It has been a interesting journey personally from the Universe/Dinosaur/Geology loving naïve 14 year old gobbling up Plain Truth to a personal view that if you can't really show it then you can't really know it. Over time I have come to believe that my former perspectives were simply pious convictions based on marginal information. In hindsight I repressed my natural curiosities about the world and origins of everything from where did humans really come from to where did the Universe itself come from or more accurately how did it come about, for my own restrictive religious faith beliefs.
It's also been an informative and interesting experience writing on Banned over the years now finding a few friends but mostly learning that I have no right to quote the Bible because I question it and that I'd think differently when thrown into the Lake of Fire. I guess I'll wait and see.
As a WCG Pastor getting shuffled around over 28 years to 14 different congregations in 5 states and programming myself and family for difficulties down the road and going through the near daily stress of WCG drama and trauma, it's no wonder I am still here.
While it is of no value to anyone else, I have come to recognize that in personality and perspectives I have most of the characteristics of an Empath and a HSP or Highly Sensitive Person. It's probably the traits that drew me to ministry in the first place and while one did not go to Ambassador to "become a minister," I did or I would not have gone. I chose Ambassador over Robert's Wesleyan College in NY, which was a Methodist Seminary. Naïve to think that Ambassador was a seminary but the college prospectus I read never having no real background in WCG seemed legit and normal for a seminary, I thought. (It was not true however)
I pastored between 1972 and 1998 and those years were nothing but one WCG conflict and disaster after the next. Not exactly what I signed up for. It was made up of:
Sent to Minneapolis under Keith Thomas. I was told it was the premier assignment for me being top of my class etc and "Dennis for you, the sky is the limit" which struck me as an odd thing to say because I had read "he that is 'greatest' among you, let him be your servant" even when a Presbyterian kid.
Garner Ted booted by HWA from the Church 1972
GTA returning in 1972 '73
"East Coast Rebellion" 1974 I was in the thick of it working for the Regional Director in Chicago
Fired by association
Rehired by request
(Blew my chance to move on when still young)
Move to Findlay Ohio, (Replaced by Ron Weinland) Kentucky, New York, South Carolina (Followed Gerald Weston)
1979 Church Goes into Receivership
Bunch of Church Bullshit
HWA Dies and the Tkach years begin
Bunch of Bullshit
Depression and Anxiety increase,
Greenville SC as last Church I pastored proved to be the most divisive group I ever got stuck with. I replaced Gerald Weston. I think when I refused to go to what I considered the Happy Slappy Promise Keepers Million Man Cult Expo and all the elders did as per Tkach suggestions , that was the beginning of the back stabbing, and experience I was not used to. I also let most of the people Gerald Weston bounced out of WCG because they wanted to come back and that went over like a lead balloon with his loyalists who were in touch with him constantly.
Depression and Anxiety increase and I spent a week in a Charter Hospital getting my head together. In hindsight I was depressed as function of repressed anger that I felt was either something I had no right to express or the price for doing so would be too high at the time. Told by Victor Kubik when he got in to see me and not on my list to see me, "We think you are just hiding here."
Borderline and somewhat accidental DUI and spent night in a SC jail which scared the Hell into me being an HSP etc. A depression and anxiety thing no doubt.
(Whew...felt good to get that one out there! Never told Church Administration. lol)
Terminated because my church had been reduced by the Tkach's adventure in wheel reinvention from 450 to 95 and then shortly after, 16. Every congregation I ever built in sincerity no longer exists now of course.
Found a kindred spirit to share my thoughts, beliefs and fears with
Bunch of stuff and divorce
(My fault not hers)
Therapeutic Massage School which was one of the best decisions I had made in the previous 28 years.
Bunch of relationship stuff
Moved to Oregon hating South Carolina for a few dozen reasons
Entering year 70 content to just be myself , enjoy my successful practice in the Willamette Valley not missing the irony of that.
And an atheist....
"As an atheist, I am angry that we live in a society in which the plain truth cannot be spoken without offending 90% of the population."
Sam Harris
This finding comes as no surprise. Social science has long revealed high rates of secularphobia – the irrational dislike, distrust, fear, or hatred of nonreligious people – within American society. For example, a study by Penny Edgell of the University of Minnesota, from back in 2006, found that atheists come in last place when Americans are asked to rank members of certain racial, ethnic, or religious groups as potential spouses for their kids. And a Gallup poll from 2012 found that 43 pecent of Americans said that they would not vote for an atheist for president, putting atheists in last/worst place, behind Muslims (40 percent of Americans said they wouldn’t vote for a Muslim for president), homosexuals (30 percent wouldn’t), Mormons (18 percent wouldn’t), Latinos (7 percent wouldn’t), Jews (6 percent wouldn’t), Catholics (5 percent wouldn’t), women (5 percent wouldn’t) and African Americans (4 percent wouldn’t).
Additionally, psychology professor Adrian Furnham found that people give lower priority to patients with atheist or agnostic views than to Christian patients when asked to rank them on a waiting list to receive a kidney, and legal scholar Eugene Volokh has documented the degree to which atheist parents have been denied custody rights in the wake of a divorce.
Consider further evidence of secularphobia in America: It is illegal for an atheist to hold public office in seven states; atheists aren’t allowed in the Boy Scouts, the American Legion, or the Veterans of Foreign Wars; Humanist chaplains are barred from serving in our nation’s military; charities regularly reject donations that are offered by secularist organizations. And while secular Americans have never faced the kind of prejudice, hostility, and violence experienced by Native Americans, African Americans, Latino/a Americans, Asian Americans, Jews, Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, or homosexuals, there is still no question that atheists, agnostics, secularists, and others who eschew religion are widely disliked.
What gives?
There is no single, universal cause of secularphobia, and the dislike of non-religious people has varying sources in different societies and at different times in history; what caused people to hate the secular in Jerusalem in 300 B.C.E. or in Tegucigalpa in 1799 is certainly different from what causes people to dislike the secular in Rhode Island today.
