Jesus: "Terminations, Resignations,
Disabilities, Defections and Death Will Soon Be Rampant among The
Priesthood, Pharisees, Sadducees, Buttusees,
Jews of Jerusalem and Romans.
Jews of Jerusalem and Romans.
Soon They Will All Come to ME!"
I'm pretty sure we'd all
barf had any Jesus actually said this and had it jotted down for all times to
come. We'd also be able to look back and see that it didn't exactly work
out as Jesus pre-dicted or pre-spoke.
The Church of God
experience from WCG days up to today is like a 12 ring circus. Each act
has it's own barker or ring master. Each pipes to the audience for attention
and what a noise it all is. Each beckoning for the spot lights to be
shined on them and demanding not to be left in the dark while they vie for the
attention their acts so badly need. And acts the are. From clowns and
poodles to Tigers and Elephants, each act attracts it's own crowd and
applause. Some more than others of course. Many flit back and forth
between rings following wherever the spotlight takes them for a little bit of
all of it.
The title wars are truly
amazing. We have "That Ring Master," and
"Watcher Ringmaster's" There are Apostolic Ringmasters
along with Presiding ones. I'm sure some where in there are Zurubbabelian
Ringmasters and Joshua Ring Masters. It's all quite amusing,
however pathetic. After all, it's just a circus. Or to
paraphrase the late Bill Hicks...
"The (Churches of God are) like a ride at an amusement park. It goes up and down and round and round. It has thrills and chills and it’s very brightly coloured and it’s very loud and it’s fun, for a while. Some people have been on the ride for a long time, and they begin to question: Is this real, or is this just a ride? And other people have remembered, and they come back to us, they say, “Hey – don’t worry, don’t be afraid, ever, because, this is just a ride…” But we always (disfellowship, mark and marginalize )those good guys who try and tell us that, you ever notice that? And let the demons run amok. (Ted kicked out, Herbert Dies, Tkach and Co is in, Jesus tricks us, United is divided, Church of Brotherly Love spews hate, Global goes micro, Living is dying, Restored brings back all the past mistakes, Splinters fall to slivers and Non-Prophets embarrass them all . But it doesn’t matter because: It’s just a ride. And we can change it anytime we want. It’s only a choice. No effort, no work, no job, no savings and money. A choice, right now, between fear and love. The eyes of fear want you to (stay only for the paycheck, leave because no one listens to you, threaten all those who oppose you with all the above in the title. Follow "that" and now yet another "this" non-prophet.) The eyes of love, instead, see all of us as one. Here’s what we can do to change the world, right now, to a better ride. Take all that money that we spend on (tithes and offerings) each year and instead spend it on (caring for your family, saving for your children's education, take time off for yourselves and go where you want to go instead of where you are told to go. Buy yourself some real books on theology and after you read them, tell your circus master you did it. Learn to say "no" and "I don't see it that way. Notice for once you don't care for the show and act and you are not a trained poodle or monkey.) and forever live in peace."
Back to spirituality, which is a concept that seems to escape the Religionist COGs and most Fundamentalists, and that inner spirituality that cannot be controlled by others and cannot possible adhere to the false idea that "we must all speak the same thing."
Some definitions:
· Religion is an institution established by man for various reasons. Exert control, instill morality, stroke egos, or whatever it does. Organized, structured religions all but remove god from the equation. You confess your sins to a clergy member, go to elaborate churches to worship, told what to pray and when to pray it. All those factors remove you from god.
· Spirituality is born in a person and develops in the person. It may be kick started by a religion, or it may be kick started by a revelation. Spirituality extends to all facets of a person’s life. Spirituality is chosen while religion is often times forced. Being spiritual to me is more important and better than being religious.
· True spirituality is something that is found deep within oneself. It is your way of loving, accepting and relating to the world and people around you. It cannot be found in a church or by believing in a certain way.
Consider the following in favor of the spiritual path:
· There is not one religion, but hundreds (This is a tough one for COG One True Churchers. They have to see it is wrong already amongst themselves with 600 other One True Churches but that's what religion blinds in most.)
· There is only one type of spirituality. (Meaning it is an inside job and not that which others pour into your head with demands and expectations of compliance)
· Religion is for those who want to continue rituals and the formality (Or feel they must to be the True Church)
· Spirituality is for those who want to reach the Spiritual Ascent without dogmas
· Religion is for those who are asleep
· Spirituality is for those who are awake
· Religion is for those that require guidance from others (The "Follow Me" of COG)
· Spirituality is for those that lend ears to their inner voice
· Religion has a dogmatic and unquestionable assembly of rules that need to be followed without question (Religion is a dog thing. Obedience and reward)
· Spirituality invites you to reason it all, to question it all and to decide your actions and assume the consequences (Spirituality is a cat thing...I'll take you view under consideration.)
· Religion threatens and terrifies
· Spirituality gives you inner peace
· Religion speaks of sin and of fault (and prophecy and tithing and building and doing)
· Spirituality encourages "living in the present" and not to feel remorse for which has already passed - Lift your spirit and learn from errors (Being not doing.)
· Religion represses humanity, and returns us to a false paradigm (Seeing the world through the eyes of the one who thinks he knows more than you ever can.)
· Spirituality transcends it all and makes you true to yourself (Being one's self is important and a God given expectation for you to live your Story, not someone else's.)
· Religion is instilled from childhood, like the soup you do not you want to take
· Spirituality is the food that you you seek, that satisfies you and is pleasant to the senses
· Religion is not God
· Spirituality is infinite consciousness and all that is - It is God
· Religion invents
· Spirituality discovers/Religion denies and covers up
· Religion does not investigate and does not question
· Spirituality questions everything
· Religion is based on humanity, an organization with rules
· Spirituality is DIVINE, WITHOUT rules
· Religion is cause for division
· Spirituality is cause for union
· Religion seeks you so that you create
· Spirituality causes you to seek
· Religion continues the teachings of a sacred book
· Spirituality seeks the sacredness in all the books
· Religion is fed fear
· Spirituality is fed confidence
· Religion lives you in your thoughts
· Spirituality lives in your conscience
· Religion is in charge of the "to do"
· Spirituality is in charge of the "to BE"
· Religion is a dialectic
· Spirituality is logic
· Religion feeds the ego
· Spirituality makes you transcend
· Religion makes you renounce yourself to the world
· Spirituality makes you live with God, not to renounce him
· Religion is adoration
· Spirituality is meditation
· Religion is to continue adapting to the psychology of a template
· Spirituality is individuality.
· Religion dreams of glory and paradise
· Spirituality makes you live it here and now
· Religion lives in the past and in the future
· Spirituality lives in the present, in the here and now
· Religion lives in the confinement of your memory
· Spirituality is LIBERTY in AWARENESS.
· Religion believes in the eternal life
· Spirituality makes you conscious of all that is
· Religion gives you promises for the after-life (or that which is always just around the corner, soon, any time now, just over the hill...send it in.)
· Spirituality gives you the light to find God in your inner self, in this life, in the present, in the here and the now…
I hope many COG folk find Dave Pack's negative projection of his
own inner world and self view disgusting, arrogant, discouraging as a way of
being in religion and self serving. Dave can say "it's not about the
numbers," all he wishes but it is always about the numbers, small as they
might actually be.
I have asked Dave to publicly talk religion, theology, Bible and
the COGs with me now three times. I never ask that because I thought he
ever would. Of course he won't. Dave Pack is very intimidating when one
is under his "care," but outside of that...not so much. Big
fish in a 10 gallon tank. Scares all the fish in that tank to death of
course, and life in that small tank goes better when the little fish feed the
big one, but out in the ocean of real fish that are bigger, faster, smarter and
more evolved to do what fish in the ocean do...not so much either.
Anyway, personally I resent the threats Dave uses hoping against
hope that what seem as naturally occurring events in the other COG''s are
somehow being prophesied by himself. What Dave is doing is not
predicting, he is observing and anyone can see what he sees if that's what
interests you. Bob Thiel does the same thing. He reads lots of news
and like a reporter, picks out things that might happen if A and B lead to
C. Hardly the stuff of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, who also got it
wrong quite often themselves.
Dave Pack noted a few years ago that all who oppose him tend to
die. Personally I have noticed that older people tend to die, but maybe
that is just me. He interprets life events in others as somehow connected to
opposing him. About as egocentric as it gets. While he may think
real life works that way, he speaks BS. If I or those that don't agree
with him and aren't unafraid to point out his foibles and religious yet without
any spiritual content threats died tomorrow, he'd announce it as yet another
"proof" of his great insight and true work. It would be
BS, but he knows how to use circumstances to draw erroneous conclusions that
serve, supply and feed the most overarching work on earth. He did not invent
this approach. He may even do it subconsciously, but I have my doubts
about that disconnect. Pat Robertson and Benny Hinn are masters of false
implications as are many who seek the time, money and adoration of
others.
Personally my hope that few if any, no matter the difficulties in
other COGs will buy the expensive ticket price to Dave's One Ring
Circus. But the pressure is on. Bills have to be paid and numbers
have to be brought in to keep the show on the road. It's what a great Circus
Master does....But when it is all said and done, it is just a story...just a
ride.
83 comments:
"There is not one religion, but hundreds (This is a tough one for COG One True Churchers. They have to see it is wrong already amongst themselves with 600 other One True Churches but that's what religion blinds in most.)"
Why can't they see this?
"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never worshipped anything but himself."
Sir Richard Francis Burton
"Spirituality is DIVINE, WITHOUT rules"
Religion is restraints.
Spirituality is freedom.
