Tuesday, June 14, 2016

Getting Sodom Straight for The Church of God Ministry

Getting Sodom Straight for The Church of 

God Ministry

It's a good time to be reminded that the story of Sodom, misused and misunderstood, is NOT a Biblical a whole town of Middle Eastern men and boys being gay and wanting to literally rape , just for the heck of it, Angels unawares.
The story that unfolds in Genesis 19 is a  Middle Eastern hospitality story and not a story based on homosexuality.  No town is all gay men and boys.  
Sodom's problems as remembered by Ezekiel were that the people were prideful, had too much food, too much time, neglected the poor, were haughty and committed abominations (Ez. 16:49-50). Not ANY mention of mass homosexuality. Abominations can be just about anything not in tune with the law and in this case was a reference to idol worship. Another common Israelite trait all through their history. Why would papa Lot offer his virgin daughter's to a crowd of homosexuals, in place of his guests? What interest would homosexuals have in virgin women? ZERO, unless the girls were being offered as an appeasing virgin sacrifice ("for they have not known a man.") This would qualify as an abomination to be sure, and also idolatry. Human sacrifice was still an option it appears with Abram and Lot.
Another factor is that in that culture the protection of guests under one's roof to a male host was a matter of honor. This is why Lot scrambled to come up with a solution to the problem. In Lot's mind, it was about Lot's reputation and honor. Not an uncommon modern theme in Middle Eastern men to this day. Strangers were not taken kindly to in small clannish towns. They could be spies and were always suspect. Sooooo....
The way to put a stranger in his place was to humiliate them sexually, and send the warning that they had best have no ill intentions in the town. In that culture, the most horrific way to humiliate a stranger and have power over him was to mistreat him as one might mistreat a woman with symbolic or literal rape. The rape would not be a homosexual act, it would be a warning and a putting of strange man in his place as a warning. "In our town, you are just a woman to be used as needed and disposed of if necessary" It may only have been a threat to humiliate and control as the original request was for them to come out "that we might know them".


There are two schools of thought on "know them". One is sexual and one is to simply interrogate and get to know. Few ever question Lot's evil counteroffer. But it does show that Lot was a product of his culture and personal ego protection. Eastern hospitality issues were at stake here and not homosexuality. 
Lot being called a "Hero of Faith" and "Just Lot" in Hebrews 11 certainly did not have this disgusting behavior of in mind. Actually I'm still not sure why lot made the Hebrews 11 list. 
EVERY sermon I ever heard on the topic stops short of explaining Lot's egregious behavior as a father. I doubt this ever really literally happened, but if it did, Lot would be no hero of mine. I seriously doubt he had much of a relationship with the girls after this stunt, not to mention Mrs. Lot!  Can you imagine dinner that night?  "Ummmm, so Lot...about your offer of our daughters to the townsfolk..."
I imagine a similar conversation between Sarah and Abraham when she found out dad's little camping trip to the mountains 
Concerning the superiority of men over women....
I have always found it amusing to inform fundamentalist males who literally believe that "women come from men and not men from women" as Paul ignorantly noted, that the human fetus starts out female. While the genetics to be male or female is there, the initial stages of conception put the fetus clearly in the female camp. It is only after the fetus is bathed in the chemistry of testosterone after the fourth to sixth week does it literally start it trip toward maleness. Without that chemical miracle and it can be interrupted by many factors, including stress in the mother at the time, and the male born can be highly feminized in both thinking and body. We all know men who act very feminine who in fact are not homosexual but are oft accused of it. This would reflect such a deficiency in the womb. It's a big topic medically, environmentally and socially and I do not mean to address them in any detail. The information is out there.  
Perhaps men should ask themselves just why they seem to have nipples?  It's because the template is female.
There seems to be a logical explanation about why women have nipples: to feed babies. But why do men's bodies retain what appears to be redundant body parts? The Darwinian natural selection process would seem to dictate that male nipples really should not be there. So what's the deal? Why do men have nipples? 
Why Men Have Nipples 
As embryos in the womb, males and females have similar tissues and body parts.
In fact, all embryos start out as female, which is why nipples are present in both sexes. It is the effect of the genes, the Y chromosome and the hormone testosterone that brings about the masculine changes to the embryo, including the growth of the penis and testicles. However, because the nipples have already developed before the sex of the baby is determined, the nipples stay.​
As such, male nipples and breast tissue have no function except for perhaps protecting the heart and lungs from injury.