That said, we can account for the current level of secularphobia in the US by considering these four factors:
1. Americans equate a lack of religiosity in general – or atheism specifically – with immorality.
2. Americans equate a lack of religiosity in general – or atheism specifically – with being un-American and/or unpatriotic.
3. There is no stigma concerning the expressed dislike of the non-religious. While there is a stigma (to varying degrees, depending on one’s social milieu) attached to being racist, or anti-Semitic, or Islamophobic, or homophobic – there has never existed a social or cultural backlash against people who openly express disdain for secular folks. So people simply feel much more comfortable expressing their dislike for atheists than, say, Latinas/os or women.
4. Insecurity on the part of the religious. Faith – believing claims without sufficient evidence, or claiming to know things that you don’t or can’t know – is an increasingly shaky endeavor. And in order for religious faith to survive, it requires a lot of social support: the more people who share it, the easier it is to maintain and reproduce. Thus, anyone who rejects the tenets of your faith, or calls them in to question, is a threat. Atheists lack a faith in God, and thus theists are particularly threatened by the growing presence of such humans, as they call into question the very thing that is ever so shaky to begin with: religious faith.
59 comments:
It is really sad that your experiences have turned you away from the Most High. Most people, you included, have judged the Most High because of the failures of people. This is due to emotional rather than objective thinking. In fact, it is more accurate to say that no objective/rational thinking is involved at all in your mindset.
I hope that one day you will grow enough to see that you should not have thrown out the baby with the bath water.
Dennis, maybe you could explain briefly something that has always puzzled me. How can an intellectually curious, scientifically minded person be an atheist, rather than an agnostic?
Do you believe that there's a cherry pie in my kitchen? Do you believe that there's a milligram of plutonium in my cupboard?
One of those is far more likely than the other. Neither, however, is impossible, and there are plausible scenarios for each. Although you aren't going to see either of them, you would be rash to call yourself an a-pie-ist. Indeed, both pie-ism and a-pie-ism are simply irrelevant to your life, absent any further evidence.
Similarly, you have no direct evidence for the existence of a God, and the indirect evidence is debatable. God thus seems irrelevant to your present life, just as multivariable calculus seems irrelevant to a schoolboy learning his multiplication tables. But just as the schoolboy can neither prove nor refute multivariable calculus, it seems awfully presumptuous to suggest that we limited meatbody humans can conclusively prove or disprove the existence of God.
If there is a God, he certainly hasn't revealed himself in an evidence-based manner. Even the faithful admit that God's existence is ultimately a matter of their faith. Trying to live by divine revelation is problematic when there are so many mutually contradictory divine revelations competing for your attention. Nevertheless, there's a big leap from "The Bible is a crappy excuse for an inspired holy book" or "God doesn't care whether or not I believe that he exists" to the dogmatic assertion that one is an atheist.
So, Dennis, why are you an atheist rather than an agnostic?
Interesting journey, Dennis. Brought several things to mind. From the title, I can tell you that I watched a few of my former AC colleagues be turned by the system into some fairly nasty bastards the other way. Somewhere along the line they developed Dave Pack syndrome. In fairness, and I hope everyone realizes this, there were others who remained compassionte and sincere, strong enough in character that the system was unable to corrupt them. It’s a strange crapshoot in a way, but there are exceptional human beings of whom I was not surprised to learn did not continue in the WCG ministry and have found success in other fields. We’ve got some here.
One other poignant point. I always wondered about your opinions of South Carolina. Recently, I Googled “Do Southerners still hate Yankees?” Answers varied. Basically, if the Yankees are not condescending and uppity, and if they don’t have horrible Yankee accents, they are acceptable pretty much throughout the South, especially if they genuinely enjoy living there and attempt to blend. However, South Carolina was cited as one of the last bastions of dislike for the northern folk. SC was apparently the first or among the first states to secede, and was especially punished. The South is the only part of the USA to ever have experienced destruction and defeat in a war type situation. Virtually all able bodied men of that era became part of the Confederate Army to defend against the enemy, and casualties were very heavy. And there was heavy destruction of some of the most beautiful cities of the nation. So, it is hardly shocking that there would be lasting resentment transcending generations, regardless of the nature of the cause.
South Carolina is also one of the extreme strongholds of the Bible belt. A normal question that was once asked everywhere in the USA is still asked there of anyone whom one has known for 24 hours. “What church do you go to?”. The question is considered to be a basis for establishing trust, and there are future actions resulting from whatever answer is given. It is difficult for nonbelievers to live and thrive in such an environment, especially if they are also Yankees. As a general comment, most of my best friends over the years have been from the South.
Anyhoo, we’re all on individualized paths, and it is fascinating to witness the journeys of others who were once part of the same organization. So nice to have a free speech zone in which we can compare notes and share!
BB
Sweetblood,
It is really sad that your experiences have turned you away from Allah. Most people, you included, have judged Allah because of the failures of Muslims. This is due to emotional rather than objective thinking. In fact, it is more accurate to say that no objective/rational thinking is involved at all in your mindset.
I hope that one day you will grow enough to see that you should not have thrown out the baby with the bath water, and embrace Islam.
Lets see, you went from joining a church that had a 90%? view from the outside world as being a troubling cult to becoming a minister in said church and acquiring a 40%? disapproval rating from within the said church to leaving the church and becoming a atheist and you are now viewed unfavorably by 50% of the world to now posting your beliefs before a bunch of religious misfits and gaining a 95%? disapproval rating. I don't think that makes you a bastard but it certainly makes you a masochist.
