but the man my mother married after my dad died, once pounded the dinner table and yelled that he was the Jesus Christ of the family! To my brother and I, this was the funniest moment we could remember, and in unison, burst out laughing. What a whack job. Still makes me chuckle.

DennisCDiehl said...

Mercy...do these guys really say this stuff?

Douglas Becker said...

And where there are egos, there are bullies.

Leonardo said...

A. Boocher wrote: "It seems that religious people are more vulnerable than we would like to think."

Far more vulnerable. Kind of reminds me of the old statement that says "Once you can convince people of the existence of an invisible deity for whom there is absolutely no tangible evidence whatsoever, you can convince them of anything."

Head Usher said...

"I hesitate to apply scripture in this manner, but I believe the principle applies whether it is related to prophecy of not. It seems that religious people are more vulnerable than we would like to think."

Yep. That's what happens when people are told that they have to believe a whole lot of things for no other reason than because some special guy said it or eons ago some special guy who has a gold halo in a mosaic somewhere wrote it down in a special scroll, and if they don't believe it, then there's the constant threat hanging over their heads that horrible things are going to happen to them later, maybe in this life, and maybe in a subsequent existence.

Now all that needs to happen is apply that same formula by coupling any crazy, illogical, idea with a threat of some kind, and people have now already been trained to accept it on the same basis. So a religious person, having the logical cause-and-effect test apparatus of their mental faculties defeated are already is a sitting duck for any other idea+threat formulation. It just goes right on in.

Futhermore, a religious person believes that the very act of believing without evidence is in itself a virtuous thing to do, because the bible says that if you don't believe for no reason, then you cannot please god. The deity is only happy if you believe without evidence.

If you believe that "faith" is a virtue, as the bible says it is, then it logically follows that it is just as virtuous to believe every other huckster, snake-oil salesman, matchstick man, con artist, and Nigerian financier. There's a mountain of pseudo-scientific claims that are being peddled on the internet these days by all kinds of sheisters. If you believe Herbert Armstrong, Gerald Flurry, the pope, or even the bible, logically, you should believe everything and everyone, and moreover, to do so is virtuous.

One time somebody told me that sea salt is the only "good" salt. Morton's or any other salt was "bad" salt, that your body couldn't use. Right off, red flags went up. Salt is a pretty simple chemical, just sodium ions and chlorine ions. If you bond anything else to it, you're not going to have sodium chloride any longer, and it won't have the properties of salt any longer. It won't look like salt and it won't taste like salt. Failing that, you would have to believe that not all elements like sodium and chlorine are chemically the same, which is completely ridiculous. Your body is not going to be able to distinguish between different isotopes of sodium or chlorine. Nevertheless, somebody said it and this guy believed it, for no other reason than the "faith paradigm" which suggests that to believe without evidence is a virtuous act. And there you go. There's one born every minute.

Religious people ARE more vulnerable than non-religious people because of the "faith paradigm".

Head Usher said...

Yeah, what Leonardo said...lol

Anonymous said...

Leo said: Far more vulnerable. Kind of reminds me of the old statement that says "Once you can convince people of the existence of an invisible deity for whom there is absolutely no tangible evidence whatsoever, you can convince them of anything."
A personal comment:
Would it help if we convinced them that God is the Universal Creative Consciousness that is the source of everything that exist and that all things are an expression of this Universal Mind in the process of evolving and becoming? We need something to account for our existence.
A. Boocher

G.G. said...

“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”
Buddha quotes (Hindu Prince Gautama Siddharta, the founder of Buddhism, 563-483 B.C.)

Head Usher said...

"Would it help if we convinced them that God is the Universal Creative Consciousness that is the source of everything that exist and that all things are an expression of this Universal Mind in the process of evolving and becoming? We need something to account for our existence."

Let's postulate that the universe did, in fact, arise as the result of some intelligent agency. That is not certain, but lets just assume. You assume that you worship that agent. That is also not certain. What if the god you worship, who you believe created everything, was just another one of the made-up gods? What if you've been duped? And now, you propose to "help" by convincing others of something that you yourself are not certain of?

Do you "need" something to account for your existence? I understand that you WANT something to account for your existence. I understand that you don't LIKE uncertainty. But you do not HAVE certainty. You do not have anything to account for your existence, and you are very unlikely to get it in this life. All you have is wishful thinking. All you have is the pretense of certainty, and the denial of uncertainty. Unfortunately, lying to yourself does not change any of the pertinent facts. It's also contrary to your religious code, but I won't hold you to that.