I know many gay men and women , and there is not one that I could see being anything but who they are. I have asked each one when they knew their leanings sexually and in their identity and it is ALWAYS between 8 and 12 years old. They then, spend the next twenty years having it prayed out, Bibled out, preached out and counseled out with massive doses of fear, shame and guilt and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. . At about age 30, they tend to finally give up and admit, "I seem to be what I am." And accept themselves even if others don't. 
One gay friend and their partner of 20 years recently met a pregnant teen who was going to abort her child and long story short, they paid for the birth, attended it and adopted the little girl as their own. At the infant baptism ceremony she was taken to by the one of the partners, a member "outed" them to the new Pastor (the old one was more don't ask don't tell), and the next day the Pastor gave them a video to reform them. They were not not interested in reform. To a gay person becoming heterosexual on command would be the same as a heterosexual becoming gay on command. The next day they were disfellowshipped from a life long church affiliation by the new pastor. So, you be the judge. A gay couple saves a nearly aborted child, raises her like a princess and gets bounced from their church after 30 years.  Who was unjust in this situation?  The Pastor and the Church was. 
What's the point here? I think, leave people alone. No one can live the life of another. Thought control and obedience to organizations and leadership, to me, is suspect and not a path that serves the individual in the long run. I don't trust the understanding of such issues to Bronze Age Priests who knew nothing of what we know today about what makes up a human being.  
Some theologians make a good case that Paul, who did what should not do and did not do what he thought he should, struggled with his own sexuality issues.  Romans 1 is more of a rant and a bit protesting too much.  Romans seems to say that homosexuality in men and women is really the punishment God allows , or gives them over to, for worshiping the creature more than the creator and denying God , who any sane person can see exists by the wonders of the natural world. 
Romans 1: 18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."
Paul in this authentic writing of his goes over the top in his views of why people act as they do and don't just worship the Hebrew God as Paul defines Him.  He may also be revealing his own fears of the consequences of his own issues if he "does what he should not do and does not do what he should."  
Here is  man who insists, contrary to Jesus teachings about leaving father and mother and clinging to a wife, that being single as himself was best. Here is a man who thinks the only reason to marry is to avoid fornication.  Here is a man who felt he had to beat himself literally to keep himself in line , "lest after preaching to others, I myself should become a castaway."  Here is a man who had a reputation of having a big mouth and spoke big words but was very weak and unattractive in his real presence.. Whatever Paul struggled when he lamented his weakness in knowing he should not do what he seems to easily find himself doing, he could not bring himself to be specific about just what that problem might be.  Perhaps his thorn in the flesh was not merely weak eyes, but something deeper and after begging God "three times" for it to leave him, he simple accepted whatever it was and kept moving. Being "gay" in that culture might mean not practicing it out of fear of the cultural penalties, but one would still quietly struggle with their inexplicable tendencies. Paul said he did not understand this terrible burden in himself and I expect he was right.
I would at least recommend to Church of God ministers that they understand the story of Sodom is not about an entire town of gay men and boys wanting to play around with strangers.  I'd also encourage them that if they are going to use the tale to make some point, they read the entire story to its completion and comment on just how Lot makes it into Hebrews 11 after going on record as a father who would offer his virgin daughters to a crowd of gay men and boys to do with what they wish. I also doubt a townful of gay men and boys would want the girls to begin with.   It might also be a good time to address the equality of men and women n reality, and not the superiority of men because , "the woman sinned and not the man."
A topic for another time.....

39 comments:

Anonymous said...

The sad part is that most COG ministers will claim this is all wrong and a tool of deception by Satan to let people sin.

Well done!

Anonymous said...

"What interest would homosexuals have in virgin women? ZERO"

And the amassed crowd proved that. Maybe Lot felt safe in his offering and that they would not take it. Also, Lot could have been trying to impress the two men(angels). Besides, daughters were considered the property of the father back then.

