Friday, June 10, 2016

Why the Splits (PCG/UCG) Splinters(LCG) and Slivers (RCG)Can't Ever Learn Anything New





Catching up on truth in the Portland Library
(Let him who has eyes understand)

So back to the question

I have to admit, I watched every one of AronRa's refutations of Apostle Dave Pack's series on Irrefutable Proofs of God, which were easily refuted , with glee.  It was a job more than well done by a man who actually knew what he was talking about compared to Dave Pack who only thinks he knows what he is talking about but really doesn't.


Several times in my ministry I experienced a glimmer of hope that new information which would really help the church and relieve burdens that were simply unnecessary were introduced .  

The Systematic Theology Program my first experience with hoping we could stop majoring in the minors .  Topics such as Divine Healing and Divorce and Remarriage were given a good looking over and burdens of belief and practice in these troublesome areas seemed on the verge of a balancing perspective.   Wrong....  As most of us know, the ministers were ordered to turn in their copies of the STP and Authority trumped knowledge once again in the Church of God.  Herbert Armstrong would have none of it and Satan got the blame.

AronRa pointed out to Dave Pack that his "proofs" were all one way , from the top down, through his series, his booklets and his opinions with the implication that once explained, it should now be your belief.  That's how churches work.  Here our booklet. Read and agree with it.  Come to church and pray, pay, obey and stay.  Simple!

Ever try to offer a rebuttal back up the chain of church "authority"?  As the King told Herbie in the Wizard of Id who came to the King offering advice and some things that needed changing said,  "Well with ideas like that Herbie, you'll really go up in this kingdom."  The next scene we see Herbie standing at the foot of the gallows to "Up you go Herbie"



Truth in the Churches of God always have this bad habit of having to come from the top down.  It can't come from new information on old well accepted church fairy tales. It certainly can't come from Books on the topic not written by the Grand Masters of the Churches.  Unless it's an in house booklet it's not going to happen and for sure it ain't coming from YOU!

When I was a kid, if I had a theological question, and I had many, you simply asked the minister.  After all he is the expert right?  Even as a Presbyterian kid, I figured he'd know and he was supposed to know.  And he did know the Presbyterian spin on all thing Bible and Calvin.

 I have to say that if I had had the Internet as a kid, I NEVER would have given WCG a thought in its teachings much less wish to pastor churches in their name.  Knowledge had not been increased as prophesied at that time and would only increase later with age , experience and dis-illusionment fueled by study on my own and allowing myself to come to my own conclusions without fear, guilt or shame.  Disillusionment is not a bad thing.  Who wants illusions? Well except the Splits, Splinters and Slivers...

The leadership of the Churches like religious folk.  Religion, by my own definition is what OTHERS can pour into your head for you to believe.  They can define your days of worship , your diet, your financial commitments and when to show up where and for what.  They tell you what to believe and if you are a good member, you agree to believe it.  I know you think you studied it our well but you really didn't because your leadership didn't and won't once their own beliefs are set in stone and unalterable.  The ever changing "truth" is not what they can  use to uphold their image as "one who knows."

Spiritual folk, on the other hand, are like cats. You can't herd them. They might listen to what you say, but their sense of self and belief comes from within and is not easily commanded to believe as told. 

As my dad often said when he was told to do or be something he was not certain he had to do or be (sometimes by Dave Pack personally), "I'll take that under advisement."  That was dad's way of saying "NO".



 It is risky calling anything "The Plain Truth" when it comes to religion and issues of faith and practice based on Bronze and Iron Age admonitions and perspectives. It's especially risky when one has not done the hard work of study or literal exploration in the field.  Dave Pack sat home in a nice chair, reading Creationist views and fondly remembering outlining The Genesis Flood in class 50 years ago, as if it was ultimate truth and it was not even close, and that was good enough.  He no doubt read "A Whale of a Tale " and "A Theory for the Birds" and that pretty much proved evolution of all life to be a farce. Of course those booklets were the farce and grossly wrong as is Dave Pack today and was so mercilessly pointed out.  Dave was way out of his league in thinking he could bully folk into scoffing at the facts of science and evolution and not get called out on it.  

Those video rebuttals can now follow him the rest of his Internet life to give a better case for evolution than the case he made for magic and myth.

