Monday, March 16, 2015

What Was Rod Meredith Thinking????




It has long been known by Church of God members how much Rod Meredith is obsessed with sex.

Of all the stories I have heard none compares to this one:

Rod is completely obsessed with ALL types of sex, not just homosexual. Despite the fact that there are many young children and impressionable teenagers in his audience he often goes into disgusting detail of various sex acts. Things I would never say to a child. On one occasion he told the entire Charlotte congregation that his wife had shown him all kinds of "disgusting sex acts on the internet including women with women, men with men and beastiality and every other unimaginable abominable thing". The audience is thinking, what in the world! Why are you looking at the stuff in the first place and then why are you openly admitting to it in public? Meredith is a grade A pervert. 

Why is his wife looking at porn in the first place?  Why is she looking at bestiality porn?  Why did Rod watch it with her?  Kind reminds me of the Adam and Eve myth.  Eve gives Adam the apple to eat after he watches her picked it off the tree. He freely indulged, but it was all her fault.   Kind of like the time he was caught coming out of the porn shop in Old Town Pasadena in he early 70's.  He was only in there to do research for an article...on sex....

67 comments:

Byker Bob said...

When I first learned about Tourette's Syndrome, I wondered if Rod had a mild case of it, or something similar. His lack of normal filters seem to allow him to blurt out whatever comes into his mind, with no sense of appropriateness. He was a "shock evangelist" long before shock jocks hit the rock n roll airwaves! Soupy Sales had better sense, and more class!

BB

Black Ops Mikey said...

Luke, the answers you seek are in The Journal.

NO2HWA said...

Meredith has always attempted to portray himself as the most perfect Christian the church has ever seen. He even had to brag about it years ago by claiming he has committed no major sins since baptism. I've heard more disgust sexual things from this man than I have ever encountered in real life. For him to know about this stuff means he is looking at it.

Miller Jones said...

Some thoughts on the subject:
http://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/2015/03/god-and-pornography.html

Anonymous said...

Rumors again. No sources as usual… In the end: no credibility.

Anonymous said...

Weirdness should be expected when you have a group that claims Anglo Saxons were spawned by the Israelites, and then complains because the Jesus portrayed in religious art has Anglo Saxon features!

Lots and lots of non sequitur stuff to go around!

~Miguel de la Rodente

Anonymous said...

This comment sounds like a flat out lie. "But, but, I read it on the internet"!!

Anonymous said...

Jesus was a jew; the patriarch of the jews was jacob, and he had 12 sons by four different women.
naturally there would be at least 4 different looks among the descendants of jacob, hence they would not all resemble jews because the jews are merely one twelfth of the gene pool.

Anonymous said...

I'm sure that little nugget got edited out before the sermon was sent to the masses. It's likely that the annon refuting the validity of RCM's comment is not a headquarters member. Outlying congregations get cleaned up versions so they are less likely to be as aware of this kind of thing.

I remember hearing him tell this story. It was 6-7 years ago when RCM was still having services in his office building. It was shocking. He kind of threw his wife under the bus not realizing he was incriminating himself at the same time.

Meredith didn't get a rep as a pervert because if this story annon. It is an established character trait as in for decades. Anyone who's sat in on a live Meredith sermon knows how fixated he is on sex acts.

Anonymous said...

Weren't 2 of Jacob's wives black? The handmaidens of Rachel and Leah?

Anonymous said...

Anon5:18 said:
"Jesus was a jew; the patriarch of the jews was jacob, and he had 12 sons by four different women. naturally there would be at least 4 different looks among the descendants of jacob, hence they would not all resemble jews because the jews are merely one twelfth of the gene pool."

Not to be overly harsh, but this is an ignorant comment, and if it arrives at even potentially correct conclusion, it does so through a series of mistakes.

Assuming that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Laban were real persons and not entirely mythological characters, what are you thinking, that Rachel, Leah, Zilpah and Bilhah were of different races or something? If the Genesis account is to be believed at all (which I think it shouldn't) then Rachel and Leah were both daughters of Laban, and if the midrash of Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer is to believed (again, dubious) then so were Zilpah and Bilhah. Far from having "different looks", this story is getting downright incestuous. Good thing it's just a story. Anyway, they would all resemble Jacob, Laban, and Laban's wife/wives. And that's just to start with. By the first century AD, after these people had been living in the middle east, intermarrying between tribes and other middle eastern peoples for 1500 years, they're all gonna like typical homogeneous middle eastern people.

However, IF Genesis were history, instead of mythology, then all Jewish and Israelite men would have a common patriarch, Jacob, and they would all carry copies of Jacob's Y-chromosome. So, the fact that Ashkenazi Jews tend to be E1b1b, the Cohanim tend to be J1, and another large segment of Jewish population are J2, means that, just among just JEWS, there are at least 3 different unrelated patriarchs, not one—so the Genesis account cannot be history. This leaves us in the dark as to whether there ever were any other "Israelites" besides just Jews. Why shouldn't we expect the inhabitants of the northern kingdom, who were supposedly carried into captive exile, to have just a diverse origin as those of the southern one, and not necessarily to have any patriarchs in common?

Given what we know from DNA to be the origins of the Jewish populations, we might therefore expect there to at one time have been 3 different looks (not 4) among Jews, however, we still haven't much warrant for 1) thinking any such differences were anything but typical middle eastern looks to start with, and 2) that these differences wouldn't have disappeared a long time before the 1st century as intermarriage between them would quickly homogenize morphological traits.

Anonymous said...

"I remember hearing him tell this story. It was 6-7 years ago when RCM was still having services in his office building. It was shocking. He kind of threw his wife under the bus not realizing he was incriminating himself at the same time."

Since there's now some independent corroboration of this story, I'll go ahead and just say, WTF?

So, how would this have gone down?

Rod's wife: Here, honey, let me show you some lesbian porn.
Rod : Yum, that's nice.
[Several hours later]
Rod : Okay. What's next?
Rod's wife: How about some gay porn? Here.
Rod : OOOH! I REALLY like that.
[Several hours later]
Rod : Okay. What else have you got to show me?
Rod's wife: How about some donkey porn?
Rod : Yes, YES! Let's check that out!
...

Rod basically said, "I admit I've got some strong prurient interests." However, I agree that anyone could have gleaned as much by reading between the lines without such an admission.

Byker Bob said...

Rumors? More like first person testimony. Here on this site, you have one person who worked for years in HWA's Pasadena home, several former ministers, ministers' kids, AC graduates and former students who sat in Rod's classes every day for years, and current and former members of the splinters, some of whom worked directly with the most senior ministers who preside over the splinters.

