Wednesday, March 7, 2018

Remember..."How did you come into the Truth?"

I grew up in the Presbyterian Church and I don't believe I ever heard anyone use the words "the truth" when speaking of their beliefs. It was just beliefs. You know, the ones passed on from generation to generation and being Presbyterian, no one in the local church ever would think to question any of it. It didn't matter. Behind the scenes, one could believe what they wanted and it was all so generic and nice that I can honestly say I never remember one issue coming up that maybe needed to be looked at, or anyone uttering the words, "new truth." Old truth was just fine and who cared.
When I discovered, as a teen, the really true Church of God, that seemed to me to be concerned with the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, that's all we heard about. People were asking each new member "So how or when did you come into the truth?" It was a nice way to say ask how long they had been in the church and from what error had they arrived. The word "truth" was thrown around a lot by that church.
Everything had to do with "the truth." We kept the true sabbath, the true holydays, understood the truth about being born again and the truth about unclean meats and how to have a happy marriage. There were the true seven ways to be happy or be a leader or study your bible. You could be called into the truth and you could be dismembered for falling away from the truth. There was the truth about tithing and the truth about not tithing. There was the truth about who God has chosen and who He had not chosen and who He now loved and who he was pissed off with. There was the truth about the end times, which of course, we were living in and Jesus second coming simply has to be in the very near future. In my lifetime in fact! We evern knew the Plain Truth about everything from trade wars to crime and queer men. Never heard much about the truth of queer women though.
If you wanted to know the truth, just ask the Church, preferably on the local level by way of the minister, who knew all the truth there was. We knew the truth about evolution and the truth about the flood. Often we knew the "plain truth" which is the truth stripped down to the really core truth of the truth and was so simple to understand. However, simple as the truth might be to understand, God still had to open your mind to the truth, or you were never going to understand or know the truth. But it was simple after that. I later found out that "God has to open your mind," meant that one who came to the same conclusions as the Church and leadership had indeed had their mind opened by God. Those who disagreed or only saw some of it were still in the grip of Satan or at best had a bad attitude.
Gosh, we knew the truth about life and death. No one knew how consciousness or quantum physics worked, but all things God, just ask! We knew where you went and where you didn't went. We knew when you went to where you were going and how to get there and who wasn't going along with you because they had yet to discover the truth. We knew when they would discover the truth and, while not as good as when I discovered the truth, it was not bad at all. What's a thousand year difference compared to eternity? Nuttin! We knew who was in the right Church, which would be us, and who would be in the wrong Church, which would be all not us.
We knew the truth about the God of the Old Testament and why he was so freaking mean and loved killing both animals and humans. We knew the truth about the New Testament and how the Son of the Old Testament God was the nicer of the two and canceled all the stuff His Dad liked. We knew that the truth was that this bachelor son lived alone with His Father, after everyone that loved him the week before killed him. We knew they lived somewhere and the Father never had a wife or female to keep him company. But that was just the truth. God was a He and if you were a she, then you still had to be a "son of God" just the same, because that was the truth. Of course, I had to accept the truth of being the Bride of Christ, but that was the truth too, so I had to rejoice in it.
Wow, we knew it all. Just ask! But once in a great while we discovered "New Truth." I can't tell you how amazing new truth is to discover. Now I may have been hoping that we would have discovered the new truth about the actual origins of man and the evolution of life over millions of years as opposed to the truth of everything being around 6000 years old, the story of Noah's Ark and the Tower of Babel, but that was not up for discussion.
I thought maybe there was some new truth on why so many of the stories in the Old and New Testament are either scientifically incredible or historically impossible and unprovable, but no luck there either. I thought maybe some new truth might have to do with how the Gospels aren't harmonious eyewitness accounts of Jesus life, nor written by the men whose names appear on the books. But no banana there either. I thought maybe we'd get some new truth about why Paul never mentions Jesus' life, teachings, miracles, life events, birth or stuff like that, including why he never quotes him, but no, wrong again.