Freedom is everything, and Love is all the rest.
another seekeroftruth
I realize that most of the people who come to this website have had or maybe even continue to have close association with one or more of the COGs. I did not except through a couple of cose family members, who didn't talk to us about their church. I didn't know much about the WCOG or others until the internet became available. Only recently did I discover this website and I find the postings fascinating.
I am sure you all know this but sometimes it seems like you give the COGs and their various personalities way more importance than they warrent. Outside the relatively smal group of people who did have close connections with the church, I guarantee almost no one has ever heard of the Worldwide Church of God or any of it's splinters! I have asked a lot of people and they usually just give me a blank look or think it is some other group they have heard of. The COG's are very tiny fish in a big, big pond. They don't even make a ripple in the flow of life.
I realize that most of the people who come to this website have had or maybe even continue to have close association with one or more of the COGs. I did not except through a couple of cose family members, who didn't talk to us about their church. I didn't know much about the WCOG or others until the internet became available. Only recently did I discover this website and I find the postings fascinating.
I am sure you all know this but sometimes it seems like you give the COGs and their various personalities way more importance than they warrent. Outside the relatively smal group of people who did have close connections with the church, I guarantee almost no one has ever heard of the Worldwide Church of God or any of it's splinters! I have asked a lot of people and they usually just give me a blank look or think it is some other group they have heard of. The COG's are very tiny fish in a big, big pond. They don't even make a ripple in the flow of life.
Bill Hicks original "It's Just a Ride" should you be interested
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZkhR8suCF4
You know, Denis, you often talk a good talk, but somehow you always get to that part that causes you to lose some of that respect that you have gained.
I refer to the statement:
Spirituality is DIVINE, WITHOUT rules.
Now if you meant this in the same sense as a New Ager would, then the above would be correct. but if you still believed in Yahweh/God, then the above statement is incorrect, for rules are but laws that run the universe.
If you are now a New Ager, then I pity you for your blindness,as the results of creative genius is seen all around us.
Sorry about duplicate posts. Things don't seem to be working right with the computer today.
"I am sure you all know this but sometimes it seems like you give the COGs and their various personalities way more importance than they warrent"
Yes we do ..lol We are only processing a small, in the scheme of things theolgical/religious experience, but it was our experience. I believe all these self appointed types are a combination of entertainment and a need to not have others, however insignificant the organizations, have the same experience.
But that might even be misguided. Who is to say what experience one should or should not have? We make choices based on the need to feel safe and secure and be doing the "right" things.
For me, it really has come to be just a story that could have gone so many other ways along the way. It really is a ride or a trip.
I do have issues that do affect me and will forever more because of my own story, but that's my story and my problem I suppose. I wanted on the ride way back and boy it delivered! lol
I am drawn to religious and theological issues just as I am to paleontology and archaeological ones. It is just interesting and much more educational once one is not bound to a belief system that discourages study and believes in the myth of all speaking the same thing. It is not possible if one is a genuine seeker. Someone like Dave Pack will never be happy until everyone he thinks he influences thinks like he does. That's the goal Think like me and be like me and we'll get along just fine. Oh..and feed me the supply I need to keep it up. When you join a group or organization, the guy up is convincing you to filter the world through him. Never going to happen again in my world.
But yes, these are very very tiny minnows in a very big ocean of ideas.
Secular-Humanist-Buddhist, I very much agree with your above reflections. You accurately point out that, in spite of the WCG's claim that it's "Work" was the most important on the face of the earth, today only a statistically-insignificant few in the larger population have ever even heard of it. HWA boasted that he thought his MYSTERY OF THE AGES book might very well have been the most important volume ever written aside from the Bible itself. But what actually happened on that count? It was very quickly seen for the pseudo-history and pseudo-theology it was. In essence all it consisted of was past booklets and articles sequentially edited together by Aaron Dean. In retrospect, the WCG’s practical impact was infinitesimal, except to those within it’s own culture, much like North Korea today. Yes, folks here talk about it because it DID have a significant impact on our lives personally. This is true, and we can't deny it. But from a wider overview historical perspective, WCG/HWA/COG's were and still are baby minnows in the larger ocean of life, even of religion.
And modern technologies like the Internet, well, similar to any other any technology, they can be two-edged swords. On one hand, they provide an easy forum for all these COG groups to spread their apocalyptic message of supernaturalism, and can provide a potential audience for the laughable, highly amateurish, minor-league HWA wannabes desperate for recognition of their “prophetic” abilities, like Bob Thiel and E.W. King, which could have NEVER drummed up on their own.
However, the Internet also provides people with the tools to do some basic fact-checking on these fundamentalistic groups - their claims, their actual teachings, and most devastating of all, their histories. The objective historical record of the WCG and it's offshoots (very easily acquired out on the Internet with a little time and effort) pretty much tell would-be prospective members what they need to know about such groups, assuming they are willing to learn. David Barrett’s new book THE FRAGMENTATION OF A SECT exhaustively gathers much of this crucial information together in one source. And sites like this one provide folks with regular updates about WCG-influenced gurus such as Rod Meredith, Dave Pack, Bob Thiel, William Dankenbring, E.W. King and a host of others. Such folks are seriously deluded yet highly motivated, but their own words speak volumes as to their unsoundness of mind. They simply cannot outrun their actual documented histories. The Internet and websites like this just won’t allow it.
Future recruiting prospects for the remaining COG’s are quite grim, and deep down they know it. The demographics are working against them in a major way. That’s why we are currently witnessing all the undignified scrambling amongst the COG gurus as they attempt to lure present members to send in their hard-earned cash to them. This is obviously the primary strategy of Dave Pack’s Restored Church of God, his desperate efforts to recreate a miniature version of the old Pasadena campus is merely an attempt to appeal to the nostalgia of old members longing for the good old days. And I think most of realize where that misguided effort will eventually end, though it’s sad to contemplate the human wreckage that will be left behind in the process.
Some of us were spiritual when in a COG because we understood what it was really supposed to be all about. The ones that were not just didn't "get it."
Sweetblood777 said...
You know, Denis, you often talk a good talk, but somehow you always get to that part that causes you to lose some of that respect that you have gained."
No, I get to the part that makes you uncomfortable.
First of all it is not my goal to talk a good talk and gain respect. I just express myself in as genuine and straightforward a manner as I know how. I endeavor to be helpful no respected.
"I refer to the statement:Spirituality is DIVINE, WITHOUT rules.
Now if you meant this in the same sense as a New Ager would, then the above would be correct. but if you still believed in Yahweh/God, then the above statement is incorrect, for rules are but laws that run the universe."
Then the statement would be correct. It is not my direct statement but a generic one from other writers on spirituality. To quote Dave Pack.."I don't think I have ever said this quite this way.." but I find the OT YHVH/God to be too small, too petty, too jealous , too vengeful, too mean and too cultic to be in the running for a real god. What real God demands worship? What real God demands bloody sacrifices to get it's attention? If this God is Jesus father, Jesus fell far far from the tree. If Jesus is this OT God then Jesus is his own father and don't get me started.
Of course "laws" run this universe. They may be different in different universes if there are such. A spiritual person does not need to be yelled at and bored to tears or threatened with "Thus saith the Lord.." It comes from within and is natural based not on fear but genuine love which demolishes fear. I don't buy "the heart of man is deceitful above ALL things and desperately wicked," when you don't threaten and push them.
I am not a "new ager" I am me.
"If you are now a New Ager, then I pity you for your blindness,as the results of creative genius is seen all around us."
I feel sorry for you too that you live in such a very small box and refuse to look over the edge.
For those so inclined: Getting to Know YHVH
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/brutal.htm
I am not saying "Jesus never existed," however the site has very straightforward information.
I know..."CONTEXT!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfrO6LJyhII
" I pity you for your blindness,as the results of creative genius is seen all around us."
I dunno....I can't find the creative genius in threading a tube (the urethra) which must NEVER be blocked through a donut (the Prostate) that is destined to swell. LOL
The only comfort I get from that is that even Angels prostates fall from time to time, (It's true! There is a hymn about it!),so it must be YHVH's will and creative intent. :)
Anonymous 8:21 wrote: "Some of us were spiritual when in a COG because we understood what it was really supposed to be all about. The ones that were not just didn't "get it."
Oh, I got it, Anon, I really did - and probably far better than you’d think! I wish I'd be given a dollar every time I've heard that worm-eaten pathetic old chestnut of a slogan, usually said by those with the intellect of a toad. Anon, I wish you could have seen how zealous and spiritually-focused I was in my days with the WCG. Then you'd shut your $%#&# trap! Like numerous others here, I sacrificed many things to be a part of the WCG, what I at the time sincerely perceived as being God's one and only true Church, the living spiritual organism, not just the corporate entity. I even once turned down a very lucrative offer to be the personal assistant of the wealthy owner of a petroleum business (Vicker’s Petroleum, now Conoco) because it would have required me to work on the Sabbath. So don't be lecturing me about how "spiritual" you are, you self-righteous little puke! You want to publicly discuss spiritual things and show what a biblical giant you are? OK, anytime, anywhere, on any subject. I'm sick and tired of morons like you who always act like you were the only ones who "got it." Well, if you truly did, then you'll be able to defend your views like Jesus of Nazareth did! But instead you take the cowards route virtually EVERY time by just shouting out a few of your empty little religious slogans, and then scampering away like a frightened rabbit from real discussion and rigorous debate.
And don’t bother, Velvet, telling me to not “feed the trolls.” These kinds of True Believers often come across as trolls simply because they are so inarticulate, with their one or two sentence comments, but most of them mean what they say. They truly believe they “got it” when all the rest of us just stumbled along with our carnal minds, trying to reach their vaulted levels of spiritually, but unable to.
So, Spiritual Dude, you name the topic, and stick around like the true Christian man you claim to be to discuss it! I’ll be waiting.