And that's the problem isn't it?  In the Churches of God, you can't call out an Apostle, Prophet or Soon to Be Arrested Elijah Amos Thiel on anything. They don't listen , don't want to hear it, out of embarrassment can't change course now and dearly love to be the sole source of your truth and not others who actually know the facts.  They don't really want to know the truth of anything.  They want you to know their truth. They will dis-member you to protect the crock. 

In the Churches of God the only recourse that leadership understands and that the laity has is to :

Withhold their support

Go along to get along

Vote with their feet

These are timeless and effective Church of God from the bottom up tools to get the attention of Apostles, Prophets, Presiding and Soon to Be Arrested types.  

But don't be surprised that you will not be given the credit for research well done and common sense well explained.  You will have to endure, "There is a way that SEEMS right to YOU, but it will end in death.."  "The Wisdom, (buster) of  Man (YOU) is FOOOOLISHNESS with God." or my favorite, "You are just using human reasoning," to which I would then ask them, "and what kind of reasoning do you use?"   If they say "God's" , well you got 'em on the basis of human arrogance and hubris.

All this to say, and to encourage those still hanging on to Splits, Splinters and Slivers, that it is ok to think for yourself.  It is ok , in real life and living to express the following concepts of real living and personal integrity:

"With all due respect, I don't believe that."

"What is it about AronRa's rebuttal you either don't understand or don't agree with and why?"

"We won't be attending that event"

"I give what can but don't order me to "Send it in"

"Well that's your view, it is not mine and here's why"

"No, I/we have no intention of believing you know we must flee to Petra and you will be the one to give the order."
(This is a particularly good skill to have in case Apostle Dave Pack issues such orders.  His luck with prophecy and the truth of many things of late has been right at 0% correct)

"I'll take that under advisement..."

Established churches by nature can't change much.  It spooks the brethren.  If they do change, the do it over decades and centuries leaving the past generation of believers to believe what the next will be able to shed.  THE REASON WCG under the Tkaches and now it's poor cousin Grace  Community International under Joe Tkach have crashed and burned is because of radical, foolish and immediate change over months.  All that does is leave the laity with the distinct impression that today's truth is tomorrows joke and the jokers in charge don't know what they are talking about at any one time.   I think we can all recall the 37 changes back and forth on the topic of make-up.  It was no if Herbert said no.  It was yes if Ramona harassed him over it long enough.

Not observing and recognizing your beautiful children's birthday because some jackass in history cut the head off some fanatic is not really a good enough reason not to send the message to your children you love them are are very pleased they showed up on the planet.   

Group truth is weak truth and probably not true for the most part.  Truth handed down from the top is also probably not as true as one would like it to be.  

Notice the reason groups and churches must all speak the same thing.

 "I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought."
I Corinthians I:10

Here, the reason that all must speak the same thing is to prevent discord and division and to give the appearance of group agreement on all things. This is, in reality and practical fact,an impossible requirement if one really wants to get to the truth of anything. All believing the same thing just to preserve unity is not a healthy or even honest pursuit of what is actually true. Of course, it rankles the group big time. 

Groups don't possess truth. Individuals do and while it might be said to be their truth or their present truth, it at least implies there might be more to come with newer and better information which they will always be willing to consider..  Groups don't like newer and better information and for sure those issuing truth from the top down detest it.

Think about it....
   















43 comments:

Anonymous said...

It amazes me that church members, most in their 70s, have to be told something as basic as thinking for oneself. There are many good books on thinking skills. Author Edward de Bono has written many fine books on this topic, such as his excellent 'six thinking hats.'

Homer said...

Dennis said, “Religion, by my own definition is what OTHERS can pour into your head for you to believe.”

A few years ago, after beginning to think for self, I made a comment in a round table discussion about religion after services. “All religion is man made.” Immediately someone at the table responded with, “Except ours.” I said nothing for several more minutes, then stood, leaned on the table and said, “Remember this, all religion is man made.” I then walked away from the table. The response, “Except ours,” is common to many religious organizations and subsets of those organizations, especially within the Churches of God. Each group may say they are the only “true church” which is recognized by God. They cannot all be correct. However, all may be incorrect if there is no such organization which neither now exists nor ever has.

Anonymous said...

Dennis, you can get a job as Richard Geres stand in.

DennisCDiehl said...

Lol... More like Steve Martin who "is a wild n craazy guy!"

Steve D said...

Jesus prayed for unity, not for uniformity among believers (John 17:20). If only HWA knew the difference . . . .

senior citizen said...