"It is only after the fetus is bathed in the chemistry of testosterone after the fourth to sixth week does it literally start it trip toward maleness. Without that chemical miracle and it can be interrupted by many factors, including stress in the mother at the time, and the male born can be highly feminized in both thinking and body. We all know men who act very feminine who in fact are not homosexual but are oft accused of it. This would reflect such a deficiency in the womb."

Are you saying homosexuality is reversible through hormone therapy?

"While the genetics to be male or female is there, the initial stages of conception put the fetus clearly in the female camp."

I don't know what that has to do with LGBTQ Equality. The human fetus also shows similarity to other mammals fetuses too. Your point being?

"It's a big topic medically, environmentally and socially and I do not mean to address them in any detail. The information is out there."

LOL, you are right about that, that's why you shouldn't stop looking or suffer from confirmational bias.
And despite all this, homosexuality still doesn't work.

DBP

Anonymous said...

"One gay friend and their partner of 20 years recently met a pregnant teen who was going to abort her child and long story short, they paid for the birth, attended it and adopted the little girl as their own."

If the couple have good character, that's great. I'm certain that there are many same-sex couples who could do a fine job raising children. As long as they don't indoctrinate the children with gender-identity bullshit. "My Birth. How Two Same Gender Adults Make Me."

Besides, even if they did I couldn't really stop them other than share my opinion.

DBP

Black Ops Mikey said...

Wouldn't it be appropriate to use Ezekiel 16:49 to show what the 'sin of Sodom' really is to prove the point?

Also, wouldn't Romans 1 indicate that God will turn any man gay who does not want to acknowledge God? Why then are there so many heterosexual atheists and agnostics? Doesn't God keep His Word?

A similar question could be asked about Deuteronomy 18: Why should it be our responsibility to kill off false prophets (like Roderick Meredith, David Pack, Robert Thiel, Gerald Flurry, Ronald Weinland, etc, etc) when God doesn't seem to take any special effort to set the example by doing it Himself? Since false prophets misrepresent God and lie about Him and what He says, shouldn't He demonstrate how abominable it is by not allowing them to live (and saying it is appointed once to die for all doesn't cut it). Assuredly God should not only turn all the godless into queers, but He should kill off false prophets.

Since He doesn't do it, why should we?

Anonymous said...

Good point!

Anonymous said...

Are we losing our common sense in this country?
Transgender Schoolhouse!

DBP

Connie Schmidt said...

A sexist biased account. Where were the Lesbian gangs?

DennisCDiehl said...

DBP
This is not a posting about what works or doesn't work. It is sbout misapplication of scripture and a bit on the unspoken and inexplicable comments by Paul who presumed to tell us all how it is.

The human fetus begins as female is not a statement on LGBT equality. It is one to temper Biblical male dominance and female worthlessness.

Fetal resemblance to other mammals, including fish, amphibians and reptiles might fsll under human evolution

Anonymous said...

an interesting article from Dennis. I always did wonder why everyone in Sodom was gay, it is unlikely when we look at any other societies. The percentage of gays is fairly constant with perhaps some flexibility for women who after a lifetime of men get tired of them and become lesbians. Perhaps there is always more flexibility in women, most men seem to be set one way or the other with only a few in the middle. Genetically it seems impossible that there would be a whole town of gays, unless they all moved there.

and DBP, homosexuality is not reversible with hormone therapy as far as I know, because these things occur in the womb, and a male fetus is born with a brain already affected by testosterone as it developed.

Byker Bob said...

The Bible is often sparse with its words. Sodom and Gomorrah most likely had any number of complex dynamics ongoing, evil activities which were not mutually exclusive of one another, but whatever they were, collectively, they resulted in the destruction of both cities.

Whether for the purposes of hospitality, or not, it is incredibly evil for a father to offer his daughter up to be gang raped. Apparently, Lot had no comprehension of the power of angels, and wasn't up on the finer details of same sex orientation as it is understood in our modern times, or he would never have contemplating substituting his daughter for the angels. Of course, it is also possible that the guys pounding on his door were what we would call today "prison gay", considering the allegedly total depravity of those cities. That would be more about subjugation and debasement than it is about sex, or sexual orientation. If that were the case, one would have thought that a righteous family man would have fled that environment almost immediately upon arrival.