Your quote: 4. Insecurity on the part of the religious. Faith – believing claims without sufficient evidence, or claiming to know things that you don’t or can’t know – is an increasingly shaky endeavor. And in order for religious faith to survive, it requires a lot of social support: the more people who share it, the easier it is to maintain and reproduce. Thus, anyone who rejects the tenets of your faith, or calls them in to question, is a threat. Atheists lack a faith in God, and thus theists are particularly threatened by the growing presence of such humans, as they call into question the very thing that is ever so shaky to begin with: religious faith. ......... Is true, has been true and will be true. I would classify myself as being in this category for at least 10 years in the one true church of God. But it was soon after this period that the start of experiencing the un-provable the un-measurable the not understandable began to happen. When a person experiences such interaction in their life, the dynamic of fulfilling the greatest commandment becomes attainable and the understanding of how the fulfillment of the gospel will happen becomes clear.
What I always thought was a fine line between belief and non belief is more a stark line. Yes there is academic and thoughtful belief in and around that line but until a person experiences outwardly interactions in their life, the only sane choice to make is to join those on the other side of the line and live your life as you see fit apart from any god.
Remember, a theist doesn't have to be tied hand to hand with the imperfect bible. Many that are annoyed believe that by picking apart discrepancies in the bible you are taking what is a strength in their minds and turning it into a weakness.
Abraham had how many books of the bible? He saw and then could see what will come. Faith and salvation is not tied to the perfection of the bible just like it is not tied to ancient bones dug up from the earth.
All things remain the same until they don't. For the atheist that means death and for the theist that means the continuation of life in a different age.
The people in my workplace plus my relatives think me a nut case for being religious. Where's my so called social support for my beliefs? Christians have to fight to maintain their beliefs and live by their moral code. It's the atheists that the world leaves alone.
Notice how it's the atheists who use their real names on this blog. They do it because it's safe to do so. Christians by contrast, have to hide their identities out of self protection.
This whole article is the wolf playing the victim. He gets no sympathy from me.
All those years a minister, and God never once communicated with Dennis? I find that hard to believe.
Sweetblood777 said...
It is really sad that your experiences have turned you away from the Most High. Most people, you included, have judged the Most High because of the failures of people. This is due to emotional rather than objective thinking. In fact, it is more accurate to say that no objective/rational thinking is involved at all in your mindset.
Bless your sincerity Sweetblood ( I assume that name comes from the Sweet Blood of Jesus) but you could not be more mistaken in the motives and reasons for my position if you tried. Your faith restrictions require you find a way, evidently, to explain my growth from a negative perspective.
Anon 647 asked:
Anonymous said...
Dennis, maybe you could explain briefly something that has always puzzled me. How can an intellectually curious, scientifically minded person be an atheist, rather than an agnostic?
Fair question for sure. Ag-gnostic implies "without knowledge of" as in "I'm not sure or I don't know and can't say for sure and won't" A-theist means "No God" In some ways both are the same actually. If I don't know or I say there isn't they can be considered not all that far apart. I don't find Ag-gnostics ever know but I do understand that view does give wiggle room.
What I am sure of as in a-theist is that perhaps my issue is with "Bible God" as I am wont to call it or the cultic Old Testament God evolved into the NT Jesus as son of that OT God etc. Clearly the concept of God evolves in the OT. I have explained this before and don't wish to get accused of repeating myself. El turns into YHVH and YHVH turns into Jesus is the short form and is clearly cultic in nature typical of Bronze Age views. Much has been written about the polytheistic Israelites turned mono theistic and the monotheistic Church getting messed up with polytheism doctrines. Clearly El was originally the Canaanite god and borrowed by the Israelites, tweeked and turned into YHVH for Jewish consumption.
I have posted this obviously troublesome scripture about El originally appointing YHVH over Israel as their god while Chemosh was appointed over the Moabites and each Council of the gods type getting their own turf. This is clearly monotheistic and theologians and Biblical scholar are in awe this scripture was left in the OT and didn't get cut.
Contrary to these biblical traditions that suggest an assimilation between Yahweh and El, there are other passages that seem to indicate that Yahweh was a separate and independent deity within El’s council. Deuteronomy 32:8-9 is one of those rare biblical passages that seemingly preserves a vestige of an earlier period in proto-Israelite religion where El and Yahweh were still depicted as separate deities: Yahweh was merely one of the gods of El’s council! This tradition undeniably comes from older Canaanite lore.
"When the Most High (’elyôn) gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated humanity, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of divine beings. For Yahweh’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage."
con't
In short, my now understanding of the evolution of even the concept of God in the OT and NT puts the whole thing clearly into human hands and priestly writings as opposed to "God breathed" Some of scripture is based on astrological realities of the times. Some is clearly mythological/and reworked older tales from other cultures before Israel, such as the first 11 chapters of Genesis
Add to this my absolute respect for the scientific method and actual view of the "theory" of Evolution with collaborating evidence and I simply accept current science on such topics as paleontology, cosmology and geology with many other ologies in between. Theory in science does not mean the same as theory to believers. Believers assign the meaning of "Opinion" to the word "Theory" and that is not the scientific one.
For example, while the questions God put Job in his place with as in "Where were you..?" and "Tell me if you can..." can easily today be understood and answered by most High School kids. What perplexed in nature in the Bronze age does not perplex today.
I'd like there to be a god. Not the cultic Middleastern Bible God however. Too violent, too confusing, too contrived and hardly benevolent to mankind. Jesus may have had some reality in history but so much of Jesus story is taken from OT scriptures and everyone seems to have a different story in mind. Jesus seems more a literary construct for the times but may be real. The statement in Mark that Mary and his brothers came to fetch him because they thought he was insane is telling and a surprise it was left in the text. Hints at reality maybe.
Even in the NT, many did not believe Jesus actually came in the flesh and drove John nuts preaching it.
So I am what I am and see things as I do. I was believing and naïve when younger. But I feel I have sat down before the facts as a little child, so to speak and followed them into whatever abyss they took me and here I am.
and too...while an emotional topic and the whole point of the NT, god's are really sent to earth by parent gods, get born of virgin teens, preach for a year (Matthew, Mark, Luke) or three years (John) , get killed and rise to become god again in the real world of people. It is an oft told and old old story, and I understand that "I love the old old story of unseen things above," but unseen does not work for me and many others personally and I am not wont anymore to believe the unbelievable. For something so important as getting the right beliefs and belong to the right church correct, the God that claims not to be the author of confusion is.