That gives you a nice set of options. You can believe witnesses who saw stuff and maybe don't keep the sabbath or tithe any more, or you can put on your rose colored ACOG glasses, and repeat the public relations rhetoric which is offered as backpedaling and cover-up. That's your decision, and your decision isn't going to affect my life in any way, so do what you think you need to do!

BB

Anonymous said...

Actual rumors, like BI or church eras, why so-and-so [people like me] left the church, or what "everyone" in "the world" is doing, these all get transformed into bonafide facts in the minds of the cultified.

But widely attested ugly facts about Armstrongist cults, they all get transformed in mere "rumors."

What a mental switcheroo.

Anonymous said...

Two of my relatives attended one of Rod's feast sites last year. They reported that they counted six places in his sermon in which he referred to homosexuals. I said, "You know, some people think he protests too much." They said "Yes, we know."

After all these years, how can Rod not know what kind of impression his obvious obsession with homosexuality gives?

Anonymous said...

Annon 8:17 What is your source on those DNA findings? I would like to know more about it.

Anonymous said...

Annon 7:18 here...

To put it in context, RCM was preaching on how sin creeps into your life. How you always have to be on guard. How even if you're innocently surfing the internet pornographic "pop-ups" can just appear in the middle if your recipe. And it's titilating. So there you are; you didn't set out to look at porn, but it draws you in.

Just such a thing happened to his wife and she showed him all stuff in the original post.

Stuff that the most pure mind and the leader of the "purest ministry in the history of the church" probably would have walked away from but Ol' Roddy had to further investigate I guess.

Anonymous said...

Given his neurotic obsession with sex and homosexuality together with other aspects (boxing, no father in the picture, callousness towards women - angry at nonprotective parent perhaps ?, manic nervous behaviors), I cannot help but wonder if RCM was molested as a child and his behaviors were a means of denying and trying to eradicate the shame.

Connie Schmidt said...

Gentiles were allowed to become Jews, thus the possibility for other DNA lines to show up. Not everyone necessarily had to be descended from Jacob.

Anonymous said...

Anon8:17 here:

I teased that out of what was presented at Eupedia, which I was directed to by Silenced's Foundation of Sand series

Anonymous said...

not sure why calling someone ignorant is a legitimate form of discourse; if anything it is a sign of the kind of person who uses pejorative and humiliation in effort to make a person with whom they disagree with feel foolish.

as for all the technical jargon: regardless of all all that rhetoric the behavior of the arabs and jews today is consistent with the behavior of their ancestors, and the bible is the record of this behavior. this record covers thousands of years of history and predates the u.s. constitution, the eugenics driven genetic sciences and you, yourself, who, not even being 100 years old, arrogantly and presumptuously have proclaimed your own words to be legitimate and have discounted a record that existed continually for thousands of years as insignificant.

that is the kind of attitude our nation's government exports to the middle east when attempting to deal with the myriad of conflicts there, and it is no wonder we are failing in that effort because we ignore Written history...

Anonymous said...

so in today's world a record that has been around for thousands of years is discounted but uncited sources are believed simply because the person claims his opinion science based???

Anonymous said...

March 17 8:17 anonymous makes all kinds of uncited, unsubstantiated claims

Anonymous said...

the "foundation of sand" series cites evidence of a genetic relation among the people of jewish, arabic and syria origin and that is consistent with the biblical account.

now regarding whether or not the jews of europe are related to they of the middle east take a look at this wiki article:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_of_Jewish_origins

Anonymous said...

regarding whether or not the jews of europe are related to they of the middle east take a look at this wiki article and you will find contradiction in anon 8:17's sources (and the wiki authors don't have an anti armstrong agenda)

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_of_Jewish_origins

Anonymous said...

I assume Anon12:24-1:13 are all the same person.

Let's have a reckoning here, shall we?

"not sure why calling someone ignorant is a legitimate form of discourse; if anything it is a sign of the kind of person who uses pejorative and humiliation in effort to make a person with whom they disagree with feel foolish."

And yet, what I said was, "Not to be overly harsh, but this is an ignorant comment..."

See how I characterized the comment, not the person? So, you accuse me of making false and unsubstantiatable claims, and yet your very first words are a lie? I would suggest you get your own house in order before hypocritically throwing stones at others.

First you say I make "uncited, unsubstantiated claims." Then you say there are contradictions in the source I cited. So, I did cite a source for my claims after all, or not? Please make up your mind and stop contradicting yourself.

Second, you seem to be claiming the bible is a veridical history, just because, what, it's various texts are ancient? Is this what you call Responsible scholarship? So, what, does the fact that something is old make it true? So then, I can only assume you believe the Epic of Gilgamesh is also a veridical history, as is the Illiad and the Odyssey, or the Aeneid. Since you decry the discounting of records "that existed continually for thousands of years," and Gilgamesh, the Illiad and the Odyssey, and the Aeneid are records "that existed continually for thousands of years," then you must also decry any attempt to discount these ancient works as anything less than veridical histories also. I can only assume that just as you accept the supernatural events and beings described in the bible, you also must logically also accept the supernatural events and beings described in the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Illiad and the Odyssey, and the Aeneid.

Third, my discounting of the bible is not based predominantly in Y-hapolgroup research. It is based in the fact that modern scientific inquiry (which you scorn, apparently) into the veracity of biblical legends repeatedly find evidence that resoundingly contradict them. Genetic research shows that the smallest the human population has ever been is a bottleneck of 10,000-15,000 individuals between between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago. So the Adam and Eve story cannot be true. The story of Noah's Ark, when examined carefully is so impossible that no sane or thinking person should accept it. There is no evidence to support the patriarchs, the exodus, the conquest of Canaan, or the united monarchy. In the places we should expect to find evidence, we find nothing. For example, in the wilderness where at least half a million people supposedly camped for 40 years, evidence can be found for small groups of nomadic shepherds, but hundreds of thousands of people left no trace behind? Similar problems exist for the new testament.

Anonymous said...

Fourth, what's wrong with the Eupedia site as a source? What, in your opinion, makes it inferior to Wikipedia? And, what, all of science is just an "opinion" to you? I don't know why I am surprised by people who continue to eschew evidence in favor of fables. Anyone who wants to consider the sheer volume of Y-Haplogroup data available on Eupedia can clearly see what an overwhelmingly superior source it is over Wikipedia's single paultry article. I was not unfamiliar with that Wikipedia page, and I have no problem with it, and so far as I can tell, it does not contradict Eupedia in any significant or substantial way. If you think it does, please say what you think the contradictions are. So far, you've presented no evidence you are even capable of understanding the Y-hapogroup research. You just cast generalized aspersion, trollishly.

