Thursday, June 25, 2015

UCG Youth Camp Shirts - Yet More Embarrassment!



Can you imagine the horror that kids in United Church of God feel when they wear shirts like this!  They would not be caught dead wearing them in public.

Notice how UCG still CANNOT refer to Jesus in any manner what-so-ever.  That should be the focus of their youth camps, not law keeping.  But that will NEVER happen.

UCG sounds exactly like the Mormons.  They too cannot speak about their god unless they call it "Heavenly Father"  It is an absolutely IMPOSSIBILITY for ANYONE in UCG or anyone else in the entire world to be "like" heavenly father.

This is what UCG is referring to:

King James Bible
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.


Since UCG does not understand "grace' or "sanctification" it cannot ever achieve the
"perfection" it is seeking.  The law will never help them attain it.  Ignoring Jesus obviously has not helped them either.



16 comments:

Connie Schmidt said...

For a split second I thought it was the label for a new BEER CAN!

Anonymous said...

Comment was made that: "...Since UCG does not understand "grace' or "sanctification" it cannot ever achieve the
"perfection" it is seeking..."

And that is so true! And because they do not understand grace and sanctification none of their ministers will preach the following scripture with any sense of confidence:

"To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation." 2 Corinthians 5:19

John

Anonymous said...

In honor of "Cowboy Joe" (the UCG dude who used to write here before he figured he was too good for us), how about a "Be like our United Horse Cramps?" T-shirt, with "neigh" written across it?

Anonymous said...

As much as the Armstrongs dropped the ball in following Christ's example, so does this site. It's site filled with hate.

Anonymous said...

1:12, Walgreen's currently has 3-packs of single-use saline enemas on sale for $3.99. That might help you.

Anonymous said...

anon at 11:02 with the "Cowboy Joe" obsession

Do you miss the arguements?

Anonymous said...

So this website is based totally on negative? What is wrong with wanting to be like your Heavenly Father?

Anonymous said...

The negative thing we all see is how UCG cannot talk about Jesus which is supposed to be the person you are focused on.

Anonymous said...

"As much as the Armstrongs dropped the ball in following Christ's example, so does this site. It's site filled with hate."

Hate? You wanna talk about hate?

Armstrongism, with it's "we're the TRUE™ christians, and everyone else is a tool of satan" theology and it's racist BI prophetic prognostications is where the hate is. It's not the only sectarian form of christianity to spew forth hate tho. This site merely dares to criticize the hate pouring forth every day from Armstrongism. There's a difference between those doing the hating and those who call them out for their hate. If you can figure out which is which, I feel sorry for you.

"So this website is based totally on negative? What is wrong with wanting to be like your Heavenly Father?"

Oh, you haven't noticed what's wrong with it?

The problem with wanting to be "perfect" (like your imaginary gods) is that the end result of that desire is hypocrisy and hate (see above). You have no problem identifying that when it's muslim fundamentalists, but for some reason you can't seem to recognize that christianity is not different. Thankfully, christians are not currently trying to bring 7th century christianity into the 21st century in the same way that ISIS is trying to bring 7th century islam into the 21st century, but in principle there's no reason why this must be so, and no reason why fundamentalist christians won't try it in the future. Religions are time-bombs of hate just waiting to go off.

Ralph said...

June 25, 2015 at 9:34 PM.
Anonymous said...
"Hate? You wanna talk about hate?"

and I ask, hate, or hatred of what?

also:
"The problem with wanting to be "perfect" (like your imaginary gods) is that the end result of that desire is hypocrisy and hate"
As a 'true blue' believer I don't see Yehovah as being a hypocrite (can you quote a couple of examples?) and I ask again, hate or hatred of what?

Anonymous said...

Not bad questions.

"...hate, or hatred of what?"

Short answer: anything or anyone that's "different."

Humans have a tribal past, and we all still have these tribal tendencies. Given the wrong ideology, it is not hard for otherwise normal and decent people to discriminate against, disrespect, reject, hate, and perhaps even try to kill those who don't belong to their tribe, or who belong to another tribe. Someone who belongs to the male "tribe" may discriminate those who belong to the female "tribe."Someone who belongs to the white "tribe" may hate those of other racial "tribes." Someone who belongs to the German "tribe" may hate those who belong to the Jewish "tribe."

Religions are also "tribes" and the more conservative a religious "tribe" is, the more tribal, self-righteous, and sectarian they become, and the more intolerant they become of those who don't belong to their tribe.