I'm a live and let live kinda guy. If you want to spend your life pretending you are certain of things that AFAIK no one can possibly be certain of, that's your business. But I think it's a bad idea to "help" others by trying to convince them to spend their lives lying to themselves as well.

Anonymous said...

My Comment to G.G.:
I find that PMA (Positive Mental Attitude) people are not always well received due to the negative attitude people have especially about their personal experiences. Your Buddha quotes are simple wisdom applied to knowledge received.

My personal experiences though out life (including WCG) have created a respect for human life that recognizes the existence of what is defined as good and evil. My use of scripture and the biblical story in a positive manner has proven to create personal relationships with people that have been filled with love, joy, and peace even in stressful times. I must say that it is impossible to claim that I personally observed and analyzed everything before accepting and living by it. The only explanation is that a positive spiritual influence has guided my choices in life. If I am wrong so be it!
A. Boocher

Retired Prof said...

Head Usher and A. Boocher, I see both your points. I myself am an unbeliever; I have become comfortable with the idea that I simply do not know, and probably never will, what accounts for our existence. It is fun to speculate on what lies behind it all, since that urge is what spurs our species to collect evidence. I wait for the evidence, though.

Nevertheless, there is (ironically enough) evidence that self-deception is a successful strategy. On NPR I heard a team of psychologists explain how they had tested athletes to see which ones habitually lied to themselves. They asked embarrassing questions and recorded the answers. They found that the ones who lied about those embarrassments performed better in races than ones who fessed up. Apparently, by convincing themselves they could outperform their previous times and beat other racers, they gave themselves the edge needed to put out the last bit of effort.

Here's the kicker: the psychologists said the self-deceivers also tended to be happier than the more realistic athletes.

They did not speculate on whether people who believed they would be members of the kingdom of god ever made it there.

Anonymous said...

My Comment to Head Usher:
I do not need anything to account for my existence, but this is what science is trying produce.

My point is that human life generally demands purpose, but I suppose there are people who are satisfied to go with flow until they windup in a black hole.

There are things that reflex certainty. One is that every human being has a mind that can create ideas and thoughts associated with life. The problem is that humans look at everything from their personal perspective. The universe reveals a greater mind than those who are trying to decipher it.

I am not lying to myself when I see principles that contribute to the enhancement and improvement of this physical existence. Your comprehension of worship is greatly distorted. My understanding of worship is a simple respect and honor for what has given life.

Maybe a little more encouragement to look at the positive principles recorded in scripture would reduce the influence of those who have been instrumental in abuse and corruption. I do not try to convince people in any way, but it seems that those who with bad experiences fail to recognize that a life without hope is worse than a positive dream life.
A. Boocher

Leonardo said...

Like I suspected earlier - and I don't intend this in a put-down kind of way at all - but A. Boocher seems to not as much be interested that the principles he lives by in life are ultimately TRUE or grounded in ultimate reality, but instead that they make him feel comfortable in the present, that they are immediately pragmatic in his life and relationships, etc.

And I honestly don't knock anyone for seeking some kind of comfort and certainty during their human existence. Indeed, our minds usually cry out for such.

It's just that I'm far more interested that such comforts and certainties be based in ultimate truths rather than what have often have been referred to as noble falsehoods.

To illustrate: I'm sure many devout Muslims or Hindus or Buddhists (especially the wealthy ones born to surrounding circumstances favorable to them!) have lived pleasant, successful lives filled with peaceful relationships with people they interact with throughout life. They probably attribute this to the "true" principles of their respective religions, though such principles often stand in stark contrast to Christian principles.

Malcom Little - later known as Malcom X - attributed his rise from petty street thug to influential, articulate and successful leader in the Black Muslim world to Islamic principles. (And by the way, The Autobiography of Malcom X is one of the most fascinating autobios I've ever read.)

How do we explain this then?

Yes, some principles are similar in nature and overlap, but many others don't, and frequently contradict those of other religions. Retired Prof's example of the self-deceiving yet successful athletes is a good example of what a Christian would consider wrong (self-deception) to have a good practical result in the short-term. This is what I mean by the argument from pragmatism, or the Noble Lie, though applied to a relatively minor aspect of life. My interest in it is as it's applied t the more major and serious areas of existence.