The facts on Jewish Y-Haplogroup research are, as I said previously:
"the Cohanim tend to be J1"
From Wikipedia:
"Hammer and Behar have redefined an extended MHC haplotype as determined by a set of 12 markers and having as "background" haplogroup determining the most important lines J1E (46.1%)."

"Ashkenazi Jews tend to be E1b1b"
E1b1b 20.5%
G2a 9.50%
I1 2%
I2 2%
J1 19%
J2 19%
Q 5%
R1a 10%
R1b 9%
T 2%
Total 98%
From Eupedia

"another large segment of Jewish population are J2" (Sephardic: a poorly defined term)
E1b1b 9%
G2a 15%
I1 1%
I2 1%
J1 22%
J2 25%
Q 2%
R1a 5%
R1b 13%
T 0.06
Total 99%
From Eupedia

"just among just JEWS, there are at least 3 different unrelated patriarchs, not one—so the Genesis account cannot be history."

I have harbor few doubts that now I've taken pains to cite all claims you're not going to like, that this will not satisfy you either. Of course, it's not my citation or lack of citation that displeases you, it's my conclusions. There, unfortunately, in the words of the Greek god Dionysis from Euripides 5th century B.C.E. play The Bacchantes, you're "kicking against the pricks."

RSK said...

"so in today's world a record that has been around for thousands of years is discounted but uncited sources are believed simply because the person claims his opinion science based???"

Said the church to Galileo?

Anonymous said...

no, what i claim is that the bible is an accurate narrative of not only the fact that the jews, syrians, arabs and jordanians are related, as is confirmed by genetic science, but also that in spite of this you discount the bible as mythology.

and not only does the bible confirm that science, but it is a record of the fact that the conflicts among these peoples is very ancient, and has stood the test of time, and the evolution of religious doctrine.

yet you you presumptuously discount the bible as an accurate record of history simply because a deity is attached to it and because your god is science.

Anonymous said...

more presumptions? i never said eupedia was inferior to wiki, but rather that website that referred to the genetic data that you cited is an anti armstrongism site; i referred to the wiki site because their info does not come with such baggage; their info clearly shows that the jews in europe are related to the jews in the levant

Anonymous said...

Did I call it, or did I call it? Sure enough, you weren't satisfied.

"no, what i claim is that the bible is an accurate narrative of not only the fact that the jews, syrians, arabs and jordanians are related, as is confirmed by genetic science, but also that in spite of this you discount the bible as mythology. and not only does the bible confirm that science, but it is a record of the fact that the conflicts among these peoples is very ancient, and has stood the test of time, and the evolution of religious doctrine."

I don't claim the bible is 100% wrong. But how wrong does it have to be before it can't be the "word" of an inerrant god?

I don't claim that Jews and Arabs are unrelated. Why shouldn't we expect people who have been living side-by-side for thousands of years and intermarrying to be related, regardless of whether they have a common origin or not? That's like supposing the Dakota, Lakota and Illini Native American tribes were unrelated to one another—possible, but not very likely! And glory be! These Native American tribes had conflicts with each other! I wonder if that's because of a collection of ancient texts, or because fighting among humans is ubiquitous?

BTW, I think Jews and Arabs also have a common origin...I would be willing to bet money that they're all descended from Canaanites—since, after all, there's no evidence for any Israelite conquest...

See, my problem with the bible in this regard, (entirely apart from all the other problems I have with the bible, a few of which are mentioned with citations in my previous comments—which I noticed you decided to handle like a hot potato—for obvious reasons—namely that the bible fails to explain the evidence, and therefore fails the test of science) is that the information stored in the genomes of Jews and Arabs cast doubt upon the biblical story of how they are related. (BTW, Jordanian and Syrian are political nationalities, not genetic ethnicities.)

But no, you prefer fables over evidence. You prefer to discount the evidence, and slap erroneous labels on it, like "opinion." If you ask me, this is exactly the kind of "arrogance and presumption" of which you accuse me, and a good deal of dishonesty to support your bias to boot.

Please tell me more about how you accept the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Illiad and the Odyssey, and the Aeneid are "accurate narratives simply because they have "stood the test of time." I would like to hear more about this. Or is this another hot potato for you?

Anonymous said...

"yet you you presumptuously discount the bible as an accurate record of history simply because a deity is attached to it and because your god is science."

No, I discount ancient Canaanite deities such as El, or other ancient middle-eastern deities such as Yahweh for whom there is scholarly consensus that his worship did NOT originate with Israel, chiefly because when I did worship such (now I realize pagan) gods, THEY DON'T DO ANYTHING! They don't answer prayers, they don't keep their promises. They are completely indistinguishable from other imaginary friends.

I discount the bible because the evidence that is written in every bit of data that is stored in every bit of nature tells a different story! Which do I think is more probable? One told by men, or one told by nature? The bible itself says not to put your trust in the stories men tell you (Micah 7:5, Psalm 146:3, Isaiah 2:22, James 3:2). And the various cobbled-together texts of the bible all fit that description. Nature, however, does not.

"more presumptions? i never said eupedia was inferior to wiki, but rather that website that referred to the genetic data that you cited is an anti armstrongism site; i referred to the wiki site because their info does not come with such baggage; their info clearly shows that the jews in europe are related to the jews in the levant"

I don't know what you're trying to say here. Are you saying that Eupedia is an anti-Armstrongist website? Please, show me some evidence of this. I am sure that it is not. But even if it were, that's an ad hominem, not a legitimate objection.

But go ahead, as in the words of the pagan gods Dionysis, El, Yahweh, Jesus, Sol Invictus, or whichever ancient pagan god you think is the recipient of your prayers, keep on "kicking against the pricks" by denying the evidence. Keep on reading the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Illiad, the bible, the Odyssey, or the Aeneid as though they are "accurate narratives simply because they have "stood the test of time."

