Anyway, Lil' Joel is warning COGWA members about the Internet. Too much information is not a good thing and starts to change your thinking. Is Lil' Joel Meeker concerned that too much information about the COGWA, UCG, COG's and their inherent corruption? Is there a trend that this information is starting to weigh on peoples minds? Is it that people no longer have a blind trust in COG leadership anymore? I guess for Lil' Joel it's not like the French who basically swept the ground for Lil' Joel as he walked along. Don't want that WonderKid who graduated from God's College to get his shoes dirty....or do an honest days work.
Lil' Joel writes:
A Prophetic Warning About Your Thinking
Posted by on November 25, 2011Is the World Wide Web playing a part in rewiring our brains? What does God say about trends in thinking in the end time?
I recently read a fascinating and troubling book called The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains, a Pulitzer Prize finalist written by Nicholas Carr. The genesis of the book was the moment the author realized his thinking had changed. He, a man who earns his living by writing, could no longer concentrate on long passages of text; his attention would wander after a page or two.
He realized this change was due to all the time we, in our modern, tech-driven world, now spend on the Internet. On the web, information comes in very short texts, interspersed with embedded video or audio and distracting hyperlinks inviting us to go look at something else before we even finish what we’re reading. (On this blog we try to limit our writing to 800 words—more than that and we risk losing a reader’s attention!)
Rewiring our brains
The use of the Internet is actually reshaping our brains. Literacy, the ability to read, allowed a revolution in human thinking. Information could be transmitted over time and space. Literate people developed the ability to concentrate for long periods of time, to mentally follow complicated lines of reasoning, to contemplate transcendent concepts.
The brain of someone who reads is not shaped exactly like the brain of an illiterate person because our brains develop along the lines of the uses to which they are put.
Heavy Internet use is also reshaping our brains, and research shows that many people are losing the ability to concentrate for longer periods and to think deeply about complex concepts. It’s too much work. Short texts, photos and video are much easier to process and more entertaining.
So what?
For Christians this trend should be alarming. Our God reveals Himself, His plan, the purpose of our existence and His laws for life—all in writing. In fact, they are in lengthy, not always easy-to-read texts. To lose the ability or desire to read and concentrate on what we read is to distance ourselves from God.
Perilous times from wrong thinking
A Bible prophecy for the time just before the return of Jesus Christ states that human thinking will have become shallow and entirely self-absorbed:
“But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power” (2 Timothy 3:1-5).
If and when people lose the ability or desire to think abstractly and to control their thoughts, they will be left only with what they feel, and what they feel will be mostly about themselves, not others and not God. This is prophesied for the time ahead us, and our increasing dependence on the Internet may be hastening that day.
I’m not suggesting that we stop using the Internet entirely; that’s not a realistic possibility for many of us. But we must be aware of how Internet use is changing our thinking. We must control our use of the Internet and not allow it to control us. And we must discipline ourselves to continue a deep and regular study of the Word of God.
Full aricle is here: A Prophetic Warning About Your Thinking
Meeker should be concerned about the Internet. That is what they used to destroy the UCG and brought them down big time. COGWA used the internet to their advantage and rapidly infiltrated the UCG membership wit all kinds of information.
ReplyDeleteCOGWA knows that they too may be brought to their knees. The sheeple will only take their shit so far and then begin to wipe the leaderships noses in it.
May that day fast approach!
I'm sure the Catholic Church would have published and did publish something similar about the horrible effects of that new fangled printing press. Any increase in information is a danger to authoritarian organizations.
ReplyDeleteThey kept the Bible they canonized away from the common people, most of whom were illiterate anyway. All the average person knew was what he was fed to him by the local priest.
The Catholic and Anglican churches desperately tried to keep the Bible out of the hands of the aveerage citizen. They didn't succeed and the wholesale confusion of Protestantism resulted. Modern communication has only speeded up the process of division, as the COGs can attest.
A repeated message at the LCG feast was a warning that people not get an "idea bubble", that is, an idea that is not in line with LCG's doctrines. They are afraid a Christian will read his Bible, think about it, and find out that LCG is wrong in some areas. Yes, Christians thinking about the Bible is a threat to the LCG leaders!