What really would have been nice would have been some new truth on how the local minister was just a guy too and didn't know everything and that was ok, but nope, nothing like that either. And it really would have been nice if, as a minister, I could suspect there was such a thing as "new truth" out there that maybe those in charge had missed to, but whoa baby, don't even think about it! New truth had to come from the top down and only agreement came from the bottom up. That's the way all churches area really. Top down, not bottom up. Bottom uppers are an endangered species in any church.
Recently a friend of mine told me the guy at the top of her church made a really good point in her church. Seems the minister fired the music director of 25 years without permission from the people. He said he was the guy at the top and it was his call. One guy at the bottom asked to speak and was given permission to do so. He reminded the minister that that is now how things are done and that he was wrong to do this firing on his own. Then the really good part comes up. The son of the minister walks up the isle and decks the guy opposing his father's actions. Police are called and it's all good! The bottom uppers won because decking the good guy never pays. I love the truth!
Once in a great while New Truth did come to the Church of "all Truth all the Time." But alas, it was always something like, "The New Truth About Make-up" or "The New Truth About Divorce and Remarriage." I learned these truths came from God when leadership was being being given a hard time about make-up by God's leading wives or some of God's leading wives left their leading husbands and the leading husband wanted a new leading wife. We did have the New Truth about Healing as well as leaders aged, needed care that they didn't need when younger and rethought the idea of only trusting God for healing etc. I'm glad that was old truth to me but I managed to keep that to myself and members in my care who asked.
But over all, New Truth just doesn't make it's way into Churches very often. They don't love to tell the old old story for nothing! As Mark Smith says in "Damn the Truth."
"Christians, unlike scientists, hate any and all evidence that goes against their theories. Theologians have a very hostile and oft times irrational attitude towards any evidence that would even suggest their theories need to be changed to fit the facts. To a Christian, a faulty theory is like an old member of the family whose mind has seen better days- something to warmly embrace and shield from all criticism. Christians, rather than being disinterested seekers of truth as they oft times pretend to be, are thus shown instead to be preachers of established dogma, opinions firmly set in concrete, with their minds already made up for them two thousand years ago by a Jewish rabbi. To a fundy Christian, there is no "new truth" to seek out or be discovered. So rather than seeking out new truth, they instead only seek out new ways to defend their old "truths". This is the reason you'll never see a "Research and Development" department within a school of theology. It is also the reason why, in defense of Christianity, no argument is too circular, no appeal to emotion avoided, and no straw men are left unconstructed."
He goes on to ask if a genuine new Gospel of Jesus were ever found, would it be added to the current New Testament? The answer is, of course, "NO" because all the truth there is, is already in the Bible. Besides, they have already found really great new Gospel writings, but one says the Disciples got miffed at Jesus for kissing Mary too often on the lips. When they asked Jesus why he loved her more than them, he came back with, "why does she love me more than you?" Great answer!!! Lousy Gospel. You'll never hear it in church.
One of the other problems out there when it comes to "The Truth" is that it gets suppressed a lot when someone who knows finds it. After all, it did take the Catholic Church 450 years to apologize to Galileo for noting that the sun was the center of the solar system and the earth revolved around it, not it around the earth. I personally think that 450 years between learning the truth and applying the truth is too long and certainly too long between apologies. Now the Catholic Church is not so sure about unsaved babies going to Limbo and may, in fact, get to go to heaven like baptized babies. Cool huh? Like they know, but isn't that amazing how something that was so much "the truth" for millions in the past, is now probably not after all...oh well.? This is great news for babies, if retroactive which I suppose it is or at least we can hope. Now those who thought one thing can think something else more comforting. Gosh, I hope this new truth does not only apply after a certain date. Bummer! All kidding aside, that kind of truth is just opinion because of questions raised about the state of certain categories of humans that die in certain states of being according to the Church. Don't mistake any of that for truth. We must not forget that Church Father's of the past were not above adjusting the truth to fit a real need. As Gibbon noted,
"The gravest of the ecclesiastical historians, Eusebius himself, indirectly confesses that he has related whatever might redound to the glory, and that he has SUPPRESSED all that could tend to the disgrace, of religion...(he has thus) so openly VIOLATED one of the fundamental laws of history." (On Christianity, Edward Gibbon, Prometheus, Buffalo, New York, 1991 pp. 131, 132)
Even Paul made a big deal about being duplistic. He would be a Jew to a Jew, a Gentile to a Gentile etc. which always left me wondering just what and who Paul really was. He said so often in the New Testament that he wasn't lying, I wonder why he felt he had to say that so often? Sounds like lots of folk thought he was.