"and too...while an emotional topic and the whole point of the NT, god's are really sent to earth "
I meant "not sent"
Oops anon, you said "explain briefly" That is my challenge! lol
Dennis,
I don't feel threatened by you. I don't dislike or hate you. Indeed, I respect the fact that you have arrived at different conclusions than myself. I do, however, discern a lack of respect on your part for folks who "cling" to theism. Some of your statements seem to imply that theists lack intellectual curiosity and are willfully ignorant. You may not have intended such an impression, but I'm probably not the only one here who has this impression. In short, I'm not trying to convert you to my beliefs - Are you trying to convert me? It's great to provoke thought, but it's not OK to ridicule or harass.
New from "Random House Publishers"...
A striking and intriguing autobiography of the strange twists and transitions of a lifetime...
"FROM MESSENGER TO MASSAGER- The Dennis Diehl Story"
(Available for Next Day Delivery from Amazon Prime) !
No intellectual issues intended Kevin. I gotta live with " the FOOL has said in his heart..." Biblical label lol
Dennis, thanks for being here and doing what you do, especially when it's challenging. I consider myself agnostic, but I do think like a philosophical theist at times, and even an atheist once in a great while. I find it challenging and scary that we could be all alone and without the permanence of life. Then again, that fear kind of puts a fire under my ass to do something more worthwhile.
DBP
8:23 AM Byker Bob - For some in the South the Civil War (War of Northern Aggression) never ended. Today, groups like the League of the South and the Abbeville Institute promote succession.
https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/
https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/principles/
https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/event/seventeenth-annual-summer-school-the-new-south/
The Bible belt has the highest teen pregnancy rate of the country. Ignorance is bliss.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/teen-births/teenbirths.htm
BB noted: "South Carolina is also one of the extreme strongholds of the Bible belt. A normal question that was once asked everywhere in the USA is still asked there of anyone whom one has known for 24 hours. “What church do you go to?”. The question is considered to be a basis for establishing trust, and there are future actions resulting from whatever answer is given. It is difficult for nonbelievers to live and thrive in such an environment, especially if they are also Yankees."
Absolutely true of SC. I lived just three blocks from Bob Jones University, the right wing of the right wing Baptists. I know enough about what goes on behind the scenes there to get me offed! lol. My practice was just a few blocks away. Just to say, they have all the same problems and vices of every other place. They also have a nice gay population that they can't acknowledge or won't.
It was VERY common a new client to be asked within five minutes. "So, where do you go to church?" If I said I didn't then the next thing was "Well you can go with us. We'll pick you up." No thanks..."Well you believe in God and Jesus don't you.." Ummm...this is massage. "What did you do before massage?" !!!! What do you mean you USED to be a Pastor!" …."Here, I want you to read these scriptures and we'll talk about them next time." Um, no we won't.
Finally I was able to get it all under control by telling them when they asked what church I went to that I was "Non-Condemnational.." It confused them but seemed to satisfy their need to be in the fold somewhere.
I appreciate the fact that Dennis will write about his experiences before, during and after WCOG. Also sharing some not so pleasant life experiences. I understand his dislike for the Southern experience. I am a southerner, I am fine with the southern ways. But the redneck, pickup truck wth the gun rack, mentality isn’t always appealing to everyone. Honey put another log on the fire, wash my ole blue jeans, and fix me some biscuits and gravy doesn’t necessarily make a good impression on everyone. Dennis went through some hard times in South Carolina and I think I fully understand his love for his new home in Oregon.
I grew up a Southern Baptist, went to a country church of about 50 on a good Sunday. Usually sat through a sermon filled with don’t drink, don’t dance, don’t cuss and don’t go to movies are you will burn in hell. Give your heart to the Lord and get saved.
I started reading the Plain Truth when a teen, went to AC when I was 19. I sat through all the AC classes and was indoctrinated in the Herbert Armstrong school of theology. I sincerely believed everything I was taught. Obviously I was not perfect but I tried to live by the tenets of what I had been taught. I was sent out as a ministerial assistant, later ordained. Like Dennis I was sent all over, pastored 9 different churches. I didn’t look for white sugar in the pantry. I didn’t spell out what people could eat or couldn’t eat. I didn’t preach against vaccination.
Cont below
Jim-AZ
"Today, groups like the League of the South and the Abbeville Institute promote succession. "
Oh my Abbeville! Home of Jefferson Davis and the last time I was there I was "dating" the great granddaughter of a Southern General and Legislature who was personal buddies with Jeff Davis just down the street. She called it "The Northern war of aggression". Boy did I have to keep my mouth shut. I thought to crack that the "South will rise again...in the resurrection" line but that would have been suicidal.
I mean "The War of Northern Aggression.."
Dennis, 6:47 was not me (Kevin McMillen) If I'm going to question you I'll sign my post, call you, or text you as I did yesterday.
Your beliefs have never threatened me my friend.
"...So, Dennis, why are you an atheist rather than an agnostic?"
I know this was addressed to Dennis, but I'll take a crack at it as well.
Yes, it's true, one of those scenarios is more likely than the other, and that's exactly what you're missing. Consistency when it comes to the probabilities. That, and a mistaken notion of what the labels "atheist" and "agnostic" mean. I understand that though.
I, too, thought the only kind of atheism was what they call "hard" or "strong" atheism, which is the positive belief that there is no god. There's a few hard atheists out there, but not many.
There's this thing called the Dawkins Scale. It relates to how probable you think it is that there is or is not a god. Even Dawkins himself is only 6 out of 7 on his own scale.
When my belief in a literal christian god departed, initially I was 50/50. The evidence against the christian god is pretty overwhelming, but I hadn't had the opportunity to survey all the other religions. But the more I thought about it, the less likely I judged any other god to be either, unless there's some sort of union that the gods all belong to, and they've all agreed to conduct themselves by the same rules to make sure that everybody who believes in a god is necessarily forced to do so for equally bad reasons, which I find pretty absurd.