One thing I do know is how arrogant we people/churches can be when we think we know and get it all. This applies to both evolutionist and creationist.
Our belief that the ancients had nothing on us is pretty arrogant.
I had a teacher who taught us that the Greeks were silly to believe in myths.
Yet he taught what geniuses Plato, Aristotle and Scorates, etc were. I asked him if he was brighter than these men who in many cases believed in these 'myths'.
The so-called myths of the past may not be so at all and it may well be that our own modern arrogance and pride prevent us from seeing that.

Connie Schmidt said...

Homer and all:

You wrote: “Remember this, all religion is man made.”

***I retort that conversely "That ALL things men do, make and create , become religions to some degree" as well!

Anonymous said...

11.51 AM it depends on how one defines religion. Is a sport such as baseball a religion?

Anonymous said...

Unity is not the same as agreement on technical issues or agreement on the application of Gods laws. For instance, there was the debate on circumcision by church leaders in Acts. Peters conclusion doesn't necessarily mean that everyone agreed with him. All would have co-operated with the judgment, but not necessarily agreed.

DennisCDiehl said...

I don't personally cooperate with the judgments of others I don't agree with. In the work world with employers etc, fine, no problem for the most part as it's company business and it has to be conducted in an orderly fashion by management. But when it comes to how one 'must" or "should" live their life, believe without proof and obey because it's what we do...nope. Already played that game with WCG and in hind site, my instincts were correct for me and things worked out as I expected they would if the circus continued, which it did.

I would rather lean in the direction of my own understanding based on my own thought and homework than that of others in such matters.

Whoever said, "We must all speak the same thing" really meant, "You must all speak the same things I tell and teach you."

Stephen said...

The way I now perceive cultic institutions, whether they be churches, corporate cultures, or what have you, is that cults only allow one storyteller, and one story to be told. Tell a different story, and you'll quickly be persona non grata.

I guess the only difference between unity and uniformity is that uniformity is at the level of thought policing, where you're not allowed to even tell yourself a different story, while unity means you'd probably just better shut the hell up and not tell any of your stories.

Anonymous said...

Dennis, when I stated that 'all would have co operated with the judgment,' I had the leadership attendees at the conference in mind. As 'employees' of the church, they were obligated to teach the conference decisions. The bible agrees with you when it states 'prove all things,' 'don't lord it over members faith,' and not forgetting 'obey God rather than man.'
Even Christ didn't demand that people believe Him without proof. Rather, He performed many miracles to confirm His claims.

Truth said...

I was a member of a much smaller splinter group for a number of years. For as long as I can remember, we were always told not to question the ministry. A majority of the time, this was done indirectly, but you always got the jist. This type of "don't think for yourself" mentality, became so ingrained in the brethren, that you would hear certain ones promoting it. Shamefully, I admit that I followed along like a good little lemming.

I left this organization a number of years ago, and do not keep one doctrine differently to this day. I follow all the same teachings, because I believe I have proven them within the Bible. The only difference is, I think for myself. Where most of the disagreements came from, and always got the lay members in trouble with the ministry, seemed to be with administrative judgments. Of course around the time I left, many doctrines were also being toyed with. These, if you were thinking for yourself, could be spotted, but they were subtle.

Last year, my family ran into a still current member of that organization at a Feast of Tabernacles site. We talked briefly about general things, and then religion came up, specifically the head pastor. It was asked of this member, if he believed that he had to do everything he was told by the ministry, and without missing a beat, he said yes. That was more sad to hear, than I have words to explain. Is that really the mindset we see portrayed by the first disciples, as they followed Christ? I don't believe so.

There are many scriptures that point to both the behavior and mindset of the ministry, and lay members in these last days, yet they are never addressed. Here is what 2 Timothy 3:16 says: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. "ALL" scripture is profitable. How then, can we use the "glossed over" scriptures profitably? We cannot. I would say that 90% of the churches out there, are missing the boat.

Only Jesus will be able to sort this mess out.


Ralph said...

Topic header::-

"Why the Splits (PCG/UCG) Splinters(LCG) and Slivers (RCG)Can't Ever Learn Anything New"

Perhaps it's because the time has not yet come. viz:-
"Rev 21:5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful."

cheers
ralh.f

Byker Bob said...

In most cases, we should react to orders or edicts from practicing Armstrongite ministers just as we would react if a normal person were to pass gas in our presence. Hold your nose, and get the heck out of his presence as soon as possible.