Whatever the case may be, it is still very difficult to understand this story, unless one unquestioningly accepts it at face value, which is probably what most readers have done over the ages.

BB

Anonymous said...

Everyone is born with weaknesses. If it is not one thing, it is something else. But that is not to say that it's OK to surrender to ones weaknesses. Weaknesses are that which harm and impoverish ones and others lives. I know people that are exploitive. Does that make it Ok to exploit others? The reality is that the gay behaviour and lifestyle is anti life. If one treasures life and success, it is appropriate to condemn such behaviour. The sympathetic treatment of gay behaviour in this post is inappropriate. It cheapens the legitimate complaints of former church members. It cheapens all 'dissident sites.'
Will Dennis next write an entry sympathetic to recreational drug use? Didn't that kill Prince, Michael Jackson, and Whitney Houston?

RSK said...

I've always been struck by the fact that almost the exact same account is repeated in Judges, yet in the Israelite city of Gibeah. And in that case, the demanding men take up the offer of the visitor's concubine... which eventually leads to civil war, which God makes alright later by having some Israelite women forcibly kidnapped and raped by the losers. It's a weird little story which doesn't make a lot of sense overall, but its there for reading.

RSK said...

"Also, wouldn't Romans 1 indicate that God will turn any man gay who does not want to acknowledge God? Why then are there so many heterosexual atheists and agnostics? Doesn't God keep His Word?"

I realize its more about the way it's translated than the actual intent, but Paul's use of the phrase "natural use of the woman" has never stopped amusing me. Go tell your spouse you're going to naturally use her and... remember to duck.

Anonymous said...

unspoken comments by Paul?

I agree with you on Paul being wrong. If I was there, I would have asked Paul how do men give birth to women? Every human being ever born was born by a female and all of the fetuses have been influenced by the amount of maternal estrogen, but the genitals of the fetus is not changed from XX to XY or vice versa. Feminism is sociological and not biological nor is sociology written in your DNA. The chromosomes determine sex and not hormones. John Money was wrong! We all started off as just one cell(zygote). How can one cell have a gender? It can't, because it is just ONE cell, but check the chromosomes at around the first several weeks.

Feminism is a pet peeve of mine. My instinct was right that you were probably referring to the patriarchy. So, maybe I may have read more (gender-identity)feminism into what you had intended. And I agree with you that armstrongism is a patriarchy.

DBP

ps:Dr. Money And The Boy With No Penis

DennisCDiehl said...

Anon 10:33
My next article will be "How Atkins Delivered Me From Graham Crackers and Milk....My Personal Crack Cocaine."

That's the best I can do to warn humanity...

Anonymous said...

I'm sure old Rod Meredith is having a hay day with the Orlando story. He is and always has been utterly obsessed with homosexuals, homosexual sex acts and rolling around in the Bermuda grass with other men so it only stands to reason.

I'm sure the Living group is getting an ear full.

itstimecog said...

In Ezekiel, when God describes events, over 60 times He says a version of ye shall “know that I am” the Lord.
I seems clear to me that the world doesn’t know the Lord and by the events He describes, He is going to ensure everyone will know Him when He is done. There will be no more guess work and theory’s.

Let’s consider the following in relation to the gay/lesbian and transgender issues of today.

Exo 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Exo 34:7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.

This from: http://www.earlytorise.com/your-genetic-code-is-not-carved-in-stone/

"New research is revealing how your environment actually changes your genetics – and it’s putting you in the driver’s seat.
This means that the lifestyle choices a woman makes can affect several generations of children – a revolutionary idea that flies in the face of conventional wisdom."
That statement confirms Exodus 20:5 and 34:7.
"Scientists in an emerging field of research – epigenetics – have discovered that your genes are only 15 percent of the total genetic material you get from your parents. For example, your genes give you many individualizing traits like blue eyes or brown hair. The remaining 85 percent – the epigenome – is a scaffolding of proteins that surround your DNA’s double-helix pattern.
As it turns out, this “scaffolding” functions as an interface that interacts with your environment. Based on the lifestyle choices you make, the epigenome has the power to turn genes on or off, changing the way your body translates your genetic coding into the proteins that make up YOU."