So just like I'm a de facto a-plutoniumist because I judge it very unlikely that you have such a rare, illegal, and dangerous substance hanging around in your cupboards, I am also a de facto atheist because I judge it very unlikely that any gods exist. I don't judge that probability to be zero, just close enough to it that you might as well round it off to zero for practical purposes. Technically I'm an agnostic, but practically, I'm an atheist. I get understanding those labels only in the most technical sense though, because I didn't understand those labels any other way when I was a christian either.
And let's clear up one other common misunderstanding too. It's not that I'm inconsistent and believe you have a cherry pie, but don't believe you have plutonium in your kitchen, based on the same absence of evidence. But the lower the prior probability is, the more convincing the countervailing evidence you're going to need to provide to offset the low prior. I don't necessarily accept the cherry pie claim either, but I'm prepared to accept it with far less evidence simply because it's such a mundane claim, and it doesn't require a lot to countervail it.
The claim that this or that god exists, or has this or that character trait, is about as far from the mundane as it's possible to get, so I require very convincing evidence, and since I've never seen any, not even during the first half of my life when I was a true believer, so on that, frankly, terrible evidentiary basis, I cannot accept such an improbable claim. If I accepted one improbable claim on such a shoddy basis, to be consistent, I would have to accept every improbable claim. I would have to absolutely believe you stored fissionable substances in your cupboards until you provided convincing evidence otherwise. But I should have guessed you didn’t just based upon the prior probability. (Same goes for gods.) If I am a believer, why should I be inconsistent in my gullibility? Because that would make me an idiot, for one. But why should I have to be inconsistent? That's a problem. Under any circumstances, why should I be inconsistent in my skepticism? To please a bunch of inconsistent folks? That's their problem, not mine.
Anyone remember one of John Lennon's prettiest songs - Imagine - basically it is a hymn to atheism.
We have so many wars fought because of religion or condoned by religion.
While I do not believe evolution is the only answer to life, I can accept it happens. Intelligent design to me fills in the blanks, but does not answer the questions "Why?" and "Why the long gaps?"
Anyone remember one of John Lennon's prettiest songs - Imagine - basically it is a hymn to atheism.
In that song, Lennon sang the line "Imagine no possessions..." at a time when he had a net worth slightly in excess of US$100 million. Religionists are not the only hypocrites.
Anon at 2:21 PM, the most pertinent comment I can make is a hearty "Amen!"
254 said: "
In that song, Lennon sang the line "Imagine no possessions..." at a time when he had a net worth slightly in excess of US$100 million. Religionists are not the only hypocrites."
Perhaps Lennon, whose wealth was well earned, was realizing it was not his source or a source of happiness much like the story of Ecclesiastes. It takes that kind of success and wealth to perhaps realize and know that is not either who he was or where contentment in life comes from. Lennon was a seeker and had the resources to seek just as Solomon is said to have had. Your view is the cynical one. Lennon was no hypocrite for having the resources and the wisdom to express himself in such matters.
...PS On the other hand Herbert Armstrong, Gerald Flurry and Dave Pack were/are hypocrites for pretending to be humble, owning nothing but his suits as HWA tried to convince himself and us of, or share all things "Common" as Dave Pack has no intention of actually doing himself with his brain dead suppliers. That's hypocrisy.
Most of my immediate family has lived in the South for years, (Texas and Mississippi) and like it very much. That’s why I had difficulty understanding Dennis’s misgivings about South Carolina, and did a bit more research. We were born and lived above the Dixon line, but were in small, semi-rural towns all but my last two years before going to California to attend AC.
One of the high schools I attended had a rifle club, a shooting range in the school basement, and you were allowed 3 days’ excused absence for deer hunting. We’d buy milk, eggs, and beef from local farmers. I learned to ride horses when I was 13, and later switched to iron horses. When Southern Rock came along, particularly the Lynyrd Skynyrd Band, and Z Z Top, it really fit my world view.
But, I can also understand why bunches of atheists wouldn’t have run to the nearest music store in September 2,009 to buy Skynyrd’s kick ass new album “God & Guns”
BB
Dennis, your "Perhaps" sounds interesting at first, but I think you are describing George Harrison rather than John Lennon. Harrison made many life choices that favored his "seeker" side over his "let's make another $1 million" side. Lennon, on the other hand, was perfectly content to make choices such as buying a profitable cattle-farming operation even while nagging other people to become vegetarians.
Harrison is documented as spreading good bits of his wealth around to his family and friends. Lennon, on the other hand, more or less left his first wife and first son in dire financial straits while doubling and redoubling his fortune with Yoko and making her a very wealthy widow.
Of the Beatles, Ringo and George were by far the least trusting of their riches. McCartney is a complicated case, but seems to have aligned his professed values quite well with his tremendous business success. It's Lennon who is the outlier of the group. As for Lennon the "seeker"? Remember that Lennon was the first to dump the Maharishi over unproven allegations, while the other "seeker" Beatles did not adopt Lennon's cynical outlook even after stepping away from their former guru.
All told, I find it fascinating that you so quickly jump to Lennon's defense and to label as "cynical" a presentation of facts that you find unwelcome. Are you telling me something about your youth? Lennon made some great music, but that doesn't speak to whether or not his values were praiseworthy, any more than Richard Wagner's fine music speaks to the validity of his anti-Semitic outlook.
And, yes, Lennon made some great music. Theists who hated the ethereal "Imagine" will also hate the hard-rocking "Whatever Gets You Through The Night" with such antinomian lyrics as:
Whatever gets you through the night, it's alright, it's alright.
Doin' wrong or doin' right, it's alright, it's alright
Maybe a better song for the post-WCG crowd here would be his "Instant Karma" with a lyric evoking the book of Daniel?