BB

Anonymous said...

There's something wrong about the picture.
Is it the glasses being upside down?

nck

Anonymous said...

7.32PM A major 'glossed over' scripture is trade, as in the parable of the talents. By definition, trade means making a private, independent decision (no daddy telling you what to do), and acting on it. People experience this when they go shopping, but don't realize that it extends to all area's of life, including 'buying' one's beliefs. So it is not surprising that the churches hide trade and make indirect sniping attacks on it, such as the counterfeit, exploitative 'give way.'

Cheers TradingGuy

Anonymous said...

Ralf, high school students and college students are constantly learning something new. We don't need to wait for the second coming to learn something new. Try reading a good book. They'll be amazed at what you can learn.

Ralph said...

on June 11, 2016 at 3:47 AM
nck wrote:-

"There's something wrong about the picture.
Is it the glasses being upside down?"

nck, if you're referring to the first picture my answer would be no. It is the book, "Mystery of the Ages" that is being read(?)
Unless of course the reader is wearing 'upside down' glasses. LOL

cheers
ralph.f

Anonymous said...


I Listened to the video posted with this article. Dawkins presents evolution (or eeevolution, as he pronounces it) as "Plain Truth", and as a fact. There has been nothing that I have seen in all of my years living (even before I even knew God -- my parents were not religious and I did not a concept of God growing up) that proves evolution. Also, he flippantly says that gravity is real and that anyone who denies it (sorry, I can't remember the rest of what he said exactly) but more or less he was saying that anyone who does not believe gravity is real is ignorant. Actually he is ignorant just for making that statement. No one doubts the law of gravity or the laws of physics, or and other scientific laws -- evolution is not a scientific law. He is just grasping at (pardon the pun) stones. I am also surprised that a man of such intelligence ( or should I saying learning) cannot grasp the fact that scientific laws do not just spring up by themselves. there is a cause ans effect for everything, and even science proves that. People can argue all that they want no one has yet to prove evolution. Variances, varieties, species are not evolution. I suppose the different skin color on human beings are a product of evolution also since they are a variation. There are two main things that completely knock evolution out of the water. The main one is it's foundation. Evolution is founded on that life came from non-life. Even science proves that life comes from life. Evolution is built on a false premise. It's foundation is a lie even in the face of scientific proof.

Now, the writer of the article stated: " It is risky calling anything "The Plain Truth" when it comes to religion and issues of faith and practice based on Bronze and Iron Age admonitions and perspectives."

Actually evolution IS a religion. The whole concept of evolution is based on FAITH -- Faith that life originated from non-life, that order came from chaos, that non-intelligence created (evolved into, since they have an aversion to the word created) intelligence. It doesn't take much intelligence to see that that is impossible, even based on grammar school science.

There is one more thing that totally blows evolution out of the water and that is the vast differences between animal mind (on yes, evolution also believes that human-kind is animal-kind) and the human mind. do a study on the mind -- not the brain, some animals even have bigger brains than humans -- but the mind capacity is vastly different. Ask Richard Dawkins to explain that through evolution. You can even ask Steven Hawking. They cannot give you an answer. There is no answer in evolution or science. and I do not need to refer to a quote from a "religion" source to prove that. Here is a something from the scientific arena (this is from an article I wrote on the issue of the mind):

In his book The Brain: The Last Frontier, Richard M. Restak, M.D. points out that there is a difference between brain and mind. “The question ‘Is the brain a sufficient explanation for the mind?’ was anticipated by biologist, Sir Julian Huxley: ‘The brain alone is not responsible for mind, even though it is a necessary organ for its manifestation. Indeed, an isolated brain is a piece of biological nonsense as meaningless as an isolated individual’.”

Science, evolution cannot explain this. Evolution is a religion that goes on faith that there was a chemical reaction from which all life evolved life into its present day status. Life from non-life. It flies in the very face of scientific proof.

Anonymous said...

I was in a COG service the other day where a visitor in the congregation (no suit, no tie) interrupted the sermon - saying "not true!" out loud when the preacher said God was NOT calling everyone to salvation now.

Talk about a tense moment. The preacher said he was not there for a debate, and offered to talk to the man after the service. The man summed up his point in a sentence, apologized for the interruption, then apparently left the hall on his own.

He came back in after the service, and had his discussion with the preacher. I have my doubts he'll be coming back.

Anonymous said...