Also, G.G., the quote from Buddha is good. Though I might point out that Buddha himself merely assumed and took for granted (on faith?) the concept of samsara, the idea of reincarnation that serves in many ways as the background to and foundation of Buddhism. Samsara was an unquestioned presupposition in the culture Siddharta was raised in. If I remember correctly this idea arose out of the ancient Indus River Valley Civilization. (I used to practice the ancient martial art of Shao Lin Kung Fu, and that's where I learned about ancient Asian concepts and religions.)

As Retire Prof points out, I too find as I age that reasonable and demonstrable EVIDENCE has become a far more important aspect as to whether I can accept a given proposition as true or not, and base my life on it. This is why science has proven so successful in the past 400 or so years its been in practice, especially so the last 100 years.

And A. Boocher, I agree when you say that "I do not try to convince people in any way" - because none of us are absolutely 100% certain of most things, especially with respect to metaphysical claims said to accurately describe the cosmic nature of ultimate reality. We may come across as sure and certain in some of our verbal statements, but this is just in the nature of language, though in reality such statements generally just reflect the state of understanding we are presently at in our human journey.

The tentative, provisional nature of scientific claims is what has made it so powerful a means to accurate knowledge - it can be revised and changed as further evidence comes to light. Most dogmatic religious claims cannot be.

I hope what I've said thus far makes some kind of sense, since I'm trying to eat a bowl of oatmeal over the kitchen table at the same time I type!

It's nice to have a serious discussion on these vital issues, even if it was prompted by a post regarding the continuing lunacies of the PCG!

Leonardo said...

And as kindly stated as most of A. Boocher's statements are, still, the "I'm right - you're wrong!" mentality so common among fundamentalist Christians still comes across, if only subtly, in his claim that: "Your comprehension of worship is greatly distorted. My understanding of worship is a simple respect and honor for what has given life."

But note they can never use evidence to justify such claims, just unsupported, subjective assertions. Unverifiable assertions and claims are what supernatural religions are founded upon. You either take them on faith, or you're wrong! Period!! End of subject!!!

Some may call this certainty, but it sure isn't the kind of proof that convinces me.

Corky said...

I do not try to convince people in any way, but it seems that those who with bad experiences fail to recognize that a life without hope is worse than a positive dream life.
A. Boocher


Sounds like someone who realizes that it is a "dream life" but doesn't care that it is.

His "life without hope", as he calls it, is not a life without hope except for the hope that he will live forever in some future utopia. That very "hope" is what has prevented mankind from creating their own and enjoying the one life we know we have. Instead, this life is sacrificed in the hope of a life after death, which amounts to wishful thinking that depends on magical things being real.

Better to enjoy your life while you can because, in spite of religious charlatans, it's the only one you have.

Anonymous said...

LEO said: but A. Boocher seems to not as much be interested that the principles he lives by in life are ultimately TRUE or grounded in ultimate reality, but instead that they make him feel comfortable in the present, that they are immediately pragmatic in his life and relationships, etc.
My Comment:
If I was seeking things that make me feel comfortable I certainly would not be posting comments expressing my beliefs here. My focus on human relationships is due to the reality that relationships are the key to producing a healthy community whether it is family or worldwide political units. The ultimate reality deals with principles that that create a harmonious unity through out the universe, but we are not qualified to tackle that task yet.
A. Boocher

Anonymous said...

Head Usher said: A. Boocher's statements are, still, the "I'm right - you're wrong!" mentality…… But note they can never use evidence to justify such claims, just unsupported, subjective assertions. Unverifiable assertions and claims are what supernatural religions are founded upon. You either take them on faith, or you're wrong! Period!! End of subject!!!
My comment:
If I come across as stating “I’m right – you’re wrong” I am sorry. I personally do not view things from that perspective. My whole life has been built on “what works and what doesn’t”. What works for you may not work for me and vice versa. The truth is that a belief in God requires faith, but reason must precede faith or a person will be duped into the cultic nonsense we see here. I could go a lot deeper into reasoning, but this is not the format for that type of discussions. An besides I need spend more time working in other areas of life.
A. Boocher

Anonymous said...

