The Plain Truth About Scoffers
2 Peter 3:
3First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” 5But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
8But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
10But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.
So as time went on and on and on and on to where members were joining On and On Anonymous just to stay on track, scoffers at the whole idea of "soon" arose in the Church. Is that really all that difficult for us to believe and in doing so were they really doing it because they had evil desires? Is that not a bit like saying "the only reason Scientists want to believe Evolution is because they don't want to obey or believe God and the Bible." Really??? Is that their motive. Of course not but when scoffers, which is the church term used against people who merely notice things aren't going as advertised, arise, they have to be put in their place lest others start thinking this through on their own as well.
"Peter" goes on to say that they "deliberately forget," about Noah's Flood to justify their evil ways. Really??? Can we see the hot button words that are used against those who notice such realities, to demonize them to the church members? I think we can. Is the scoffer to blame for observing that nothing of what has been said to date about Jesus returning and the arrival of the Kingdom of God has happened yet or appears to be about to happen? Can we see that what would be considered mature and sane observations by those not in the Church are only called scoffers by those in? Can we see it is the leadership doing the labeling and it is the membership who is supposed to pick up on the negative word and apply it themselves to others outside the church or at least on the way out? Of course we can.
Peter again goes on to say that it is obvious God is giving humans more time in his infinite wisdom. Sound familiar? This is a classic recovery used when some predicted event does not come to pass. It is never that the prediction was slap wrong from the beginning. It is now that God is just so much more merciful than we thought and we have more time to get our act together. There is nothing new under the sun. It's a great out when a simple "I was wrong," would do.
And when all else fails, tell the brethren that while soon had dragged on and God has given us more time, Jesus will still come quickly and in a much more sneaky way than when we first believed. So there you have it. Sincere observers are scoffers. They do it be evil and forget the Noah story. God is giving us all more time. But it can happen tonight so still send it in. 2 Peter shows that ministers have been using the same excuses and accusations against the observers among them for 2000 years.
Remember the buzz words and phrases used by WCG (and many many other fundamentalist organizations) when someone strayed for the "soon", "shortly" and "3-5 years and I mean it brethren"?
Rebellious
Deceived
Scoffers
Worldly
Just want to sin
Unconverted
Never converted
Fallen away
chaff
bad seed
fence sitter
Lazy
Faithless
Taken by Satan
Buttheads
But one man's scoffer is another man's wise observer. Let's face it... the scoffers that Peter rails against were right! Now whoever actually wrote the text adds the new twist that again it is the members fault as they need to know that "a day with the Lord is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day." You see, the problem is with the members misunderstanding how God views time. Of course this was not taught or mentioned in the early years when soon meant soon and shortly meant shortly. It is only something one throws in after years of disappointment, growing older and seeing the hopeful die like everyone else. Kinda like Ron Weinland chiding the brethren for thinking some things he said were literally true when in fact they were merely "spiritually true." He made that up when what he also thought was literally true simply did not happen. Of course, rather than say, "I goofed," the whole thing is redefined by leadership and the blame for ignorance is put on the membership. Usually, "I NEVER said that," sneaks in there somewhere.
The fact is that, as John Denver might say, "Churches need their skeptics (scoffers) like the ocean needs the sand."
When I or anyone else who has grown through the WCG years, observes the reality of this or that wrong idea in the past or the foolishness of the ones being currently offered to keep the faithful faithful, we are not scoffing. It is a realistic, up to this moment and a true observation based on the observable fact that yet another date for "Soon" has come and gone.
It is not scoffing to notice that 100% of the predictions of Jesus Second Coming have been 100% wrong, 100% of the time over the last 2000 years. That is just a 100% accurate observation. It is only leadership within an organization that wants to keep the system intact and the "just around the corner" motivator alive and running who calls people scoffers and full of evil desires.
Leadership must assign judgmental and negative labels to those who think outside the box and observe what any clear thinking human would observe in such situations.
The Apostle Paul NEVER admitted to anyone he was wrong about his soons and shortlys. He kept changing the meanings until all he could come up with was "I have kept the faith..therefore there is laid up for ME..." Kinda sad actually. While he does add "and not only to me," someone could have penned that in to fix the problem of all the others who had been faithful like Paul not being counted. Habitually it was all about him in his writings. Almost feels like the excuses the Captain of the latest Cruise Ship disaster made when he said he slid down the deck when the ship tipped and fell into a lifeboat that then left the ship. (His second in command also ended up in that very same boat of all things.) It is just terribly difficult to say, "I was wrong."
When "all those in Asia have forsaken me," Paul was unable and unwilling to ask himself why. He simply asked God not to hold it to THEIR charge. It would never have crossed Paul's mind to wonder why everyone thought he was nuts. And so it is today.
As a result of Peter's statements, the soon that wasn't has been dragged out into a "soon" that only has meaning if one reads the Bible. Bible "soon" and "shortly" as well as days far spent really mean long, longer and really long times. In the real world, we know better.
A healthy skepticism protects people from going down the wrong paths or at least recognizing they are on one and rethinking the trip. It is not scoffing. It is reality. That "Scoffer" label is what those who do not think critically, or refuse to see what they do see, or refuse to say what they need to say, or believe everything they are told in the updates by the church, use. Blame the messenger for the message is a very old old concept when it comes to Church leaders getting input they don't want to hear.