Sweetblood777 wrote: "If you are now a New Ager, then I pity you for your blindness,as the results of creative genius is seen all around us."
OK, Sweetblood777, if the results of "creative genius" is all around us, then tell me, why is it so noticeably lacking in people like you? Your kind always shows up here making your generalized rants, but never able to explain them in greater detail or defend. I wonder why that is? So, give me a sign of creative genius, i.e., typically the Christian deity for most folks here.
wow, Leonardo, you are being downright nasty, must be a bad day for you.
I do agree with what you say but not with so much vitriol. I also remember a day when I expressed sentiments like Sweetblood. If I recall I thought that those who didn't understand it were "blinded". Now I see that those who think that way are maybe the "blinded" ones. When I got up and made a little speech about my beliefs etc., I was just a child in school. I saw horror on the teachers face, but at the same time I was probably the only person in the class who wasn't just thinking about the Beatles and the boys they were chasing. The mass of people probably don't even think much about these things, and not because they are stupid, but because there is almost no point. Now I had better start planning my shopping trip, and coffee at Starbucks......
But very occasionally I do stand outside on a clear night and look up at the stars and remember with nostalgia that simple faith I had when I was young.
Couldn't help but notice that comment moderation has been enabled. Did somebody flame and I missed it?
BB
Casper, it's just that I've run across so MANY of these kinds of passive, cowardly religious fanatics in my blogging days, and I'm getting weary of them. They talk so proudly about their faith, yet when push comes to shove, they never are able to staunchly defend their beliefs like they think they can. In fact, most of them never even try! And to me, this speaks a great deal about their real level of faith. It's true, sometimes I get a bit hot-under-the-collar, but I stand by the overall spirit of what I said. These folks are just like hard-core left-wingers in academic community, once they run out of their "talking points" and other assorted slogans, that's it - the conversation is over, because they generally can think no deeper than their standard bullet points. I often look up into the night sky, just like you and many others, and wonder what may be behind it all, but I strongly suspect it may be something far beyond the tribal desert deity, Yahweh. I know for a fact that he's doesn't seem to be able to inspire his followers to powerfully speak out in defense of their belief in him, that's for sure.
Sweetblood777 you are spot on. I suppose it's because Dennis is still searching for the complete truth, like all of us. No one has the complete truth, only parts of it, and even then we all have different parts of it, and some more than others. When Jesus returns all will be revealed. As for the COGs, well I still believe, perhaps wrongly they are synagogues of Satan, like all other cults.
Religion and Spirituality
These are two words that are somewhat related. I remember a young man giving a sermon on “God is spirit”. I don’t remember the details, but I complimented him and said “now what is spirit”. This is where some of the confusion begins.
The bible and religion plainly states that God is spirit. It also implies that man has spirit. There are two ways that religion uses the man and spirit. One is that we are indwelled by the Holy Spirit. The other way which is implied is that we are in God or Christ who are spirit.
When all of the changes started I remember one minister making the statement that there was too much religion and not enough spirituality. I agreed, but pointed out the changes being made were in the physical religion not spiritual intent of the heart.
There are a number of things I would like to contribute, but wait and see how this progresses.
A. Boocher
"You know, Denis, you often talk a good talk, but somehow you always get to that part that causes you to lose some of that respect that you have gained."
Condescending much?
"If you are now a New Ager, then I pity you for your blindness,as the results of creative genius is seen all around us.."
Pity?
I find Sweetblood's comment above kind of obnoxious myself. Why not comment on the issues instead of going personal? Agree or disagree, but stick to the issues. If you want to go personal, tell us about yourself.
The thing I have more trouble with about organized religion than anything else, is that organized religion is, at it's root, about conformity and compliance. Religion is a one-size-fits-all affair. It teaches it's followers to be true to someone else, be it a guru or a deity, but never true to one's own self. That is a recipe for dishonesty. It is a recipe for the denial of one's own experience, one's own journey, one's own quest. Religion bids you to go on someone else's journey, someone else's pilgimages, to ask someone else's questions, and to seek someone else's answers. These may well have been the answers that someone else needed, but there is no guarantee that they are the answers that you need. On your deathbed, will you have reached the end of someone else's life, or your own? It seems to me that religion is about teaching people that the way to enlightenment is through attempting to live someone else's life, and I cannot imagine a more pervasive or fundamental dishonesty. Is it possible that dishonesty could ever lead to enlightenment?
In Buddhism, there is a saying, "Kill the Buddha." That means that if the practice of Buddhism stands in the way of your path to enlightenment, maybe Buddhism is not right for you. The christian god makes no such provisions. It's his way or the highway. For christians, if you can't figure out the right answers from the, incomplete, conflicting, and confusing information given, during the brief period of your life, try again in the next universe, I guess?
Whether you think of it in terms of disorganized religion or spirituality, or whatever terminology seems most fitting to you, I think it must revolve around becoming more and more honest at deeper and deeper levels. Anything else is just a distraction to help you ignore something that gnaws at your soul.
I think many people continue with organized religion because they are terrified of uncertainty. But the fact we exist and the universe exists, and is so vast, and is observed to operate according to various rules begs many questions to which there can be no certainty. As a species we have made up many stories to fill that void and quell that anxiety, but the fact that there are so many incompatible stories to explain it only highlights that uncertainty. I think that the best way to deal with that uncertainty is to be honest about it, that we do not know what is going on here, and that we are anxious about it. Only once that anxiety is out on the table can one seek to deal with it in productive ways. Using religion as a fake certainty to distract ourselves from the anxiety of uncertainty is to remain stuck in a loop of dishonesty which can only prevent you from getting to the place where organized religion claims it can lead you.
Does organized religion dominate your life?
In this comment I am going to focus on Biblical Christianity as a whole rather that ACOG and splinters.
First, I will say that no one should let organized religion or anything else dominate their life. The bible should be used as information about historical (whether fact or fiction) activities that can be applied to a persons every day life.
The focus of the bible is basically on community life not individual life. The kingdom message should be used to produce a community life where the focus is developing a wholesome life that the whole population shares the same objective and goals. Ideally the talents of each individual would play an important role in building a community life functioned as a unit in resolving the challenges of life. Realistically this has not happen yet and may never happen the way things are going now, but does this mean we quit trying?
A. Boocher
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and again over... and expecting different results. We need new ideas
or a reinterpretation of old 'confusing ideas'.
another seekeroftruth
Head Usher, you mention "[u]sing religion as a fake certainty to distract ourselves from the anxiety of uncertainty."
I can get by without the fake certainty of religion as long as I remind myself that human beings have always felt the anxiety of uncertainty. Knowing it's only natural, when I realize I'm filled with anxiety I just don't worry about it.
I left organized religion 23 years ago. I believe in the Bible and have found over the years, that if the verses etc., were translated properly, then there are no contradictions.
I also believe that many laws govern our lives and our surroundings. I recognize these laws in motion and without them, one would not get a 747 or an A-380 off the ground.
Since these laws exist, there has to be a master designer behind them. There are many fine programs on Netflix and Youtube that destroy the evolution argument.
As far as Banned by HWA is concerned, it is a good platform to should how much wickedness there is in the world of religion, but one must remain calm and not jump down upon those that see things different than they, otherwise all it does is create hate.
I recently watched the show called the Hatfields and the McCoys on Netflix and found that it is a very good example of what happens when hate is enraged. All it does is create death all around.
I enjoy the articles by Denis, though I do not agree 100% of the time of what he has written.
I think that a good mind should not be wasted on the past, other than to acknowledge the past and move on.
I would very much like to see in print a good article about Paul. Denis has raised some very good points, but an article with Book, chapter, and verse, would be more than appreciated.
It is a waste of time to _debate_ with contentious bullheaded persons who never got it, probably never will, only wish to argue on a blog that almost nobody reads. Some of us have a life.
Sweetblood, I agree that a good mind should not be wasted on the past. There's no future in it.
Helena Hancart
Dennis said,
"I dunno....I can't find the creative genius in threading a tube (the urethra) which must NEVER be blocked through a donut (the Prostate) that is destined to swell. LOL"
Well, at least our nose is over our mouths and not over our assholes. LMAO!
another seekeroftruth
"I would very much like to see in print a good article about Paul."
I would really recommend Paul the Mythmaker by Hyamm Maccoby
Antisemitism in the NT by Freudman
The first one is easier to find and contains all the references you could wish for. Freudman's is the best and highly docuemented but harder to find.
Internet articles:
http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/mainarticles-1.html
http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/paulthe.htm
http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/paula.htm
Good point about YHVH being actually an anthropomorphized creation of Man.
No wonder he has many of the very worst of human characteristics- pettiness, jealous-ness, vengeful-ness, demanding worship, demanding others sacrifice to him, being short-tempered and throwing the biggest and most attention-getting tantrums he can, having a lust for murder, etc.
Given those crappy attributes, it's a breath of fresh air to realize that God is man-made (and not the other way around).
On another note...
Someone wrote in this thread, "I believe in the Bible."
I wonder, what do they really mean by that?
It's like when someone says, "I believe the Bible is the word of God."
Again, I wonder, what do they really mean by that?
Do they not realize it's written by men?
Someone at a local store recently told me, "I'm a Bible-thumping Christian."
Later, I thought about it and wondered, what did he really mean by that?
Does he really believe in the creation story? The flood story? That women should shut their yaps and cover their heads in church? That some angels have many animal faces and lots of eyeballs, even eyeballs in their armpits? That's it's wrong to look at a woman who has her period? That it's ok to own slaves and rape?
Does he just believe the parts he wants to, while "thumping" away the rest?
I just don't know. Maybe I should ask the Easter Bunny or Santa, two of YHVH's favorite "Christianized" creations, lol!
