Thursday, April 6, 2017

Prove All Things---Believe it---Hold on to it---How?



Remember back in the day when you may have first started attending the Worldwide Church of God or along the way met other members in various other WCG congregations or at the Feast of Tabernacles and you were asked, "So....How did YOU come into the truth?"

The answer was usually a simple story of relating to driving late at night and hearing the World Tomorrow Broadcast or picking up a copy of the Plain Truth at a Newstand.  Some few may have been convinced by a coworker or a family member.  But it was a simple process.  One hears, one likes the message, one believes.

We all claimed, in our minds, that we searched out the matter and "studied" to see if these things be so.  We read the Bible, we compared scriptures Old and New.  We compared what the Bible said with what we were told it said by our previous religious affiliations and found them wanting. We proof texted our way through the scriptures and finally ended up "proving all things and holding fast to that which was good."   We were set. Nothing new to learn and if there was, it had to be presented by the fearful and humble to the high and lofty for approval.  Truth was dribble down theology.  Right up to the end, Truth had to be approved by leadership.  It had to be delivered by leadership in the form of Apostles and Evangelists and even the Evangelists had to get the OK from the Apostles.

On top of all that, we'd never consider that the Bible itself was anything less than "God breathed."  Every quote, every person, every story, every event, every promise and every threat for not believing it were absolutely immutable and exactly how it all happened in history, time and space. To question is to lose faith and to doubt or notice other explanations or problems in text or leadership is scoffing according to the scriptures.  It is also being twice dead when once will do.  

In RCG, you get your truth from David C Pack who is an authoritarian mere Bible reader know it all except he doesn't. There is a price to pay if you don't get your truth and prove all things with his approval.

In PCG you get your truth from Gerald Flurry who is an authoritarian mere Bible reader know it all except he doesn't. There is a price to pay if you don't get your truth and prove all things with his approval.

In  all the slivers run by theologically challenged farmers all outstanding in their field and in their minds, truth is pronounced, dreamed and received from God.  I recall my first "What the hell?" feeling when RCM said in freshman Bible "There is God, then Christ, then Herbert W Armstrong, Garner Ted Armstrong, myself and other leading (not to be named) Evangelists ...."   I chuckled not knowing chuckling was not allowed in RCM's presence.

These not only don't know how to actually view the Bible, aren't theologically and professionally educated but they also can't imagine there is a view different from the ones they come up with. .

And now look at them...  


Too soon old, Too late Schmart


The Scientific Method

"Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing. I have only begun to learn content and peace of mind since I have resolved at all risks to do this.”

Thomas Huxley

























Or....

     "Trust and Obey for there's no other way to be happy in Jesus, but to trust and obey."?
             
             "So we all can agree, not disagree and be  happy"?



Does this sound like "prove me now herewith" or any real reason to believe anything as important as "What's it all about?"  





31 comments:

Black Ops Mikey said...

Science is based on observation.

Armstrongism is based on wishful thinking.

If you start making observations about your sect and its leaders, you have a choice: Either abandon the wishful thinking and live in the real world with freedom or continue in slavery immersed in magic which renders the world of illusion confusing and dysfunctional.

Our observation is that if you are still in Armstrongism, you will continue in your cult, defending it to the hilt without even considering facts and truth, and live in misery you perceive as happiness and fulfilment.

Prove us wrong.

Dennis Diehl said...

Or as Paul said in Galatians. "If anyone brings another gospel other than the one we (I) preaced, let him be accursed"

Anonymous said...

Preachers and "scientists" are both full of crap because none of them practice what they preach. Science is just as corrupt as religion. People are crooked lying politicized scum. Reading only what the mainstream "scientists" say is like reading nothing but your bible and COG literature. It's a formula to remain brainwashed.

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure what Dennis's point is. There was and is a anti thinking culture in the church, but members still have the choice of thinking or not thinking for themselves. I do not believe that members are ignorant of their God given responsibility to 'prove all things' and other similar scriptures to this effect.
While ministers use 1Cor1.10 and similar as a attempt to lord it over members faith, choice is still there.
Rod, Dave and friends have embraced the unbiblical Catholic church model in this regard.