Well we all shine on
Like the moon and the stars and the sun
Yeah we all shine on
On and on and on on and on
Or, for our legalist friends:
Instant Karma's gonna get you
Gonna knock you right on the head
You better get yourself together
Pretty soon you're gonna be dead
Personally, though, I'm fond of his "Mind Games"
Love is the answer and you know that for sure
Love is a flower you got to let it grow...
Yes is the answer and you know that for sure
Yes is surrender you got to let it go...
So keep on playing those mind games together
Doing the ritual dance in the sun
Millions of mind guerrillas
Putting their soul power to the karmic wheel
Keep on playing those mind games forever
Raising the spirit of peace and love
(I want you to make love, not war
I know you've heard it before)
Great lyrics, but the guy had a hard and messed-up life, and didn't always acquit himself very well. I'm sorry if my saying this makes you think I am "cynical" but there it is.
Can’t we just enjoy good songs without getting hung up about the righteousness of the writer? Lennon was not selling a religion with him as the head.
Years ago, on KMET FM, Los Angeles, the radio personalities would play an excerpt from either a Lennon or Beatles album. I think it was one of those clever brief between tracks vignettes. Lennon was covering Dylan. He sang “How does it feel.......to be all alone.......like President Nixon!”
Actually, I was never a big Beatles fan. I preferred the Stones and the Animals. Their stuff was more blues-based.
BB
Dennis
I believe in God but I respect your honesty in expressing your thoughts. You come across as a person who wouldn't intentionally harm anyone.
I think it must take great courage to be a ex WCG pastor and write your posts. I also don't think you are alone in how you've changed your thinking over the years, your exceptional in being more honest than others, who remain picking up the pay check.
To me, evilution is a theory that tries to explain a creation without a creator. The evidence of design is all around us. All we need to do is look. As time goes on, it is becoming even more evident of a divine creator. DNA for example, clearly shows design and not randomness.
Thank you TLA.... Evidently not! Lol
Can’t we just enjoy good songs without getting hung up about the righteousness of the writer? Lennon was not selling a religion with him as the head.
It's Dennis who felt the need to defend Lennon's righteousness. The rest of us can enjoy the music or not.
Lennon was not selling a religion with him as the head.
Lennon wanted your money.
HWA wanted your money.
Yoko ruined up the Beatles.
Ramona ruined HWA.
Lennon sang, "Please please me..."
HWA demanded, "Please please me..."
Garner Ted tried to follow in his father's footsteps, but didn't come close to his father's success.
Julian Lennon tried to follow in his father's footsteps, but didn't come close to his father's success.
Lennon: Sergeant Pepper
HWA: Pastor General
Lennon: The White Album
HWA: White Adam & Eve
Lennon: "I Am the Walrus"
HWA: Fat as a walrus
Lennon: Said the Beatles were more popular than Jesus
HWA: Didn't approve of Jesus' popularity
...and so on. Maybe they were more alike than different, but I still prefer Lennon.
Some perspective...
"We are more popular than Jesus" ... 1966 John Lennon quote.
Some perspective.
Dennis works within a very narrow zone. He does not believe in the Christian God. This does not make him a bona fide atheist or agnostic. This makes him someone who does not believe in some version of the God of Christianity only. I doubt that he has looked into other possible versions of the Christian God or other gods, in general.
Dennis operates on a simple principle of dubious derivation: "If I can find something that is inexplicable to me in the Bible, I can justifiably believe there is no God (again some version of the Christian God, probably)." This assumption is logically applied in the arguments he constructs but it is false.
A second principle: The true representation of Christianity is naïve fundamentalism and Biblical literalism. Once again, a narrow aperture but it makes it easy to construct arguments so it is hard to give up. Christianity is changing but Dennis is not.
I think Dennis probably realizes that has a narrow aperture. If he does not, he has fallen victim to philosophical myopia.
Thank you Neo for your analysis of my experience, thoughts and for helping me see I function in a very narrow zone as well as am dubiously derivated. Do I owe you for your incredible insight into life and my self?
I also like how you post explaining me to others as if I am not in the room. Personally, I feel my aperture is very open, expansive and takes an abundance of information. I do admit that I have not taken a lot of time to look into other gods that might be more pleasing to me but we all do have our myopias I suppose. I hate falling victim to that! Mithras is somewhat interesting a god to me as well as Chemosh, Osiris and perhaps even Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. My name derives from Dionysus, the god of wine (blech) and revelry, so perhaps that would be the best god to check out.
Greetings to your aperture and your own god of choice. We both would have to be careful as El turned YHVH has made it very clear that we are not to bring any other gods into his presence as he is one jealous God.
Humor aside, why do you pretend to know so much of the contents of my mind and the narrowness of my views and experiences? Does you finding a way to explain me to you and others make you feel better in some way?
Anonymous said...
Can’t we just enjoy good songs without getting hung up about the righteousness of the writer? Lennon was not selling a religion with him as the head.
It's Dennis who felt the need to defend Lennon's righteousness. The rest of us can enjoy the music or not.
Untrue. You made the point that Lennon made lots of money yet sang lyrics saying "imagine there's no money..." and called him a hypocrite for doing so. I simply was pointing out the lack of connection between his personal success and his lyric. You took it to mean that he was suggesting there be no money when he had all one could ever wish for and thus not just religion has hypocrites. I was suggesting somewhere along the line you missed the point of the point I made. :)
Sweetblood777 said...
To me, evilution is a theory that tries to explain a creation without a creator. The evidence of design is all around us. All we need to do is look. As time goes on, it is becoming even more evident of a divine creator. DNA for example, clearly shows design and not randomness.
To me you probably haven't read enough or done enough study into the topic because of your set in stone faith restrictions on the topic. But that's fine. Evolution does not try to explain a creation without a creator. It does that without trying and if what they "try" does not meet the standards of proof or stand the test of time with new information, unlike religion, they adjust. The evidence of design seems to you to be all around, but all can be explained and will be on into the future as a function of deep time (as opposed to "THE SIX THOUSAND YEAR PLAN OF GOD") without a designer as such.