I don't know if it's the last days or not. But noticing that nothing has happened in 2000 years since the story ended is not scoffing. The ultimate problem is that the WCG and the current COGs do not take observations from the bottom up. All observations and skepticism on this or that must come from the top down. If it does not, it is not a problem and the membership should not concern themselves with it. Problems the leadership does not notice or have a clue about simply don't exist. Problems the membership notices and has plenty of clues to work with are simply one of those listed on the labels for the lazy and lying slackards listed above.
To question Church teaching as part of the leadership is just endeavoring to stay on track and obey God with an occasional admission of "God is revealing more truth to the church." To question the church teachings, or even the Biblical text from the bottom up is rebellion and is nothing but trouble for the one who notices.
It's ok to be skeptical of claims made by Bible readers, including the minister. It's ok to not be impressed with his education or the way he cobbles scriptures together to weave a tale. The reason it is ok is because there will be things you will be expected to do because of his tale weaving. It might be to send more in than you can afford, do something you normally would not do or believe something and act it out hurting yourselves, your family and mind in the process.
The day might come when you will thank the Skeptic who opened your eyes to a problem that needed to be recognized and not just view the observations made as coming from unconverted and uncalled Scoffers.
Sometimes todays scoffer becomes tomorrows heroic observer and their truth may truly set you free in ways you never could imagine.
Dennis C
DenniscDiehl@aol.com
 |
7 comments:
Dennis wrote: Peter again goes on to say that it is obvious God is giving humans more time in his infinite wisdom. Sound familiar?
MY COMMENT - Sounds very familiar. Of course, in the early 1970s HWA blamed "the Bride of Christ" - the Church - for not being ready. The Rod of God - Rod Meredith - has been saying 3 to 5 more years for 50 years now. When Ron Weinland's May, 2012 deadline passes, he will be saying it was all spiritual and that it was the peoples' fault for not understanding that it was "all spiritual" (with his wife as a witness). Forget that Weinland has a book out that dates 2008 God's final warning.
Scoffer's? After fleecing brethren until they are broke, and hearing countless end time scenarios for a lifetime, I can't imagine why scoffers would arise. No. I can't figure that one out. Can you?
Richard
Scoffer is the label a critically thinking skeptic gets from within.
Scoffer is another term for the concerned listener who sees no real evidence of what they are being asked to believe or do.
Don't know if you guys know, but Fred Coulter of CBCG preaches that we have a lot more time, and that the majority of churces are wrong. Fred goes into some fantastic scenarios about mutated humans who will be super soldiers etc., so this will require much more time.
Ok, that's fine but if you are a believer, how long is the Lord going to wait? Its been 2000 years, isn't that enough? There's been so much evil and bloodshed and stupidity perpetrated on the human race. The Lord has been silent for 2000 years. People are tired of waiting, hoping, believing, and still all the pain goes on.
When will it ever be enough ?
The font in this post is very difficult to read. Perhaps another option is available for you in the postings? Thanks, A. Burke
The font in this post is very difficult to read. Perhaps another option is available for you in the postings? Thanks, A. Burke
I have reformatted this five time this morning and it still seems to post as small print. this has to be a blogger issue right now. See how this last versions works for you.
Scoffer can be defined in several different ways, mostly as a pejorative, and unfortunately, the accused generally does not get to define or defend.
Generally, a person seeking to manipulate another with end times scenarios will make a presentation, write an article, or machine gun some carefully crafted scriptures at a congregation. Anyone who questions these, thus refusing to be manipulated, or simply reserving the right to think for him/herself, is labeled as a scoffer. For the benefit of the rest of the target audience, this firmly puts the dissenter or critic in his/her "proper" place, while it helps the presenter to validate what he or she shared, because the dissenter is portrayed as being against God (notice how they manage to shift this!), and therefore, a persecuter of "true" believers.
Though I am a Christian, I would most definitely be labeled as a scoffer by Armstrongites, because I do not believe in British Israelism, do not believe that the Germans are the Assyrians, gave up on HWA/WCG following the 1975 fiasco, and believe it's wrong, mean spirited, and unloving to go on a scare campaign to motivate people to join a particular church.
Decisions made under duress are worthless.
Do I believe in "the end"? Yes. Even if it doesn't happen globally in my lifetime, my life is finite. Scientists also believe in the end. From a Christian perspective, I just happen to believe that whatever is written in the prophecies of the Bible is sufficient. It does not need to be lifted out of context and amplified in such a way as to make people come to irrational decisions, or to scare them into finding their identity through an apocalyptic cult. Clearly, there are much more loving ways of preaching the end times, and the Bible seems to indicate that believers will be divinely assisted through whatever comes to pass. To someone of faith, there is no need for all of this worry and daily fear of making some mistake that makes you Laodecean and puts you into the forefront of tribulation.
This stuff was so overdone in WCG, that today, most ex-members refuse to contemplate bad natural cycles, global warming, or financial meltdown, even in a secular context. Worst case scenario is one of the things which we all feel we've obtained freedom from by leaving the scam behind, and categorically reject.
The fact is, there could be some bad things happening, but if they do, they will have nothing to do with Armstrongism. Worst case scenario has already happened to Armstrongism, and that's good enough for me!
BB
Post a Comment