So ask yourself, when was the last time my church found out there were more truths to understand than the ones they have in all their booklets and tracts? And I don't mean the Plain Truth About Eating Out After Church! I bet you'll have to say never. Church's don't really deal in truth as much as tradition and control of how those traditions are defended and apologized for.
Church apologetics really are that you know. They are apologies for the fact that there are those times when we can see that something about the Bible or a "truth" as explained by a Church just does not fit the facts as we know them in this day and age, and yet we will not examine them. Sorry, the old truth is THE truth and we simply are not admitting any new ones at this time. Churches don't do new truth, but are good at doing new ways to defend old truths, which might not really be true.
This attitude of all churches and religions really should be your first hint that something is very wrong with it all and perhaps it really is all about tradition, not making waves, money, control and keeping the old old, yet inaccurate story alive so we all feel better. Most are afraid they or others will be disillusioned if "New Truth" rears it's ugly head, but when it comes right down to it, do you wish to live your life based on illusions? Actually many do which is why they never question anything...

Article Source:


Unknown said...

Dennis and Pilate share the same mindset...

Johne 18:36 Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

37 “You are a king, then!” said Pilate.

Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to TESTIFY TO THE TRUTH. Everyone on the side of TRUTH listens to me.”

38 “WHAT IS TRUTH ?” retorted Pilate. With this he went out again to the Jews gathered there and said, “I find no basis for a charge against him.

Anonymous said...

Great subject. I've been planning to take a survey a church, asking members to define the "Truth". In the past, "knowing" the "Truth", especially "New Truth" made us feel special. We weren't deceived anymore. I'll probably get in trouble doing my survey, but I'm really curious to hear what members will say.

When I visited a distant church and the sermon was on how the Church must keep preaching the "Truth", I asked complete strangers what is the "Truth". I also stated that COG didn't always teach the "Truth" and was immediately labeled a threat and needed to see their minister. I just left to do my weekend babysitting my grandkids.

To me the "Truth" is, we as frail humans, can only "see through a glass darkly". The "Truth" is we will only understand the Creator's mysterious plan of adding to His Family when we are changed. But one new "Truth" not always taught in COGs in the past, is that only because we have a loving, merciful God, will His Plan work. It's just not always easy to see or accept the love and mercy part.

Anonymous said...

The vital relationship which the Christian has to the Bible is not that he worships the letter, but that the Holy Spirit makes the words of the Bible spirit and life to him. The Psychology of Redemption, 1066 L
One thing I have learned in living what I believe to be a biblical faith; is to never try to convince a true believer that their beliefs are totally wrong. My personal life has been an experience that surpasses any thing that I could have imagined if I had not been committed to the biblical understanding I have learned in my 86 + years. My experience has been that attempting to prove the bible is simple human reasoning to avoid the reality of death does more damage to a person than their Christian faith can do.
This is of course this is just my personal opinion. Other people may find joy in destroying the foundation of the Christian faith, but it seems to be a selfish endeavor even if everything is true.

Ann said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gerald Bronkar said...

It seems waking the masses is an impossible venture. So many visiting this site are not only mired in Christian theology, but quite a number still defend the doctrines of the CoG. They appear to be happy, even though trapped in a mind-numbing, dark corner of Christianity with no visible means of escape.

Hopefully, there are individuals here and there who will recognize what they are a part of and move forward with life. The passage of time will allow many of these silly man-made religions to die out. How many more generations of innocent children will be victims of their well-meaning parents and teachers?

