One of the great feelings, which really was only a feeling and probably not based in any genuine reality, was that when in WCG, we could take comfort in the fact that we "all speak the same thing." We were not divided, all one body we for sure. We sang it, we (I) preached it. It was very comfortable and made me, at least from my view, feel safe and protected. Now I know I had my issues with the Church, or specifically the Armstrongs and various other human beings who seemed this way or that which made me chuckle a bit at how full of themselves they could be. I ignored a lot of things I didn't like, like "to be played in all the Churches" tapes and still survived years! But that was just people and people come and go. I held it close to my chest just how much I hated the visits of one traveling evangelist who just knew the answer to everything and what God was thinking everyday about us. I never promoted his visits much, tolerated having to hear it two or three times depending on the number of churches I was responsible for and believed virtually none of it. The voice in my head kept saying...'well what are you going to do when HWA dies?" I should have put that in a question for him but he never took questions.
I reflect on all the men in the ministry I know and wonder where they went. Some, of course, went on to promote themselves in their own versions of their astounding Bible reading skills. But, in fact, most have just faded away and are doing their best doing whatever and neither want contact nor have a public need to process their experience. To date, not one former full time minister has been in touch with me and none other write on this site openly.
Those of us who are here growing through are an interesting bunch. There are those of us who always comment, those who sometimes comment and most who never comment but I assume think about these things.
My own buzzwords that identify me here are, "Apostle Paul," "Birth stories," "Resurrection accounts," "Adam and Eve," "Mythology," "Quantum physics," "Acceptance," "astrotheology," "never quotes Jesus," "contradict each other," "Neanderthal," "Paleontology" "Snarky," and so on. if I did not sign my name , you'd still know it was probably me writing.
And yes, I am "M.T.Hall" but have always assumed that was no secret either. I sign that at times to honor and remember my dad who used it first when he wrote Joe Tkach Sr. about the effect his leadership was having on my dad's local church. It was emptying the hall. Dad is still around at 96, was a WCG elder and now sits back in the very same pew we all grew up in up the street in the Presbyterian Church of his youth. I deeply love and respect my dad. He is a quiet man who just goes with the flow it seems. I am not like him but have always wanted to be. My counselor however reminds me that each of us are on our own journey. His is his and mine is mine. That came up when I mentioned they had been married 72 years and I still felt badly about my failed circumstances for which i take full responsibility.
At any rate, if I use the words, "narcissists," "snakes in suits," "Armstrongists," "British Israelism, " , we know who this is commenting even without the name. If we say, "rebel", "used to think," " bike," "full circle," "former atheist," etc, we know who this is.
If I hear, "Dennis, you're an idiot," "You and your minister buddies," "I hope you end up in a refrigerator box," etc...you...well at least I know who that is...ha.
We all are processing a human experience and the topic is religion, faith, trust, hope and life after death, which is one of the most sensitive of our human needs to explore once we show up on the planet.
We run the gamut from very sincere to now skeptical, very sincere and more sincere, very sincere to cynical, sorta sincere to very sincere, not sincere-supposed to be sincere-ok I'm sincere-WTF-atheist-back to sincere and so on. i think I am stuck a bit at WTF. But no matter, it's all ok. As that great philosopher once said..."I ams what i ams and that's all that I ams." Popeye
I guess I keep a mental count in my head of how many comment on this blog to various topics. The postings that highlight some past abuse , situation or now perceived goofy or harmful belief or idea in the past get the most comments. These are the topics that bring out the hurt and the many personal examples in our experience we can come up. We comment not unlike men get to telling jokes in a group. Each joke gets a little better than the last until someone "wins." You know the , "oh yeah, well listen to this one..." I guess you all know my views on painbodies.
On the other side of the scale are the topics that bring virtually no comments. In two years not ONE person has comment on my own observations about the contradictory nature of the Birth stories of Jesus (usually around Xmas) or the Resurrection accounts, (usually around Easter/Passover) Not one person of any persuasion has defended the accounts as without error or historically accurate, which they are not IMHO. No comments my view that the Apostle Paul hijacked the Jesus movement and the original Apostles did not like the man nor taught what he taught. No comments on why Paul never quotes Jesus etc or the reality that Paul was the first to write the Jesus/Gentile story before the Gospels ever saw the light of day. I'd love to hear just one rebuttal as to why it is a good thing that Paul presents himself as "all things to all men...to the Jew a Jew, to the Gentile a Gentile.." etc and not wonder what the hell the real Paul really believed. Or was lying and playing head games just the way to go?