[To the moderator. Sorry, this is a re-post with the typos corrected. If you use my post please use this one. Thanks.]


I listened to the video posted with this article. Dawkins presents evolution (or eeevolution, as he pronounces it) as "Plain Truth", and as a fact. There has been nothing that I have seen in all of my years living (even before I even knew God -- my parents were not religious and I did not have a concept of God growing up) that proves evolution. Also, he flippantly says that gravity is real and that anyone who denies it (sorry, I can't remember the rest of what he said exactly) but more or less he was saying that anyone who does not believe gravity is real is ignorant. Actually he is ignorant just for making that statement. No one doubts the law of gravity or the laws of physics, or and other scientific laws -- evolution is not a scientific law. He is just grasping at (pardon the pun) stones. I am also surprised that a man of such intelligence (or should I saying learning) cannot grasp the fact that scientific laws do not just spring up by themselves. There is a cause and effect for everything, and even science proves that. People can argue all that they want no one has yet to prove evolution. Variances, varieties, species are not evolution. I suppose the different skin color on human beings are a product of evolution also since they are a variation. There are two main things that completely knock evolution out of the water. The main one is it's foundation. Evolution is founded onthe concept that life came from non-life. Even science proves that life comes from life. Evolution is built on a false premise. It's foundation is a lie even in the face of scientific proof.

Now, the writer of the article stated: " It is risky calling anything "The Plain Truth" when it comes to religion and issues of faith and practice based on Bronze and Iron Age admonitions and perspectives."

Actually evolution IS a religion. The whole concept of evolution is based on FAITH -- Faith that life originated from non-life, that order came from chaos, that non-intelligence created (evolved into, since they have an aversion to the word created) intelligence. It doesn't take much intelligence to see that that is impossible, even based on grammar school science.

There is one more thing that totally blows evolution out of the water and that is the vast differences between animal mind (oh yes, evolution also believes that human-kind is animal-kind) and the human mind. Do a study on the mind -- not the brain, some animals even have bigger brains than humans -- but the mind capacity is vastly different. Ask Richard Dawkins to explain that through evolution. You can even ask Steven Hawking. They cannot give you an answer. There is no answer in evolution or science. And I do not need to refer to a quote from a "religion" source to prove that. Here is a something from the scientific arena (this is from an article I wrote on the issue of the mind):

In his book The Brain: The Last Frontier, Richard M. Restak, M.D. points out that there is a difference between brain and mind. “The question ‘Is the brain a sufficient explanation for the mind?’ was anticipated by biologist, Sir Julian Huxley: ‘The brain alone is not responsible for mind, even though it is a necessary organ for its manifestation. Indeed, an isolated brain is a piece of biological nonsense as meaningless as an isolated individual’.”

Science, evolution cannot explain this. Evolution is a religion that goes on faith that there was a chemical reaction from which all life evolved life into its present day status. Life from non-life. It flies in the very face of scientific proof.

Anonymous said...

"In most cases, we should react to orders or edicts from practicing Armstrongite ministers just as we would react if a normal person were to pass gas in our presence. Hold your nose, and get the heck out of his presence as soon as possible."

Good call! And it also applies to "mainstream Christian" preachers like Bishop Eddie Long, Peter Popoff, Dr. David Jeremiah, Dr. Creflo Dollar, and SO MANY MORE slimy characters!

It's a good idea to RUN from these predatory assholes!

Anonymous said...


A university textbook called A History of Western Society, 9th edition, copyright 2008, 1056 pages, started off with Chapter 1: Origins, ca 400,000-1100 B.C. Of course, the book just had to pay lip-service to the idea that people had evolved. It mentioned that, “A reasonable dividing line between anthropology and history is the Neolithic period, usually dated between 7000 and 3000 B.C.”

The ANTHROPOLOGY is all those made-up pictures of prehistoric ape-men supposedly going back hundreds of thousands of years. “Artists” get bored, dabble in things such as eating their paint, and voila, another ape-man illustration for the books. One book actually used a photograph of a modern, unshaven man hunched over and monkeying around to show what ape-men supposedly looked like hundreds of thousands of years ago. You can still see some guys like that today in their “man caves.”

The HISTORY is what was actually written down. Cuneiform writing was used in Babylon, Hieroglyphics in Egypt, Hebrew in Israel, Greek in Greece, and Latin in Rome. It is interesting that A History of Western Society mentioned Babylon, Egypt, Israel, Assyria, the Medes and Persians, Greece, and Rome. These are countries that you read about in the Bible. The WCG teaching was that man had been created about 6,000 years ago. It is amazing how well this idea matches the actual historical record.