Dennis, I trust your efforts are not in vain. Your gospel is not easy, but it is real.

RSK said...


Byker Bob said...

“Mr. Armstrong said..............!”

That was usually the set-up for “truth”.


Cathy Leis said...

Dennis, why did you become a minister in WCG? If this question has already been answered on this blog, I'd like to read it. Thank you.

True Bread said...


first sentence

Ann said...

I never learned much of anything let alone truth in the CoG. I learned it on here from Byker Bob and I thank him a million times over for straightening me out.
You will always have a special place in my heart.

Ed said...

I hesitate to call any new perspective that I gain from what I read anywhere as,"the the truth". Simply because of how convinced I was that the teachings of the WCG where the absolute, black and white, "truth". That belief exploded in my face when I really came to see armstrongism for what it was. I am an agnostic now because I think that there are many things that may be unknowable and will not be able to be put in a nice, neatly wraped box. We may never know the answers to many of the questions that sometimes perplex us. At least that is what I believe.

James said...

The truth is a lie.

Allen Dexter said...

We were so cocky back then. We'd allowed ourselves to be conned into believing we were unique among all other humans, that we'd been specially "called." We were the spiritual "Master race" and those of us at Ambassador College constituted the "Armstrong youth," even though there were a few older individuals among us like Al Portune, Clint Zimmermann, etc. We swallowed hook, line, sinker and anything attached without question. I look back now and can hardly believe how stupid I was, but that story is as old as is mankind itself. It goes back to the first shaman who learned how throw his voice and perform sleight of hand to dazzle his audience.

DennisCDiehl said...

Cathy Leis said...
Dennis, why did you become a minister in WCG? If this question has already been answered on this blog, I'd like to read it. Thank you.

I was visiting my sister who lived in Boise, Idaho, when I was 14. Brother in law was a forest ranger and both went on to Ambassador as married students . I went to church with them and heard Fred Coulter speak. I got into it. He spoke of the universe etc and never heard any minister mention these things. I was young of course, but perhaps a bit "old" for my age. I devoured PT's on the visit and went back to Rochester asking for all the lit I could get my hands on. I was always interested in theology due to my soak in it growing up with the Presbyterian Church...Dutch Reformed.

I always had thought of being a pastor. It was a vocation with Presbyterians. GTA announced my first sermon at AC "if you came here to be a minister, get that out of your head." Of course I did so I ignored that and told myself I'd make it so they could not , not take me into the ministry. Four years later I won the manpower "sky is the limit" as I was told contest and got sent to Minneapolis.

One great factor was having my brother blind, deaf and unable to speak from birth trauma. I read in the OT, that which I thought was to happen shortly etc "the blind will see, the deaf will hear and the lame will leap like the hart.." etc. I was idealistic and naïve kid. I thought there could be no better message than that to help spread in life. So I went for ministry. I was also accepted at a Methodist Seminar but chose AC thinking it was much better, which of course, it was not by a longshot. I never attended a local church until after I went to college and knew nothing about the WCG ministry , authoritarian shit and such. Those were the surprises I learned in "the field."

I honestly don't think I have changed all that much in my love of science, history and where the Bible came from . I grew up in church school memorizing whole chapters of the Old Testament and Psalms from first grade on. I knew the Bible stories and content better than any Imperial School kid when I arrived at AC. I still do :)

My dad and then father an law were elders. I had two brother's in law in full time ministry with me and everyone else in my family was either a deacon or deaconess. We had 35 extended family in WCG. None of them are in any splinters and just moved on.

Long story. I wanted to be a minister. I just got off track as to where pretty early and I am convinced that , unless I had gone to a seminary that taught me then what I know now about Bible origins, mythology and such, and some do, I would have had the same Dark Night of the Soul I did no matter. It's how I am and how I think.

Long story....

DennisCDiehl said...

And now I got myself marooned in Portland on the same streets HWA roamed finding "the truth." lol...argh!

What About The Truth said...