I have been scorned for noting that the Apostle Paul, as did Matthew and others, often misquoted the OT to promote their own agendas. The Hebrew of the Hebrew quotes the Greek version of the OT to make points that would make a real Pharisee gag. He even makes the same mistakes in doing so that the version contains as if he doesn't know the OT does not really say that. I use the phrase, "you can't make a scripture mean what it never meant," but actually you can and it is called Midrash. However, it is dishonest to reality and while a then acceptable way of writing about something you have little hard evidence for and would get you flunked out of seminary today, was ok then. Matthew's birth account, as well as Lukes, which do not agree were made up by cobbling OT scriptures together and are not based in any reality of Jesus birth they knew about. But I spare you. My point is that these kinds of observations bring little if no comment.
One very sincere literalist here on the blog challenged me to show him where Paul made the OT mean what it never meant or misquoted the OT to make his points. I sent the man several classics from which i got no response or a better explanation for Paul's practice. I don't blame him for not responding but I have to assume the examples were a bit enlightening in ways that cause conflict in the mind.
The origins of everything seem to fascinate me. From the origins of the earth, the universe, humans, consciousness and religion, it is all fascinating. I just ever, as I suspect we all would say, no matter our current views, wanted to know the truth. Handling the truth, as we know, can be divisive, scary and a lifelong experience with others in head banging over who is right.
Recently I was listening to a very dynamic, yet goofy radio type trying his best to show the story of Jonah and the Great Fish literally happened and a man can survive in the belly of a whale etc. He uses the example, now understood to be one of America's oldest urban legends, of a man swallowed by a whale on an 18th century whaling encounter. He was cut out of the fish two days later, a bit digested but alive blah blah. I wrote him with backup that any 15 year old in his audience with a Internet connection could debunk it before he finished the story. His response was less than kind. He "noticed" my source had an ad for Barack Obama and so that source was suspect. He "noticed" the source was from the "secular web," which means he has access to the "religious web" which promotes the story as true so it must be true. In short, he did not want me raining on his parade. Yesterday, I was listening again and darn it if he did not use the story again! I sent him better documentation this time but it just pissed him off.
Well, just Sunday morning ramblings here. Biz is a bit slow. The school I teach at reminds me at times of WCG drama at the Administrative level and getting stuck between crazy "policies" and the students who suffer from them. Someone told me to "not listen to the students" and all I heard in my head was "don't listen to the members." Ugh. I opted for defending the students as usual. I don't take a lot of BS this time around and speak up quickly no matter the cost. I know i suffer from the classic underachiever thing at this point in life.
But Fall comes soon and it has always been my favorite time of year. May you all have the best Feast ever....no wait....sorry...that just slipped out. :)
Dennis wrote, "My counselor however reminds me that each of us are on our own journey. His is his and mine is mine. That came up when I mentioned they had been married 72 years and I still felt badly about my failed circumstances for which i take full responsibility."
ReplyDeleteMY COMMENT = Oh Dennis, don't take this the wrong way. Don't beat yourself up too much for your alleged "failed circumstances". I don't know if you have noticed it or not, but the times have changed. These are not your father's times. No, not even close.
Richard
Thanks Richard, I endeavor not to and know bells can't be unrung. These truly are not our parents times for sure. I tend to be the Monkey on my own back which is why I wrote an article by that title.
ReplyDeleteI still have to keep Mr. Anxiety and Depression, based on residual anger and fear etc, at bay. I don't take meds and really prefer not to as things are better faced than numbed. Don't have the insurance to do that anyway and I don't choose to get caught up into the cycle of it all.
I've spent the last decade getting reaquainted with myself and the price still seems high for it all. I have to say I am lonely as "Hell". Is hell lonely? ha. One of the classic hard wired realities of the ENFP temprement is having a difficult time with that topic, so I"m right on to the type.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure I share a common experience with many and we're all here to learn at Earth School :)
"In two years not ONE person has comment on my own observations about ... "
ReplyDeleteDennis, maybe the reason is because there is no rebuttal. The pieces all begin to fit; it all begins to make sense.