BTW, has YHVH "Christianized" the Tooth Fairy yet?
(Now, THAT would take some awesome power, and if it happens, I might actually BELIEVE in YHVH once again, LOL!)
A. Boocher wrote: “I remember a young man giving a sermon on “God is spirit”. I don’t remember the details, but I complimented him and said “now what is spirit”. This is where some of the confusion begins.”
Yes, I agree, that IS where the confusion begins. I’ve tried to get a precise definition of “spirit” out of religious folks for a long time now, but they can’t give you one. Why? Because in their view “spirit” is simply the negation of something real, the absence of something physical. “Spirit” is the non-physical. But what kind of definition is this? It’s meaningless – like all the other slogans religionist tend to think and communicate with. That’s why most true believers are so consistently poor at arguing or defending their religious beliefs, which can only be described as “not real” or “not physical.” In order to comprehend “spiritual” things you first have to buy into, by means of blind faith, the existence of a supernatural realm beyond the natural one we know of. But how does one know such a realm exists? By faith…and then we’re off on yet another round of circular reasoning that gets us nowhere. If religionists can “reason” this way, then why can’t I believe in my magical and invisible rainbow-colored unicorn? Do you understand the utter vacuousness of this approach?
Head Usher wrote: “Religion is a one-size-fits-all affair. It teaches it's followers to be true to someone else, be it a guru or a deity, but never true to one's own self. That is a recipe for dishonesty. It is a recipe for the denial of one's own experience, one's own journey, one's own quest. Religion bids you to go on someone else's journey, someone else's pilgimages, to ask someone else's questions, and to seek someone else's answers.”
Exactly. Religion sets one up for denial and dishonesty, which sets the stage for certain kinds of eventual mental illness. And in my opinion, that’s why we see so many mental problems in the COG’s. Humans try so desperately to twist and unnaturally conform themselves to the often unrealistic demands and truth claims of religion, such that psychological damage is almost always sure to occur, especially in psyches that are already weak or vulnerable. And it’s a common observation that religions often attract such types, especially the more cultish-oriented ones like the COG’s and other versions of fundamentalism.
Head Usher wrote: “In Buddhism, there is a saying, "Kill the Buddha." That means that if the practice of Buddhism stands in the way of your path to enlightenment, maybe Buddhism is not right for you. The christian god makes no such provisions. It's his way or the highway. For christians, if you can't figure out the right answers from the, incomplete, conflicting, and confusing information given, during the brief period of your life, try again in the next universe, I guess?”
Again Head Usher hit’s the nail squarely on the head! That’s because the Christian god, actually a further development of the tribal deity of Yahweh, is anthropomorphically based on powerful Middle Eastern potentates of ancient times. Just study the history, and you’ll find remarkable parallels between the two. It’s amazing how people’s gods tend to be remarkably just like them in temperament, language and outlook! (Just consider Allah, the ancient moon god of the Muslims, who can only be prayed to in Arabic! A monolinguistic deity! At least apparently Yahweh can be appealed to in the language of one’s choice!) Anyway, I look at the natural world around me, or observe the complexity of the cosmos, and I have a very difficult time equating a potential Creator of such magnificence to the angry, blood-thirsty, jealous, arrogant, whimsical, constantly threatening, either/or kind of deity depicted in either the Old Testament or the Quran.
A. Boocher wrote: “Ideally the talents of each individual would play an important role in building a community life functioned as a unit in resolving the challenges of life. Realistically this has not happen yet and may never happen the way things are going now, but does this mean we quit trying?”
But you’re talking about a time when collectivism was rampant, when such cultures didn’t even consider the concept of the “individual” or “individual contributions” or “individual rights” – concepts that came much later in history. This almost applies as much to the modern world as it does to the ancient one. I took a course at AC once taught by Stanley Radar called “Language, Law and Ethics” – and I’m reminded of a story he told. He was giving a lecture in China to a group of law students, and a woman was translating it into Chinese. All was going well, when suddenly Radar used the term “individual rights.” The woman just stopped translating. Why? Because Mandarin Chinese doesn’t have a term for this concept. She had to quickly consult with some Chinese professors nearby, and somehow found a word to get the overall principle across to the audience. But this illustrates that even in modern times there are cultures that don’t value individual rights. America broke with a very long and ancient tradition of collectivism when it was founded.
Seekeroftruth wrote: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and again over... and expecting different results. We need new ideas or a reinterpretation of old 'confusing ideas'."
I agree. But this is the history of mankind, isn't it? - trying to recycle the same old and worthless ideas over and over and over again expecting good results, which never come.
For instance, in his above comment A. Boocher says "The focus of the bible is basically on community life not individual life. The kingdom message should be used to produce a community life where the focus is developing a wholesome life that the whole population shares the same objective and goals.”
But let's consult the record of history. The most recent historical attempt at such mass collectivism was called Soviet Marxism. And what did it produce? Seventy years of misery and failure. A. Boocher’s fine-sounding generalizations are useless when seen against a sound understanding of history. Adding a deity into the picture only makes the collectivist attempts at utopia worse. The record of history is extremely clear on this. Secular or religious-based attempts to do this are always doomed to failure.
I went through an audio course once that was one of the most phenomenal experiences of my intellectual life. It was titled “Utopia and Terror in the 20th Century” by Professor Vejas Gabriel Liulevicius. This guy is an incredible teacher, specializing in 20th century history. And he showed in this course how man’s attempts to collectively achieve utopian societies ALWAYS lead to misery, suffering and death – without exception.
So A. Boocher’s well-meaning but misguided words “Realistically this has not happen yet and may never happen the way things are going now, but does this mean we quit trying?” are doomed to fail under such a collectivist mentality.
Here’s where that course can be found for those interested in either buying it or borrowing it from a library:
http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=8313
Isn't there someone who says the gods were just advanced aliens, and they made humans to be a slave race and mine minerals on earth. To make humans they mixed their own DNA with the most advanced earth species - apes. When you look at our ideas about work, work, work, and feeling guilty if we don't I sometimes wonder if this is true. Those at the top of the human heap, just have a higher dose of alien DNA, and that is one reason they are so against breeding outside of their group and aren't so obsessed with working, (think of the royal families).
Of course I hope this isn't true.....as it is kind of sad and hopeless, but it sure fits in with some of the OT behaviour.
Helena Hancart wrote: “I agree that a good mind should not be wasted on the past. There's no future in it.
And Helena, it’s precisely this kind of mindset that explains why mankind keeps making the same mistakes repeatedly again and again and again. Winston Churchill would describe you as an absolute fool. I’m sorry, but such a disdain toward learning from the past will only make you a continual target for unscrupulous politicians, and religious hucksters of all kinds. Churchill once pointed out that “The farther backward you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see.”
John Adams said: “If you will abolish the lessons of the past—you will fail.”
British historian Paul Johnson said:
“The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is quite humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us so novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times, and in innumerable guises – and discovered to be, often at great human cost, wholly false.”
A. Boocher needs to understand this quote, which he obviously doesn’t, else he wouldn’t be pushing for collectivist societies in his comments.
And Helena, all I can say to you is that I’m extremely grateful America was founded by people who didn’t share your utterly foolish disrespect for the past. I would suggest it's your shortsighted view that doesn't have much of a future.
Anonymous 9:02 wrote: "It is a waste of time to debate with contentious bullheaded persons who never got it, probably never will, only wish to argue on a blog that almost nobody reads. Some of us have a life."
And Anon, the fact that you hold such an opinion is EXACTLY why you come across as the superficial mind that you are in your many one or two sentence “tweets.” You openly claim to consider a serious exchange of ideas to be a total “waste of time.” Though throughout history this has proven a primary means of challenging and refining one’s concepts of truth, of developing one’s intellect, of broadening and deepening one’s well of practical knowledge, of becoming more skilled and articulate in expressing one’s thoughts and ideas, etc. Perhaps you don’t intend this, but you are a textbook example as to exactly why folks SHOULD engage in public debate, because when they seriously hold to your narrow opinion, over time they become essentially inarticulate and unable to express a serious idea even worth considering, or effectively challenging a concept they might happen to disagree with.
“Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people…let us dare to read, think, speak and write.” — John Adams
Do you think John Adams a fool for promoting such concepts – which are the basis for a free and educated society? Apparently you do.
You claim “almost nobody” reads this blog. Do you know this for a fact? Or is such an assertion just yet another one of your shoot-from-the-hip opinions based on nothing but your own lack of knowledge? Why don’t you request the webmaster to see how many folks do indeed visit here and read these comments? You may be surprised the actual number of those who do, though relatively few of them ever comment themselves.
You refer to “contentious bullheaded persons” – though I suspect who you really mean to denigrate are educated, well-read people who take the time and effort to give clear, cogent and occasionally compelling verbal expression to their thoughts, ideas and sentiments on a wide range of issues often discussed here on this website. Quite obviously, you don’t fit into any of these categories – your poorly expressed, shallow comments reveal a mind bereft of depth or breadth. As I keep reminded Plasma Dude, “Speech is the index of the mind.”
And for someone who claims to have spiritually “gotten it” – your words say otherwise.
But you don’t have to remain such an ignoramus. You have the potential to read more than you do. Surely you can find the time to express yourself better than a mere “tweet.” You claim to “have a life” – subtly implying that those of us who do seriously articulate our thoughts here DON’T have lives, or certainly lives worth living. Do you actually believe such a stupid and unfounded implication?
And further, I would ask what good is “a life” if it can’t express itself very well in any kind of serious discussion or conversation? So it’s your choice: passively remain a fool who can express himself no better than a 6th grader or a tattoo-covered “dude”, or make some basic attempts to improve yourself so that you CAN one day seriously contribute to conversations worth having.