The truth be damned would be an adequate description of what constitutes the vast galaxy of COGs. If the complete truth hinged upon four known and accepted beliefs of the greater leaders and members of the COGs, where would they stand in regards to the truth if they now teach, preach and act contrary to those beliefs (Truth)? Lets look at belief number one: There is only one unified church (Body of Christ) with Christ as its head. That will leave out 600 + who claim or not, that they are the one. So that leaves only one with the possibility of speaking the truth to point number one. Belief number two: HWA was the end time Philadelphia era leader of the church. So, that would make each leader the end time laodicea leader of the church. Don't be fooled by the claim that we are the Philadelphian's in the Laodicean age because as you know, it is always them and not us. Belief number three: HWA was Elijah who restored all things - specifically 18 vital truths that the church had lost for over 1900 years. Okay, how many of the greater COGs believe that HWA was Elijah and are holding to all that HWA taught let alone the 18 vital truths? Belief number four: The church under HWA preached the Gospel of the Kingdom as a witness to the whole world. This leaves many leaders in a precarious position. Admit that HWA did indeed finish the work, then they have to admit that they are doing nothing. Admit that HWA didn't finish the work means they acknowledge two things. First, that HWA was deceived and a liar and never did what he claimed to do. Secondly, they would have to admit that they are doing the greater work that lies ahead after HWA. Where is the proof of that anywhere in the present COGs especially with so many of them claiming that the return of Christ is very soon?

These are but four points for any to think on, and and if you are in one of the COG's ask yourself, how does my church comply with only but four established beliefs of what was ONE Church of God. If you care, your thinking will have to cross into what truly is the truth. Does the truth matter? If you believe the bible, you would know that a man of sin is coming, and the only ones that escape are those with the love of the truth (II Thess. 2). So the matter of what is the truth is a little more important than most ever thought. So did HWA have all the truth? Does your church have all the truth? Do neither of them have the truth? Those might be three questions that would induce a person to go seeking after what Christ came to the earth for.(John 18:37).

Byker Bob said...

Coming into truth is actually a lifelong process. It involves much sifting over a prolonged period of time. In Armstrongism, they spoke of this process as if one heard a broadcast, read a magazine, got baptized, and was suddenly enlightened. Reality is not quite so superficial. Much, much more is involved, and the real search begins as one leaves Armstrongism in search of deeper depths, and more substantive truths.


Anonymous said...

Moldy Bread. Do you ever have anything intelligent to contribute?

Near_Earth_Object said...

"Christians, unlike scientists, hate any and all evidence that goes against their theories."

This is a little droll. And, BTW, we see that Dennis is just as challenged as the rest of us in identifying the truth and trying to relate it to others

Kennewick man was discovered some years back and based on facial structure many scientist believed him to be European. One leading archaeologist at the Smithsonian had a theory that people from the Solutrean Period in Europe migrated to North American and gave rise to the Clovis Culture based on the use of a similar spearpoint. And here was a skeleton that clicked with that theory.

The "Europeans First" idea caught on like wildfire among scientists who wanted to "make America great again (for White people)." Soon I watched a documentary on cable narrated by an archaeologist from the University of Wyoming named Waguespack. It showed all of the ancient "Native Americans" as heavily bearded Europeans. (Native Americans do not have much facial hair. I cannot grow a beard.) I have seen more documentaries from that time period showing Europeans as the First Nations. The political engines were running full bore based on something as fluffy as the way someone looked.

Then along came some geneticists and demonstrated that Kennewick was your standard Native American and was not European at all. I spoke with one of the scientists who did the genetic work and he told me that no human remains from ancient America were anything but standard, out-of-Siberia American Indian - which killed the Solutrean theory. He also told me the scientist at the Smithsonian remained unconvinced but was gradually coming around. A scientist who was having to work on himself in order to accept objective scientific evidence. But, or course, he had appeared on PBS talking about Kennewick and the Solutreans.

On the other hand, evolution is widely accepted in many mainstream Christian denominations. Even the conservative Nazarenes accept evolution. And Martin Luther tacked up 95 theses and each one was something that had required him to revise a belief.