Byker Bob said...

Interesting. I heard Uncle Roddy say the same thing, but did not have a "what the hell" moment. I assumed that greater depth and wisdom would come to me at some point in my AC career, and that I'd eventually take my place at some lower level of that same hierarchy.

One thing always bothered me. They kept harping on Bible study. Seems I never quite did enough. I wondered what the point might be in doing that, since the Bible couldn't speak to you on a personal level. Instead, in order to remain a member in good standing, you were required to embrace their guided conclusions. All of them. You were required to buy into the whole package. Years later, I realized that what they intended was for us students to memorize the basic proof texts, and for something internal to eventually "snap" so that as you did your Bible Study, you would automatically interpret everything that you read in light of those proof texts, and the "fact" that Mr. Armstrong was God's endtime apostle, and we were all part of the end time work. This would have the net effect that no matter what you actually read or studied, you were indoctrinated to the point where it affirmed and confirmed your belief in Armstrongism. This was also reinforced through phrases such as "being converted", or "being guided by the Holy Spirit". And, that is pretty much the way in which they hijacked our brains, and convinced us that we had "proved all things".

We never tested by consulting second opinions, and we never attempted to prove that it was right by proving it was wrong, both of which are solid processes normally used in establishing facts scientifically. There was no intellectual freedom. If you even used those words, they had an "ap" for that. It was "but, God's apostle, Mr. Armstong, has said....."

BB

Anonymous said...

Science is limited in what it can study. It always has been and always will be. If there is something beyond this material world, science is unable to study it. It hasn't the tools. So you can't prove scientifically the existence of a spirit being, we can't detect or measure the level of Holy Spirit as we can detect a fever with a thermometer or high blood pressure. One has to ask, "Is it more reasonable to believe than to not believe in a higher being?"
I was fortunate to be in Armstrongism for four years before leaving in 1974 because it was there that I met my wife of 44 years. It also "vaccinated" me against other cults and the false teachings of some other churches. I am like many who are labeled "dones" those who were once involved in church, but who have left the organization without leaving the "organism."

Anonymous said...

It's somewhat humorous that you quote Huxley, a big proponent of Darwin.

He said "It is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty." And yet in his day neither he or Darwin had a clue as to what made life work. Darwin never proposed how "life" began. His theory simply takes the most complex process in the Universe as a given and play around with it using adaptation and "mistakes" in reproduction to create "new" species.

Zero facts to back it up. The fossil record just shows sudden appearances of completely different species in the Cambrian Explosion. To this day, the myth of "Evilution" is made up just suppositions, assumptions, guesses, maybes and uses unscientific terms as "developed" to spin their fairy tale.

Anyone who studies the interworking's of one cell will be blown away with what appears as a science fiction like world, with hundred's of extremely complex proteins and enzymes work together in perfectly designed harmony, just to create another need protein to keep things running.

So Huxley didn't prove all things. He just assumed and pretended not to have any bias. He was self-deceived.

Anonymous said...

You claim "evilution" is made up of suppositions, assumptions, guesses and uses unscientific terms developed to spin their fairy tale.

Just what the hell do you think Church of God ministers do????????? Look at Pack, Flurry, Thiel, and others. Every single one of them spins the stories of the Bible with suppositions, assumptions and guesses. They use no sound theological training and research, its all just stupid guessing which leads to abuse. All Church of God ministers are self-deceived.

DennisCDiehl said...

Wht would I not quote " a big proponent" of Darein. Darwin was correct for his initial view of evolution with details to follow and they have.

Dennis Diehl said...

My point was how do you come to proper conclusions. By a process of really searching out a matter based on observation and reproducible fact or all having the same opinions so there be no disagreements or division in a church

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:12 AM

I completely agree with you that the wild postulations made by Pack, Flurry etc. are just used to show how special they are with their "Biblical understanding" for the sole purpose to get a following and control people with fear religion.