There are a number of sites that confirm what is said regarding “epigenetics”.

When we apply that finding to the much maligned British Israelism and DNA testing being touted as the way to disprove British Israelism, that whole denial concept comes crashing down.
British Israelism was around long before the WCG ever adopted it and without it, we loose the “Key of David”.
The long and short of it is that every human ever born will die, be resurrected, judged, found guilty but justified for the life they lived, then sent forth to continue their physical life under God’s influence, at the end of which, they have a final judgment.
To deny that is to deny the sacrifice of Christ for the remission of our sins.

Anonymous said...

You know, I was kind of thunderstruck many years ago when I came to the realization that it is NOT MY JOB to judge any other human being. What a release of burden.

Anonymous said...

4.43 PM if you do not evaluate the people in your life, you will have no way of knowing if they are for you or against you. The result is that you will sooner or later be robbed blind by those around you. If on the other hand, you mean that it is not your place to punish others for their mistakes and crimes, you are correct. It is exclusively the role of courts (not church ministers) to punish.

Anonymous said...

The queen of England and her advisors believed that the British empire was Gods fulfilment of his promise to Abraham, of a company of nations. Obviously many others at that time came to the same conclusion. That 'Herbie the Great' or is it 'Herbie the Visionary' was the only person who perceived this, as taught by Herbie worshippers, is laughable.

Anonymous said...

All this DNA gibberish, mumbo jumbo, is the common left wing ploy of moving the debate into a area in which the opponent is unqualified. Lefty Michael Moor uses it all the time. They never do this when addressing their own followers. It's a dishonest game.

James said...

Homosexuality has been part of the human condition since the beginning. Why the fuss?

Well part of the fuss is about the politicization in pursuit of votes by the parasite class of society. Frankly, who gives a fuck if someone loves someone of the same sex? What does bother me is the divide and conquer campaign put forth by the parasite class. These people are my enemies, not 2 guys making it within the confines of their own home.

Anonymous said...

I have nipples cuz they look hottt under my tee.
They make the females go soupy.
I guess some guys may have the same reaction.
That doesn't bother me, yet I would put a jacket over the nipps when around RCM or Dennis.

Byker Bob said...

We really don't need DNA to disprove British Israelism. Google "A Foundation of Sand-Silenced" for a comprehensive and definitive debunk. DNA is just one aspect, and we know it often confuses the everyday people on juries. The Silenced series addresses multiple factors, most of which anyone can easily understand.

Frankly, the only reason HWA needed BI was that it helped sell his package of doctrines. Otherwise, Paul's statement about Christians being the new Jews could be applied to the USA, which through most of its history has been the major base for Christianity as mankind generally defines Christianity. Or, looking at it from a different perspective, since the other tribes of Israel have largely been assimilated into Judah, we simply acknowlege the fact that the USA and eretz Israel are the two primary homes for the world's Jewish population. But, HWA went for the bogus genetic direct descendancy thingie because it enabled him to drop his church into the role of perfect solution to the allegedly soon-coming apocalypse. Never mind that this is Hebrew year 5776.

William Miller started this whole method of predicting the apocalypse by math, and ever since, people have sharpened and resharpened their pencils, hoping to correct the mistakes of others, and to arrive at the perfect end times equation. Reality is that God will pull the plug when things become irretrievably bad. It is fluid, flexible, and known only to God. The majority of the people I still meet are well intentioned people, trying to do the right thing, and to live good lives.

BB

Anonymous said...

To Mr. or Mrs. itstimecog,

It's not helpful when you insert your sensationalist and pseudoscientific comments into this and other threads.
Am I remembering correctly that you were promoting the pseudoscience of "confirmed" claims that the Earth is only 6000 years old, in your comments to Dennis's previous entry on this blog?

Anonymous said...