Anonymous said...

well now, given all the posts about dna i think it has been established that jews did indeed migrate from the levant into europe; and given the Written evidence of the thousands of years old record called the bible, jacob had 12 sons.

clearly the word jew is derived from one of those sons; clearly at least one of those sons descendants migrated to europe.

what is also clearly established in the secular record is that the anglo saxon did not originate in the british isles, but were intruders from mainland europe;

yet given the history of mainland europe, as recorded by greek and italian historians, there is mention of a celtic, hispanic and italian presence, but no mention of the anglo saxon or the frankish or the norman peoples or even the jews for that matter, likely because they either had not arrived, or played no significant military or political role; but what is mentioned are a people from the levant known as the phoenicians.

so the generally the only alien people to europe from the levant mentioned by historians of that time are the phoenicians, and those peoples were mainly traders. their presence in europe never really progressed to more than a few isolated colonial and mining posts.

but the phoenicians came from the levant, the same area as the jews, and the jews clearly migrated to europe; why is it inconceivable that the rest of jacobs descendants could not have also done the same???

Anonymous said...

Anon 4:21, the history of European peoples is a bit more complex than that. Yes, the Angles and Saxons originated from the mainland. The Bretons were a native tribe to the isles. However, those Latin and Greek historians were only recording the peoples they knew of in specific periods in time. We know now there were huge migrations of peoples in Europe in multiple periods. None of these peoples bear any resemblance to the ancient Israelites. The Saxons shared language and custom with other surrounding "Germanic" tribes. The Romans knew them for their piracy, and they were an annoyance to the empire in its latter years. Even the word, Saxon, probably means "knife," (not "sons of Isaac") for they were known for their knives too. I cannot understand the attention Armstrongists give the Saxons. Why not the Bretons, Goths, Lombards, or Franks? What about the Huns who rolled into Europe off the Asian step? What about the more recent arrivals like the Roma people....are they Israelites too, or do you have to also make them out to be some ancient nation that decided to move north.

Anonymous said...

"well now, given all the posts about dna i think it has been established that jews did indeed migrate from the levant into europe..."

There is lots of evidence to support the idea that the people we know as Jews scattered throughout the world (including Europe) originated as a distict gene pool in the middle east. Just like there's lots of evidence to support the idea that the species we call Homo sapien sapiens originated in Africa and migrated to the middle east and Europe, where they displaced the Neanderthals who left Africa some 700,000 years prior.

But also do take to heart what Anon 9:57 said.

"...and given the Written evidence of the thousands of years old record called the bible, jacob had 12 sons.

And given the written evidence of the thousands of years old records contained in Plutarch's The Life of Romulus," Livy's From the Founding of the City," and Dionysius of Halicarnassus' Roman Antiquities," Rhea Silvia was a virgin who conceived supernaturally by the God Mars, and gave birth to twins, named Romulus and Remus, who upon their birth were placed in a basket and set adrift down a river, where they were subsequently rescued, first by a she-wolf, then by a man named Faustulus and his wife Acca Larentia, who raise them as their own. (Sound familiar?)

"clearly the word jew is derived from one of those sons"

Clearly the word "Rome" is derived from the Romulus because Romulus founded a city, and named it after himself, "Roma." Thanks to Livy's careful eye for detail, we even know the exact day, April 21, 753 B.C.E. We know it's true because if it weren't, there wouldn't be a city named Rome today.

Later, in Romulus' 54th year, immediately after offering a sacrifice to his Father, Mars on the Quirinial Hill, He was taken up in a whirlwind. Then he descended to appear to a man named Proculus, and the celestial Romulus said to him, "Go and tell the Romans that by heaven's will my Rome shall be capital of the world. Let them learn to be soldiers. Let them know, and teach their children, that no power on earth can stand against Roman arms." Having spoken these words, Romulus ascended back into the heavens. Testifying to the greatness of Mars and his only begotten son Romulus, Rome would prosper and conquer in His name nearly the entire known world, in fulfillment of the prophecy. And it's all reliable because of the written evidence of the thousands of years old records. Praise Romulus!

"clearly at least one of those sons descendants migrated to europe."

Oh, yes. Clearly. If any of those sons ever existed.

Anonymous said...

"what is also clearly established in the secular record is that the anglo saxon did not originate in the british isles, but were intruders from mainland europe; yet given the history of mainland europe, as recorded by greek and italian historians, there is mention of a celtic, hispanic and italian presence, but no mention of the anglo saxon or the frankish or the norman peoples or even the jews for that matter, likely because they either had not arrived, or played no significant military or political role; but what is mentioned are a people from the levant known as the phoenicians. so the generally the only alien people to europe from the levant mentioned by historians of that time are the phoenicians, and those peoples were mainly traders. their presence in europe never really progressed to more than a few isolated colonial and mining posts. but the phoenicians came from the levant, the same area as the jews, and the jews clearly migrated to europe; why is it inconceivable that the rest of jacobs descendants could not have also done the same???"

What is not established here is the literal existence of Adam, Eve, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, his 12 sons, Moses, Joshua, a King David or Solomon, or any of the supernatural bullshit that's "recorded" liberally throughout the tall tales that tell of them.

And if this is your possibiliter ergo probabiliter case for British Israelism, the DNA evidence already presented refutes it categorically as soon as you realize that the inhabitants of the British Isles are 60%-80% R1b.

Anonymous said...

why is the bible so roundly rejected but other historical records, e.g. that of the greeks and italians is accepted; i sense some foundational and endemic anti semeticism here.

the bible is very meticulous in its record, and is even in line with some of the archeological and genetic that many posting on this thread put their own blind faith in.

yet there is this knee jerk uniform rejection of this historical written record that has endured for several thousand years yet acceptance of greek and italian records that post date, and in many cases corroborate the biblical account.

what attitude is truly the motive here???

Anonymous said...

a few hundred years after most of us die there will likely be no record of the average one of us having ever existed, and using your logic that means we never existed.

Anonymous said...

using your logic i could say that columbus never came to the western hemisphere from europe because the record is based upon catholic mythology...

Anonymous said...

you pick and choose what record you want to believe: you believe certain records and i believe certain records, yet you have presumptuously declared your records to be more legitimate than mine based upon???

Anonymous said...

a tree has fallen in the forest and the logic of many posters on this thread is thus: "i did not hear or see the tree fall, hence a tree never did fall"...

Anonymous said...

since these people did not witness the events record in a book that has been around for thousands of years, and since these same people inherently look down upon they what would believe in this record, these folks have put forth the hand and proclaimed that the record is not valid and have attempted to shame they what would believe this record...

Anonymous said...