DennisCDiehl said...

A History of Western Society mentioned Babylon, Egypt, Israel, Assyria, the Medes and Persians, Greece, and Rome. These are countries that you read about in the Bible. The WCG teaching was that man had been created about 6,000 years ago. It is amazing how well this idea matches the actual historical record."

Wrong

Anon said: "Actually evolution IS a religion. The whole concept of evolution is based on FAITH -- Faith that life originated from non-life, that order came from chaos, that non-intelligence created (evolved into, since they have an aversion to the word created) intelligence. It doesn't take much intelligence to see that that is impossible, even based on grammar school science."

Also wrong. I take it you did not bother to listen to the rebuttal videos to Dave Packs shallow assertions? The fact of evolution is based on evidence. It is not taken on faith. That is not how science, paleontology or genetics works. I imagine you have not done your homework outside your comfort zone.

Anonymous said...


Evilutionists like Long-Hair and Dawkins in those videos might be more persuasive if I had not had so many personal experiences with evilutionists and their actual evil behavior.

Evilutionists like to pass themselves off as scientific types and intellectual know-it-alls. In actual practice, they behave as if they are demon inspired. Whether they are university professors or factory workers, evilutionists behave badly. Many professing evilutionists are just immoral slobs and/or potheads who carelessly assume that someone else has proven the theory of evilution. They typically like to make up all sorts of poorly understood theories about evilutionary psychology to explain and justify their porn addiction and fornication. They never seem to think ahead enough to try to explain the evilutionary role of sexually transmitted diseases.

Some people make a religion of science, but even if science could save mankind, evilution is not science. Evilution is a satanic religion. Evilution is all about trying to trick, intimidate, and bully other people into immorality rather than about real science.

Evilutionists claim that people somehow evolved rather than having been created by God. Since real science seems to prove that life never comes from non-life today, evilutionists say that it somehow did happen at least once billions of years ago. Recorded human history only goes back about 6,000 years, but evilutionists like to throw around millions and billions of years.

Evilutionists try to get rid of the laws of God that have been preserved in the Bible by getting rid of God. In the Bible, God forbade such things as adultery, prostitution, tattoos, cross-dressing, homosexuality, bestiality, baby-killing, etc. Rejection of God, the Bible, and the laws of God, in contrast, can lead directly and quickly to such behavior. The evilutionists then want to “re-educate” (that is, brainwash) everyone to think that evil is good and natural and something to be proud of, and that good is evil and something to be ashamed of. It frustrates the evilutionists immensely when other people teach their children about God and the Bible and save them from the evil, evil, evil evilutionists.

The evilutionists--monsters of depravity that they are, and skilled at satanic trickery--like to act perplexed and pretend not to understand why some people do not want to go along with their depraved behavior, and why some people have doubts about theories that lead to such disgusting behavior. Always annal and beastly, the evilutionists are full of murderous rage when they cannot fool everyone.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous on June 11, 2016 at 9:00 AM said...

“Dawkins presents evolution (or eeevolution, as he pronounces it) as 'Plain Truth', and as a fact.”



Dawkins is wrong yet again. It is pronounced EVILution.

Anonymous said...

Dennis C Dehel:

You wrote: "Anon said: "Actually evolution IS a religion. The whole concept of evolution is based on FAITH -- Faith that life originated from non-life, that order came from chaos, that non-intelligence created (evolved into, since they have an aversion to the word created) intelligence. It doesn't take much intelligence to see that that is impossible, even based on grammar school science."

Also wrong. I take it you did not bother to listen to the rebuttal videos to Dave Packs shallow assertions? The fact of evolution is based on evidence. It is not taken on faith. That is not how science, paleontology or genetics works. I imagine you have not done your homework outside your comfort zone."