Hey, Leonardo, GOOD JOB! You recognized one potential meaning of my cryptic comment.
You missed a bunch of others. It could also mean the same thing as these:
1) "When I became a man [woman] I put away childish things."
2) Don't be like a dog returning to its vomit. (In other words, pretty much what Sweetblood said.)
3) It's useless today to try to recreate the collectivism of yesterday's societies.
4) A friend told me "Try it, you might like it." I tried it. I didn't like it.
Leonardo, you're smart. You can think of still other possible meanings. In fact, you would sound a lot more attractive (at least to little ol' me) if you could drop your tunnel vision and acknowledge that your way of reading texts and looking at reality in general is not the only valid one. I can see why someone suspected you and Velvet are really the same person in two different manifestations.
Try it. You might like it.
Helena Hancart
Anonymous 10:20 wrote: "Isn't there someone who says the gods were just advanced aliens, and they made humans to be a slave race and mine minerals on earth."
A number of people have proposed that or similar ideas, such as Zecharia Sitchen, a brilliant man and prolific author, though his scholarship of ancient cultures and writings has been shown to be quite flawed. You can watch some of his lectures out on Youtube. Here’s the Wikipedia page for him for a brief overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zecharia_Sitchin
I studied a bit into this concept once. My older brother has read all of Sitchen’s many books, though I find his work rather unconvincing, placing it more in the realm of pseudo-scholarship. It's a hybrid variation of panspermia theory - the idea that other forms of sentient life elsewhere in the cosmos "seeded" the earth with life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpermia
But this only moves the mysterious issue of origins one step backward to just another location besides earth. My question would then be: what “being” or process created them? If mankind ever does contact extraterrestrial sentient life forms within my lifetime (which I highly doubt), the first thing I would want to ask them would be how they would explain to themselves their own existence – for this is the foundational question that all religious and scientific inquiry springs out of in terms of the origins question.
Anonymous 5:57 wrote: “Someone wrote in this thread, "I believe in the Bible." I wonder, what do they really mean by that? It's like when someone says, "I believe the Bible is the word of God." Again, I wonder, what do they really mean by that?
Those are excellent questions, Anon, for they show that you’re thinking. In my experience (and I’ve spent many hours in conversation with such believers, either in person or over the Internet), what they generally mean 99% of the time is that such believers simply aren’t willing to put forth the effort to study things out for themselves. And so they take the short-cut of blind religious faith. That explains the vast majority of religious belief, acquired either from youthful indoctrination or as an adult.
That’s the quick and overly-simplified explanation, but in essence many people want such short-cuts because, for whatever reasons, they just don’t have the time, or aren’t willing to take the time, or don’t feel they have the required intelligence to search out these issues for themselves, so they just passively take someone else’s word for it, such as historical religious figures, or modern-day gurus such as HWA. Such gurus can often come across as so convincing and authoritative. But such passionate conviction is often based on pseudo-science and pseudo-theology and pseudo-history. British-Israelism – the foundation for all HWA’s understanding of prophecy – falls into these categories of phony knowledge, as modern DNA research is finding out.
Helena Hancart, I can absolutely assure you that I'm not Velvet. Besides, I disagree with many of her comments anyway. Why would I carry on a conversation with “myself” like that? What would be the point of doing it anyway? Just another form of the deception which I despise. Though I will say that "Leonardo" is just a pseudonym I use when blogging, not my actual name.
But your poorly-expressed above comment remains somewhat of an enigma to me. Which gives me the distinct impression that you are indeed a Christian, as so very few of them can articulate themselves very well. We see this here all the time. It’s just that your comment contains nothing specific that I can really respond to, nothing of any real substance – much like a “dude tweet.”
To my knowledge I've never once said or implied that I have the ONLY valid view of reality. I’m a searcher like everyone else. At one time I was a sincere Christian/member of the WCG for 38 years. But I’ve given up on religious faith as a path to legitimate knowledge. I DO try to base my views on evidence, if that’s what you mean. You know, facts, empirical truths, rigorous reasoning, logic, well-documented science, well-documented history, real life experience, that sort of thing. I don’t fall into the trap of thinking that all I have to do is merely ardently assert a statement, and it therefore is true. That's the sole province of supernaturalists like Sweetblood777.
So how precisely am being “tunnel visioned?” Can you explain that to me in a little more detail using plain English? You advise me to “Try it - you might like it.” Try WHAT, exactly?
You and Sweetblood777 communicate so poorly in writing that I can hardly understand what it is you both are trying to say. Why not take the time to think through exactly what it is you want to convey, then slowly and thoughtfully write it out. That way we could have a more meaningful dialogue here, assuming that’s what you want. I'm always willing.
One of ny favorite things about reading on Ex-WCG blogs is when some kook brings up the "dog-vomit" thing!
It's like going fishing and getting a big tug on the pole!...
"We got another crazy one!"
Sweetblood777 wrote: "There are many fine programs on Netflix and Youtube that destroy the evolution argument."
Can you please provide one for us here, Sweetblood? You and others always claim to have such videos that apparently completely turn modern science on it's head, but never seem able to provide a direct working link to any. So give me at least one that I can watch to see what a bogus hoax modern evolutionary theory really is.
And another thing: your statement that when properly translated the Bible contains no contradictions - your exact comment being "I believe in the Bible and have found over the years, that if the verses etc., were translated properly, then there are no contradictions."
I'd like some specific examples of that as well. I've taken many Biblical Scholarship courses, and have never heard that before. In fact, many classicists and translators who speak and write the original languages the Bible was written in would be interested in such knowledge if it's actually true. So please, by all means, give us some actual scriptural evidence that such is the case, and prove your assertion to be a true one, otherwise your comment remains a totally meaningless assertion, rather than a proven fact.
You religionists are so good at making such hazy, vague, general assertions - but absolutely dreadful when it comes to providing precise real-world examples. So here's your chance to completely refute and humiliate a non-believer! Certainly you won't pass up this opportunity, will you?
A personal approach to life
In reviewing some of the comments made in response to some of the comments I have made here and in other threads I believe it may be helpful to make a general statement before making further comments.
My approach to life is first to encourage people to be respectable and considerate of those who are a part the personal life we live. My approach to the bible is that it was put together using experiences and principles that can be applied to ordinary people in all generations. It is not designed to give the intellectual elite a superior knowledge to be used in dominating and controlling the thought and action of individuals.
If individuals think only of themselves we will always have the confusion that is rampant today. I am interested in Christianity because the principles it is founded on offer a meaningful and productive life if we can sift the wheat from the chaff in how it is read and applied.
I personally use the principles from every source that can be applied to life, but do not want to get involved in depreciating the value of the bible by proving that these principles can be found elsewhere. I believe we need to consider the fact that many people have lived better lives by living by this book called the bible even if others have bad emotional experiences.
A. Boocher
A. Boocher wrote: "My approach to the bible is that it was put together using experiences and principles that can be applied to ordinary people in all generations."
Would that include the account in Numbers 22 of a talking donkey? And how specifically would this be of any help to ordinary people in differing generations? Please explain and don’t dodge my question by responding with yet another series of hazy statements.
A. Boocher further wrote: “I believe we need to consider the fact that many people have lived better lives by living by this book called the bible even if others have bad emotional experiences.”
OK, so people have had both good and bad experiences applying biblical principles to their lives, or rather very general principles contained in the Bible. The same thing can be said with the Quran, or the Bhagavad Geeta, or the Book of Mormon, or even of a modern fiction novel that contains certain generally applicable principles. So what exactly does this prove?
As I’ve pointed out many times before, in prison Malcolm Little the street thug read the Quran and other writings of Black Islam and was transformed into the well-known and articulate spokesman known to history as Malcolm X. Does this somehow prove we should all acknowledge such writings as true? Certainly most Christians would not make such a jump.
A. Boocher wrote: “In reviewing some of the comments made in response to some of the comments I have made here and in other threads I believe it may be helpful to make a general statement before making further comments.”
And that would be fine, Mr. Boocher - but the problem is that you NEVER do get beyond such general statements, and into more specific comments. You NEVER honestly answer the precise questions I ask of you. You NEVER can seem to clarify or further explain the continual stream of vague generalities you make. What I’m waiting for here is some real give & take dialogue, a serious exchange of ideas, rather than a one-way, monologue-type sermon.
"There are many fine programs on Netflix and Youtube that destroy the evolution argument."
This headline just in: Faith Destroys All Documented Facts! Turns Flat Earth on its Ear! All Scientists Now Unemployed!
"My approach to the bible is that it was put together using experiences and principles that can be applied to ordinary people in all generations."
Albert is right. The bible saved me from making the biggest mistake of my life. I have two trees in my back yard. One produces really tempting fruit, the other, not so much. Thanks to the bible, I know never to give into temptation, so I only eat the fruit from one of the trees. Even in our complex modern world, the wisdom of the bible makes the world simple and easy to navigate. How else would I have known that mortal danger awaited me even in my own back yard? Thanks, bible!
Exactly, Head Usher. The tragic thing is that that's precisely what the god-haunted minds WISH they could read as a headline in tomorrow’s news. But this thing called objective reality keeps standing in their way, and that's why they hate it so much. The thing that never ceases to amaze me is that these folks sincerely BELIEVE this oft-quoted line of complete BS - and yet, never can seem to understand the implications it would have in the real world, nor the absolute honor which would be accorded to the person who could demonstrate it with evidence rather than arrogant, flippant, faith-based assertions. And again I draw your attention to the fact that they NEVER respond to our comments with any kind of serious rebuttal. Creationists have been trying to disprove evolutionary theory for decades now. Intelligent Design proponents for many years. And they never have because reality IS what it IS. The facts ARE what they truly ARE. And all their fantasy-based wishes to the contrary won’t change because science doesn’t support their fairy-tales. Why can’t they see this, and get on board the truth-train, rather than the faith-train leading to nowhere except maybe some temporary though false feelings of certainty and emotional security?