"why is the bible so roundly rejected but other historical records, e.g. that of the greeks and italians is accepted; i sense some foundational and endemic anti semeticism here. the bible is very meticulous in its record, and is even in line with some of the archeological and genetic that many posting on this thread put their own blind faith in. yet there is this knee jerk uniform rejection of this historical written record that has endured for several thousand years yet acceptance of greek and italian records that post date, and in many cases corroborate the biblical account. what attitude is truly the motive here?"

You're doing a lot of complaining about things like the fact that I didn't begin writing like I was publishing a peer-reviewed journal article. Now I sort of am. You've cited nothing. Nothing at all. What attitude is truly your motive here? Hmmm?

You're also doing a lot of accusing. You began by accusing me of making "all kinds of uncited, unsubstantiated claims." Then you falsey accuse the Eupedia.com site of being a biased anti-Armstrongist site, which it isn't. You falsely accused me of "calling someone ignorant." Now you're accusing me of a hate crime? Where the F do you get off? Why have you set yourself up as my accuser? You know that's what your so-called 66 "accurate narratives" say your imaginary enemy does. Is that your role model? What attitude is truly your motive here?

You're just being a huge hypocrite. How is the uncited and unsubstantiated garbage you keep tossing out a "legitimate form of discourse"? How are all these false accusations a "legitimate form of discourse"? You're just thowing uncited and unsubstantiated "stuff" against the wall to see if you can get any of it to stick.

The bible is "meticulous in its record"? Really? Says who? Where's your citation for this? What about all of its contradictions?

The bible is "in line with SOME archaeological and genetic..." Wait, what? Modifiers, but nothing being modified? Where's your citations? Whatever you started out trying to say but got cold feet in the middle of, DON'T YOU REMEMBER my citations? "SOME"? Is that really good enough to qualify as the word of an inerrant god?

Anonymous said...

Once again. The bible is not an historical document. It cannot be the word of some inerrant god. It is mythology. We know this because..."modern scientific inquiry (which you scorn, apparently) into the veracity of biblical legends REPEATEDLY finds evidence that resoundingly contradict them. Genetic research shows that the smallest the human population has ever been is a bottleneck of 10,000-15,000 individuals between between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago. So the Adam and Eve story cannot be true. The story of Noah's Ark, when examined carefully is so impossible that no sane or thinking person should accept it. There is no evidence to support the patriarchs, the exodus, the conquest of Canaan, or the united monarchy. In the places we should expect to find evidence, we find nothing. For example, in the wilderness where at least half a million people supposedly camped for 40 years, evidence can be found for small groups of nomadic shepherds, but hundreds of thousands of people left no trace behind? Similar problems exist for the new testament."

"you pick and choose what record you want to believe: you believe certain records and i believe certain records, yet you have presumptuously declared your records to be more legitimate than mine based upon?"

And I guess you're just not sharp enough to realize satire when you read it. I am not accepting Greek and Roman records. I am not accepting the bible either. I am being consistent. Unlike you.

I am pointing out your bias, that if you accept the bible as 66 independent "accurate narratives," (Where's your citations?) and the only reason you can muster is that "it's old," well then, here are some other "old records." I chose the story of Romulus because its narrative is so comparable to the biblical ones. Hebrew motifs appear in it, and it's motifs were lifted by NT writers. By the standard you presented, you should accept these Roman "thousands of years old records" as equally "accurate narratives." Yet you do not accept them. Why? Because you're lying to me by saying you're using one standard but actually using some other standard? Because you're biased? You're not being consistent. You're not making any sense.

...greek and italian records that post date..."

Citation please. Don't think the bible is older than the texts I cited. You can't CITE anything to claim ANY of it's texts are older than 250 B.C.E at the extreme. There's no evidence to show that the old testament was written before then. If the bible was as old as it claims it is, then we should have found fragments of biblical texts on clay tablets written in cuneiform. We haven't. And in case you don't realize it, the OT was canonized by the Jews AFTER the NT was canonized by the Christians.

Anonymous said...

"a tree has fallen in the forest and the logic of many posters on this thread is thus: 'i did not hear or see the tree fall, hence a tree never did fall'"

I suppose you're thinking of a particular tree. What makes you think this tree fell in the forest? Did you hear or see this tree fall? Is this a tree you've identified as lying on its side? Did you identify sawdust and branches lying on the forest floor that were left by the lumberjacks who cut it down and took it away? No? Nothing like that?

Don't set yourself up as some sort of omniscient narrator, and then fault me for not being as omniscient as you are. To avoid falling into error, we all need the same epistemic warrants. You just think you're entitled to violate the rules of epistemology, because you assume you can do so without making a mistake. I'm just pointing out how in your cavalier approach, you've made the mistake of assuming you can't make a mistake, even though there's plenty of evidence available to suggest you already have.

"using your logic i could say that columbus never came to the western hemisphere from europe because the record is based upon catholic mythology."

Citation please. What Catholic mythology? Why are you ignoring the fact that we still have original autographs of Christopher Columbus written in his own hand. They're not anonymous, like biblical texts. They're not copies of copies of copies of copies, of tall tales involving "miracles" and showing other signs of legendary embellishment over time. The custodial chain of evidence for the bible is not shoddy, it's nonexistant. We don't have to rely on fantastical legends that involve all kinds of mystical and magical events Unlike the case of Christopher Columbus.

Ever hear of Russell's Teapot? Just because someone says something is so, why should I exhibit a knee-jerk reaction of acceptance? This is what you do. Knee-jerk acceptance. It sets you up to be the victim of not just religious cons, but of other cons as well.

If there is a knee-jerk reaction here, it is your knee-jerk acceptance "of this historical written record that has endured for several thousand years" and a knee'jerk rejection of comparable "records" that have also existed for an equal amount of time.

"a few hundred years after most of us die there will likely be no record of the average one of us having ever existed, and using your logic that means we never existed."

If there is no evidence of our existence, then there will be no epistemic warrant to accept the claim that any of us existed. A very different claim. But your knee-jerk acceptance bleever's brain probably will explode before it can comprehend the difference.

Anonymous said...

This is Part I. For some reason it didn't post.


"why is the bible so roundly rejected but other historical records, e.g. that of the greeks and italians is accepted; i sense some foundational and endemic anti semeticism here. the bible is very meticulous in its record, and is even in line with some of the archeological and genetic that many posting on this thread put their own blind faith in. yet there is this knee jerk uniform rejection of this historical written record that has endured for several thousand years yet acceptance of greek and italian records that post date, and in many cases corroborate the biblical account. what attitude is truly the motive here?"