1.) I do not listen to Dave Pack.
2.) What exactly are they calling evolution these days? Maybe is is not the same thing that was taught 60 years ago, which is that all life started from nothing which evolved into something which evolved into something else which evolved into something else, which eventually crawled out of the sea and grew legs and evolved into something else and evolved into something else, until ultimately you have man.
3.) Evolution IS a religion. It is the opposite side of the coin of Creationism. They are both religions that worship the creation/creature rather than the Creator.
4.) Have scientist's now been able to create life from non-life? Science tells you that life comes from life.
5.) I did watch the video (or at least part of it). The rhetoric was deep on both sides.
6.) You wrote: 'Anon said: "Actually evolution IS a religion. The whole concept of evolution is based on FAITH -- Faith that life originated from non-life, that order came from chaos, that non-intelligence created (evolved into, since they have an aversion to the word created) intelligence. It doesn't take much intelligence to see that that is impossible, even based on grammar school science."' You called that statement wrong, but I notice that you did not bother to refute that evolution is based on the fact that life comes from non-life, that intelligence came from non-intelligence. So? I notice also that you did not say anything about the mind. Explain the vast difference between human mind and animal mind. Can you? No. Can Dawkins? No. Can Hawking? No. Did mind "evolve" also? Did a non-thinking, non-existing thing suddenly come into existence and to life and constantly evolve until it formed a creature that had such a sophisticated mind that far surpassed the mind capacity of any animal? And though you may probably argue that Man does not have a vastly sophisticated mind, you know better.
7.) "outside your comfort zone." I like when people use that phrase because it is what I call a cop-out phrase.
8.) Dennis Diehl, news flash, you are not an animal. You did not come from an animal. You are a human being. Animals are animals, plants are plants, insects are insects, fish are fish. Humans are humans, Humans are not animals (Though admittedly, there are some that act like animals.)
9.) You also did not address what I said about scientific laws not just suddenly springing up. The gentleman the video briefly mentioned them, but he did not address where those laws came from. Did a non-intelligent, non-life thing that suddenly came to life also make those laws? Did the law of gravity, the laws of physics, etc, evolve as well?
Do traffic laws evolve? Do gun laws evolve? Do tax laws evolve? Does any law evolve? No every law has a law-giver, or lawmaker.

It's been nice chatting with you. Hope I haven't said anything that has offended you. I still say though that you are a human being and not an animal (mammal). I hope that doesn't offend you.

Regards.

Anonymous said...


Remember that this is not an either-or question or situation.

You can, and should, reject Long-Hair, Dawkins, and David Pack. They all want to harm you, each in their own perverse way. Reject all three of those freaks and go with the Bible instead.

Anonymous said...

Well, now that we know you haven't read your world history, let's hear from someone who isn't a complete idiot...

Anonymous said...

I spent many years designing electronic equipment. If I was to live forever, I will never forget the mental strain of some of those designs. Yet animal life is on a much higher plain of design complexity. That such complexity just conveniently happened with no external designer is ridiculous. I'm sure I speak for many with a similar background.

Anonymous said...

You've gotta take this act on the road.

Anonymous said...

7.36PM you could also mention the fundamental constants (36 from memory) such as the speed of light. If these were different, there would be no suns, and no life, or not as we know today. Why are these constants just right? Even with the big bang theory, why were the laws of physics and chemistry briefly different, allowing the creation of the universe, and why did they conveniently revert to what we have today?

Anonymous said...

The fool says in his heart the is no God, the is no creator. The wise and prudent know better.
For we have been designed by a kind and magnificent Holy God.

Anonymous said...

Dennis's 'outside your comfort zone' comment is his former minister side coming through. I doubt that most ministers have read more than a handful of self help books, yet they love to play psychiatrist. It's boring teaching members religion, the same stuff over and over. Besides, most people ignore what is taught anyway. So it's much more exciting playing psychiatrist, and especially with members that are obviously superior to them. Oh the joys, the thrills, it's so pleasurable being so nosey. And telling their wives all the intimate details that they learn from members lives. The voyeuristic wives love it. No matter that it takes 8 years to qualify to become a psychiatrist, which includes a 3 year medical degree. No matter that in the real world, one needs to be licensed and people have to come to you, rather than ministers forcing themselves on church members.
Notice how Dennis sounds like he has X-ray vision and can see, just like God, into others mind. Another minister trait. Convince members you can do this, and boy, they'll really think you are God. If these minister-psychiatrists are so great, why do so many, including other AC graduates, have such humble jobs when they lose their minister jobs?

Anonymous said...

"There has been nothing that I have seen in all of my years living that proves evolution."

Where's your thesis?

"People can argue all that they want no one has yet to prove evolution."
"Even science proves that life comes from life."

Maybe evolution is God's science?

"...evolution is not a scientific law."

Because not all of the data has come back in, yet.

DBP

Kathleen said...