"I do not try to convince people in any way, but it seems that those who with bad experiences fail to recognize that a life without hope is worse than a positive dream life."

I would also add that only people who have been implanted with the idea of an afterlife only pine after one. I do not. I don't want to live forever- a few more hundred years? Sure, but no forever.

It always saddens me when people say that without a supernatural Disneyland in the sky to look forward to, there is no hope. This is so sad. You meant to tell me that this life, your own existence, holds no joy? That you see no reason for living without the promise of heaven? As Corky has so eloquently pointed out, this is what keeps humanity in check. When people's eyes are on the skies, their own potential in life suffers, and so does humanity.

While believers look to the skies, the rest of humanity works toward trying to solve our problems as a race. And even a failed attempt is better than praying, which yields nothing at all.

Paul Ray

Leonardo said...

A. Boocher wrote: "...but reason must precede faith or a person will be duped into the cultic nonsense we see here. I could go a lot deeper into reasoning, but this is not the format for that type of discussions. An besides I need spend more time working in other areas of life."

I wish I had a dollar for every time I've heard a fundamentalist use some version of this kind of reasoning: "Well, I can prove my beliefs/claims beyond all reasonable doubt using science, deep and solid reasoning, history, etc....but I'm just too busy today to do it. And besides this is not the time and place for it."

Just like someone I knew who was boasting he would publish a book he was putting together with reams of absolutely verifiable and indisputable evidence as to the Bible's complete veracity, to silence the gainsayers once and for all...except that his supporters just haven't coughed up enough money for it yet in order to be published. And this has been going on now for at least a decade!

Velvet said...

"Apparently Flurry’s programs are convincing"

Really? Really??

Any time I surf past Key of David old Six-Pack is saying something incontrovertibly stupid, that I just can't fathom how people believe he is, in any way, faithful to what the Church is teaching! They've even CHANGED the very literature they went to court to allegedly preserve!

Some examples:

"You don't have to have faith in God!"

"Jesus lived by every word of the Old and New Testament!"

I mean, seriously now, who can listen to such Biblically-illiterate garbage?

Velvet said...

"They are utterly unqualified to be ministers but now get to pass themselves off as such..."

Doesn't this basically describe 99.999999% of the "ministry" (I use the term loosely) in all of the splinter groups? Although as far as I know, Spanky Meredith is the most egregious one, given that he was actually disfellowshipped from the Church.....

Anonymous said...

Paul Ray said: It always saddens me when people say that without a supernatural Disneyland in the sky to look forward to, there is no hope. This is so sad. You meant to tell me that this life, your own existence, holds no joy? That you see no reason for living without the promise of heaven? As Corky has so eloquently pointed out, this is what keeps humanity in check. When people's eyes are on the skies, their own potential in life suffers, and so does humanity.
My Comment:
What I say is tailor for people who are struggling to understand Christian beliefs. My focus is on the fact that this life is temporary and often filled with disappointment. I am not talking about a Disneyland in the sky, but a hope that can be realized in a relationship that is guided by biblical principles. It seems that people have lost or never understood that life is about relationships. Human relationships are what life is all about. There is no human potential without the development of characteristics that produce an ongoing improvement in relationships that are in harmony with principles that produce positive results at least here on planet earth and maybe beyond.
A. Boocher

Head Usher said...

"Head Usher said: A. Boocher's statements are, still, the "I'm right - you're wrong!" mentality…"

Sorry, AB, but Leonardo wrote that, not me, just for the record.

Regarding Retired Prof's comment, I find that line of reasoning intriguing.

It sounds like the self-deception is the backwards rationalization created by viewing one's experiences through the lens of a positive and confident identity. In this case, I wonder if the identity is responsible for the success, the overall happiness, and the deception. Correlation does not imply causation (News outlets including NPR seem to need to make that mistake in the sensationalization of their news stories on a regular basis.) However, that self-deception arising from confidence can backfire as well, in which case we retroactively relabel it as overconfidence. (Other research has shown we have a remarkable ability to unconsciously fabricate useful fictions for the purpose of rationalizing our experiences.) If they were to continue this research to include the types of self-deception engaged in by people with less positive and less confident identities, I wonder how that additional information might change their assessment of the correlation between self-deception and success/overall happiness.

Anonymous said...

Boocher:

Explain this "hope." A hope of what? A hope pointing to what?


Paul Ray

Anonymous said...