"Whatever the case may be, it is still very difficult to understand this story, unless one unquestioningly accepts it at face value, which is probably what most readers have done over the ages."

So true, BB.

DBP

Anonymous said...

"Graham Crackers and Milk....My Personal Crack Cocaine."

lol, really? I'm trying to picture that! I never experienced crack myself but I have had experiences myself by being around people who are on crack. I'm not exaggerating that much, either. ;)

pulling-your-chain

Anonymous said...

"He is and always has been utterly obsessed with homosexuals, homosexual sex acts and rolling around in the Bermuda grass with other men so it only stands to reason."

I think it intrigues him more than he would ever admit. The idea that some people could have so much fun by being so wrong gives him a tingling sensation somewhere. So, he must remove those options from the behaviour of others and for himself. Just think, all those incidents and wasted time doing so-called research into porn and gay-porn. He should realize that no amount of homosexuality can change the way that we humans actually reproduce.

DBP

Anonymous said...

"New research is revealing how your environment actually changes your genetics..."

responding to:June 15, 2016 at 4:41 PM
Let me restate what I think you were intending.
DNA does NOT determine how you are "to act" but then again, where could it be written in our DNA the capability of choosing how "to act"? According to Gregory Bateson in his book "Steps to An Ecology of Mind", it can't. That is where consciencness comes into play. That book was the first opening salvo against genetic determinism. It is our awareness of the environment, not our genes, and how we choose to act and respond that continues our progress or evolution. DNA does not control our destiny! Even the bible says that there is literally no limit to what we can do as we begin to harness the great power called consciousness.

DBP

itstimecog said...

No Anon 9:23, I have never made nor believed the earth is only 6,000 years old.

itstimecog said...

Hi Anon 12:36, the quote: "New research is revealing how your environment actually changes your genetics..." is copied from this website:
www.earlytorise.com/your-genetic-code-is-not-carved-in-stone/

Thank you for sharing your insight.

Regards,
itstimecog

Anonymous said...

Ah, I see the old "nature vs. nurture debate" has arisen in comments.

I think it's often a mixture of both. In some cases, one or the other is overwhelmingly predominant.

If DNA couldn't be an extremely strong factor in determining how one will act, then why is my cat who was separated at birth from it's mother and raised with no other cats to nurture it, hell-bent on stalking hunting and killing rodents and birds?
Was not it's DNA very relevant in how it's brain formed?

Given the plethora of ignorance and pseudoscience blathered by WCG's honchos, it's unsurprising that there would be (here among those who were once in the WCG cult) a pushback against this entry of Dennis'.

There are certainly degrees of the extent to which people have "left Armstrongism", and many people still find parts of it to be "very Truthy"

Anonymous said...

Historically verifiable dates, using buildings or pottery, only go back 5000 not 6000 years.
7.21 AM many have not completely left 'Armstrongism' because Herbie was not wrong about everything. Believe it or not, some people have actually studied their bible, and continue to do so, and have concluded that much of his theology is correct. Implying that all former members are Herbie drones, is insulting.

Anonymous said...

anon 7:21 what you say about cats is interesting. So many say a cat has to be taught to catch mice by its mother. It is true the mother does teach the kitten. But I agree with you that it is genetic because I have had kittens which lost their mother who was a ferosious hunter. They were raised by humans but also became great hunters. I wonder if a non-hunting cat (there are many) could have a hunting kitten. That I do not know because I only have had cats which were hunters.
I think humans are also mostly driven by genetics, perhaps they have more ability to fight it, but it is a fight.
The scripture about the sins of the fathers being experienced by the children for 4 and 5 generations could be interpreted as genetic too. After 4 generations the original genetic weaknesses are sufficiently diluted.
Yes there is so much of Armstrongism that was nothing to do with religion that people still cling to - the admiration of Dale Carnegie and salesman techniques of success is one, then the reluctance to use doctors, he list is very large.

Black Ops Mikey said...

Epigenetics is widely used by cranks and scam artists.

The problem here is that most Armstrongists can't begin to understand science because they simply haven't inherited the genetics.