Quantum physics:
ReplyDeleteIt's not knowing whether or not an ACoG has gone out of business until it's observed to have died.
I thought current biblical scholarship doesn't consider the gospels mythical but biographical.
ReplyDeleteThe Gospels are not biographical. Jesus writes nothing in his life. Others merely "recall it." No gospel is an eyewitness account as the names were added after they were first annonymous works. No one says, "and then Peter and I went to the tomb..." "And then I said to Jesus, and then Jesus said to me." It is not written that way.
ReplyDeleteThe Gospels is the churchs attempt to bring the cosmic Christ of Paul, who wrote first, down to earth and give him a pedigree etc. IMHO
"Dennis, maybe the reason is because there is no rebuttal. The pieces all begin to fit; it all begins to make sense."
ReplyDeleteThat's exactly why I often have nothing to add. I know I tend to be a bit obnoxiously outspoken at times -- that's just me -- but I don't just click the keys to be clicking them. If something moves or outrages me, I speak up, often very, very pointedly.
I, for one, feel a surge of interest when I recognize Dennis has written again. I'd miss your input if you ever stopped.
The gospels are written as history like narratives; after the fact and supposing many already are familiar with what's contained in them.
ReplyDeleteSimiliar to the way we construct a history of the WWCG - a bunch of personal narratives that make sense together as one overarching narrative.
What are you expecting? The epistle of Mary magedelene to Simon Peter telling him to run down to the tomb?
A question about the cosmic Christ: If we know what Paul was up to, do we get that from another historical document or is apparent from with-in his writings; and which writings do we know are his?
ReplyDeleteI read somewhere that we can be certain seven belong to him, but how do we know that?
Opinions on these topics vary, and can often be partisan. I'd be remiss if I didn't observe that my study Bibles seem to make everything in our Christian faith fit, as well. That may be why Christianity has continued to exist as one of the major faiths, and has literally influenced empires and individuals for over 2,000 years.
ReplyDeleteBB
"I read somewhere that we can be certain seven belong to him, but how do we know that?"
ReplyDeleteI really don't think we can. That doesn't bother me in the least as I really don't care. To me, it's all garbage and no longer has any effect on my life.
If you read Paul's probably genuine letters. I,II Corinth, Galatians, Phillipians , I Thess etc, we see him speaking of Cosmic being not a human being. If you read Paul without knowledge of the Gospels which had not been written before he died etc, you would never guess he was talking about a human being who recently lived. Jesus for Paul was hallucinatory and perhaps after the Gnostic way of thinking about such things.
ReplyDeleteThe other alledged letters of Paul were written after his death , attributed to Paul and used to make him sound closer to the other apostles than was true and more pro-law and less radical than he was. It's long but interesting story.
Thanks. Why does Paul refer to the "Lord Jesus" at the Last supper in I cor? Seems to be a historical reference. Different Lords, or is the Lord Jesus different from the cosmic Christ?
ReplyDeleteBut, doesn't the epistles preceding the gospels just show that the epistles were letters addressing current issues, and it can be assumed the recipents were already familiar with some or much of what was to show up in the written gospels?
ReplyDeleteThe epistles aren't cast as historical narratives but as contemporaneous correspondence.
In I Cor 15:3-8 we have a pre NT reference that Christ died and was buried and rose from the dead - pre NT in the sense Paul states that he had preached it to them previously, and he refers to it as the "gospel" in 15:1.
ReplyDeleteWhen Paul says, "that which i have receved from the lord i say unto you.....when you take the cup.," he means this is what he heard in his head as the voice of Jesus. Paul never knew any human Jesus . Every time Paul indicates he got something from Jesus, he means as the voice in his head has told him. Paul is the inventor of the Eucharist, Gospel writers would have gotten this from Paul's authentic writings and not the other way around. The Gospels had not been written when Corinthians was. Maybe as long as 100+ year later.
ReplyDeleteThe supper Jesus has in the Gospel of John and all the dialogue of chapter 13-17 is what the author imagined Jesus would have said at such an event. No one wrote down these specifics and no other Gospel remotely quotes them or knows of this practice or these words of Jesus.
All this to say that Paul only knew a Jesus in his head. Paul was somewhat of a mystic who literally beat himself to submit to Christ etc. He was a deeply torn man, wracked with personal guilt and shame of some kind.