A question for Leo: Do you believe that some physical knowledge proving that God exists is more important than the development of positive constructive human relationships and have you plowed through several volumes of Christian Apologetics and debunked every one of their effort in supporting the existence of God? If you have you should know why I am not interested trying to prove any thing here.
A. Boocher

Leonardo said...

A. Boocher wrote: "Human relationships are what life is all about. There is no human potential without the development of characteristics that produce an ongoing improvement in relationships that are in harmony with principles that produce positive results..."

I couldn't agree more with your statement - so much so that one of the reasons I've grown so disillusioned with Christianity is that in many cases I perceive that it causes more human disharmony than harmony. Just observe the overall community of the COG's, to cite but one example. I ask you, is it principally characterized by peace and loving cooperation? Or more by petty competitive bickering? How in the world could anyone consider the various COG's to be havens of harmonious relationships?

Also, surveys have shown that atheists as a group have a considerably lower divorce rate than evangelical Christians living in the Bible Belt states of the American south. "Family values" are often thought a major pillar of such evangelicals, but it's often found more in actual practice among nonbelievers than believers. A lot of sociological research has been done in this area, and the results are quite often very surprising.

I realize Christians TALK about loving relationships, for who is foolish enough to argue against such? But their WALK is often light-years apart from what they preach in their sermons and literature.

The principle of harmony is a central organizing concept within most Asian religions/philosophies - the constant swirling interplay between yin and yang, most often symbolized very simply in graphic form called the Tiajitu, the black and white intermingling circle, the most recognized symbol in the world. The martial art of Kung Fu, for instance, is very much based upon the harmonious dynamic between seemingly opposite forces, the soft and the hard, the aggressive and the receptive, the inner and the outer, etc.

I mention this just to emphasize that the vital concept of harmony is, as you quite rightly point out, very central to effective living. But it's not the sole province of Judeo/Christian ideology. It was both observed, honored and practiced long before these two religions ever came into being.

Anonymous said...

from my experience, christians(not all) tend to lust for authority over others and athiests tend to try to keep them at bay.

dearhuman http://postimage.org/image/9w63fjtvh/

another seekeroftruth

Leonardo said...

A. Boocher wrote: "A question for Leo: Do you believe that some physical knowledge proving that God exists is more important than the development of positive constructive human relationships and have you plowed through several volumes of Christian Apologetics and debunked every one of their effort in supporting the existence of God? If you have you should know why I am not interested trying to prove any thing here."

Well, I guess I can't quite understand the exact point of the question. But having said that, my tentative answer to the first would be: not necessarily, but then again your question is like comparing apples and oranges. Compelling tangible evidence of God's existence is not required for a robust human morality to occur. The fact that numerous unbelieving societies (at least certainly in principle and legislative practice), such as many of the Scandinavian countries, often proportionally have far lower serious crime rates than many professing Christian ones I think would statistically constitute quite convincing evidence that absolute knowledge of the Christian God's existence isn't necessarily required for moral behavior to occur.

(Though I sense that perhaps I still may not quite understand the thrust of your question, and my answer may be somewhat off-base. So feel free to clarify a bit more of you'd like.)

With regard to Christian apologetics, it's funny you mention that because that was one of the main areas that first began prompting me to question the foundations of Christianity in the first place. Without going into detail, and very contrary to what most Christians wrongly assume, formal Christian apologetics (archeology, for instance) are not as sound nor convincing as one might think, once they are analyzed in some depth. They simply cannot stand up to rigorous investigation.

Though again, I fail to see the specific relevance of your question, at least as it is stated. If you know you cannot demonstrate or offer convincing evidences of Christianty, then perhaps that's why it has been diminishing in both numbers and influence since the Renaissance, especially in the developed western nations where meaningful and compelling evidence (rather than mere faith) is generally required to establish the truth of a given proposition or series of propositions.

If I haven't even come close to answering your questions, then try to rephrase and re-clarify them, because they're still rather murky to me.

Anonymous said...

A. Boocher wrote:
"My use of scripture and the biblical story in a positive manner has proven to create personal relationships with people that have been filled with love, joy, and peace even in stressful times. I must say that it is impossible to claim that I personally observed and analyzed everything before accepting and living by it. The only explanation is that a positive spiritual influence has guided my choices in life. If I am wrong so be it!"