Your DNA is full of past switches from ancestral past that have switched off, good thing, leaving you in your present state. The proof of the slow and steady progress of evolution of all things is all around us. I do understand the need to see magic and miracles in it all.
The topic is endless and each person ultimately has to draw their own conclusions. I just find that most people argue their case emotionally and in the , dare I say, narrow aperture of faith needs and restrictions that would mess up doctrine and belief.
Actors were originally called hypocrites, because they acted out a personna not their own. This falls into a category known as artistic license. John Lennon being a millionaire, and creating a sonic dream in which there is no money, (thus actually earning more to add to his own millions) is part of his craft as an artist.
We cannot apply the exacting standards to which we should hold our religious leaders to entertainers. Well written and performed music is enjoyable whether or not the performer had a snort of coke or a few tokes of maryjane while recording it.
BB
and too Sweetblood777, your constant use of the term "Evil-ution" gives away a certain unwillingness, based on faith restrictions, to sit down before the facts objectively. But I never found the WCG or any church to be objective about facts presented as centuries rolled on.
Dennis:
I do not know the broad content of your mind, of course. I know only what you write - which is the belief product of your processing some personal trove of data. Given that, it has always seemed to me that you argue within narrow and self-affirming boundaries. For instance, one proposition that seems to be present in your writing is "All Christians disbelieve evolution." And pursuing this monotone line of argument exclusively implies you have considered no other alternatives. And this pattern repeats. I think you see what I mean.
That "six Thousand Year Plan of God" was supposed to end in the mid 70s I got married too soon because I wanted to have a few good years before all of it went down.(refer to 1975 in prophecy with its gruesome Basil Wolverton drawings His stuff in MAD magazine couldn't compare to them!)But here we are 45 years later -no tribulation no Petra no second coming.It will happen sometime, but at 66 I reckon I will have left this mortal coil log time before
Let’s face it, Armstrongism was such a total “mind-f*ck”, that in trying to establish new equilibrium, it is almost guaranteed that recovery involves at least some erratic swings of the pendulum.
Our late friend, Ian Boyne, who actually came to us and communicated as a friend, once shared that he had mentioned me in one of his Feast sermons. That induced me to listen to his hour long sermon, most likely just as he had planned, and thankfully he didn’t name me, but he did use one of my post -Armstrong attitudes as perhaps negative encouragement for his congregation, which was that when it all fell apart, all I wanted to do was party. David Bowie, in the opening lines of his futuristic-apocalyptic song “Diamond Dogs” sang “As they pull you out of the oxygen tent, you ask for the latest party.” That somehow resonated with me, and for several years during the late ‘70s became my motto. Ultimately, I realized that since I hadn’t been changed into a spirit being at age 27, there was probably going to be a long life ahead, and I became more serious in my approach to life. There were always people who somehow ended up getting placed into my life, voices of reason and moderation, and although I resented them at first, there was some merit to what they had to share. Still, somehow it never dawned on me that there would be a time when I would realize how awful mayonnaise is for you, and how nearly impossible it is to get sodium intake within doctor-approved ranges, so that a life-long program of health and physical fitness does not come undone.
If we are lucky, at best we get three score and ten years on the planet, have 5 senses, whatever is our IQ, and the vantage point from which we experience life to evaluate, figure everything out, and to develop an appropriate response or game plan. In our cases, past Armstrongism can be a very negative and persistent modifier. Subliminally, it is for us a perpetual modifier which can warp and inform our perceptions. For some, it tends to propel them from opposite pole to opposite pole, when the safety zone is actually the narrow path down the middle. That is the point of least influence of each opposite pole. It is where you are held in balance and equilibrium, and can’t be batted around.
BB
I check in here to see if there is anything that would help people cope with life after WCG was shattered in an effort to improve a way of life while accepting the as God's inspired Word. I must admit that what has evolved in the passed few years has been more destructive than constructive in building a life the biblical God desires for a human being to live. I personally have lived a full life that is still enjoying a relationship with God through the way of life revealed through Jesus who is the Lord and Savior of those drawn to have faith, hope, and the love God desires. It would be encouraging to see others sharing the same thoughts once in awhile. Sincerely ASB
" Dennis said... No intellectual issues intended Kevin."
" Dennis, 6:47 was not me (Kevin McMillen)"
I think you will find Dennis was actually responding to 9:18-"Miller Jones" - on "intellectual curiosity" point, and confirms my suspicion that "Miller Jones"<=>"Kevin McMillen" anyway (one and the same)
Dennis - in a previous blog entry, you stated Daniel was written after the initial prophetic events happened which is why they were so accurate.
When does your research show Ezekiel was written. From the book it would seem it was written either during the initial captivities before the final captivity, or at least soon thereafter.
Ezekiel mentions Daniel's righteousness in Ezekiel 14 v 14 and Daniel's wisdom in Ezekiel 28 v3.
It appears Daniel was well known at the time the book of Ezekiel was written.
Did you come up on this in your research?
One interesting similarity between you and Ezekiel is that many want to ascribe motives and meaning to both of you as if they were mind readers - which has to be even more difficult when the person (Ezekiel) is long dead. Maybe in your case, they secretly snuck into your room and did a Vulcan mind meld.
And of course that long life ahead was not to be for some 60.000 kids who only got the opportunity to "garden duties" in the jungle paddies of Vietnam.
Nck
nck, Joan Baez and others were at the induction centers at the height of the Viet Nam War, making the guys shipping out aware that there were options, they had choices, and didn't need to go. I believe that Joan Baez's husband at the time was actually arrested and did some time for this type of activity.
After I turned 18, In desperation, I had threatened my parents that if they did not lighten up on all the abuse, I would be forgetting about Ambassador College, and enlisting in the US Marine Corps. They did, just enough to make the remaining 6 months I had at home barely tolerable, so I ended up at AC.