So the package Dennis presents has some loose wrapping. But I fully agree that the truth is highly politicized. Like Jesus said, "Wisdom is justified of her children."

Byker Bob said...

Wow! I’m honored, Ann. Mostly I’m just processing things and sharing as I search for truth myself. It’s a journey.

Be well, live long, and prosper!

David Rickman said...

I never found the truth in WCG. I never found the "true" church. I never met any "real" christians. The only thing I have found is that religion is bull shit.

DennisCDiehl said...

Kennewick man, found up the Columbia River in Washington State is a good 3500 year older than the 6000 year plan of God. They found, as you probably know, a stone arrowhead in his hip bone and his ribs were broken on one side indicating, Like Utzi the Ice Man found in the Alps, was pursued and caught up with. The broken ribs indicate being kicked. However, the injuries were shown to have healed so he lived another couple of decades. Tough folk! For a mere $400 one can have a museum quality replica of the skull. So far I have passed but it is tempting. Also have my eye on the 1.8 million year old Dmanisi Homo Erectus find in Georgia...and not the one with Atlanta as the capitol. :) I always have to say that before someone spreads the idea Homo Erectus was found near Interstate 275 in Atlanta.

Byker Bob said...

Most likely, there are at least two basic categories of truth. The problem is that many people do not recognize and parse these from one another, and therefore allow them to compete or fight against each another. The first is eternal constants. Both religion and science attempt to discover these and to deal with them. The second is the truths or realities which are specific to, or directly related to one’s circumstances and place in history. These may not be constants, as they can often vary. When Pilate asked the somewhat Greek philosophical question “What is truth?”, most likely these are the truths of which he was speaking. There are conflicts and problems which will arise whenever one attempts to make the truths which are specific to his or her own life’s circumstances into eternal truths or constants, and or to teach them as such. It is also the height of arrogance to do so.

There are also best guesses and theories of various degrees of merit which people tend to teach as truth, and there are provable falsehoods and error which yet others teach as truth, but that’s another completely different topic.


Near_Earth_Object said...


Young Earth Creationism (the idea that the earth is about 6,000 years old based on Ussher's chronology) is poorly thought out. A faction within the Christian movement regard it to be "truth" based on a particular Biblical interpretation but they are in conflict with scientific finding which is demonstrably true.

Hoeh correctly divided Biblical anthropology into Adamic and Pre-Adamic, fixing the obviously wrong Young Earth model. He incorrectly concluded that God needed to develop hominid models over a span of epochs in order to come up with the design for Adam. Essentially, he asserted the gross error that God was not omnipotent but was merely like a very powerful superhuman. God had to use engineering models like human engineers to produce anything. This was presented in material that Hoeh provided to some of the ministerial conferences back in the Seventies. You may have seen some of this material.

Millerites have always limited God. This is the biggest untruth that they have dealt out. They believe in an anthropomorphic God who is not omnipotent and not omniscient. It is then easy for them to conclude that man will become "God as God is God" because in their eyes, God isn't that great. They speak of coming into "The Truth" but in fact they promulgate untruth about the very nature of God - and no topic can be more foundational. When Kyriacos Stavrinides tried to show them the true extent of God's greatness in a Pasadena Bible Study, many of them went ape. (Would that be a case of devolution?)

I have ranted on this before on Gavin's site, so I will not continue.

Note: Hoeh also stated at an assembly in the Field House at AC BS that the date of the pyramids was Pre-Adamic and they were not built by the Israelites. That created a stir.

Anonymous said...

Well-preserved Egyptian mummies are clearly not black but academics are too gutless to admit this because they have to be PC. So, I don't trust anything they say about Kennewick man. We know by now they are gutless liars. Political correctness has killed science.

Anonymous said...

"We were so cocky back then."

Actually, some of you seem pretty cocky now. I'm glad I didn't know you guys back then.

Anonymous said...

"I never learned much of anything let alone truth in the CoG. I learned it on here from Byker Bob and I thank him a million times over for straightening me out."