Translation:
I have proven that biblical fairy tales are responsible for my ability to relate to other people. I must admit that this claim is false, however, because I haven't proven anything. Nevertheless, there is only ONE explanation, a supernatural friend in the sky! Pay no attention to other, much more reasonable explanations, which I need to pretend do not exist. LALALALALA. Dont't tell me I'm wrong! I can't handle it!

Leonardo wrote:
"I realize Christians TALK about loving relationships, for who is foolish enough to argue against such? But their WALK is often light-years apart from what they preach in their sermons and literature."

Soooooo true.

Leonardo said...

Anon 6:09 (seekeroftruth), I went and saw that link you provided. Are you a fan of the "Matrix" movies?

Anonymous said...

Too much, man. How old is this blog? For a long time we were able to avoid one of the major pitfalls that spoils the enjoyment of discussion. I guess it was inevitable that we, too, would eventually succumb to the disease of watching our posts be corrected by Armstrongism. But, it was nice, for a while.........

Leonardo said...

Oh no, another drive-by tweeter! I have absolutely no idea what you mean by the above statement. So what IS your point?

Anonymous said...

Leo enjoys rebuking all non-atheist comments. He welcomes you to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Anonymous said...

Craig Winters instructed us, "You should not wear slip-on shoes, loafers or penny loafers, and don't wear shoes with tassels. Tie shoes are the shoes that you, as leading men in the church, should wear."

I'm confused. Wouldn't NOT tying shoes give men more time to do "The Work"?

-Norm

Leonardo said...

Anon 3:59 wrote: "Leo enjoys rebuking all non-atheist comments. He welcomes you to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster."

Anon, your unintelligible "tweets" are among the most incomprehensible examples of the English language I've ever read.

Exactly what ARE you attempting to say?

(Yet another fine specimen turned out by the wretched public school system here in America, I'm afraid. Wow, these kids are getting dumber, more superficial and less articulate by the year! Most of them seem completely unequipped to carry on even the most basic of written dialogs with another human being.)

Anonymous said...


Gerald R. Flurry attracted his victims from the Worldwide Church of God by pretending to be Herbert W. Armstrong's loyal, faithful follower and true successor. Many who were shocked by Joseph W. Tkach Sr.'s doctrinal changes against everything in January 1995 then went with Gerald Flurry and his so-called Philadelphia Church of God.

After a number of years of gaining followers, Gerald suddenly demanded that these people start to call him "That Prophet" of Deuteronomy 18. Many people who realized the significance of Gerald Flurry becoming a false prophet and a false christ left the Philadelphia Church of Fraud over this.

Many others, not knowing anything about the Bible or what the WCG under HWA had taught, stayed with Gerald Flurry's PCG. Next, Gerald hit them with his "no contact" rule. They were ordered to cut off all contact with even family members who had been in the WCG but had not joined the PCG, or who had left the PCG or been expelled from it.

In Malachi, God said he would send someone in the power and spirit of Elijah to turn the hearts of the fathers and the children to each other. Gerald Flurry's attempt to do the exact, diametrical opposite and break up families and get them to totally cut off each other forever caused some more people to leave the PCG or get expelled from it.

Many others--lacking any true biblical understanding, common sense, or basic human decency--stayed with the PCG to try to save their own lives from the great tribulation and the lake of fire that Gerald had them frightened about. But, as Jesus warned, those who selfishly try to save their own lives just lose them.

Gerald Flurry has prevented his victims from knowing the truth, and the truth from setting them free, by forbidding them to read anything that he does not approve of, and by forbidding them to look it up on the internet. Cut off from friends and family members outside of the PCG cult, they are trapped like the rats that so many of them have now actually become.

Gerald Flurry's PCG bought the copyrights to some of HWA's writings from the WCG, but it turned out to be just a case of Satan buying them from the Devil. Gerald Flurry ended up editing and changing HWA's writings so they would not expose his own doctrinal changes, which are in some ways even worse than the doctrinal changes of Joseph W. Tkach, Sr.

While Joseph W. Tkach, Sr. tried to destroy people by getting them to openly reject what HWA had taught and openly turn against it, Gerald R. Flurry tries to destroy people by pretending to support what HWA had taught while actually getting people to do the opposite of what HWA had taught.

The PCG is one of the worst satanic frauds in Church of God history.