Since my self-righteous and sectarian religious tribe collapsed into competing self-righteous and sectarian religious tribes, some have drifted toward more liberal theologies, others toward (even more) pharisaical and even out-and-out Judaizing theologies. I've experienced this as a bipolar set of christianities, with legalistic "purity" being the conservative pole and a modern Jesusy "love" and "goodwill toward all" being the liberal pole. The thing about poles is that they are opposites, and never the twain shall meet. Christians don't realize the polar nature of these competing priorities, and expect that gravitating toward one of these goals will automatically lead them to the other one simultaneously, if not in this life, then in the next one, not realizing the sheer impossibility of these poles ever coexisting together. The conceit of conservative christians is that every single one of them thinks that his particular compromise position between these competing goals is position sanctioned by his version of the christian gods. Anyone who is more liberal is not "serious" enough, too lazy, or just simply not spiritually "pure" enough, while at the same time, anyone who is more conservative is "self-righteous." And there you are, already on the thin end of the tribal hate wedge, even as a tribe of 1. The more conservative the christian, the more everything that's “different” becomes "evil," "impure," unacceptable, intolerable and hated. The more liberal you are, the more you will be the target of this hate even from those within your own religion. Those who subcribe to other religious tribes will always be targets for the hate of the conservative elements of your religious tribe.

"I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said 'Stop! don't do it!' 'Why shouldn't I?' he said. I said, 'Well, there's so much to live for!' He said, 'Like what?' I said, 'Well...are you religious or atheist?' He said, 'Religious.' I said, 'Me too! Are you christian or buddhist?' He said, 'Christian.' I said, 'Me too! Are you catholic or protestant?' He said, 'Protestant.' I said, 'Me too! Are you episcopalian or baptist?' He said, 'Baptist!" I said, 'Me too! Are you baptist church of god or baptist church of the lord?' He said, 'Baptist church of god!' I said, 'Me too! Are you original baptist church of god, or are you reformed baptist church of god?' He said,'Reformed baptist church of god!' I said, 'Me too! Are you reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?' He said, 'Reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!' I said, 'Die, heretic scum,' and pushed him off." ―Emo Phillips

Anonymous said...

"As a 'true blue' believer I don't see Yehovah as being a hypocrite (can you quote a couple of examples?) and I ask again, hate or hatred of what?"

First, I was once a 'true blue' believer, just as you are, so I am not critical from an outsider's perspective, but from the perspective of one who has already walked more than a few miles in those moccasins and come to the conclusion that those moccasins cannot lead one where the advertising claims they will, and had to make the conscious and informed decision to walk in those moccasins no longer.

Second, let's start by defining what hypocrisy means: the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform. I would add to this that hypocrisy also includes when a person holds others accountable to these standards to which his own behavior does not conform.

Third, let's get straight that I'm not talking about the hypocrisy of an imaginary being who is incoherently supposed to be "perfect" ("perfect" being an undefined term) already, although such arguments, especially from theodicy, have been advanced. What I'm referring to is the hypocrisy engendered in real-life very imperfect humans who incorrectly suppose that an imaginary "holy spirit" somehow supposedly "transforms" them into increasingly "perfect" (again, undefined) humans. And yet, we are not transformed. Stolen sweets still remain sweeter. If we were transformed, this would not be so. Thus the disconnect and denial begins, imagining ourselves to be the people we aspire to be, while living the actual life of the person we still are, but living in denial of who we actually are. Like it or not, his is the christian walk. Unfortunately, the non-existence of the "holy spirit" makes this hypocrisy the inevitable outcome of being christian. Though it begins innocently, and with the best of intentions, it ultimately is a journey into the land of hypocrisy, self-delusion, and more-or-less tribalistic intolerant hating, as you increasingly fail to accept those who don't live up to the standards that you only live up to in your imagination.

If you want an example, look no further than our own dearly beloved HWA, who, while getting his fledgling ministry off the ground was diddling his own daughter. Your own christian hypocrisy might not be so egregious. Mine wasn't. But does hypocrisy have to be egregious before it's hypocrisy?

"Once when I was at life's lowest ebb and I felt like no one would ever love or accept me...I was lying there in the dark and all of a sudden there was a warm glow of light and Christ was standing over me like this...I said to him, 'Jeez, Jeezy boy, I feel like no one will ever accept me.' And Jesus looked at me and said 'You know what my theory is? Accept me or go to hell.'" ―Gilbert Gottfried

Ralph said...

June 26, 2015 at 1:26 PM
Anonymous.....