Anonymous said...

PBS is for the dumbed down masses of dittohead puppets.

Byker Bob said...

The dittoheads are Rush Limbaugh’s people who want the gov’t to end funding for PBS. Dittoheads would not be caught dead watching PBS. Unless you are the dude who is always deliberately changing generally accepted definitions around here, you don’t know your butt from a hole in the ground!

Dennis said...

Neo. I brought .12,000 year old Clovis point to refresher to show Dr Hoeh. He wouldn't touch it, said "That's lovely" and walk away lol

Anonymous said...

Many people came into the "truth" because they saw something wrong with society, much of which can be summed up in the following quote:

This present "civilization," starting from Western hotbeds, has extended the contagion to every land that was still healthy and has brought to all strata of society and all races the following "gifts": restlessness, dissatisfaction, resentment, the need to go further and faster, and the inability to possess one's life in simplicity, independence, and balance. Modem civilization has pushed man onward; it has generated in him the need for an increasingly greater number of things; it has made him more and more insufficient to himself and powerless. Thus, every new invention and technological discovery, rather than a conquest, really represents a defeat and a new whiplash in an ever faster race blindly taking place within a system of conditionings that are increasingly serious and irreversible and that for the most part go unnoticed. This is how the various paths converge: technological civilization, the dominant role of the economy, and the civilization of production and consumption all complement the exaltation of becoming and progress; in other words, they contribute to the manifestation of the "demonic" element in the modem world." --- JULIUS EVOLA

Anonymous said...

Do native americans look Asian? Except for Eskimos, no. Do they look Negroid? No. So some of them, particularly those in N. America, are probably fairly closely related to whites. So, they could have come over from Europe at the last ice age (following the edge of the ice) and changed somewhat (e.g. 'reddish' skin) in the 10,000 or so years since.

Anonymous said...

Unless you are the dude who is always deliberately changing generally accepted definitions around here, you don’t know your butt from a hole in the ground!

So there is a supposedly a "dude" (an assumption) who supposedly changes, supposedly deliberately (an assumption, or the work of a mind-reader), ALWAYS (with never an exception) accepted definitions. Really? Isn't that a dumb assertion?

But, so you say, UNLESS someone IS this supposed guy (or dude), they don't know their butt from a hole in the ground! [Classy language by the way].

So, according to you, only THAT ONE "dude" DOES know his butt from a hole in the ground! That implies that YOU don't, and neither does anybody else, except, of course, for that one "dude".

Anonymous said...

All mass education is for dittoheads. PBS is mass education. Therefore PBS is for dittoheads like you and Rush.

Anonymous said...

"Homo Erectus"

The name sounds like some guy who was watching gay porn. I hope I'm not descended from him.

Donnie said...

I can't believe I wasted so much time reading this inept, diatribe of trite blather. I'll never be able to get that time back.

I'm even more amazed that some people on this blog seem to encourage it.

I do wonder how Dennis can claim that he has the truth based on his enlightened worldview with all the evidence he has that supports his worldview.

Please provide evidence that Buddhism is true.
Please provide an argument or evidence that on naturalism you can even arrive at truth.
Please provide evidence that your worldview is true.

Armstrongism is easy to refute with just a bit of study and logic. From the God Family to clean meats, to the sabbath. Armstrong didn't have the truth, for sure. I'm certain that you don't either. If you do, please provide evidence to such.

Near_Earth_Object said...

Anonymous 12:20

Recent genetic studies indicate that Native Americans are Eurasian. The scenario that has been constructed to explain their genetic history is that a group of Asians intermixed with a group of Europeans - probably in Siberia. The Asians were a branch of the classical East Asians. The Europeans were a smaller group and were related to central Europeans. These two groups intermixed in totality - their heritage does not exist anywhere else except in Native Americans in North America. So the antecedents of Native Americans cannot be found anywhere in the Old World. And Native Americans are thought to be about 70 percent East Asian and 30 percent European.