Not every COG does this. But too many do. We all still see through a glass darkly.

Dennis Diehl said...

Only one afraid of facts would say "evilution" or do you also not believe in "cretinism?"

Anonymous said...

10.12 AM (the first one, not Dennis's)

A person makes a excellent case, you respond by hijacking the point, going off on a tangent, and in so doing demean the original post. You do this over and over. It's the same person. This is sick! It's like people who deface public property.

Anonymous said...

There is no bigger contradiction in the bible than Paul's injunction to "prove all things" in 1 Thessalonians 5:21, versus gospel Jesus' prohibition of that in John 20:29, "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." Of course, you can't prove anything without evidence, and John's Jesus says not to even bother going to look for any. Don't try to prove anything, just believe the stories you're fed—that's where real christian virtue and blessings are to be found.

Hans Halvorson, a xian philosopher and mathematician at Princeton, during this Veritas Forum debate with Sean M. Carroll succinctly admitted during a moment of authentic reflection how in the personal sphere he strays from the reliable epistemology he must practice in the professional sphere at Princeton, and the difficulties he has in rationalizing that with his christian belief:

[39:25] "There is a challenge intrinsic to a religion based on some sort of revelation...The challenge is that revealed religions, religions where you had a revelation that occurs historically and is not ongoing...If you take the religion seriously, that means you have to come to the 'data' [revelation] that they've passed down to you with an 'innocent until proven guilty' [true until proven false] attitude..."

The problem with "coming to 'data' with a 'true until proven false' attitude" is that it is equivalent to the creation of "knowledge" by fiat, out of thin air, by doing nothing more than reversing the burden of proof, a very popular fallacy. Any "data" that an individual decides to approach with this "attitude" will automatically be transformed into something that passes for "knowledge" within the mind of that individual. However, by making this error, which Halvorson admits to, and while acting in his professional capacity no less, he, of course, has most emphatically not created knowledge, despite the fact he confesses to making an a priori decision to treat this "data" as though it were. Halvorson has confessed, in so many words, that he didn't arrive at the idea that xianity is "true" via any methodology, it's simply that he decided to "take the religion seriously" one day. That's it! Religion "helps you fool yourself" because it is a codification of epistemic unskillfulness, and not only that, it transforms that unskillfulness into a virtue. Halvorson, as a scholar, ought to be ashamed of himself.

Every day we are presented with, to quote Michael Shermer, junk science, pseudoscience, voodoo science, bad science, non-science, and plain old nonsense. These come to us in the form of claims about health, perpetual motion machines, aliens, miracles, conspiracies, the paranormal, and the supernatural, just to name a few. At the same time, we'll also be presented with a few ideas that, upon scrutiny, are found to meet higher standards. How do we sort these out? How do you be careful about not fooling yourself? The scientific method, methodological naturalism, is the way you do that. And to be consistent about doing it, not just at work, but also at home, seeking the veridical and reliable must first be a deeply held personal value, not merely a matter of professional ethics, and after that, it is a skill that must be honed.

Anonymous said...

Darwin and Armstrong have something very much in common, both had bull sh*t theories based on faulty logic. Yes Dennis if you believe you evolved from a primate I truly believe you have.

Anonymous said...

Here's a 2002 article in which Rod Meredith warns of the terrible things that will culminate in fulfilled Bible prophecy in the next "5 to 15" years:

Wake Up, America!

At what point will LCG admit that their leader is a false prophet?

DennisCDiehl said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Darwin and Armstrong have something very much in common, both had bull sh*t theories based on faulty logic. Yes Dennis if you believe you evolved from a primate I truly believe you have.

Actually I (we) are primates, sharing 99% of our DNA with Chimps who are our cousins sharing a common ancestor 5-6 million years back. So yes, I completely believe I am an evolved primate in the que who also has developed a conscious awareness above my fellows. That's the science of evolution and of little dispute save for amongst those who read their Bibles too literally as if we have not learned anything since the Bronze and Iron Age about origins. I expect you have done little or no real thinking or study into the reality of human evolution.