ReplyDeleteAllen C. Dexter said...
ReplyDelete"They kept the Bible they canonized away from the common people, most of whom were illiterate anyway. All the average person knew was what he was fed to him by the local priest."
MY COMMENT: Uh...it worked the same way in Israel. Do you think the average Israelite was literate?
Anonymous said...
"They are afraid a Christian will read his Bible, think about it, and find out that LCG is wrong in some areas. Yes, Christians thinking about the Bible is a threat to the LCG leaders!"
MY COMMENT: "In SOME areas"?
Of course, thinking about the Bible is a threat. My mothere used to say, "You can prove anything by the Bible." She was right.
ReplyDeleteThe book that says god is not the author of confusion is one of the most confusing example of amassed contradictions and confusions around.
No big news flash here. Since when have any of the ACOGs trusted the Holy Spirit? I guess they are admitting that none of their members have gentle prodding or guidance, and need humans to enforce.
ReplyDeleteBB
This book was also spoken of during the COGWA Feast site in Branson. Doug Horchak (director of ministerial services) had read the book and was also talking about it. It was not meant as a demonization of the internet or technology, but used as a reference how people use the internet to give them "ready made answers" instead of thinking for themselves and studying and reading. The sermon very much encouraged being informed. I believe the blog post was intended to do the same, but due to the word limit did not hit heavily on that.
ReplyDeleteThere was also a COGWA seminar given during the Feast where the attendees were told that they should not be afraid to read the opinions of those that disagree with them, and that going out and seeing what other people have to say and being informed is not a bad thing to be avoided, but rather encouraged. (the minister cited his own tendency to read Richard Dawkins, among others, and saw nothing wrong with anyone else doing the same) Just giving the flipside of the coin there.
"Since when have any of the ACOGs trusted the Holy Spirit?"
ReplyDeleteWhy should they trust an imaginary ghost? They may as well trust that God will heal them when they get sick. The only difference between you and them is that you pretend that you are being guided by an imaginary ghost while they pretend that their leaders are being guided by an imaginary deity. Admittedly, yours is the better alternative play-acting because it gives you more individual liberty. But it's still play-acting whether you realize it or not.
Paul Ray
Five years ago, I would have high-fived you for that analysis, PR.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I guess my best way to respond to you now would be to ask if you have ever experienced any spiritual phenomena which would tend to verify your path or beliefs. Do you want, or would you be open to such phenomena? One of the things which made Armstrongism false was the fact that, at least for me, there were no such corroborating signs. That's no great surprise, because the occurrence of such signs was denied (nearly prohibited!) by the top ministry, except in some cases for themselves. Such stuff was not supposed to happen for lay people, probably because it caused serious questioning of their "top down" system of governance.
Though I really tried from time to time to see Armstrongism (handed to me at an early age by my parents) as being valid, the reality is that it always seemed fake. Then 1975 came and went, and there was no longer any doubt in my mind that it was fake. My current path is totally different in that it does not have this aura of fakeness. It really feels in every way as if I've finally arrived at the real process.
Armstrongism was a very powerful modifier in all of our lives, and the fact that so many paths are being taken by those recovering from it provides perfect illustration of the insidious damage which false teachers can cause. In retrospect, I often feel as if I got off really lightly as compared to my friends who remained after 1975.
I think the question we probably all need to address would be if there is actually a creator of the universe, would we want to have a relationship with Him? Would we want to be open minded enough so that He would feel it productive to mentor us? I know in the past, I deliberately blocked these possibilities because I couldn't shake the imbedded concept that God was simply HWA on steroids. I cherry picked from science, other philosophies, and from logic in an effort to deliberately build my defenses against such a "god". Frankly, it was good that I did this, because HWA's "god" behaved more like Satan. Now I realize that we were taught a totally mistaken notion of God, and that the real God is actually beneficial, an asset to our quality of life.
BB
"...best way to respond to you now would be to ask if you have ever experienced any spiritual phenomena which would tend to verify your path or beliefs."
ReplyDeleteIf by spiritual you mean "supernatural," then the answer is no. If I had experienced any type of supernatural phenomena I would not be an atheist.