To many, Paul's personal admissons and writings show the agony a non practicing gay man would go through. "The things that I shouldn't do..(as he viewed it) , I do..." Paul was extremely puzzled and his doctrines and Gospel spring from this. His Gospel in little ways matches that of Peter, James and John from whom Paul said he "learned nothing from then" (Galatians) and are merely reputed to be pillars in the church..."who they are makes no difference to me..."
Read Galatians 1-2 without any other thinking of any other writings and see that Paul was no team player and when he said "his Gospel" he meant his literally and pronounced a curse on anyone who didn't agree with his version. Peter, James and John would not have agreed and didn't with Paul.
The book of james is a rebuttal of Paul's book of Romans and the idea that one needs faith with out works etc. James says, 'Oh yea...well show me your faith without works and I will show you mine by my works..."
Ok. So, when Paul says jesus died and was buried,raised after 3 days, appeared to Peter the 12 and 500 other people, etc; still, the max info we can expect about the historical Jesus is whatever corresponds to any historicial info. about Jesus is Paul's epistles. Nothing else allowed.
ReplyDeleteThe whole Paul vs James is a Lutheran thing: the book of straw and everything. Didn't seem to be that big of an issue for others up to that time.
ReplyDeleteRegarding your point about reading Galatians without thinking about other writings illustrates a point made by Rolando barthes where an individual text is suspectible of indefinitly many interpretive readings, because the understanding of the text is not controlled by authorial intention or by relationship to an audience with specific shared beliefs, then the context is one of pure ambiguity.
ReplyDeleteThis is exactly what you have done. Of course the galatians would have read it differently, as they already had a set of shared beliefs and knew the author.
Hi Dennis,
ReplyDeleteA few random thoughts of my own-
For a number of years now, I've thought that "Paulianity" would be a better term for what people refer to as "Christianity"
my study Bibles seem to make everything in our Christian faith fit, as well. That may be why Christianity has continued to exist as one of the major faiths, and has literally influenced empires and individuals for over 2,000 years.
I suppose the same could be said by a Muslim about Islam, based on him using study texts about the Qur'an.
I'll bet it happens in many religions, that the more skeptical will say "It all does not fit right!", while people who are the True Believer types running on faith, posit "It all fits perfectly and wonderfully!"
You cracked me up about that guy swallowing the urban legend about the 18th century guy surviving in the whale!
It's a human swallowing a whale-of-a-tale, LOL!
No doubt, this kind of hoakey stuff inspires and strengthens many many people's faith.
I think it's a large factor in sustaining a variety of religions through time.
Christian TV is replete with phony healing, urban legends, etc.
Ever hear of the old urban legend that claims scientists at NASA 'found' a missing day in history, which is proof that the sun stood still in Joshua?......Well, I've seen that story put forth as fact a few times on Christian TV-- Twice by that scumbag John Hagee, and once by some other schmuck whose name I forget(maybe Perry Stone).
I'm sure that hearing it bolstered the faith of thousands of Christians.
And on to the weather...
I like the Fall, too. In fact, it's getting down in the low 50's here tonight, which is downright Fall-like.
Norm
P.S. Don't forget to join the "War on Science", because you can't spell science without S-I-N !
"I don't take a lot of BS this time around and speak up quickly no matter the cost. I know i suffer from the classic underachiever thing at this point in life."
ReplyDeleteBoy, do I ever understand that! I'm in the same boat. Sometimes, it does cost in some way, but I'm not wired to keep my mouth shut.
So, Norm. What would your first thoughts be if you got up in the AM, went to your computer, signed on, and MSN and all the other services were announcing that all of the Moslems had converted to Christianity?
ReplyDeleteWouldn't you rejoice, knowing that we were about to enjoy a much better world?
BB
"Wouldn't you rejoice, knowing that we were about to enjoy a much better world?"
ReplyDeleteWould we really? Or, would we have more Falwells and Bachmanns, etc. pushing their extremist agendas? More creationism? More anti-gay and anti-abortion rhetoric? More ultra-conservative blather?
I'd consider it a better world if both were gone.
BB, you have quite an imagination. But I suppose it would depend on which type of Christianity they converted to.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, if they became converted to the type of Christianity that David Barton is into, I'd dress in sackcloth and be weeping and gnashing my teeth!