Armstrong and Darwin have nothing in common but Armstrong's and your explanation as to the origins of human beings sounds like it might be very much the same actually.

Would you care to share your own perspective and beliefs on your own human origins here? I didn't think so.

Anonymous said...

Dennis, You clearly are de-evolving into monkey. A theory is nothing more than guess work and has little to no facts. You apparently have A low IQ.

Anonymous said...

Dennis, I would be willing to talk to you face to face and we could discuss your beliefs like a real man. Oh that's right you can't because you are not man enough.

Anonymous said...

So you gave up the cults. Fine. But don't think science is your new savior. Read, just for one example, the book "Albert Einstein the Incorrigible Plagiarist" and you will know that everything he came up with, he stole. He had some good friends in the media and who were editors of the scientific journals so he never got called on it. Yet he was Time magazine's man of the century. The media now believe the lies they wrote before the current generation of lying talking heads was born.

Anonymous said...

Michael Shermer. Seriously? He is a junk scientist himself. Please find someone more credible to base your comments on.

Anonymous said...

"So yes, I completely believe I am an evolved primate in the que who also has developed a conscious awareness above my fellows."

And in some parts of the world people evolved more than in others. I could never figure out why God created dummies until I learned about evolution.

Michael said...

Quote from RCM article from 2002, mentioned above by Anon:

"If these disasters continue to occur over the next five to 15 years, and in fact get much worse—if continuing wars, terrorism, drought, famine, disease epidemics and earthquakes strike especially the American and British-descended peoples of the world—then you had better listen!"

Well there we have it from the horse's own mouth. It is now 15 years later, and no such scenario (same as always, or rather considering the conditions in 2002, you could argue things are somewhat better than at that time)

By his own words, there is absolutely no reason to "listen" to the likes of RCM, folks!

Dennis Diehl said...

My IQ is 135. You're a piece of work. What's your name Mr Face to Face?

DennisCDiehl said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Dennis, I would be willing to talk to you face to face and we could discuss your beliefs like a real man. Oh that's right you can't because you are not man enough.

Home all day tomorrow and Saturday from work. Email is DennisCDiehl@aol.com. Drop me a note, I"ll send you my number and you can call me for an initial chat. You have til Saturday evening.

I'm a real man just fine and you diminish yourself with your childish wisecracks . Perhaps it is you that is not the man and can't communicate like one?

I'll expect an email and then your call. I'd be happy to report the outcome of our initial talk here on Banned.

Talk soon...

DennisCDiehl said...

PS There's a niggly part of me that thinks you sound like I'd imagine Dr. Michael Germano to sound on a rant. I had a great debate a couple years ago in Tyler with Art Mokarrow in front of the church there. He ended the evening by telling the crowd, "I want you to listen to what Dennis said tonight. He told you the truth." I have no idea why he said that, nor did others, but he actually did. I think he was trying to say, "I used to think like Dennis and someday he will think like me" but that's not going happen. :)

Dave Pack won't answer my calls to chat. We can set something up with Dixon Cartwright and Gary, owner of this Blog for a face to face. Come to Portland for coffee? Maybe meet in LA where we could get a nice audience and record it?

I am on a limited budget and work at my practice along the Mighty Willamette five days a week but with notice, perhaps we can work it out.

Anyway, look forward to the email and our chat on the phone soonish...

Could be fun...

DennisCDiehl said...

And too, and thank you for bearing with me in multiple posts, whatever you think of Einstein or Darwin, with all the ins and outs of intrigue, they and those like them were and are correct. Scientific inquiry has done a very nice the last 150 years and an outstanding job over the past 50, where Dave Pack claims to have learned everything he needed to ever know about the truth of evolution by reading A Whale of a Tale and a Theory for the Birds along with the ridiculous Genesis Flood by Wittcomb and Morris, both of whom were marginally qualified to even comment on either the Bible or their truths about "flood geology" which was pure bullshit.