Over the years, I've thanked a number of vets for their service, and apologized to some of the more admirable ones for not having gone to Viet Nam. Oddly enough, in retrospect, a number of them now feel that they were duped, that we were not really over there fighting for American interests, and not allowed to fight to win. Kind of a Rambo type thing. Sadly, the Barrios and Ghettos were emptied out of so many of that generation, a horrible needless sacrifice. One of my Chicano biker buddies once showed me a picture of all the guys in his graduating class from Montebello High School at the enlisment center volunteering for Vietnam the day after graduation. Joe was one of only three who made it back. He was one of the original members of the Mongols Motorcycle Club at the time I knew him. We were both rivals after the same girl, but became good friends.
BB
12.58 PM
Kevin McMillen is a firebrand and not intellectually inclined. By contrast, Miller Jones comments are thoughtful and diplomatic. Two different people as far as I'm concerned.
the Ocelot
Have I got news for you. I'm about your age, and the holy spirit has informed me that I will live to see the tribulation.
TLA said...
Dennis - in a previous blog entry, you stated Daniel was written after the initial prophetic events happened which is why they were so accurate.
When does your research show Ezekiel was written. From the book it would seem it was written either during the initial captivities before the final captivity, or at least soon thereafter.
Ezekiel mentions Daniel's righteousness in Ezekiel 14 v 14 and Daniel's wisdom in Ezekiel 28 v3.
It appears Daniel was well known at the time the book of Ezekiel was written.
Did you come up on this in your research?
That's a great question TLA. The evidence for a Second Century story of Dani-EL, meaning "God (EL) is my judge, is pretty good and the motive was to encourage the Jewish rebellion during the Maccabean period against Rome. Daniel was also used a the template for Revelation which written to encourage the Jewish Christians in their war against Rome in Jerusalem before the fall of the Temple. I know most put it in the 90's but that's tradition and there is evidence for the months runup to the fall of Jerusalem.
https://bibliahebraica.blogspot.com/2010/10/daniel-in-ezekiel-14-part-2.html
Here is an article that shows how difficult it is to identify which or what Dani-EL Ezekiel may have been referring to and why. It is still up in the air but a good study in how we can assume the word "Daniel" means as in the Lion's Den. There is a case that it does not refer to that Daniel.
Recall in the story of Barabbas, we have early accounts that name him Jesus Barabbas, or as we can deduce more a title than a name. "Jesus, Son of the Father" Bar=son, Abba=father
Scholars feel that the Bar-Abbas story is not that there were two men, one Jesus and one Barabbas up for grabs but rather two titles. This Jesus standing there was either "Jesus King of the Jews, which is political and a title Rome would not abide. The other was "Jesus the Son of the Father." THis was a religious title and one Rome did not care about.
The question to the crowd was which title did they give Jesus. If he was a religious Jesus, they could have him . "Give us Bar-Abbas" Good answer. If he was their King, "Jesus King of the Jews" Bad answer and you all probably die. They concluded "We have no King but Caesar" Good answer. Jesus is crucified as "KING OF THE JEWS" not "SON OF THE FATHER"
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/2698/was-barabbas-given-name-jesus
All fascinating and that's a sermon I wish I had given just to see eyes roll
https://bibliahebraica.blogspot.com/2010/08/daniel-in-ezekiel-14-part-1.html
there are also some articles online (easy to find) that are pro or con on the original language for Daniel begin acceptable for Nebuchadnezzar's time versus in the 150s BC.
Since Ezekiel refers to Noah and Job - both well known in the OT scriptures, it seems you can make a case for the reference to be to the Biblical Daniel.
The cons are - Ezekiel wrote so close to the time Daniel was becoming famous (without the benefit of the Internet and social media), and the different spelling of the name in Ezekiel versus Daniel.
"""Anonymous said...
12.58 PM
Kevin McMillen is a firebrand and not intellectually inclined. By contrast, Miller Jones comments are thoughtful and diplomatic. Two different people as far as I'm concerned."""
**************
I see that asshole Gary Leonard is still allowing anonymous assholes to post argumentative statements, but throws a hissy if a known poster defends himself or another. Oh, but why can't I see that Kevin McMillen is the jerk?
I'm intelligent enough to know that Miller Jones is Lonnie Hendrix, and the fact that one posting anonymously makes it impossible for another to determine their "intellectual" inclination. It's so easy to make bold statements behind your mommy's dress. Why don't you email me?
The thing about real jerks, they demand that others are "diplomatic" with them, but they're unable to practice diplomacy themselves.
SHT is anonymous, I don't know his/her name, as is TLA, and Retired Prof. but we're all able to follow their individual posts because they sign their posts. There's much more civility when one has to sign their posts.
Who is really causing the civility problems on the blog? Myself or people hiding behind anonymity making argumentative posts? I'm merely the one brave enough to call them out.
No one has ever asked for a real name but you anonymous cowards spin it that way, and you have asshole Gary believing you, and defending your "right" to post anonymous.
Yet you and Gary are too ignorant to understand that posting argumentative posts anonymously is like yelling fire in a crowded theater, your freedom of speech doesn't, or at least shouldn't, go that far.
Why doesn't he just admit that he allows it because if he didn't the ignorant people who follow Pack or Flurry or Malm just won't come to his precious little blog?
The good thing is that I don't need this damn blog!!!
Post that! Asshole! If you do then be a man and post it in full!
Kevin McMillen
Kevinmcmillen64@gmail.com
I think you had a spelling challenge when you told us you were a MENSA member, Kevin. You must have meant Menses, because you are obviously on your period.
Gary should probably give you a 30 day suspension, but being the nice guy that he is, he probably won't.
BB
Also, if people visit us from the ACOGs you mention, they’re displaying amazing open-mindedness, defying their leaders, probably as a result of those leaders bullying them. They’re seeking solutions. Our own little bully calling them ignorant just slams the door in their faces. How utterly tragic!
BB
Ehrman vs. Colbert
"If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell"
― Carl Sandburg
Can't help but notice how much table pounding and yelling Kevin does...
Post a Comment