You're doing a lot of complaining about things like the fact that I didn't begin writing like I was publishing a peer-reviewed journal article. Now I sort of am. You've cited nothing. Nothing at all. What attitude is truly your motive here? Hmmm?

You're also doing a lot of accusing. You began by accusing me of making "all kinds of uncited, unsubstantiated claims." Then you falsey accuse the Eupedia.com site of being a biased anti-Armstrongist site, which it isn't. You falsely accused me of "calling someone ignorant." Now you're accusing me of a hate crime? Where the F do you get off? Why have you set yourself up as my accuser? You know that's what your so-called 66 "accurate narratives" say your imaginary enemy does. Is that your role model? What attitude is truly your motive here?

I detect hypocrisy. How is the uncited and unsubstantiated garbage you keep tossing out a "legitimate form of discourse"? How are all these false accusations a "legitimate form of discourse"? You're just thowing uncited and unsubstantiated "stuff" against the wall to see if you can get any of it to stick.

The bible is "meticulous in its record"? Really? Says who? Where's your citation for this? What about all of its contradictions?

The bible is "in line with SOME archaeological and genetic..." Wait, what? Modifiers, but nothing being modified? Where's your citations? Whatever you started out trying to say but got cold feet in the middle of, DON'T YOU REMEMBER my citations? "SOME"? Is that really good enough to qualify as the word of an inerrant god?

"since these people did not witness the events record in a book that has been around for thousands of years, and since these same people inherently look down upon they what would believe in this record, these folks have put forth the hand and proclaimed that the record is not valid and have attempted to shame they what would believe this record."

Anonymous said...

the torah clearly is at least as old as the jewish people despite the kind of bigotry that motivates people to disbelieve; you people believe the hindu texts are ancient, you believe the writings of people such as homer are ancient, but when it comes to the torah your knee jerk reaction is to scoff at how old these writings are and this is very telling.

i notice that you dedicate yourself to making verbose statements that never get to the point; you cite references from amatuerish non scholarly sources that obviously have an agenda and typical of your kind you use pejorative comments towards they whom you disagree with.

ironically you can no more prove your grand assertions than any other human being; at least i rely on a Diety; your source of information are other humans who are born knowing no more than yourself and who are prone to error, bias, manipulation of and misunderstanding of information just like anyone else.

Anonymous said...

so using your logic, the arab israeli conflict being thousands of years old is merely a myth since in your limited scope you can only recall the last 50 years of their wars; you discount all of their traditional knowledge and experience of their own history simply because it does not meet your own definition of how history should be recorded.

you discount their cultural sentiments as rubbish simply because it is based upon religion, and this kind of pov is exactly why the united states is wasting trillions of dollars fighting wars among these people because you poo poo the significance of their history, even denying their history.

how does your sciences explain the repeated failures of your way of thinking's inability to solve the perpetual crisis in the middle east which threatens the very existence of this nation???

the only way one can solve the middle east problem is if one first acknowledges their religious sentiments as having historical significance.

so far the scientific analytical approach has been a failure.

Anonymous said...

it is a fact that the european jews came from the levant; it is a fact that there was once a temple on temple mount; in the torah is record that that temple was built by a persian king, and certain posters on this thread who are not yet 100 years old have decreed that these things are not true because his science god told him so...

Anonymous said...

Have you ever considered that "verbosity" as you put it, might be the product of an education? The more you put into to a mind, the more there is to come out of it. And that having little to say, and little to reference, is the sign of the lack of an education? But here. In my last post to you, I will try to mollycoddle you a little bit more, to make up for your increasingly obvious "deficits."

Point 1: Why have you set yourself up as my accuser, to bear false witness against me?
Point 2: You are a dyed-in-the-wool science (evidence) denier. You discount hard evidnce in favor of magic, myth, and legend.
Point 3: You think that Wikipedia is a more "academic" source than tenured professors at major universities with real credentials.
Point 4: The burden of proof is upon you. Facts are not facts until they are proven, not until they are disproven. It is not the job of the skeptic to disprove unevidenced claims. What can be asserted without evidence can be refuted without evidence. More hypocritically "uncited, unsubstantiated claims" on your part.
Point 5: The current "muslim-Israeli conflict" dates back the 19th century. At best, it could date back to medieval times, but it can't be ancient.
Point 6: Don't blame me for the scientific disproving of Jewish origin stories, blame the Israelis.
Point 7: Religion is the cause of wars such as the "muslim-Israeli conflict." Why is it science's fault if it doesn't clean up mythology's messes?

"the torah clearly is at least as old as the jewish people despite the kind of bigotry that motivates people to disbelieve; you people believe the hindu texts are ancient, you believe the writings of people such as homer are ancient, but when it comes to the torah your knee jerk reaction is to scoff at how old these writings are and this is very telling.i notice that you dedicate yourself to making verbose statements that never get to the point; you cite references from amatuerish non scholarly sources that obviously have an agenda and typical of your kind you use pejorative comments towards they whom you disagree with.

Anonymous said...

POINT 1: Okay, lets keep adding to list of false accusations.
A) You falsely accused me of "calling someone ignorant."

B) making "all kinds of uncited, unsubstantiated claims."
I've been citing and citing and citing. Nope, not good enough for you.

C) falsely accuse the Eupedia.com site of being a biased anti-Armstrongist site, which it isn't. Now you've extended that to mischaracterize ALL my citations as being to "amatuerish non scholarly sources." cover every citation I've made. Meanwhile, your SINGLE citation was to WIKIPEDIA! LOL Wikipedia is more amatuerish and non-scholarly of a source than the of the sources I've cited. I would bet you haven't even been courageous enough to click on any of them or read a single word.

D) falsely accused me of "anti semeticism"? [spelling yours] Now you've extended that to a more general "bigotry"
I've already given a few reasons why I don't believe, but anti-semitism or bigotry isn't one of them. I used to believe British Israelism, so I thought I probably WAS kin to the Jews. I suppose you'd also accuse Professor Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University (the subject of one of my past citations), the Jewish archaeologist who has singlehandedly put many nails in the coffin of his own people's origin story, as another "obvious" anti-semite? How about Professor Jerry Coyne of the University of Chicago, (another secular Jew, whose blog I referenced in another citation). Is Jerry Coyne also a hater of his own people just because he doesn't

POINT 1: Again, Why have you set yourself up as my accuser, to bear false witness against me? Once again, you know that's what your so-called 66 "accurate narratives" say your imaginary enemy does.