Therefore, Armstrongism is about magic and has no basis in the real world.

Nevertheless, because of Armstrongist ignorance and incompetence, few of them will rise to the level of understanding one thing in STEM, which makes them little more than pathetic losers with silly opinions.

So you don't think so? Well then, just what percentage of the prophecies of Herbert Armstrong have come to pass? Herbert Armstrong himself disproved the magic of British Israelism as the Key to Prophecy by being a spectacular false prophet.

But then, even with the failed prognostications pronounced in Jesus' Name, the stupid kook defenders of Herbert Armstrong claimed that he was not a false prophet.

You know, no amount of objective proof is enough for the pathetic crazies, even though, as in the case of GTA being shown in videos on International TV, the craziness of holding together the inane social groups continues with people trying their very best to ignore the obvious while making excuses for it.

So if you really want to obey Old Testament Laws and practices, Death to the false prophets!!!!!

Anonymous said...

9.43 AM Christ on several occasions quoted from the old testament. So yea, I obey old testament laws such as the ten commandments, whilst you can follow (perhaps unconsciously) the political correct loonies. Oh, don't forget to 'pass your wealth around,' as instructed by ObamaClaus.

Anonymous said...

itstimecog,

I saw the website that you said you copied your statement from.
Perhaps you are not aware, but Dr. Robert Sears is a quack that is known for proliferating false information which is dangerous to peoples' health.
He's one of many quacks who are cashing in on sales of their dubious products by using fear-mongering, lies and misinformation techniques.

Anonymous said...

"Historically verifiable dates, using buildings or pottery, only go back 5000 not 6000 years. 7.21 AM many have not completely left 'Armstrongism' because Herbie was not wrong about everything. Believe it or not, some people have actually studied their bible, and continue to do so, and have concluded that much of his theology is correct. Implying that all former members are Herbie drones, is insulting."

First of all, I'm not sure why you mention that verifiable dates, using buildings or pottery, only go back 5000 years.
Of course, the Egyptian pyramids date from about 5000 years ago, and are clearly the product of a civilization that had a VERY long history before they were able to advance to that level of building expertise.
The surviving tablets of cuneiform writing from Sumer are from the approximate timeframe of the Egyptian pyramids, too.
And even much earlier, modern humans(Homo sapiens) emerged in Africa approximately 250,000 years ago.

Ok, enough history. Let's move on to "WCG's modern history"....
You said, "...some people have actually studied their bible, and continue to do so, and have concluded that much of [HWA's] theology is correct..."

I AM aware of this. It's not lost on me that there are people in WCG's splinters and "living room COGs" who study their Bibles and still believe "...that much of [Herbie's] theology is correct...", as you say.
I have not, however, concluded positively as you have with regard to the veracity of HWA's teachings.
But, I AM aware of people who have concluded similarly to you, such as family members and people I've read comments from online.

BTW, You said, "Implying that all former members are Herbie drones, is insulting."

Do you really think I did that?
I don't think I did.
If you really think I did, please tell me why, because I re-read what I wrote at 7.21 AM, and don't see it.

(What I wrote was, There are certainly degrees of the extent to which people have "left Armstrongism", and many people still find parts of it to be "very Truthy")

Truth said...

I wanted to rule out the speculation that the Apostle Paul's "thorn in his side", rather than weak eyes, might be that he had a tendency to lean towards the same sex.

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, NOR EFFEMINATE, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (KJV) Author: God, via The Apostle Paul

6 For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. 7 I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: 8 Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.

2nd Timothy 4:6-8 (KJV) Author: God, via the Apostle Paul

Unless Paul was schizophrenic, he clearly understood what he wrote Corinthians, therefore he could be confident as to his standing with God from what he wrote in Timothy. He knew that someone with effeminate desires, actions, tendencies, whatever, would not make it into the kingdom.

If one does not believe in a creator who has remained the same from the beginning, then you can make Paul out to be whatever you'd like him to be. As for S & G, iniquity is sin, simple and plain. Why are we striving over words and phrases, etc...? This is what get's people in trouble all the time. Just look at Facebook.

Keep it simple, keep it truthful, and all will be well.