Would that include the account in Numbers 22 of a talking donkey? There is another principle a person needs to use in interpreting the bible.
If the passage is something that you recognize as appling to you learn from it; if it is not understandable you might find a message in the context, which could apply to life today, That no different than some of the things in comments here.
A. Boocher
Neil DeGrasse Tyson says in a youtube video interview I saw about a month ago that the problem with intelligent design is that when ID is used as the answer to any question, that is always the end of the discussion. With real science, even when you find an answer to a question, that answer is always the beginning of a brand new discussion. A factual answer adds something. ID adds nothing. That's the kind or basic reality that shows that faith cannot be woven into the fabric of science. They're like oil and water. But such realities will never penetrate the heads of most religiony people because if it isn't busy shitting all over their livelihood, they have the luxury of pretending such problems don't exist. Scientists whose livelihood comes from practicing science don't have that luxury.
Leonardo said,
"That’s why most true believers are so consistently poor at arguing or defending their religious beliefs, which can only be described as “not real” or “not physical.”
Leonardo, do you condemn beliefs based on pure faith?
Do you believe that a belief based on faith is more likely to be wrong than right?
Amen Helena!
another seekeroftruth
Anon said: Thanks to the bible, I know never to give into temptation, so I only eat the fruit from one of the trees. Even in our complex modern world, the wisdom of the bible makes the world simple and easy to navigate. How else would I have known that mortal danger awaited me even in my own back yard? Thanks, bible!
Some people need symbolic reminders so make sure you mark the trees so you don’t eat from the one mark evil and get yourself in trouble.
A. Boocher
Mr. Boocher, your biblical exegesis is, well, rather unique, to put it mildly. Please, I beg you, do stop before you paint yourself any further into the corner than you already are. I can only say it was a good thing you never were a student in Dr. Stav's Biblical Scholarship class back at AC. He would have ripped your comment to shreds and quieted you down in short order.
But see, that's why I can't take anything you say seriously. You make no sense whatsoever. You refuse to seriously dialogue. You just respond to my comments and inquires with yet further nonsense.
Anonymous 4:41 wrote: "Leonardo, do you condemn beliefs based on pure faith? Do you believe that a belief based on faith is more likely to be wrong than right?"
Answer to first question: Anon, would you condemn my belief in an invisible rainbow-colored unicorn that I claim exists based on pure faith?
Answer to second question: Long ago folks believed in a flat disc-like earth surrounded by water, a view of geography clearly taught in the Old Testament. So for many this belief was based on faith. Thus I ask you, was this faith-based idea right or wrong? I just don't merely believe that beliefs derived from religious faith are far more wrong than right, I KNOW it from the record of history.
A. Boocher said,
"Some people need symbolic reminders so make sure you mark the trees so you don’t eat from the one mark evil and get yourself in trouble."
According to theology, haven't all humans ate of that evil tree?
Are you a sinner? I know that I am.
another seeker of truth
Head Usher wrote: "With real science, even when you find an answer to a question, that answer is always the beginning of a brand new discussion."
Agreed. As usual, very well stated. And that's probably why religious folks in general view science with such animosity and suspicion, because yes, the enterprise as a whole tends to raise more and more questions, which then eventually opens lines for even further research.
But deep down this isn’t what the religious mind wants. The supernatural faith-based mindset craves absolute, dogmatic, certain, authoritative answers that discourages further inquiry and extinguishes all further discussions. (Note their repeated unwillingness to seriously dialogue here on this website.) Whereas science-based answers and explanations always remain open-ended, provisional in nature, to be either further strengthened or revised or even completely eliminated based on future discoveries. However, this seems all too chaotic and unsure to settle the concerns of the religious mind. Faith-based answers and explanations are intended to answer things “once and for all time” – and are not subject to future revision, at least in any major way. The history of religious ideas proves this dynamic over and over again.
Science seeks objective truth for truths sake, though many of those truths find very life-promoting practical applications via technology. Religion seeks explanations of reality that can be used to pacify anxieties that arise in the human mind and body, and/or to control people. So they are intended to address very different concerns.
Seneca, the famous Roman Stoic philosopher, statesman and writer who was born in the same year as Jesus of Nazareth (4 BCE) once said:
“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.”
Leonardo said...
"Anon, would you condemn my belief in an invisible rainbow-colored unicorn that I claim exists based on pure faith?"
no, not at all
another seekeroftruth
Leonardo said,
" just don't merely believe that beliefs derived from religious faith are far more wrong than right, I KNOW it from the record of history."
Well, future science(if we can survive longer as a race) will show us how wrong we are today
another seekeroftruth
BUT,
Science and religion are both similar. They have both come from the ideas of men. In fact, I look at religion as ancient science. Take Archaeoastronomy(Hamlet's Mill by Giorgio de Santillana is the easiest to read that I have found on that topic) and the study or worship of the calendar and the heavenly cycle of the stars and planets etc...
The point I am trying to make is that religion and science both have failing outcomes. Even though Religion and Science have good intentions, they both have negative aspects as well. I am talking about epistemology here. You can use a hammer to build or destroy. So, who will save us from ourselves?I could explain...
another seekeroftruth (Marc)
I will use a metaphor this time because I am short on time now...
Which Clock Is Better?
This one is due to Lewis Carroll. Which is better, a clock
that loses a minute a day or a clock that doesn't go at all?
According to Lewis Carroll the clock that doesn't go at all is
better, because it is right twice a day, whereas the other
clock is right only once in two years. "But," you might ask,
"what's the good of it being right twice a day if you can't tell
when the time comes?" Well, suppose the clock points to
eight o'clock. Then when eight comes around, the clock is
right "But," you continue, "how does one know when eight
o'clock does come?" The answer is very simple. Just keep
your eye very carefully on the clock and the very moment it is
right it will be eight o'clock.
Which clock is religion and which one is science in your eye's?
I won't be able to respond till tomorrow, ok.
another seekeroftruth (Marc)
Seekeroftruth, you talk absolute nonsense, so this "discussion" is over. You obviously don't want serious conversation. So why don't you go to a website where grade schoolers can exchange their infantile thoughts back and forth. Your comments about science and religion being similar couldn't be further from the truth.
Also, read your history about Lewis Carroll, he was completely strung out on drugs in Wales when he wrote many of his works, so that silly clock metaphor doesn't belong here. It's jabberwock!
Leo said: Would that include the account in Numbers 22 of a talking donkey? And how specifically would this be of any help to ordinary people in differing generations? Please explain and don’t dodge my question by responding with yet another series of hazy statements.
Leo I am not sure what your motive is or what you expect to prove. I assume you are already aware of the fact that this is a rather lengthy story that was told to reveal events in the effort Balak the king of Moab to get Balaam to undermine Israel’s defenses so he could take over Israel.
The moral of the story is God is not like people. He tells no lies. He is not like humans. He doesn't change his mind. When he says something, he does it. When he makes a promise, he keeps it. 20 I have received a command to bless. He has blessed, and I can't change it. 21 He doesn't want any trouble for the descendants of Jacob. He sees no misfortune for the people of Israel. The LORD their God is with them, praised as their king. (Num 23:19-21 GWT)
It obviously is not a factual representation of the event, but a colorful story to encourage the people of Israel. Such stories do not prove the bible is a bunch of lies.
A. Boocher
I actually think the two clocks analogy is interesting, although, I would not say that one of the clocks is obviously religion and the other is obviously science, though. But thinking of these clocks made me realize something, but I cannot express it in terms of clocks. However, I can express it in terms of literature.
From the standpoint that religion has been around for thousands of years, it obviously fills a psychological need. And I guess I am okay with that. It is a need that I seem to no longer have, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have any value. It is a human need. It is an emotional need. It is a need to feel connected, secure, and confident in an uncertain world. It is a need to feel that there is something that you can do to control that which is beyond your control.
Science also fills a need. It is a very different kind of need. It is a cognitive need. It is a need to know objectively what is technically true and what is technically false.
I think it is possible that religion conveys a type of truth other than objective truth. Maybe religion is an emotional truth or a cultural truth, in much the same way as a fiction novel uses a lie to tell the truth symbolically. Maybe it is wrong to mistake religion for objective truth, but maybe it is also wrong to reject religion as worthless just because it is fiction. This would suggest that a fundamentalist makes the error of mistaking fiction for nonfiction, while a scientist makes the error of mistaking fiction for falsehood.
Anon 6:47 said:
"The point I am trying to make is that religion and science both have failing outcomes."
Whether they both have failing outcomes or not is dependent upon the sort of outcome you have in mind. We are having a discussion via a global electronic network of shared storage. This network has the potential to make available upon request anything from the entire catalog of human knowledge. This is based upon technology underpinned by many different scientific innovations, especially quantum mechanics. Would you characterize quantum mechanics as a failure? Would you characterize the internet as a failure?
Certainly scientific estimates are revised, updated, corrected, and sometimes even overturned. Einstein came along and revised Newtonian physics. Even so, Newtonian physics is what got us to the moon and back, because it was more simpler and more efficient. However, we need Einsteinian physics to make GPS work accurately. Does this make Newton a failure?
Science could be said to fail, but not in a binary fashion, but rather by degree. New understanding does not invalidate the old understanding, but is appended onto the old, making it that much more accurate and that much closer to being complete.
If religion has a failing outcome or not, maybe that should not be measured by whether or not it's truths are objective ones or not, but rather by it's likelihood to help us survive, or to help us exterminate ourselves from off the face of the earth.