POINT 2: Did I call it, or did I call it? You're kicking against the pricks!
I have harbor few doubts that now I've taken pains to cite all claims you're not going to like, that this will not satisfy you either. Of course, it's not my citation or lack of citation that displeases you, it's my conclusions. There, unfortunately, in the words of the Greek god Dionysis from Euripides 5th century B.C.E. play The Bacchantes, you're "kicking against the pricks."
POINT 2: No one I cite, and nothing I say will ever satisfy you, because of your incredibly strong biases. You'll have no problem denying mountains of evidence against, while stooping to straining at the gnats of speculation, legend, wishful thinking, and possibiliter ergo probabiliter fallacies.

Anonymous said...

Point 3: Let's revist and inventory these sources that so far you've maligned as "amatuerish non scholarly sources." After you've cited ONE source, Wikipedia. Nice bit of irony (or is that hypocrisy) in that. At best, this is an ad hominem attack, as it does not address the strength of what is presented in these sources. At worst, it is an outright falsehood.
1. Eupedia
2. Professor Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University
3. Professor Jerry Coyne of the University of Chicago
4. Bart D. Ehrman, the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
5. Moore, Robert A. "The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark." Creation Evolution Journal Vol.4, No.1, Winter, pp 1-43. 1983. (Referenced from the website of the National Center for Science Education.)
6. Euripides, The Bacchantes, from the website of MIT.
7. Wkipedia entry for the pagan god "El"
8. kipedia entry for the pagan god "Yahweh"
9. Plutarch's The Life of Romulus, translated by by Bernadotte Perrin, 1914. (Referenced from the website of the University of Chicago.)
10. Livy's From the Founding of the City, translation by Rev. Canon Roberts, 1905. (Referenced from Wikisource.)
11. Dionysius of Halicarnassus' Roman Antiquities, translated by Earnest Cary, 1937-1950. (Referenced from the website of the University of Chicago.)
Point 3: Why the fallacious ad hominem attacks?

Anonymous said...

"ironically you can no more prove your grand assertions than any other human being; at least i rely on a Diety; your source of information are other humans who are born knowing no more than yourself and who are prone to error, bias, manipulation of and misunderstanding of information just like anyone else...it is a fact that the european jews came from the levant; it is a fact that there was once a temple on temple mount; in the torah is record that that temple was built by a persian king, and certain posters on this thread who are not yet 100 years old have decreed that these things are not true because his science god told him so...the torah clearly is at least as old as the jewish people..."

Point 4: The burden of proof is upon you. Facts are not facts until they are proven, not until they are disproven. It is not the job of the skeptic to disprove unevidenced claims. What can be asserted without evidence can be refuted without evidence.
Citation, citation, citation!!! Where are your citations??? There is nothing "clear about any of these claims. You can't CITE anything!
I'm afraid the onus falls upon YOU to prove your "grand assertion" that ancient middle eastern pagan dieties exist in the first place, and consequently that there is in fact something that you're relying on, instead of *nothing.* Is this seriously your excuse for denying hard evidence, and calling bonafide scholars "amatuerish non scholarly sources," while implying that myth is "teh TROOTH"? Pathetic. I'm not the one making "grand assertions" here. That would be you. I don't need to prove anything here. That would be you.
Point 4: More hypocritically "uncited, unsubstantiated claims" on your part.

"so using your logic, the arab israeli conflict being thousands of years old is merely a myth since in your limited scope you can only recall the last 50 years of their wars; you discount all of their traditional knowledge and experience of their own history simply because it does not meet your own definition of how history should be recorded.

Point 5: By definition, an "arab israeli conflict" cannot be "thousands of years old."
"Israeli" is a national identity, and that nation only began to exist in 1948.
The source of Arab discontent with Jews originates with their muslim faith. Muhammed only began preaching islam about 610 AD.
I suggest that you get some more education (and learn how to use your [shift key] while you're at it!)
However, the Levant has been fought over for at least 5,000 years. Unfortunately, most of that conflict was NOT Jews vs. Arabs.
Point 5: The current "muslim-Israeli conflict" dates back the 19th century. At best, it could date back to medieval times, but it can't be ancient.

Anonymous said...

"you discount their cultural sentiments as rubbish simply because it is based upon religion, and this kind of pov is exactly why the united states is wasting trillions of dollars fighting wars among these people because you poo poo the significance of their history, even denying their history."

Point 6: I'm not the one consigning the Jewish origin stories to the status of fables, Israeli Jews are.
Honey, you don't know what you're talking about. I have nothing to do with the US fighting in the middle east. That has to do with muslim fundamentalist jihadis and American fundamentalist Republicans. I am neither. You probably don't realize this, due to your "deficits," but the first Israeli Prime Minister authorized extensive archaeological projects designed to find evidence that Torah's stories about the origin of the Jewish people, and therefore that the Jewish people have an ancient claim to the Levant as their "promised land." And in the 65+ years that have elapsed since then, do you know what evidence they've come up with? *NOTHING*!
Point 6: Don't blame me for the scientific disproving of Jewish origin stories, blame the Israelis.

"how does your sciences explain the repeated failures of your way of thinking's inability to solve the perpetual crisis in the middle east which threatens the very existence of this nation? the only way one can solve the middle east problem is if one first acknowledges their religious sentiments as having historical significance. so far the scientific analytical approach has been a failure."

Point 7: Honeychild, simmer down, and give me a citation? Please, enumerate these repeated failures?
Science, to my knowledge, has never attempted such a thing. If anything, I think you need to explain to me why your way of thinking has been causing these perpetural crises to begin with? Ernest Becker's work and the "Terror Management Theory" (more scholarship for you to rubbish as "amateurish" and "non-academic") goes a long way to explaining how religions cause wars. "Terror Management Theory" suggests that religion's primary death-denying function is compromised when one comes in contact with other beliefs that conflict with our own, thus threatening our ability to "plausibly" deny our mortality. This draws people with different beliefs into conflict and war.
Point 7: Religion is the cause of wars such as the "muslim-Israeli conflict." Why is it science's fault if it doesn't clean up mythology's messes?

Anonymous said...