Eskimos are of the same genetic background as other Native Americans but they look more Asian. This is because in the mixing process, homogeneity was not achieved. So the people in the staging area in Siberia tended to be similar in origin, of the same family, but with different levels of admixture.

It is now believed that Clovis Man was what we would call a South American Indian. Clovis was in North America when the Clovis Culture was flourishing but would eventually migrate to South America and be replaced in North America by more recent waves migrants from Siberia - who became today's Native Americans.

Native Americans are Y-haplogroups Q and P for the most part. Western Europeans are Y-haplogroups R, I and G for the most part. This does not support the settlement from Europe hypothesis.

I still have questions about what I just wrote and I need to do more research. But this is the way the published story runs at this time.

Byker Bob said...

Wow! Say “Crap!” and look who comes a’slidin’ in on a big shovel!

Also, nothing wrong with a little
crassy language now and then.


Near_Earth_Object said...


I talked to Hoeh in the Field House at AC BS about a book called America, B.C. by Barry Fell. Fell had found connections between Europe and the New World in ancient times. It seemed to support certain parts of the Compendium of World History.

I fully expected Hoeh would be excited about this and I would have a nice, animated conversation about new corroboration of his view on history. Instead, he stated grimly and without hesitation that the book was a bunch of malarkey and had nothing further to say.

I do not think Herman Hoeh was as interested in scientific or historical findings as he was in politically supporting HWA's viewpoints.

DennisCDiehl said...

Donnie, I'm content with my personal and current perspectives on evolution, Biblical origins and difficulties and my personal spirituality or lack thereof depending on what others define spirituality as. I can spend a day up the Columbia Gorge or down at the Pacific Coast and get more peace and reality out of it than going to church and listening to others tell me how it all is.

I don't care who believes what actually. But a bit of jiggling of the mind to think critically and for itself is always in order. Conclusions are up the individual based on need to believe or not. I've asked probably a dozen times for the chief critics to please write something from their view and belief and share it with us. NO ONE EVER DOES.

Perhaps, since I have no idea what your own world view is, you could share it with us? I assume you have one and I'd like to know what it is on , oh let's say, evolution of life, age of the earth and universe, your own personal spirituality etc. Please?

DennisCDiehl said...

NEO In hindsight you are right. I failed to mention that in the same conversation Dr. Hoeh indicated he needed to be careful about his paycheck. Actually I forgot about that and now recall feeling rather skeptical of him from then on.

Anonymous said...

This conversation has certainly drifted off-topic, so let me return it to its original focus: How did I come into the Truth?

I came into the Truth by leaving Armstrongism!

Anonymous said...

What ignorant low-life bikers cannot comprehend they just call BS.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Hoeh was vastly over-rated. Some of the stuff he came up with was pure junk. I think he was a con-man all along, looking for evidence to supposedly prove pretty much whatever HWA wanted him to come up with. So, no surprise he followed the money in the end. It seems to be what he was doing all along anyway. That is what makes it so tragic. So many pathetic leaders at the top. It seems that the higher up you went the worse they got.

Allen Dexter said...

Hoeh was a natural-born politician. I think he saw through a lot, hence his fascination with Buddhism. But, he knew which side of his bread was buttered and had a lifestyle to guard. So, sadly, he was a master at compromise and detecting which way the wind blew. I liked him. I don't blame him for being pragmatic because I think that, underneath it all, he knew it was mostly BS. He may have sincerely blieved in things like the Sabbath, etc. I, nor anyone else, can be sure IMHO. It really doesn't matter. He's dead and gone.

Anonymous said...

"...I always have to say that before someone spreads the idea Homo Erectus was found near Interstate 275 in Atlanta. "

I think you mean I-285.

And Midtown Atlanta is full of them ;-)

Byker Bob said...

That’s because it usually is BS, 9:13. But alas, I don’t have time to deal with you now. I must go to a meeting with my team team of professionals today, in which we are creating a marketing program for a new Gen. 1:29-based pharmaceutical industry which seems to have suddenly come into prominence in my state.