Great post, Dennis. The best thing about the Scientific Method is that it is self-correcting, which also makes it a great metaphor for what you're saying.

I was researching something for my blog the other day, a statement of HWA's to the effect that doubting is not intelligent. When his father died, Armstrong was in a tailspin because this was the first time his prayers for healing were not answered--never mind that it wasn't unusual in those days for a 70 year old man to die after a heart attack--and his initial thought was that either the Bible passages that promise healing were not true or God was a liar. So he had to search the Bible until he found scriptures that made him "right again" (for more on that, read Kathyrn Schulz' wonderful book, ). Armstrong had a naturally inquisitive mind, but lack of education led him to make the same thinking errors over and over again. He also viewed his earlier experiences with people he had anointed uncritically, that is, he doesn't seem to have questioned whether they might have gotten well anyway. In writing up this experience in his autobiography, it was clearly a pivotal time. And he vigorously resisted the temptation to doubt. How many members of his church would suffer and die because he considered doubting unintelligent, and clung to the aphorism that he who doubts is damned? What if he'd stopped to think that the scripture might not be inerrant? What if he'd had the capacity to contemplate his own ability to be wrong? What if he knew about confirmation bias? What if my aunt hadn't seen The Plain Truth Magazine on her piano teacher's coffee table? Oh, wait. That's my fantasy.

Kathleen said...

Somehow I did the HTML thing wrong, Dennis. Schulz's wonderfully thought provoking book is, Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error.

Anonymous said...

"I left this organization a number of years ago, and do not keep one doctrine differently to this day. I follow all the same teachings, because I believe I have proven them within the Bible. The only difference is, I think for myself."

I've heard that before, from a variety of Armstrongists.
It's not very different than many who claim to have "left" Mormonism, Scientology, etc, still cling to and tout those beliefs.

Anonymous said...

Someone wrote, "The WCG teaching was that man had been created about 6,000 years ago. It is amazing how well this idea matches the actual historical record."

Hmmm...
Sounds like someone who puts credence in writings of young Earth creationists - or maybe even GTA - and would simply call Aron Ra "longhair" as a way to negate his well-backed-up response to what a wacko Armstrongist acolyte claims!

It is amazing how happy this "someone's" mind is; while awash in armstrongist anti-science beliefs, emotions and rhetoric.

Perhaps it would not be fair to bring such people kicking and screaming into our present age.

Anonymous said...

9.35AM. Historically verifiable dates only go back 5000 years, then hit a wall. This was made obvious when scientists tried to discern the accuracy of carbon 14 dating.

Anonymous said...

Historically verifiable dates only go back 5000 years, then hit a wall. This was made obvious when scientists tried to discern the accuracy of carbon 14 dating.

That's an interesting viewpoint.
Am I correctly remembering that even HWA and GTA allowed for a type of "gap theory" that accounted for radio carbon datings of 50,000+ years?

I'm curious: When did you adopt your viewpoint(before or after your time in the WCG), and if you had kids, did you home-school them or opt for a Christian school that teaches YEC(Young Earth Creationism) for their education? Lastly, so you view mainstream science as a tool of Satan to deceive people?

I am familiar with some YEC arguments, from sources like Answers in Genesis, the Creation Research Institute, Ken Ham and his Ark Park, etc.
One of my favorites is Ken Ham's "Were you there?" retort to people espousing mainstream scientific arguments regarding the age of this planet.
(Here's a hypothetical I would find very funny: Ken's wife Marilyn bakes a blueberry pie and puts it on the kitchen windowsill to cool. The pie goes missing. Ken sees a neighbor child sitting on his front lawn with blueberry pie all over his face and holding a pie tin. Ken accuses her of stealing the pie, and starts scolding her. The child denies guilt, looks up at Ken and says, "Were you there?")

To reiterate: Typically, Young Earth Creationists believe that the Earth is about 6,000 years old(and that the Grand Canyon was formed primarily during the "40 days and 40 nights" of the Flood of Noah.)

For those interested in how mainstream science answers Young Earth Creationists' biblical claims, you can click here for a page wherein the National Center for Science Education answers some of the YEC's most common arguments.

Anonymous said...

6.37 AM other than endlessly mocking me, you gave no rebuttal to my point of historically verifiable dates only going back 5000 years. Armstrongites do not believe the earth is 6000 years old, so perhaps you are on a wrong blog. Go give the Mormons or Jehovah Witnesses a hard time.