To recap, here are my latest points presented once again:

Point 1: Why have you set yourself up as my accuser, to bear false witness against me?
Point 2: You are a dyed-in-the-wool science (evidence) denier. You discount hard evidnce in favor of magic, myth, and legend.
Point 3: You think that Wikipedia is a more "academic" source than tenured professors at major universities with real credentials. Why the fallacious ad hominem attacks?
Point 4: The burden of proof is upon you. Facts are not facts until they are proven, not until they are disproven. It is not the job of the skeptic to disprove unevidenced claims. What can be asserted without evidence can be refuted without evidence. More hypocritically "uncited, unsubstantiated claims" on your part.
Point 5: The current "muslim-Israeli conflict" dates back the 19th century. At best, it could date back to medieval times, but it can't be ancient.
Point 6: Don't blame me for the scientific disproving of Jewish origin stories, blame the Israelis.
Point 7: Religion is the cause of wars such as the "muslim-Israeli conflict." Why is it science's fault if it doesn't clean up mythology's messes?

But I'm afraid this is the end of our discussion. I feel I’ve been very patient with your “deficits,” but I'm not willing to waste anymore time talking to someone like you. I called it from the outset that you would never be satisfied with my sources, or my well-researched answers, and you have vindicated me in spades, unfortunately. Also unfortunately, you have seen the need to resort to a certain quantity of lying in order to try to make it seem like you’re not out of your depth here. I feel sorry for you. You’ve been conned. You believe in other men’s lies and false promises, and you would be disappointed if you were ever to be conscious to realize the mythological figures you trust were never even there to let you down to begin with.

Anonymous said...

More scholarship for you to rubbish as "amateurish" and "non-academic."

Michael Martin and Keith Augustine's 708 page book on the afterlife is now available, The Myth of an Afterlife: The Case against Life After Death. Dr. Martin is the author of the book, The Case Against Christianity, and Augustine is executive director and scholarly paper editor of Internet Infidels.

Description:

Because every single one of us will die, most of us would like to know what—if anything—awaits us afterward, not to mention the fate of lost loved ones. Given the nearly universal vested interest in deciding this question in favor of an afterlife, it is no surprise that the vast majority of books on the topic affirm the reality of life after death without a backward glance. But the evidence of our senses and the ever-gaining strength of scientific evidence strongly suggest otherwise.

In The Myth of an Afterlife: The Case against Life after Death, Michael Martin and Keith Augustine collect a series of contributions that redress this imbalance in the literature by providing a strong, comprehensive, and up-to-date casebook of the chief arguments against an afterlife. Divided into four separate sections, this collection opens with a broad overview of the issues, as contributors consider the strongest evidence of whether or not we survive death—in particular the biological basis of all mental states and their grounding in brain activity that ceases to function at death. Next, contributors consider a host of conceptual and empirical difficulties that confront the various ways of “surviving” death—from bodiless minds to bodily resurrection to any form of posthumous survival. Then essayists turn to internal inconsistencies between traditional theological conceptions of an afterlife—heaven, hell, karmic rebirth—and widely held ethical principles central to the belief systems supporting those notions. In the final section, authors offer critical evaluations of the main types of evidence for an afterlife.

Fully interdisciplinary, The Myth of an Afterlife: The Case against Life after Death brings together a variety of fields of research to make that case, including cognitive neuroscience, philosophy of mind, personal identity, philosophy of religion, moral philosophy, psychical research, and anomalistic psychology. As the definitive casebook of arguments against life after death, this collection is required reading for any instructor, researcher, and student of philosophy, religious studies, or theology. It is sure to raise provocative issues new to readers, regardless of background, from those who believe fervently in the reality of an afterlife to those who do not or are undecided on the matter.

Anonymous said...

It is one thing read "the bible" as just one more ancient text, so long as we’re reading it with cognitive faculties functioning properly in the right kind of cognitive environment.

It is something entirely different to be reading the bible and claim "God is speaking to me." That additional claim is miles and miles away from what any rational person can conclude from the actual experience of reading the bible itself. For that additional claim depends on the rationality of believing that all the ancient documents in the Bible are truly the word of some ancient middle eastern deity, that what they say about this deity, the nature of nature, and its workings are true, and that how one interprets them when reading them is correct.

Since the rationality of claiming "God is speaking to me" depends on the rationality of accepting these other claims, it should be shown that it's rational to accept these other claims before one can rationally claim "God is speaking to me" or "This book is the Word of God!" Until then the rational conclusion from reading the Bible is "I am reading the Bible," not "God is speaking to me."

Anonymous said...

...it is yet another to read the bible and reject simply because you look down upon the religious; fact science will not solve the middleeast conflict, only obediemce to the Written Word and that Word is summed up in the phrase thou thalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

so simple a child could follow it.

Anonymous said...

Ha ha. You think the golden rule started with the bible? The plagiarized it from the Egyptian concept of Maat (c. 2040–1650 BC) "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to cause that he do thus to you."

Anonymous said...

huge difference in the two: the biblical Command is unconditional.
and frankly i am surprised you did not cite a passage from the code of hammurabi.

but never the less, the the torah remains, the jews are still here and do control the world because of their God, and hammurabi's babylon and the original egyptians are virtually extinct.

Anonymous said...

Guess I'll never cease to be amazed at other people's magical omniscience.

Anonymous said...

i reiterate, despite the attempted distraction: science cannot solve the middle east conflict; only the keeping of the Law of how one should treat their cohabitants.

and one should treat others with respect and without covetousness, else you end up with problems like the middleeast conflict; only adherence to the principle of mutual love and respect for others can achieve this, and the science god offers no means to make this happen...

Anonymous said...

Guess that's why you're so busy bearing false witness in your arguments. Cause you're busy keeping all those biblical commandments all the time? Hypocrite. It's people like you that make me proud to not call myself a christian anymore.

Anonymous said...

Has anyone else heard the newest Jim Meredith rant on homosexuality??? Like father like son. These sick people are compoetry obsessed with man on man sex!

He says "God is a hater". WTF?

One would think that the good news of the kingdom of God would be a better message than hellfire and damnation. And he's so dramatic!

No wonder LCG is hemorrhaging members.

Anonymous said...

If one sin is not worse than another, why is the Living Church of God so obsessed with gays??????

Anonymous said...

He says "God is a hater". WTF?

One would think that the good news of the kingdom of God would be a better message than hellfire and damnation. And he's so dramatic!


"Dramatic"? More like "flaming"? Why would Jimmy deliberately use such flamboyant mannerisms in a video supposedly condemning homosexuality? It's as if there's some great inner conflict expressing itself, daring us to draw the obvious conclusion.

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:17 said
If the Genesis account is to be believed at all (which I THINK it shouldn't... (emphasis mine)

At least you make it clear that that is your OPINION. By the way, calling Anon's comment ignorant is also just an opinion, which I don't share despite having read your long thread of evidences to support your BELIEFS. But to each his own. Lets go our ways in peace.