And your comment that a theory is "nothing more than guess work" is beyond ignorant and shows you know next to nothing about how one formulates and proposes hypothesis leading to a theory perhaps. You might find the difference between a hypothesis and a theory interesting. Unlike religion, Science is cautious about the word 'fact' as it is easier to adjust a theory with more clear research, experimentation and results than to change "facts" which seem a bit more locked in eternal stone even if mistaken. Nothing in Science well done is locked in stone out of wisdom and respect for the scientific method of discerning the truth of a matter. There is always more detail to learn about topics such as the evolution of species and humans but the theory is sound and accepted by critical thinkers and those who spend their lives searching out such things.

Anyway, why do you care what I believe? Do you always snark on those who don't believe like you do? Is this Bob Thiel? :)

Write and then call . We can exchange pleasantries, full names , background and go from there chat about anything you want. We can then see if it is practical, time and cost effective to meet face to face . If you'd just like to sit down in one of Portland's great coffee houses together and call it even, great too!

Anonymous said...

Dennis at 5:50 PM

You state "I completely believe I am an evolved primate in the que who also has developed a conscious awareness above my fellows."

There again is statement again about an organism "developing" consciousness. Things that are "developed" come from planning and design. One of the most interesting things I learned at Purdue 45 years ago in my physiology class, was that the brain is NOT the mind.

The field of consciousness is a relatively new area of study. It was once thought a folly to think it could be a real science.

To get a overview of the mystery of human consciousness, one can go to YouTube and watch two presentations. One is a TED Talk by David Chalmers - "How do you explain consciousness?" The other is by an old friend Dr. Robert Kuhn - Season 1 Ep. 7 of "Closer to Truth" - called "What is Consciousness?"

Those in the Neuroscience field can not explain the consciousness as a result of brain function alone. They are related but it's still a mystery. As David Chalmers states "it a science of correlations not one of explanations".

We believers know their is a spirit in man that makes us different from all animals. Science will have a hard time finding that spirit.

Dennis Diehl said...

I have always enjoyed Chalmers and others in the field of what and how of our consciousness. Memory and mind may be in the field and not the brain just as people aren't really in the television. Whether it is connected or proof of the biblical "spirit in man" is debatable as is the whole concept and would prove endless.

You might enjoy The Origins of Consciousness and the Bicameral Mind.

Dave Pack however is the origin of a consciousmess­čś▒

Black Ops Mikey said...

Those in the Neuroscience field can not explain the consciousness as a result of brain function alone

That's because while the researchers and practitioners may among the 25% of the adult population which has the inherited aptitude of structural visualization (without which the majority of people are completely lost and clueless about STEM), they don't seem to know much about neural networking or advanced AI.

Eventually, the explanations will come, but by that time, Armstrongism will either be totally dead or will be so regressive and opposed to science they might as well be in the Stone Age (or maybe prior to that, whatever that may be, surrounded by dinosaurs).

Oh, the Armstrongists can just ascribe it to magic as they always do with things they spout as being 'spiritual' (because they don't understand the universe around them and just make things up -- a device now used by the latest generation of liberals and their wrong-headed mentors).

Anonymous said...

Anon 7:35 AM wrote:

"...We believers know their is a spirit in man that makes us different from all animals. Science will have a hard time finding that spirit.

Those words are so true about the difficulty of finding that particular spirit that distinguishes human beings from animals; however, even more difficult than that is understanding "another spirit" dwelling within human beings that is mentioned by James:

"Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?" James 4:5

Lust and envy are not good fruits in one's life.

It is very hard to understand b/c we are all clean and pure in our own eyes, so it seems.

Regardless, no wonder there is a scripture that says the following:

"All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes; but the LORD weigheth the spirits." Proverbs 16:2

We, as human beings, may observe and experience those "spirits," but I am unaware of any human being who can "weigh" them. Only One so far claims to be able to do that.

A human being (well, any living organism) is a living miracle, or combination of many miracles, of life, and very complex in so many ways, physically and spiritually. Who can know it?

And time will tell...

John