Sorry anonymous, I think I misunderstood your original post. It seems to me that any one who finishes up with a hypocritical lifestyle or hatred for another person has missed the primary message; the message that is tied in with the Ten Commandments. But I guess that is also tied in with a personal perspective. Does one accept them and try to live by them or no? Brings to mind "Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt ENTER INTO LIFE, keep the commandments.
Mat 19:18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
Mat 19:19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

Ralph said...

June 26, 2015 at 1:26 PM
Anonymous said...
'.....but from the perspective of one who has already walked more than a few miles in those moccasins and come to the conclusion that those moccasins cannot lead one where the advertising claims they will, and had to make the conscious and informed decision to walk in those moccasins no longer"

No offense intended but it sounds as if you "threw the baby out with the bathwater".

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the apology, Ralph. Although I still don't see anything particularly ambiguous about my original post.

The heart and core of the matter is that religious fundamentalism of all stripes, and Armstrongism is a form of fundamentalism, is a prioritization and a quest for something that is truly imaginary, namely "human purity." There is no such thing as "human purity." Purity is a concept that applies to elements and minerals, but not to living organisms, and certainly not to the behavior of living organisms.

I am sure that you assume your prioritization, at least for the moment, of "love" and "goodwill toward man," which I have no particular problem with, will lead you toward "human purity" as well. But it won't, because that leads toward to tolerance of differences, and tolerance is a capitulation to "impurity." The quest for "human purity" the refusal to tolerate, which leads to rejection, hate and eventually atrocities being committed in the name of one's god pursuant to this imaginary "human purity." A quest for tolerance does not lead to intolerance, and a quest for intolerance does not lead to tolerance. These are polar opposites that will leave you chasing your tail, because the system itself is incoherent.

Moreover, any constructed system of values or thought that couples a quest for "human purity" and a quest for honesty is also an incoherent system that inevitably is going to pull anyone who tries to adhere to that system in two different directions. The deeper into this system he goes, and the more rigorous he tries to be in "accepting and trying to live by" an incoherent code bolstered by both an imaginary "holy spirit" helper that doesn't exist, and thus does not help, and a truly *incendiary* set of carrot and stick artificial consequences, the more he is going to be cornered and coerced into a life of lying to himself about his true nature, stagnation, and lack of progress or change, AND the more he is going to have to lie to himself about the fact that he is leading a life of self-deceit as his hoped-for "pure" identity diverges from his actual "impure" identity. There came a time when I could no longer ignore that this is what I was doing, and and that I was doing it because the system itself was incoherent and crazymaking, the more obvious it became that the system itself was wrong.

There's nothing wrong with adopting a code of honor and trying to live by it. I think that's honorable. But there IS something wrong with feeling an overwhelming sense of guilt and shame for failing to live up to it at times, and then embarking on a life of lying to yourself about how well you're living up to it. There's also something wrong with the intolerant quest for "human purity."

Anonymous said...

"No offense intended but it sounds as if you "threw the baby out with the bathwater"."

Oy vey! Well, on that one offense is kinda taken.

Sorry, but there is no "baby." If there is some powerful being somewhere, he is not in this thing called Armstrongism. I really can't see how that is even up for dispute. Having familiarized myself with the terrible apologetic case for christianity, which amounts to *nothing* more than the fallacy of special pleading, I cannot even see how he could be in this thing called "christianity." No matter how large that fallacy is writ, it doesn't make it not a fallacy.

The judeo-christian god is the barbaric product of barbaric ancient storytellers, just like all the rest of the gods. If any of these gods did exist, the evidence for the existence of one of them would rise above the evidence for the existence of the rest of them. And that's quite apart from the issue of whether such a god were worthy of worship.

I am sick of people telling me that the buck can never stop at their god, and that he is in control of everything yet responsible for nothing. That's just apologetic rationalization. Frankly, I can't see how such a barbaric and irresponsible figure could be worthy of worship even if he did exist. I don't accept that might makes right. If your god does exist, he has a lot of explaining to do.

People have done a lot of imagining that there's a lot of babies in the proverbial bathwater. But is there even so much as one baby in it? You think so. Big deal. You also think you know what baby it is? Big deal. A quick primer on epistemology shows this is a misuse of the word "know." Guessing doesn't constitute knowledge. You've been conned my friend. Duped. Fooled. Taken for a ride. Led down the garden path. You wish it weren't so, but if wishes were horses, beggars would ride. Fallacies, guesses, and wishes is not what reality is made out of. Grow up.