Ultimately, everything comes down to survival. Does it help us to survive? Keep it. Does it make our survival less likely? Let it go.
A. Boocher wrote, "I believe we need to consider the fact that many people have lived better lives by living by this book called the bible even if others have bad emotional experiences."
Albert, I am aware that many people have lived better lives by applying principles found in the bible.
And I am aware that many people have been murdered by people who have applied principles found in the bible.
And, don't forget other religious texts. There are many people who have lived much better lives by converting to Islam and applying principles found in the Qur'an in their personal lives, too.
This dynamic also applies to a host of other religious texts- The Tao de Ching, Book of Mormon, The Rigveda, The Analects of Confucius, and on and on and on the list goes.
Head Usher wrote: "Maybe it is wrong to mistake religion for objective truth, but maybe it is also wrong to reject religion as worthless just because it is fiction."
I can agree with that in principle, with one caveat: that we recognize the fact that the VAST MAJORITY of religious folks DO take their holy books literally - and further, that they would seek to impose such beliefs on others, which would severely retard human progress. This is the very real concern of the so-called “New Atheists” such as Richard Dawkins.
I have to chuckle at A. Boocher, because, in typical fashion, he once again completely sidesteps my specific questions and objections and goes on to pontificate about the Bible's "colorful stories" - while apparently ignoring the reality that most Christians, and virtually ALL fundamentalists, take the myth of the talking donkey as literal God-inspired history.
Anonymous 6:45 wrote: "I am aware that many people have lived better lives by applying principles found in the bible. And I am aware that many people have been murdered by people who have applied principles found in the bible."
And may I suggest that your latter sentence outweighs the former by an order of magnitude when we consult the historical record? For instance, religions now build hospitals to care for the sick, and yet lets be reminded that the those same religions in earlier times actively fought AGAINST the very scientists who brought us things like anesthesia and other medical discoveries, and the methodologies such practical discoveries were found with. Religion tends to hijack institutions that it couldn't defeat in past ages, things like education or medicine. This is where a knowledge of history comes in so handy. It's commonly observed that religion appeals to the ignorant and uneducated, and may I suggest this to be no more true than in the area of historical ignorance.
Leo said: I have to chuckle at A. Boocher, because, in typical fashion, he once again completely sidesteps my specific questions and objections and goes on to pontificate about the Bible's "colorful stories" - while apparently ignoring the reality that most Christians, and virtually ALL fundamentalists, take the myth of the talking donkey as literal God-inspired history.
Leo: What was your specific question? I must have missed it somewhere in all you chatter. I am fully aware of what the fundamentalist believe, but I thought you were asking what I believe. There are questions that need to be considered if we are talking about being inspired by God. One, did God inspire the writer of the book of Numbers when he recorded the story? Another did God get involved in human life and make these events reality to teach a valuable lesson to His people Israel?
Remember that those who believe in the God of Israel see Him as a God that is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.”
If you want to make God like a human being or dispute his existence we obviously are not in the same book no matter what page your reading from.
A. Boocher
Anonymous said...
A. Boocher said,
"Some people need symbolic reminders so make sure you mark the trees so you don’t eat from the one mark evil and get yourself in trouble."
According to theology, haven't all humans ate of that evil tree?
Are you a sinner? I know that I am.
another seeker of truth you have misinterpreted the scripture. The tree that Adam and Eve ate of was the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The other tree was the tree of life. Only Adam and Eve ate of the tree not everyone else. The sin was disobedience not becoming knowledgeable of good and evil. Your say you know you are a sinner, but how do you know? What tells you that you are a sinner? I suggest that it is the bible, but maybe you have something different as your standard.
These are just things to think about.
A. Boocher
A Boocher write: "What was your specific question? I must have missed it somewhere in all you chatter."
First of all, I don't engage in "chatter." You must be referring to other folk's comments, not mine. Go back and carefully read my comments, I'm not going to repeat things for you because of your slackness. I word them precisely. It's not my fault that you're such a poor reader that half of what I say goes unnoticed. I'm exhausted with the loony tunes you keep playing. You live in a universe of your own in terms of your "interpretation" of the Bible. You say nothing worth listening to, just the same old generalities. So talk to others from here on out. I'm finished with a conversation that goes in circles while you blather on about you bizarre religious views.
Leonardo, ... if you could drop your tunnel vision and acknowledge that your way of reading texts and looking at reality in general is not the only valid one. ... Helena Hancart.
Nonsense Helena. Leon knows it all. His perception is reality. His interpretation is the word of an internet god. His tunnel vision, as you call it, is the result of knowing all things. He knows what you are thinking for he is all seeing. He knows our thoughts better than we do, for he is most wise and we are but the dust of the earth under his feet.
Interesting, though, Helena didn't stick around long enough to give any kind of meaningful clarification to her vague accusations. Yes sir, the sign of a real world-class mind there: one that can only think in fuzzy, cryptic generalities, yet never achieve clarity. Just like Anon's flibbertyjibberty above, blathers on and on and on, yet never really SAYS anything. And very unfortunately, these people who have about as much intellect as a hounddog's anus are slowly starting to take over this site. A real pity, because all it will eventually do is drive away the more serious-minded bloggers and readers.
In the question regarding religion and spirituality the bottom line is does our religion build in us the spirituality that recognizes that we are a unique being with a potential and responsibility and does it direct our thoughts and actions into building the a character that respects the source of life and yields itself to making a positive contribution to the whole what is defined as life? If it isn’t making some contribution to developing a wholesome life what kind of spirituality will we possess?
Oh, I didn't know that, anon 4/18/2013 @ 3;48. Thanks for clarifying.
Now I must apologize to Leonardo for misunderestimating his awesomeness. We all know it would be idolatry to treat him like a god, but let me ask the consensus of the group. Could I get by with considering him a demigod, as long as I worshipped him only in sort of a half-assed way?
Helena Hancart
I'm making a whole lot of generalizations here but I'm sure you can read in between the lines.
Long ago, religion was an idea that helped mankind to come together for a greater good. I like to see this as some kind of ancient technology. Religion would build a better and more cohesive society that was thinking of future generations. Religion has morals. Religion would promote a utopian ideal for all. Religion would indoctrinate the masses to be less self-important and to promote harmony for society. Mankind used this idea(technology) to advance from families,tribes to larger societies like cities. Well, it worked for awhile. Even though self-importance was reduced, self-rightousness and seriousness increased. This aspect(self-rightousness and seriousness) of this technology(religion) made it easier for one society to more easily and systematically destroy another society which had used religion itself to evolve to a larger society. Instead of family or tribal feuds fighting each other, religion advanced this to larger and more cohesive units that would fight each other. Hence, even though religion helped people to get along with each other, it also made it easier for humans to kill more humans with their seriously self-rightous attitude. They thought they had THE truth. So, they stopped looking for it. They must protect the faith. Religion could now justify the very behaviour it was trying to eradicate.
As religion was the focus, science of the natural world slowly progressed. I'm talking about guns and butter here. The power of better swords, armour, archery, chariots etc. Also, agriculture, housing, infrastructure and better living conditions. The increasing study and discovery of the physical world's laws, which also improved guns and butter, reached a pivatol point around the time of Galileo. Now science could challenge religion. Religion got scared.
Today, the scientific method(and even despite the scientific method) is continually advancing our technology. Technology has given man more control over his environment. Our ideas are continuosly being reupdated and shared
including our beliefs about Nature. Our ideas are just that. Ideas. They don't exist yet but, we bring them into existence through trial and error. Learning all the way(hopefully). Through observing Nature we learn the laws. Some laws still seem binding while other laws may need to be discarded bcause of a paradox. But, remember that there is no paradox in Nature. Only in our perception of Nature. Paradigms come from new understandings. Our development of science has given us greater power. Power so great we can more easily destroy ourselves or even accidentally anihilate ourselves. Go find your own Gregory Bateson or Bernard Shaw quotes about man developing the power to annihilate himself.
I will now approach this from a COG'er(or former) point of view. 5,000 B.C. The ten commandments or similar moral laws(Egypt). Let's say Charlie Manson, Hitler, or the gladiator Maximus lived back then. If they obeyed the Laws from Moses, society might be relatively peaceful. But, they had a horrible day or week or year etc.. Something pushed them over the edge and they snapped. They are batshit crazy. They go postal and go on a murder-suicidal rampage. With their primitive tools or weapons(guns and butter), how many people could they kill before society could stop them? Hmmm.
33 A.D. Christ comes along to magnify the law. Murder was wrong but now even thinking about murder is the same as committing it. 2,013 A.D. The pursuit of science has given us great technology. Our guns and butter would seem like magic to them in Moses's time or even Christ's time. Back then, someone would make a fatal mistake and hurt himself and those around them. With our ever increasing technology, one fatal mistake could wipe out a whole
lot more and maybe even an extinction type event. I am approaching this from an epistemological point of view here. Religion has not saved us and science seems to be on the same path.
Leonardo, for a person who claims to want to have a discussion you are proving otherwise.
another seekeroftruth (Marc)
Head Usher said...
"I actually think the two clocks analogy is interesting, although, I would not say that one of the clocks is obviously religion and the other is obviously science, though."
There is no right or wrong answer to that metaphor. Just an interesting and thought provoking exercise. It's a chance for some insight and introspection.
Head Usher said...
"Ultimately, everything comes down to survival. Does it help us to survive? Keep it. Does it make our survival less likely? Let it go."
What about transhumanism(genetic engineering) bio-weapons
and such? Einstein, Feynmann and others had regret about the development of nuclear weapons. Even though it can be said that they helped end WW2.
another seekeroftruth (Marc)
"There is no right or wrong answer to that metaphor. Just an interesting and thought provoking exercise. It's a chance for some insight and introspection."