"Do you want, or would you be open to such phenomena?"
Your use of the word "open" is interesting. How strange it would be if that word was used in regards to science- "would you be open to a demonstration that proves the existence of gravity?" Your use of the word implies two things; 1) that I might willfully reject such phenomena because it doesn't suit me or 2) what you perceive as phenomena might appear to others as nothing more than natural processes and so only people who are preconditioned, or "open" will accept such processes as supernatural phenomena.
To me, facts are facts. A person should be open in the sense that if they encounter a fact, they need to incorporate that fact into their worldview whether they like it or not.
But to answer your question, as I have said many, many times, of course I am open to the possibility of a supernatural realm and am always looking forward to seeing some evidence. At this time, however, there is no evidence. None.
Paul Ray
"I think the question we probably all need to address would be if there is actually a creator of the universe, would we want to have a relationship with Him?"
ReplyDeleteNo. The question we absolutely need to address first is whether or not the universe was supernaturally "created" and whether or not there is any evidence for the existence of such a supernatural being. Don't you think that is more important than figuring out whether or not this imagined being would want to have a relationship with us? Speculating the attributes of a imaginary being is sort of pointless outside the realm of fiction. In fact, your question is sort of nonsensical. Why not ask what color it/his/her color hair is? What do they eat? Etc.
"Would we want to be open minded enough so that He would feel it productive to mentor us?"
Cute. Once again, the implication here is that we aren't dealing with facts, but subjective things that only people who are "open" will realize as being true.
So, skipping by whether such a being even exists, you think the most important thing is whether we can have a relationship with this being and secondly, whether we are "open-minded" enough for this being to decide whether or not he will grace us with his presence, which, by the way, only the open minded will be able to perceive.
Sounds like Armstrongism. Only those who are receptive to "The Truth" will be able to encounter god. If you don't accept the Holy Days and the Sabbath, then it is an obvious sign that god does not dwell with you, and cannot. Do you understand?
The Bible shows several instances where god made himself manifest in various ways that did not allow for argument. There is no need for one to be "open" or not. The supernatural event either happens, or it doesn't.
It is sad that god can no longer make himself evident except through individual, internal, subjective thought processes.
Paul Ray
"I cherry picked from science, other philosophies, and from logic in an effort to deliberately build my defenses against such a "god"."
ReplyDeleteSo it wasn't that you didn't believe in god, you just didn't believe in the Armstrong god (the god of the Bible)? Why all the fuss? Why didn't you just make up your kindler, gentler god right then and there and save yourself all that trouble?
I can't comprehend that sort of thinking. To me, it doesn't matter what god is like, if there was evidence of his existence. My personal distaste is irrelevant when it comes to the existence of things. God exists, or it/he/she doesn't. Just because I don't like the god of the Bible won't change the existence of such as being, so why pretend otherwise???
That is another difference between you and I. I base my worldview off of an evidence-based reality (there is no other). I don't believe in god because I see no evidence for one, not because I don't want one to exist. When will you believe me?? (Never) When will you finally accept that most atheist reject the existence of god for the same reason they reject the existence of leprechauns?
It doesn't matter how cool and hip and beneficial your god is- if there is no evidence for his existence I simply can't accept his existence. Do you understand??
Yes, I do understand, and perhaps better than you might imagine. There was a time when I could very well have written things very similar to your responses to me, although your writings are also unique to your own experiences and personality. How could I disrespect the path which I was once on? Going through that experience is part of what led me to my current state.
ReplyDeleteThe complete repugnance of the Armstrong "god" was indeed a catalyst for me in my reinvestigation of the most important and relevant aspects of life on planet earth, and I suspect that this is true of most contributors here. We might come close to approximating the objectivity of what I call the scientific atheists, but at the same time, we can never "unknow" the horrors of Armstrongism. That will continue to be a factor and a modifier to varying degrees throughout our individual lifespans.
Obviously, you have your life together, but there are some floating around out there who are barely functional. Hopefully, the collective constructive input from our blog community here will help prevent some of the types of meltdowns we've all unfortunately witnessed from time to time.
BB