And this was my insight:
"...a fundamentalist makes the error of mistaking fiction for nonfiction, while a scientist makes the error of mistaking fiction for falsehood."
I do agree that we tend to use technology to create an environment in which we ourselves are unfit to survive. A nuclear winter would indeed be the ultimate fruition of that unfortunate tendency. However, whether religious or non-religious, it is hard to argue that natural selection is not always at work, always proving what is workable and what is not. It may be that human beings could be thought of as a natural experiment testing whether or not self-awarness is a viable attribute for an organism to possess. Ultimately, all human knowledge will pass away. The only knowledge that can persist is that which is written into the DNA of all living things.
Boocher writes, "According to theology, haven't all humans ate of that evil tree?"
I would say, "According to mythology..", and not "According to theology...", unless you include a caveat: "According to my theological interpretation..."
Also, it's a big red flag for me when Boocher and others tell someone, "God is not like people. He tells no lies. He is not like humans. He doesn't change his mind."
It makes me think he's reading some other book, and not a Bible.
Anonymous 6:56, we know you're Albert Boocher because you keep repeating the same mantra over and over. So please, why hide behind "Anonymous?" The shallow, vacuous mind behind the empty slogans (“wholesome life”, etc.) is obvious to all. Just being honest with you.
Helena Hancart, half-assed worship would fit you well seeing that you seem to have only half a brain. I don't require any kind of worship, though some meaningful comments on your part would be nice, instead of your shallow insults intended to divert attention away from the fact that you have little of real value to add to the immediate topic we are discussing. And besides, I'm still waiting for your specific examples of my supposed "tunnel vision." Or would such clarity of thought and expression simply be too much for your pea-sized intellect to process? The moral of the story, Helena, is this: comment seriously, and you’ll get serious responses in return – comment with irrelevant cutting remarks, and you only get more of the same in return.
Seekeroftruth(Marc), I carefully read through your above comment, and in essence very much agree with it, especially the sentence "...remember that there is no paradox in Nature. Only in our perception of Nature." Like I mentioned to Helena, I think you'll find that when you stick to the relevant topic under discussion, and are actually willing to take the time to more fully and seriously articulate your ideas (as you have above), then I am more than willing to engage in dialogue. At least it shows me a sincere intent for sound discussion, as opposed to constant sarcastic insults of dimwits like Helena, who refuse to say anything that meaningfully contributes to the discussion.
You commented to Head Usher: “Einstein, Feynmann and others had regret about the development of nuclear weapons. Even though it can be said that they helped end WW2.”
Well, that’s a historical question, as well as a philosophical one. Einstein and Feynmann DIDN’T regret the fact that America beat the Germans in the race to develop the first working nuclear weapons. The United States didn’t really have a choice in the matter. The scientific knowledge was available, and Nazi scientists were perilously close to making such dread weapons before their American counterparts. A cousin of mine worked for NASA in the ‘60’s and helped design the launch tower for the Saturn V rocket used in the Apollo moon landing program. In this work, he occasionally had contact with Dr. Werner von Braun, and my cousin and Dr. von Braun had some interesting conversations. Further, more and more historical documents show that the Nazi war machine was much closer than most modern folks realize to nuclear armaments.
Anyway, I would very much disagree with Head Usher’s statement that “…we tend to use technology to create an environment in which we ourselves are unfit to survive.” I take exception to this statement simply because that’s NOT what the record of history suggests at all. We CAN do this, and sometimes do – environmental pollution, the potential for nuclear destruction, etc. – but on the whole mankind’s use of scientific knowledge and the resulting technology has been used far more in life-promoting ways than in destructive ones. Read the work of the late Dr. Julian Simon in this regard, and I think you’ll find that such a issue isn’t even open to debate. For example, medical observations and discoveries have radically extended the average human life span, and that’s happened all around the globe, not only in the more developed Western nations. Many more real-world examples could be cited. But the point is that I think we’d all rather being living in the science-dominated 21st century as opposed to the religion-dominated Middle Ages. Not that science is perfect, by any stretch of the imagination, but it has proven FAR superior to religion as a means of acquiring real knowledge that helps humanity as opposed to hurting it.
Anonymous 6:44 wrote: "Also, it's a big red flag for me when Boocher and others tell someone, "God is not like people. He tells no lies. He is not like humans. He doesn't change his mind." It makes me think he's reading some other book, and not a Bible.
Anon, I've had very lengthy and numerous exchanges with Albert Boocher in previous threads here on this website the past month or so. He's 82-years-old, a long-time member of the old WCG since the late '50's, and a local elder since 1975, though he told me he withdrew his membership from the WCG back in 2000, I think it was.
During that time I’ve been willing to dialogue patiently with Mr. Boocher, providing him one chance after another on past threads to explain his views more fully, to make them half-way intelligible. But the sad reality is that he can't. At first I just attributed this to the effects of old age, but having gone back and forth with him at length, I now see that if he were 50 or even 30, he STILL wouldn't be any more able to clarify his confusing, vague, conflicting views than he presently is. Frankly, in my opinion it’s yet another tragic result of a human mind steeped in the religious mindset that simply has lost the ability to think clearly, reason with any semblance of logic, or express itself with any kind of intelligibility.
He claims he’s done in-depth study into the “psychology of religion” and yet hasn’t read any of the more classic works on the subject, except for one book published in the late 1940’s. He claims to have seriously read from respected Christian apologists, and yet nothing he says would indicate to me any kind of serious grasp of the subject at all, which is one of my special areas of interest. He claims to have at one time published a newsletter for six years, which I don’t doubt, though his writing skills are virtually non-existent. He just rambles on and on and on, repeating the same things without ever introducing anything new or clarifying into his comments. Thus I’m afraid this is yet another lost cause.
So your mental “big red-flag” has served you well!
Mr. Boocher just wants folks to be emotionally comforted and live “wholesome lives,” a phrase he repeats ad infinitum – apparently that’s the point of religion. He provides no evidence whatsoever that he comprehends any of the implications his views trigger, and which beg to be addressed in greater detail – detail of which he has shown time and again to be utterly incapable of providing. Though he did tell me once that he doesn’t take the Bible literally, which most defiantly is NOT the standard COG approach to scriptural exegesis.
I’ve repeatedly responded to him by asking questions and making other points pertinent to his statements for the purpose of getting a better grasp on what exactly he does believe, but he just can’t seem to ever directly respond to them. Though in this he’s no different than all the other ardent religionists who blog here: they’ll stop by occasionally to make a few general, confusing comments, or loony claims to having PhD’s or being practicing scientists, or other exaggerated claims as to their qualifications, thought they can’t write with any clarity at all, just rambling generalities, anti-science rants, etc.
Dealing with these religious folks as I do on this site has really proven an education to me as to the absolutely devastating practical effects fundamentalist beliefs can have on the human mind. Such belief might indeed comfort them and make them feel secure in the short-term, but at what price to the precious reasoning capacities of the human intellect in the long-term?
And that’s why I blog here. Other sincere people come to this site and read these comments. And the contrast between the well-educated, articulate, rational minds who regularly comment here and the god-haunted, faith-led ones couldn’t be more starkly illustrated.
Leo said: “So talk to others from here on out. I'm finished with a conversation that goes in circles while you blather on about you bizarre religious views.”
Thanks Leo, I realize that my world is far different than your world. In fact most of the things brought on this site have caused me to look more deeply into reformed Christianity and the basic teachings. I recognize that my 42 years with WCG was spent following those basic teachings in my world even when involved in WCG world.
I am still involved with people who share my world and it seems that your world those who share your world have different goals and objects so I will cease commenting here. I will state that if an anonymous makes a comment that appears to be something I would say it won’t be me, because I am not like God who has adjustments in mind when people and circumstances change.
Gary I will probably check in to see what’s going on once in awhile and there are no hard feelings on my end and I hope this doesn’t create any difficulties. I at one time could verbally cut people to ribbons, but I found that is not a Godly characteristic.
A. Boocher
Leo and all. It's time for the personal attacks at other readers here to stop. I am already monitoring several people who cant stop with the snark and will start doing others.
This is one of the few COG related blogs that allow comments.
I don't care if you are a non-believer or a believer, have some respect for each others opinions. Otherwise I will shut off comments all together and that will be a sad day.
People need to be able to share their experiences in Armstrongism, whether good or bad and need to have the space to do it freely.
Take peoples differing opinions and say, "Hey, I never thought of it that way before." You don't have to agree with it, but at least allow your brain to look at other ways of looking at the same thing.
One thing that has become quit obvious here is that believers and nonbelievers can be both just as dogmatic and judgmental as the other.
Thank you, NO2HWA.
A. Boocher, I hope things eventually settle down here enough for you to feel welcome to comment again. However, I don't blame you for stepping back for now. I disagree with your beliefs about the supernatural. I agree with your opinion that religion done right can promote both personal and social peace. Both elements of your writing give worthwhile insights.
To me the most important aspect of your posts is the respect you express for those of us who see the world differently from you. You set a good example for all of us.
OK, that sounds fair to me, NO2HWA. I'll tone down what I say. But remember, Jesus of Nazareth wasn't afraid to verbally lambast those who would counter him in public and yet didn't know what they were talking about. So perhaps there are times for sharp responses, to "answer a fool according to his folly." I suppose this is just the nature of Internet blogging, especially when dealing with such controversial topics. Perhaps those who can't take the verbal heat need to consider leaving the kitchen. Common courtesies and civil behavior on blog sites is a good thing, but political-correctness to the point of completely squashing any kind of serious discussion for fear of hurting people's feelings is a whole other ballgame that doesn't serve the furtherance of truth.
Post a Comment